Origins of the Insertion of the Trinity.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”John 8:32

“Most “proofs” against the traditional teachings of Christianity consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another.” Should it not be impossible to “pit one verse of the Bible against another”? Should the verses of the Bible not be consistent? Should they not reinforce each other rather that refute each other? What kind of logic is this?

As we shall now begin to see, humanity has over the ages taken great liberties with the text of the Bible. This has ultimately resulted in countless contradictions between the verses. This means that as a result of this continuous unrelenting tampering, the message of the Bible can no longer be trusted as the original 100% unchanged word of God. The Bible itself bears witness that a “false witness” will always result in discrepancy (Mark 14:56). “…and almost always taking such passages out of context.”

“The Christian message about Jesus revolves around three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.” Have we now totally given up on such matters as the “Trinity,” the “original sin,” the “atonement,” and so forth…? “Prove from the Bible or otherwise that any one of these three things are not true, and like a three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse.” Please go back and have another look at your stool. Does it not need the doctrines of “Trinity,” “begotten son of God,” “original sin” and “atonement.” In order to remain standing?

But someone may now say: “If the Trinity was not revealed by God Almighty or Jesus then why does Christianity believe in it?” The answer lies in the council of Nicea of 325 CE.

In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus :

“…….It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”(emphasis added).

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume XIV, p. 295

Jesus, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely unaware of any “Trinity.” !!

So what did exactly happen in this fourth century CE? David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinborough. Mr. Wright has published a detailed account of the development of the doctrine of the “Trinity.” We read:

“…Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis, one of the twelve ‘parishes’ of Alexandria. He was a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the son existed ‘apart from time before all things’. Nevertheless, he did not share in the being of God the Father and did not know him perfectly.” Wright goes on to demonstrate in this book how before the third century CE the “three” were separate in Christian belief and each had his or it’s own status.

“Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity,” chapter on “Councils and Creeds,”

Tertullian (155-220AD), a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first Christian to coin the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 711).

About this time, two separate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the Romans, began to notice the increasing number of converts to the new faith among his subjects. They were no longer a petty fringe sect of no great concern to the empire, rather, their presence was becoming increasingly noticeable, and the severe division and animosity between their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the empire as a whole.

On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had in 318C.E. once again just blown up between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. The emperor sent these men many letters encouraging them to put aside their “trivial” disputes regarding the nature of God and the “number” of God, etc. To one who had become accustomed to being surrounded by countless gods, and goddesses, and demi-gods, and man-gods, and incarnations of gods, and resurrections of gods, and so forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god or three gods or “three gods in one” was all very trivial and inconsequential.

After several repeated attempts by the emperor to pacify them failed, he finally found himself in 325 CE faced with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: the observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday, and the concept of the Trinity. Emperor Constantine realized that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiations failed to settle the dispute, the emperor called the “Council of Nicea“ in order to resolve these, and other matters. The council met and voted on whether Jesus was God or not. They effectively voted Jesus into the position of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who believed in the unity of God. There is even extensive proof that most of those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but thought it politically expedient to do so. Neo-Platonic philosophy was the means by which this newly defined doctrine of “Trinity” was formulated. One of the attendees, Apuleius, wrote “I pass over in silence,” explaining that “those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane.” The vast majority of the others signed under political pressure consoling themselves with such words as “the soul is nothing worse for a little ink.” It is narrated that out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted this creed (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306). They then approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY; of the second person of the Trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicea.

Only on returning home did other attendees such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula: “We committed an impious act, O Prince,” wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, “by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.”

However, the damage was already done and there would be no undoing it now. It has been recorded that thirteen conferences were held in the fourth century wherein Arius and his beliefs were condemned. On the other hand, fifteen supported him. While seventeen conferences issued decrees similar to the beliefs of the Arians (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306).

Of the fruits of this council, Jesus was made “Very God.” Shortly thereafter, his mother Mary was given the title of “Ever Virgin.” It would not be long until these concepts were later combined in 431AD to give her the title “Theotokos” (God-bearing). This is how she became known to us as “Mother of God.”

The persecution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new, “official” Christian beliefs. The following is one of the public declarations in this regard:

“Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians … with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning… Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet .. . and that these should be handed over immediately to the catholic [i.e. official] church.”

Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the “Trinity” remained far from settled. Despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly credited for having formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousand because of this difference of belief.

Some people might object that the words of all of these eminent Christian scholars and highly respected references are all in error. They claim that Jesus did indeed teach the “Trinity” to the disciples, but that he did so in secret to them alone. The disciples then went on and secretly taught others, and then a couple of centuries later it was made public knowledge. However, not only is this theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself:

“Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

John 18:20

Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during the third century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had been for centuries before that. As had become the popular custom, Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicea) was popularly considered to be the “manifestation” or “incarnation” of the supreme Roman sun-god. For this reason, in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church compromised with him on the following points:

• They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman sun-god
• They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see chapter 3)
• They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper (see chapter 3)
• They incorporated most of the rituals performed on the sun-god’s birthday into their own celebrations.

History records that Constantine was determined that the masses not think that he had forced these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to a miracle of God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000 Gospels (one copy of all available Gospels at the time) were placed underneath the conference table and the door to the room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray earnestly all night, and the next morning “miraculously” only the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest were burned.

“The reign of Constantine marks the epoch of the transformation of Christianity from a religion into a political system; and though, in one sense, that system was degraded into idolatry, in another it had risen into a development of the old Greek mythology. The maxim holds good in the social as well as in the mechanical world, that, when two bodies strike, the form of both is changed. Paganism was modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism. In the Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt – Egypt, the land of the Trinities – the chief point in discussion was to define the position of ‘the Son.’”

History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, Prof. John Draper, pp. 52-53
History was repeating itself. God had cautioned the Jews in the past to never give concession in their religion to the non-believers. They, however, disobeyed Him and felt that a little compromise here and there might go a long way towards facilitating “the greater good” and the continuation of the faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small compromise here and a little concession there, it would not be long until all remaining differences would be resolved. But at what price?

Many more sweeping campaigns for the utter and complete destruction of all “unacceptable” gospels to the Trinitarian Church would be launched over the following centuries. One example of such campaigns is the one launched during the period of 379-395 AD during the reign of the Christian Emperor Flavius Theodosius wherein all non-Roman Catholic Christian writings were destroyed, or the campaign of Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which again commanded that all surviving non-Roman Catholic writings be utterly destroyed. Such campaigns would become the norm in the centuries to come.

Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim informs us in his book that Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. He was reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian Bishop, Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian Church called his death “a miracle.” Athanasius’s treachery was discovered by a council appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned for Arius’ murder.

Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe hardship in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite his “sheep.” Ironically, Mr. Ata’ Ur Rahim records that Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized on his death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly thereafter. In other words, he died a believer in the divine Unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Athanasiun sect.

This “triune God” theory was not a novel concept but one that was very much in vogue during the early Christian era. There was:

1. The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.
2. The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.
3. The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.
4. The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.
5. The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.
6. The Hindu triad (Tri-murti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
   

However, it is popularly recognized that the “Trinity” which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian “Trinity” was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher, Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction of: The “First Cause”, the “Reason” or Logos, and the “Soul or Spirit of the Universe” (please see section 1.2.2.6). Edward Gibbon, considered one of the Western world’s greatest historians, and the author of “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” generally considered a masterpiece of both history and literature writes in this book:

“..His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 9.

Even the practice of promoting men to the status of gods was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar, for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be “a god made manifest and a common Savior of all human life.” In the end, both the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged Caesar as a god. His statue was set up in a temple in Rome with the inscription: “To the unconquerable god.” Another man who was elevated by the Gentiles to the status of a god was Augustus Caesar. He was acknowledged as a god and the “divine Savior of the World.” Emperor Constantine was also popularly believed to be the human embodiment of the Roman Sun-god. And on and on. Is it inconceivable that such people, after hearing of Jesus’ many miracles, of his raising of the dead, of his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to the status of a god? These were simple people who had become accustomed to countless man-gods, and Jesus had become a legend among them even during his lifetime. No wonder it did not take them long to make him a god after his departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely condemned those who would dare to do so . The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that these gentiles were all too willing to promote not just Jesus but even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods (see Acts 14:1-14).

Even though the “Trinity” was formulated in the council of Nicea, still, the concept of “Jesus was God,” or the “incarnation” was not formulated until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and the council of Chalcedone in 451:

“…the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the second person of an equal and consubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; that a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that His eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years, of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified; that His impassable essence had felt pain and anguish; that His omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences were affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans, Bishop of Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of “Incarnation” informs us that

“Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by early church councils. The Council of Nicea (325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ’s person against Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches.”

Notice that it took the Church close to five hundred years after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify, and finally ratify the “incarnation.” Also notice that the apostles, their children, and their children’s children for tens of generations were too ignorant to recognize the existence of an “incarnation.” Jesus’ very first and very closest followers were too ignorant to recognize this “truth.”

It is not surprising then, that this doctrine of incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy 3:16, is again recognized as a later forgery which was foisted upon Jesus fully six centuries after his departure:

Regarding this verse, Sir Isaac Newton says:

“In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play … they that read ‘God manifested in the flesh’ think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business.”

“This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word “o” (which) was altered to “theos” (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Notice how, shortly after the “incarnation” was officially approved, it was recognized that the Bible needed to be “corrected” and “clarified” so that the reader could see the “incarnation” clearly. All that was needed was to change one word. Thus 1 Timothy 3:16 went from saying:

Before the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” to saying:

After the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”

Thankfully, more recent and faithful versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) are now beginning to discard such innovations. Much is yet to be desired, however, it is a start.

Even the holy “Easter” holiday is a pagan innovation unknown to Jesus and his apostles. The name “Easter” is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of light and spring “Eostre” (or “Eastre”) and to whom the month of April was dedicated. Many folk customs associated with Easter such as colored Easter eggs (representing the sunlight of spring in her festival), the Easter bunny (a symbol of fertility) are of pagan origin also. Her festival was celebrated on the vernal equinox (March 21st), and so too is the Christian “Easter.” It was celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun regaining it’s strength. Once again, the “Son” Jesus (pbuh), regained his power and came to life at the same time

After the council of Nicea, 325C.E., the following proud proclamation was made:

“We also send you good news concerning the unanimous consent of all, in reference to the celebration of the most solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren of the east, who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the Jews, will in future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our manner of celebrating Easter.”

As mentioned above, the very first Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses and his followers had followed for centuries before them. They knew of no “new covenant” or annulments of the commandments of Moses . They had been taught by Jesus that his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a continuation of it.

“The first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem” writes Gibbon, “were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the Doctrine of Christ.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 119.

As we have seen in the previous sections, this fact is indeed confirmed in the Bible where we are told that after the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to keep up their daily attendance at the Temple of the Jews (the most holy of Jewish synagogues) in observance of the religion of Moses.

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”

Acts 2:46

Also remember the words of Professor Robert Alley:

“….The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions…. what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus’ death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers of Jesus) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus”

This would also have been beyond belief if they had preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law of Moses, as Paul did.

Toland observes:

“We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?”(emphasis added).

The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73

Jesus himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation:

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you..”

John 16:2-4

Well then, why did the masses in the centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus? Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages. When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called “The Dark Ages,” (our more politically correct generation now prefers to refer to it as “The Middle Ages”) the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who could understand it’s teachings. The first authoritative English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into English.

With the rule of the church came the great Inquisitions. The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the rule of the church by appeal to biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD), the great luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of force against heretics in order to convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes

“The horrors of the Crusades and the notorious Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic tale.”

Okay, but surely of those who had access to the Bible there must have been some who would have revealed these matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put to death or tortured until they recanted their views. Their books were also burned. For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was one of many scholars to notice many serious discrepancies in the Bible and to write about them openly. His book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order to be released he would have to recant his views to the Pope. He did. There are countless such examples for those who would simply research their history books.

The Trinitarian church’s campaign of death and torture for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs continued for many centuries after the creation of the Trinity in 325 CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of the Unitarian Christians were condemned, tortured, and even burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out manner. Only some of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died 312 CE), Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE), Fausto Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662 CE)… and on and on.

This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather, whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry “Holocaust” for these poor people?

“Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at ‘eight hundred heads.’”

“Rise of the Dutch Republic” John Lothrop Motly

Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:

“Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites (Unitarian Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believe in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the apostles, considering this, I say how it is possible for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things, or whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews?” (emphasis added).

(From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)

Only today when true religious freedom, scientific knowledge, and archeological discoveries have come together in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have Christians started to see the truth. An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the “Daily News” 25/6/84 under the heading “Shock survey of Anglican Bishops“ We read that a British television poll of 31 of 39 Anglican Bishops found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus is God, but only “His supreme agent.”

“The Doctrine of Christ”

“Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9, RSV)

“THE doctrine of Christ” was clear in John’s time. He was unwilling to receive any contrary thinking. John held uncompromisingly to this doctrine, saying, “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work” (2 John 10, 11, RSV). In this booklet, we will discuss the false teaching John was addressing. Suffice it to say here, it did not include a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity concept was foreign to the early Church and did not emerge until the third and fourth centuries. Through time this “doctrine of Christ” has developed into a theology meaning something different from that which was held by John and the entire early Church.

The Christian Church started out exclusively Jewish and, as such, had a singular God. “The LORD our God is one LORD” is the basic concept of the Jewish faith (Deut. 6:4). This was universally accepted and stressed by Jewish authorities from ancient times. They understood the Old Testament Scriptures to portray God as truly singular in being, and they consistently rejected any other characterization. With one voice, Jehovah was believed to be the only all-powerful, unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-existing One—the one true God.

There is little doubt the Christian religion started out with this original concept of God. The Church of England, in the Book of Common Prayer, presents the Apostles’ Creed as a Unitarian Creed, which it affirms was the belief of the Church during the first two centuries. This Unitarian Creed is still quoted in many churches today. (We should distinguish between the Unitarian Creed, which presents God as a single being, and the Unitarian Church, which believes Jesus is not the son of God but only the son of Joseph and Mary.)

In the fourth century, under Constantine (A.D. 325), the Nicene, or Semi-Trinitarian concept, was forged making Jesus and God one in substance. Then in the fifth century, the Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, came along, adding the holy Spirit, to complete the Trinity doctrine. Though called the Athanasian Creed, it is now generally admitted to have been composed by some other person. It is noteworthy that the word Trinity nowhere appears in the Bible. More importantly, the early Church debates of the Apostolic Era were centered on keeping newly converted Gentiles from being brought under the Jewish law. There were no ongoing debates on whether Jesus and God were two persons in one. Yet since the early Christian Church was mostly Jewish, any deviation from the “Lord our God is one Lord” foundation would have taken enormous discussion and debate.

The formulators of the Athanasian Creed well knew they had to meet the singular requirement: “The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). How could they make three persons into one? Some of the best minds forged this explanation—”There are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.” It was an explanation that did not explain. With such incantation of words, they presented their case and, apparently, prevailed. They claimed the One God was three persons, yet only One God. No wonder they said it was “incomprehensible.”

There was subtlety here. God himself, in one sense, is incomprehensible, in that He is above and beyond our grandest conceptions. (In another way, He is not incomprehensible, because we are created in His image with the ability to reason and think in the same mode, though vastly inferior to the divine.) Many people will grant that in one sense God is “incomprehensible,” and therefore, by association, they propose that the doctrine about God is “incomprehensible.” They shift the “incomprehensible” from the person of God to a doctrine made by men about God. Yet, “the doctrine of Christ” was clear and comprehensible in John’s time.

Jesus Presented Himself to Israel Covertly

Jesus did not go about declaring he was the “Christ” or the “Anointed One.” He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus inquired, “Who do men say that the son of man is” (Matt. 16:13-20)? The answers were: Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Nothing very dramatic, was it? Nobody guessed he was the “Christ”—much less God. No!—not even His disciples. Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer pleased our Lord—”You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God.” That was correct. Only by the aid of the holy Spirit was Peter able to speak thus.

But notice what the holy Spirit did not suggest: It did not imply Jesus was God—not even the vaguest hint of it. The holy Spirit owed us the truth, and it gave us the truth. “You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God.” They were then charged, “Tell no one.” If denied from presenting Jesus as the Christ, would they present Jesus as God? Did the holy Spirit tell Peter a half-truth about the Christ?

The “doctrine of Christ” is: Jesus is the “Anointed” One. The Jews knew only priests, kings and some prophets were anointed, and it was strictly forbidden to make or use the special “holy anointing oil” improperly (Ex. 30:31-33). Jesus was not a Levite and, therefore, could not be of the Levitical Priesthood. He was, however, of David’s line and could be anointed “King.” Before his death, Jesus rode into Jerusalem saying, “Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you” (Matt. 21:5-16).

In Jesus’ last encounter with the Pharisees, he asked: “What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he?” They knew Christ (Messiah, the Anointed) was spoken of as the Son of David and that David looked for a son he would call Lord. They answered: “The son of David.” Jesus said, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord” (Matt. 22:42, 43, RSV)? We ask: Did David believe he would father a son who would be God himself? Would he father God? Certainly not! David, through the Spirit, was showing that the Messiah of promise would be born of David’s royal line and, by faithfully laying down his life as the ransom price, would be raised as Lord of both the living and the dead. (See Rom. 14:9.) This would be the Father’s reward for His son Christ Jesus, to enable him to carry out his great future work as Judge and Mediator in the Millennial Kingdom.

If the doctrine of Christ meant Jesus was God, the holy Spirit failed to make this known. The title “Anointed” is never applied to God. That would be a sacrilege. The greater always anoints the lesser. God is above all. He anoints, but is not anointed—nor can He be. We repeat: God is never called anointed! Never ever! It would be a grave impropriety to do so.

We Have Found the Messiah (The Anointed)

Andrew found his brother Simon and said, “We have found the Messiah [Christ, the Anointed]” (John 1:41). That is what they were looking for—the Anointed One of God—certainly not God. When they met Jesus, he did not tell them to take off their shoes because they were standing on holy ground, as Moses was instructed to do (Ex. 3:5). Jesus simply said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas [Peter] (John 1:42).” We find no instance where they fell at Jesus’ feet worshipping him, nor of Jesus looking for such worship. As a matter of fact, we are told “Even his brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5, RSV). They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and certainly they did not believe he was the God of Moses. Could they be God’s brothers? Surely not! (See Heb. 2:11, 12.)

Jaroslav Pelikan’s Observation

Jaroslav Pelikan, sterling Professor of History at Yale University, who is called “The Doctrine Doctor,” is quoted saying: “You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you. . . . To circumvent St. Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naive.”1 The renowned Doctor of Doctrine is telling us the Trinity cannot be found by open study of the New Testament. He is admitting that it is not a doctrine of clear Biblical statement. Rather, the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, not of statement. That is why the Trinity has such troubled acceptance. We could add to Dr. Pelikan’s statement and say that if you placed 10,000 people in rooms with New Testaments, they would not find the Trinity. We also have not found it.

The churches have had consistent trouble with unbelief in the Trinity. We quote Larry Poston, writing for Christianity Today, who looked into why the average age of Christian conversion was 16 years old whereas the average age of Muslim conversion was 31. His explanation in part was: “The Muslim is not asked to give credence to allegedly ‘irrational’ concepts such as the Trinity, the Incarnation. . . . If one does consider it essential that concepts such as the Trinity be explained before conversion, are the common presentations of these teachings adequate?”2

Can you have a rational explanation of an “irrational” concept? Mr. Poston cannot be a rational believer in the Trinity, and there are more like him. Such members within the church find themselves put upon to accept something that is inherently not understandable. The Athanasian Creed tried to present the Trinity not as “three incomprehensibles” but “one incomprehensible.” As much as Mr. Poston would like to see a more adequate explanation of the Trinity, it is unlikely that anyone will come up with a clear explanation of it.

The early Christian Church converts were mostly adult men and women. Mr. Poston must believe the modern church attracts members in their teens because mature minds are less inclined to accept irrational tenets. We must not conclude that everyone who professes belief in the Trinity teaching is necessarily a wholehearted believer. Some are silent doubting Thomases or, even worse, it is mandatory they confess the Trinity in order to be a member of a church denomination or that they put down theologically programmed answers to become degreed ministers. Forced belief was the stock and trade of religious oppression, but it has proved ineffective in making true believers out of people. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

For Those Who Have Doubts About the Trinity

The purpose of this writing is not for those who have no doubts about the Trinity. That is their fixed belief. Nothing we could say would penetrate their patriotic zeal for the Trinity. However, if you are one with gnawing doubts about it, and wish to satisfy your reason and heart, then this message may be very helpful. You may be glad to know early Christians did not believe in the Trinity, so you have lots of company. Also, there are increasing numbers in the churches today who sincerely doubt it, including some of the scholars as well.

Mr. Poston is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this subject. Quoting another source: “A fruitful cause of error in ancient and also modern times is owing to an attempt to explain or illustrate this [Trinity] doctrine, forgetting that it is a mystery to be received on faith, which cannot, from its own nature, be rendered intelligible to man’s intellect.”3 We may also here quote H. M. S. Richards, in a Voice of Prophecy Radio Broadcast, who similarly said, “[Trinity] is basic in our faith. . . . None of us can understand it. It’s a divine mystery, but gloriously true.”4 No wonder children are prepared to believe it more readily than adults.

Three Classes of Trinitarians

The tendency is to group all Trinitarians into one group. Such is not the case. Actually, there are three groups in the Christian world professing belief in the Trinity.

(1) The Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe in Apostolic succession. They believe the Word of God is being developed on an ongoing basis through a continuous chain of apostles from our Lord’s time until now. Hence, they are not embarrassed to accept the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed even though contradictory. They do not need a strong Biblical basis for their beliefs because they can accept a council of bishops’ or a pope’s statements as a basis for belief. They believe God invests his truth in an ongoing body of apostles to define and clarify the faith. Hence they accept the fact that the early Church had a Unitarian God concept which evolved into the Trinity. They believe the Trinity just developed over time as the outgrowth of continued apostolic revealment.

(2) Then there is the Protestant Modernist and those who believe in Contemporary Religion. Their belief is that man makes known his understanding of God on an ongoing basis. In each time and place, men have presented their concepts of God. They hold that the Bible was created by men who presented their opinions about God in their time and place, and men have a right to continue presenting their growing conceptions of God and truth. Such do not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God but merely an attempt to define God in ancient times. Hence they do not waste too much effort trying to harmonize it or understand it. They feel man must continue writing his own Bible as he progresses. In this camp the range of belief is incredibly diverse, and the real question with many of these is not if they believe in the Trinity, but do they, in fact, believe in God. However, in that they do not openly oppose the Trinity or the Bible, but are quite permissive of both, they are acceptable in the Christian community.

(3) The last group are the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant. To this we agree. This group is uncomfortable with the fact that the Nicene Creed was created in the fourth century and the Athanasian Creed in the fifth century. That is an embarrassment to them because they feel the Bible is their sole basis of belief. Hence, having accepted the Athanasian Creed, they become revisionists of history and try to rewrite it so they can teach the early Christian Church believed it. They also comb through the Bible looking for some support of Trinitarianism. Some of their assertions make the Catholics, the Modernists and Contemporary religionists a bit uncomfortable. As badly matched as these three groups are, they are amazingly tolerant of each other in this regard.

Two Witnesses

In John 8:13-18 (RSV) the Pharisees were having a little skirmish with Jesus. They said, “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.” Here you are, just a plain ordinary person, going about making claims. Why should anyone believe you? After all, we are learned and taught in rabbinical schools, and why should we be concerned with your testimony? Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true. . . . In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” If they wanted two witnesses, Jesus gave them two witnesses—God and himself. We might ask, why didn’t he give them three witnesses, as provided for in Deut. 19:15, by adding the holy Spirit? Evidently because the holy Spirit was not a person. God and Jesus together make two, no more, no less: 1 + 1 = 2. That is pure math as taught by Jesus.

“They Have Taken Away My Lord”

Remember Mary, standing at the empty tomb. As she stood there weeping, two angels asked her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:13, RSV). Now, she was not looking for her deceased God. God does not and cannot die. She was looking for her Master or Teacher, or at least for his remains. Her only mistake was to look for the living Jesus among the dead after he was resurrected. We might say the same. The Trinitarians have taken away the living Lord and we do not know what they have done with him. If he is the God of Moses, then what has happened to our Lord Jesus? We would not have an elder brother. How could the Absolute God say, “I will proclaim thy name to my brethren” (Heb. 2:11, 12, RSV)? Only Jesus could speak of us as his brethren, and only he is privileged to thus proclaim the Father’s name to us.

God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as “our Father.” Our resurrected Lord Jesus is not “ashamed to call us brethren.” God has given us the “Spirit of Sonship”—that makes Him “our Father.” God is not our “brother.” The Trinity concept has taken away our Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they have done with him. We cannot find him in this doctrine. God’s voice in two Gospels said, “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17; Mark 9:7). If Jesus is a Son and we are sons of God, then we are brethren. Why have they taken away our brother? What have they done with him?

CHAPTER ONE

Let Us Reason Together

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.”
(Isa. 1:18, KJV)

JOHN 1:1 is the rallying point of Trinitarians. But in defense of the Bible Students’ non-Trinitarian reading of this verse, we quote from The Bible Translator, a periodical sent to Trinitarian scholars:

“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. . . . The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”1

Please note their observation that, as a word-for-word translation, “it cannot be faulted.” As a matter of fact, in Acts 12:22 (Herod’s voice is a god’s voice) and Acts 28:6 (Paul is called a god), the translators supplied the article “a” to the word theos in both instances. They just happen to think this would be contrary to John’s thought in John 1:1. That is a very subjective conclusion.

John 1:1, 2 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [ton, the] God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with [ton, the] God.” A word-for-word Greek rendering of John 1:1, 2 is: “In [a] beginning [arche] was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and [a] God was the Word. This was in [a] beginning with the God.” Trinitarians tried to level the field by leaving out the article (ton) “the.” In the King James, as in many other translations, all references to God are equal to the English reader. You do not get the contrast between the emphasized God spoken of twice and the unemphasized God referring to the Logos.

Yet consider how later in this chapter (John 1:18), in the same context, a clear distinction is drawn between these Gods apart from mere grammatical emphasis: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (New American Standard Bible, Marshall Interlinear, etc.) Clearly, there is a “begotten God” and a begetter “God.” Hence, John 1:1 must be understood in a manner that harmonizes with this verse.

To be convincing, the Trinitarian must prove that “God” in John 1:1 has supreme signification in all three of its uses. We quote from an orthodox Trinitarian, Dr. G. C. Knapp: “It (the appellation Logos, here translated Word), signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage the principal proof does not lie in the word Logos (‘revealer of God’), nor even in the word theos (‘God’), which, in a larger sense, is often applied to kings and earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the Logos.”2

Using such reasoning, is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme God from this passage? Does the passage in fact say that the Logos God has parity with the God? Without parity, he cannot be the God, nor can he be one-third God. What beginning is John talking about? God has no beginning or end, for He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psa. 90:2). So what “beginning” is the Logos identified with? Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer: “The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [arche] of the creation of the [ton] God.”

Some say that the word “beginning” (arche) is rendered “principality(ties), magistrates, at the first, first estate, corners,” etc. and that this gives Rev. 3:14 a different meaning. Whether our Lord was the beginning, first, or principal “creation of God,” how would that change his being a created being before all others? In the King James, the Apostle John’s use of the word arche is consistently translated “beginning.” In the Appendix we submit every usage of arche in the New Testament by John and other New Testament writers as listed in The Englishman’s Concordance. Please note its uses and how “beginning” is an appropriate translation. It is only because translators have seen the threat this poses to the Trinity that they have labored to change the intent of that word in this verse.

But, let us assume that the Trinitarians are correct on John 1:1. Let us presume the Logos was Jehovah (or Yahweh God). What is John then telling? If John believed the Logos was the God of Moses, why would John say the “Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”? What God was the Logos with? Why place a mark on eternity and say that was the beginning and the Logos was there? If he really wanted to prove the Logos was God, he should have said, “See this mark. It is the beginning. Now, the Logos was here before that beginning as the God, for He was the God.” To place the Logos at the mark called beginning and not before the “beginning” weakens their whole position.

The following texts delineate this truth—that God always existed and that a beginning in time is associated only with the Logos:

God “from everlasting to everlasting.” Ps. 90:2

Christ Jesus “in the beginning was the Word . . .” John 1:1

“The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.”
Prov. 8:22, RSV

Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary – the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity?

To call God “Christ” gives them a name but not a Christ [an Anointed One]! We ask again, “What have you done with Christ?” Where is he? You cannot have three absolute Gods and one absolute God. The moment you do, you must redefine absolute. The moment you define God as Christ, you replace Christ. God can never be less than God!

Why Must the Savior be a God-Man?

The Trinity concept insists that Jesus had to be a God-man to be the Savior. If he was a mere man, they say, how could he take upon him the sin of the whole world? It sounds good to make such extravagant claims about Jesus. Generally, we cannot pay sufficient homage to our Savior for his great sacrifice, so why not go all out in our claims for him? To some extent that is how the Trinity was started, countering claims that Jesus was just a mere man. As the defense of our Savior was made, so the claims for him grew and became exaggerated – from being a perfect man and Son of God, until at last the ultimate claim was made that he was in fact God. Then followed the super patriotism and the cry “To the fire” with those who dare claim Jesus someone less than God. History records John Calvin burned (roasted) Michael Servetus at the stake for not believing the Trinity. As they lit the flames, Michael Servetus cried out, “Oh thou Son of the eternal God have pity on me.” One observer said, We might have had pity on him if he had said, “Oh Eternal Son of God.” Why is church history so lacking in mercy and kindness and so mean?

“By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). If only God’s people had served their God as well as they had their Church organizations, how much kinder Church history would be. In a Church bent on world conquest, there is little love or kindness to be found. Our country was born to provide refuge from religious persecution.

Jesus Christ the “Ransom for All”

We read in 1 Tim. 2:5, 6: “The man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” What is the ransom? The Greek word for ransom is antilutron – defined by Dr. Young as “a corresponding price.”3 One perfect man was a substitutionary sacrifice for the perfect man Adam, who forfeited his life along with the human race in him. However, the Church fathers lost sight of the true meaning of the ransom. When this happened, there was no holding back the ground swell of extravagant claims about Christ. Anything less than calling Jesus God was considered demeaning.

For the sake of argument, let us go along with this exalted claim that Christ is God—a claim neither he nor Scripture makes. Let us accept their claim that he was God and, therefore, God died for us. May we ask, How could an immortal God die?

Did the Absolute God die? The creed maintains Christ was “very man.” Hence, to call God “Christ” gives them a name, but not a Christ. It was the “very man” Christ who died. No matter how they define it, they have only a “very man” who died. How, then, did “very God” die? God is immortal, death-proof. God could not die; only some flesh form could die. Despite the semantics, they come away with only a perfect “human sacrifice.” That is exactly what we believe and claim.

Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, says, “Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God.”4 He also disallows that Jesus could be begotten from eternity, saying: “To say that he [Christ] was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and father.”5 In other words, it was only the human flesh of Christ that died. Hence, they do not have an infinite sacrifice, because it was the inferior Son who died. So where, oh where, is the infinite sacrifice of God?

Unless the complete Trinity died on the cross, Trinitarians have but a very man for their savior. While Trinitarians insist Jesus was wholly God and wholly man, their burden is to prove this and also to show that both God and man died on the cross. The Bible does not say this. Theologians have labored long and hard to compensate for what is not clearly stated in the Word. Did Jesus ever say he would give his flesh and deity for man as a ransom? No. He said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Then could he take his flesh body back after giving it? What would have become of his ransom if taken back after it had been given?

Dr. Adam Clark renders Psalm 8:5: “Thou has made him little less than God.” He refers to this verse in Heb. 2:7, and applies it to Jesus, saying, “For a short while, he was made lower than the angels, that he might be capable of suffering death.”6 If Dr. Clark’s assertion were true, Jesus was less than God or lower than the angels. How could he be “less than God” and still be Absolute God? This presents a problem in logic.

A Mighty and Infinite Sacrifice With Small Results

Let us allow that Christ’s sacrifice was infinite as claimed. We are allowing this without a Scriptural basis, for nowhere does the Bible say Jesus’ sacrifice was infinite. It does not say he suffered more than all mankind. It does not even say he suffered more than any man. Even Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of his “visage” and “form” being marred “more than any man,” does not fulfill the infinite suffering assertion. It is not wise to say more than the Scriptures say. We are allowing such reasoning only to see where it leads.

Now, allowing for the most extravagant sacrifice for sin, we ask, How come so few are saved? How come, when salvation has been reduced to just making a “confession for Christ,” the vast majority of mankind are not accepting Christ? The churches, for some 1500 years, have entreated the world. They have carried on bloody wars, imposed the “holy(?) inquisition,” employed the powers of the state, threatening damnation and eternal fire on those slow to respond—torturing, killing, maiming—all in vain. The vast majority of the world is not Christian in any sense of the word, and the part called Christian is suspect of being mostly a field of “tares” (Matt. 13:24-30). Would God provide such a powerful salvation, requiring only the faintest acceptance, and still somehow fail to save the vast majority of those purchased?

Even when telling people that Christ has purchased their ticket to heaven and all they have to do is accept it, still the world at large is unsaved. How come this mighty salvation fails? More than two-thirds of the world are without Christ. And the part that accepts Christ might have a goodly number of “tares” among them, who are the planting of the Wicked One. How could something so overpowering be so ineffective? With such an overwhelming salvation, how is it that most people are lost?

The claim that Jesus had to be God to pay for every man’s sins, who, according to their theology, is to be tortured forever and ever if unsaved, means that Jesus would have endured the fires of theological hell for every man, woman and child that eternity would inflict upon them—a very sadistic concept. They claim he had to be God to do this. This whole claim is totally unscriptural. The Bible says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11). Again we read: “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

This shedding of blood requires the death of the victim, not merely suffering. If people could atone for their sins by suffering, then the Hindu and Eastern religions, wherein people afflict themselves, laying on spikes, putting hooks in their flesh and staring at the sun until blind, would certainly commend themselves to God by buying remission for their sins. Even the pre-reformation Christian theology with its flagellations should not then have been discarded. The world already endures such great suffering because of sin. As we look out into the world, our hearts ache for humanity. How they need the hope of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on earth, when all men will be lifted up and blessed as God pours out His “spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). All of this will be possible by Christ’s death on the cross. Let us see how.

Our Claim!

Our understanding of Scripture is that Jesus died as a perfect man providing a “corresponding price” for father Adam. He died a substitutionary death for Adam. All who are in Adam, therefore, will be ransomed, released from the condemnation of death. It stands to reason that if Adam did not possess everlasting life (and he didn’t because he died), then Christ’s ransom sacrifice can restore to Adam and all men only what he lost before he sinned. Adam had an opportunity to live everlastingly if he obeyed God, but failing in this, he died. Christ’s ransom sacrifice can only bring Adam, and all in him, another opportunity to attain everlasting life.

Two classes, the Church and the world, will be privileged to benefit from Christ’s death. During the Gospel Age, the True Church receives justification to life and, upon “overcoming,” will receive a heavenly reward. The world will be released from Adamic condemnation during the Millennium. Christ will be their Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). How can he mediate between God and man if he is God? A Mediator must always be a third party! When the world is nurtured back to human perfection and their reconciliation with God shall have been accomplished, they will then be delivered to God, the Father. When Christ’s mediation is completed, then shall “The King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). The Mediator’s work shall have been accomplished. See 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

Mankind, which had been driven from Eden, will return to an Edenic Paradise on earth. We have all that is required—the perfect man Christ Jesus as our Savior and tremendous results from two salvations—the Church now, and the world of mankind in Christ’s kingdom here on earth. Therefore all men will be benefited from Christ’s sacrifice. That is as it should be.

And in the final picture, the Divine Christ will be subject to the Father, with all “overcomers” of both the Gospel Age and the Millennium received back into favor with God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Then God will be all in all. What could be sweeter?

“Are You the Christ?”

In Jesus’ illegal trial at night, while Peter was still there, they asked Jesus –”Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am” (Mark 14:61, 62). If Jesus was truly the Absolute God, didn’t Jesus owe them that information? The reason Jesus was crucified was because he was the “Christ, the Son of the Blessed.” If Jesus proclaimed himself to be Absolute God, they would have had a perfect right to put him to death according to their understanding of the Mosaic Law: “You shall have no other Gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). Oddly, they crucified Jesus for claiming to be the “Son of God,” exactly what he admitted being, while they themselves claimed, “We have one Father, even God” (John 8:41).

If the disciples believed Jesus was God, they would not have believed his death. How could they if they held any concept of his being God? God is eternal! Their immediate problem after his death was accepting the truth that God raised Jesus from the dead—Thomas being the last to believe. Later, they became witnesses to his resurrection, saying to the Jews, “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead” (Acts 3:14, 15).

“Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.”
—The Jerusalem Bible

The above quoted subhead is from Romans 9:5. Several interesting commentaries on this verse may be found in the literature. A Catholic Dictionary states: “We have the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].”7 But establishing Christ’s divinity is not the same as establishing the Trinity. The King James reads, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” No one would argue Jesus is not “God blessed.” To argue that this statement makes him God the Father is pressuring this verse to say something more than it does.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology comments on this verse: “Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature, for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul.”8 A Catholic Dictionary comments: “There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’”9 The Revised Standard Version so renders it—”God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” Hence, we see, there are rational thinkers who try to prevent the spread of hasty and unwarranted conclusions. Some Trinitarians are in constant and labored activity reading Trinity into verses so eagerly that it is needful for their fellow theologians to try to temper some of their excesses.

There is another strange fact of Trinitarian behavior. They seldom inform the laity of the host of criticisms and corrective evaluations from within the walls of religious academia. They vent most of their anger and frustration upon those who openly and honestly confess not believing the Trinity based on personal Bible study. They endeavor to malign these by calling them improper names or even failing to recognize such as Christians.

In Acts 11:26 we are told the disciples of Jesus were “called Christians first in Antioch.” If this be so, how could they be called Christians who knew nothing of the theological Trinity which did not become defined until the fifth century? How is it that those who believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit are not recognized as Christians today if they say they do not believe the “incomprehensible” Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and stigmatize those who differ still exists latently in the hearts of some. Insecurity can surely lead to unchristian behavior.

CHAPTER TWO

The Trinity Emerges Gradually

“The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4, NIV)

AFTER the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the unitarian concept of God was a statement of belief without threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and “incomprehensible” as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity concepts. Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of belief, it then threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with perishing “everlastingly.”

When Jesus rendered his final report to his Father, it only required three words—”It is finished” (John 19:30). Nothing more needed to be said. Notice, however, when the one-talented, unfaithful servant rendered his report, it required 43 words, and he was just as much a failure after his explanation (Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian Creed required only 115 words to make itself known; the Nicene Creed required 230 (twice as many words to make God and Christ one); and the Athanasian Creed required 702 words to explain the “incomprehensible” Trinity. If the number of words used proved the case, the latter is clearly the winner. But it is not by much speaking that we shall be heard.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the fourth century. . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine.”1 That is partially correct. Theology indeed is responsible for constructing the doctrine. But we firmly believe that the “elements” of Scripture alluded to here were never intended to provide a framework for such a dogma.

The following is found in The Book of Common Prayer on
Three Creeds of the Church of England:

The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed
Being the Creed of the first two Christian centuries.

“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

“And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

“I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed:

Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ] having been affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 381, except the words [and the son], which were afterwards introduced into it.”

“I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets].

“And I believe one catholic and apostolic church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed

Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the fourth century, but now generally allowed not to have been composed until the fifth century, by some other person.

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

“And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

“The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”—Article VIII. of the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common Prayer. [In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as follows: "The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture."]2

Dual Natures

Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian Church. Paul said, “Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22, RSV). To counter this, Paul said, “I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy was kept out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church fathers strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom of Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves. When the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors, what better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy interwoven with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern philosophies were pervasive, and when someone like Constantine listened to the controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong pagan influence was certain to have an effect.

Constantine had ostensibly converted to Christianity, and he intended to use the new religion to solidify the empire. Earlier he had raised a symbol of Christ seen in a vision (”R” fixed in the center of an “C”—the first two letters of “Christ” [CRISTOS] in the Greek) as a new imperial standard and used it to gain victory in a key battle against pagan forces. He believed he had heard a voice from heaven saying, “In this sign conquer.”3 If the symbol (also called a “Christogram”) actually represented two gods, he might have thought it all the better. If Christ were really both man and God, flesh and spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophy and the pagan trinity models. It would make the new religion all the more attractive to the masses.

The Nicaean Council

Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:

“The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings—that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God—as an ‘insignificant’ theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.

“The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today’s Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor’s favor.”4

Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth, particularly in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the period of his absence and return, saying, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Church had lost its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus of the Church, he also continued to function in all the pagan ceremonies, as paganism had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would not pass away overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a melting pot of paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.

Wrong conclusions are easily reached about the Nicaean Council. It is easy to conjure up images of a united group of bishops with only two in dissent, endorsing wholeheartedly the Athanasian proposition uniting the Father and Son into two parts of one deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We quote the following:

“They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely competent to establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their attitude of compromise a positive expression. . . . True, at Nicaea this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians; yet this result was due, not to internal conviction, but partly to indifference, partly to the pressure of the imperial will—a fact which is mainly demonstrated by the subsequent history of the Arian conflicts. For if the Nicaean synod had arrived at its final decision by the conscientious agreement of all non-Arians, then the confession of faith there formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonism of the Arians, but must necessarily have been championed by all else. This, however, was not the case; in fact, the creed was assailed by those very bodies which had composed the laissez-faire centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the conclusion that, in this point the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the council. . . . For it was the proclamation of the Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led the Church to force herself, by an arduous path of theological work, into compliance with those principles, enunciated at Nicaea, to which, in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine assent.”5

This tells us, in effect, the body of bishops who voted for this Creed were not unanimously believers in it. Hence, the vote testified to weakness of character and the human tendency to get on the bandwagon for the sake of expediency. What else would make one vote for something not truly believed and which would later be assailed by them?

When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:

“A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, ‘for the ministers of God’ . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality.”6

We cannot help but contrast this event with the occasion when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and their glory and then said, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devil had more success with these bishops than he did with our Lord. Yes, Constantine now had most of the bishops in his pocket, and from there we see the church merged with the kingdoms of this world, trying to make believe that this was the kingdom of God.

Pagan Models of Trinity

The Trinity concept presented by Athanasius was essentially borrowed from other ancient religions. John Newton (Origin of Triads and Trinities) writes: “With the first glimpse of a distinct religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them grouping their gods in triads.” He then proceeds to trace the strong Trinitarian beliefs which were common in ancient India, Egypt, and Babylon as examples.

Regarding ancient India he states: “The threefold manifestations of the One Supreme Being as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva was thus sung of by Kalidasa (55 B.C.):

“‘In these three persons the One God is shown,
Each first in place, each last, not one alone.
Of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, each may be
First, second, third among the Blessed Three.’”

In speaking of ancient Egypt, Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows: “‘The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.’” Newton continues:

“And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, such as ‘Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.’ These are all understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . . The simplicity and symmetry of the old sun Trinities were utterly lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. . . . The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The Gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its origin.”7

What a revelation—that portions of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were plagiarized from pagan sources—word for word and exact phrases, lifted right off the papyri and inscriptions of ancient Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chill among those subscribing to these creeds?

Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”8 Gibbon is an historian’s historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.

Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: “We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine.”9 The fact that the Trinity did not originate with the Apostles should be of grave concern to all Christians. The Church of England freely admits the Unitarian Creed was believed in the first two centuries. In view of all these facts, we cannot help but wonder why anyone would feel secure in accepting the doctrinal developments of the fourth and fifth centuries and forsake the pristine teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

In Matthew 13:24, 25 we read: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men [the Apostles] slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” How can one leave the Apostolic Era to find truth without risking being contaminated and choked by “tares”? The “tares” sowed were the work of the enemy. The “tares” that sprouted and grew were results of false teachings that begat “tare” Christians. Hence, all Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of the risks involved in leaving the Apostolic Era of doctrinal purity and of coming under the influence of the “tare” seeds of error spread by the Adversary.

CHAPTER THREE

The Holy Spirit Misunderstood

“When he [the truth-giving Spirit] comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak his own message—on his own authority—but he will tell whatever he hears [from the Father] . . . He will honor and glorify me, because he will draw upon what is mine and will reveal it to you.” (John 16:13, 14, KJV and Amp.)

OF the three components of the Trinity doctrine, the so-called holy Ghost (or Spirit) is certainly the least understood. The holy Spirit is assigned equality in relationship with the Father and the Son and is spoken of as “God the Holy Spirit.” As such, it is necessary to conceive of this entity as a distinct person—the Third Person in the Trinity equation—with attendant powers and capabilities to distinguish it from the others. Yet such a concept is impossible to prove from the Scriptures and certainly was not held by early Christian believers for three hundred years after the death of Christ.

Jeremy Taylor has written: “That the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God is nowhere said in Scripture; that Holy Ghost (Spirit) is to be invocated is nowhere commanded, nor any example of its being done recorded.”1 Well spoken. Who has a right to say what is not stated in Scripture? One clearly stated Scripture verse would have more weight than a mountain of theology. Until such a verse can be produced, Trinitarians have an impossible burden. An incantation of words and never-ending theology is no substitute for a weighty Bible text or a “thus saith the Lord.”

Biblical Designations of the Spirit

In the Bible, there are various titles and definitions that are applied to the holy Spirit. As these are carefully studied, it becomes evident that all of them describe characteristics that stem from God and Christ and do not necessitate an additional personality. Many are also reflected in the life of the Church. Note these examples.

• “The Spirit of God” (Matt. 3:16)
• “The Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11)
• “The Spirit of Holiness” (Rom. 1:4)
• “The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17)
• “The Spirit of a Sound Mind” (2 Tim. 1:7)
• “The Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph. 1:13)
• “The Spirit of Meekness” (Gal. 6:1)
• “The Spirit of Understanding” (Isa. 11:2)
• “The Spirit of Wisdom” (Eph. 1:17)
• “The Spirit of Glory” (1 Pet. 4:14)
• “The Spirit of Counsel” (Isa. 11:2)
• “The Spirit of Grace” (Heb. 10:29)
• “The Spirit of Adoption” (Rom. 8:15)
• “The Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev. 19:10)

Even the most avid Trinitarian would find it necessary to define “Spirit” in most usages as an influence or power. Personhood of the Trinity just does not fit into these descriptions. So the Trinitarian must use two definitions when referring to “Spirit” in the Bible: one meaning the Third Person of the Trinity and the other as an influence or power. Unless the meaning is continually defined in each verse, the reader is left uncertain as to what is meant.

There is another side to this matter which is very revealing. There is also an “unholy spirit” that is referred to frequently in the Scriptures. This spirit is described in opposite terms to that of the holy Spirit. Note the following:

• “The Spirit of Fear” (2 Tim. 1:7)
• “The Spirit of Divination” (Acts 16:16)
• “The Spirit of Bondage” (Rom. 8:15)
• “The Spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)
• “The Spirit of the World” (1 Cor. 2:12)
• “The Spirit of Slumber” (Rom. 11:8)
• “The Spirit of Error” (1 John 4:6)

Would anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to suppose that these various designations, unitedly considered, prove there is another evil being apart from Satan, the adversary of God? Not very likely, because it is commonly recognized that these terms, which generally signify the wrong spirit, all have their chief exemplification in Satan. A separate personality is not required, nor are a host of personal spirits needed to justify the listings. We submit that for consistency a similar conclusion should be drawn in regard to the various references to the holy Spirit as well.

A Variety of Operations

In Scriptural usage, various actions and operations of the holy Spirit are illustrated. Some were manifested from earliest times, such as in creation; others became evident in succeeding ages as God’s plan of salvation unfolded. Yet all of them can be shown to emanate from God Himself or from His Son Christ Jesus and do not require an additional personality.

Early in Genesis, this Spirit was evidenced in God’s creative power, as He brought into existence the earth, the oceans teeming with life (Gen. 1:2), plants and animals, and finally man himself. In later times, the operation of God’s Spirit expanded in various ways, especially as it was directed toward the Church. Believers in Christ were begotten of the Spirit as they entered their new consecrated life and were privileged to become the sons of God (John 3:3, 7; 1 John 5:4, 18). Other manifestations of the Spirit are seen in its thought-creating power (2 Pet. 1:21), its life-giving or quickening power (Rom. 8:11) and its transforming influence (1 Cor. 6:11). In none of these instances is a separate personality required to carry out these functions.

Other usages of the Spirit in Scripture are equally revealing. Joel 2:28 reads, “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.” This is a wonderful reference to that future day when God’s Kingdom is fully established on earth and all mankind will have the opportunity of growing in the knowledge of God and His ways of righteousness. Does this mean that a person is to be poured out? If the Trinity is inseparable as an entity, does this mean that God and Christ and the holy Spirit are to be poured out on all flesh? Surely not! Such a usage helps us to grasp the correct meaning of the holy Spirit as the power or influence of God.

The believer is also admonished to be “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). This is certainly commendable, and all of us should desire to have more and more of the Spirit that we may be drawn into a closer relationship with our Lord. But how could we be filled with another person? One might be filled with such qualities as wisdom and faith, but hardly with the Spirit if it were an actual person. Note how the Scriptures treat all of these as qualities (not persons) and relate them to each other: “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost [Spirit] and wisdom. . . . and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” (Acts 6:3, 5). Joy is another quality with which the believer is to be filled, and it likewise is linked with the filling of the Spirit (Acts 13:52). To insist on the personality of the holy Spirit in these examples merely produces one paradox after another, all of which are wholly unreasonable and unnecessary in the light of Biblical truth.

We could also say that it is entirely proper to pray for the holy Spirit to operate in our lives (Luke 11:13), but not to pray to it! Never once in Scripture is an example given of someone praying to the holy Spirit, and never once is anyone urged to do so. Jesus taught clearly that prayer was to be directed to the Father in heaven, and he provided a model of such prayer for his disciples to follow. (See Luke 11:1-4.)

A Missing Factor in the Equation

The efforts of Trinitarians to give personality to the holy Spirit has proved to be an extravagant and futile exercise. Most of their writings expend nearly all their energy in trying to prove that certain Bible texts equate God and Jesus. Very little can be found to defend the holy Spirit directly in their Trinity concept because it is nearly impossible to do.

By far, the one text most alluded to and thought to be a “Trinity fortress” was 1 John 5:7. However, even the most ardent Trinitarians must concede that the words “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” are not truly the Word of God but are spurious—merely an interpolation. The Revised Version and all modern translations omit the verse, since it is not contained in any Greek manuscript prior to the fifth century and is not quoted by any of the early Church fathers. Evidently it was added by an over-zealous scribe who thought the Trinity concept needed a substantial boost in the Scriptural record; but surely this attempt merely betrays the weakness of the argument.

Unless Trinity can be Scripturally established with all three persons in one entity—including the holy Spirit—the case simply sinks beneath the waves.

Use of the Personal Pronoun

It is noted by some that there are abundant references in Scripture where the holy Spirit is referred to using the personal pronoun “he.” Even our Lord Jesus, in alluding to the work of the holy Spirit, according to the King James Version, used these words: “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. . . . But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost [Spirit], whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John 14:16, 26, italics supplied by us). Does this not prove that the holy Spirit is a person? A study of the Greek text in this and other instances shows this not to be the case. Here the word for Comforter is parakletos, which in the Greek language is masculine in gender and, therefore, needs to be placed with a masculine pronoun for grammatical purposes only.

John 16:13 is another text which properly engages masculine pronouns to describe the holy Spirit. It reads: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come” (italics supplied). Again, this gives the impression that the Spirit is a person, designated with “he” and “himself.” But this is not the correct thought, for it is simply a follow-up of good Greek grammar matching a masculine subject with equivalent pronouns. In again referring to the “comforter” or “helper” aspect of the Spirit, there was a consistency in using the masculine pronoun “he” rather than the neuter “it.” This usage shows adherence to the rules of Greek grammar and provides no proof that the holy Spirit is a person.

On the other hand, when the word “spirit” is from the Greek pneuma, the grammatical application changes, and the neuter pronoun “it” is appropriately used. Whereas this rule is generally hidden by the translators, the Catholic New American Bible says, regarding John 14:17: “The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS employ ‘it’” (bold supplied). Note the following Scriptural examples where the Greek pneuma is used and is referred to by the neuter pronoun “it”: John 1:32—”John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.” In Rom. 8:26 (if this passage is applied to the holy Spirit)—”Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.”

Thus seen, the attempt to prove the “Spirit” is a person because masculine pronouns sometimes are used in referring to it is neither scholarly, consistent, nor honest.

Possible Personality Traits

Finally, due to the wide-ranging applications of God’s Spirit, there are some Bible texts that at first might be construed as endowing it with personality. The Spirit, for example, is portrayed as “speaking” in Heb. 3:7, and “bearing witness” in Heb. 10:15. Nonetheless, other Scriptures clarify the matter for us. Whereas the Spirit may be described in a loose sense as speaking, in reality it does this through actual persons, such as God or the believer. The warning against provoking God through unbelief, which is ascribed to the holy Spirit in Heb. 3:7, is clearly shown in Ps. 95:6-11 to have been the voice of God originally raised as an expression of God’s anger against the Israelites in their wilderness journey. Likewise, the lovely picture of the establishment of the New Covenant with the house of Israel, which is attributed to the witnessing of the holy Spirit in Heb. 10:15, is really shown to be a consequence of a direct “thus saith the Lord” in Jer. 31:31-33. Hence the holy Spirit has no personal voice of its own and must operate through other personalities, such as God, Christ and the believer.

An approach similar to this can be used in properly harmonizing other texts that in varying degree may appear to endow personhood to the Spirit. For example, compare “tempt the Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:9) with the clearer “tempt the Lord thy God” (Matt. 4:7); and again, “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18) with the more understandable “the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (1 Cor. 3:16). It is only reasonable to expect that on a matter of such weighty consequence, bearing on the true nature and identity of the holy Spirit, the Scriptures themselves can be relied upon to furnish satisfying truth. And thus we actually perceive examples of God’s Spirit at work, in so arranging the holy Scriptures and granting the needed guidance and help in properly understanding them, for which we are grateful.

Some Notable Admissions

In summing up our case for the holy Spirit as the power or influence of God, we would like to quote from some Catholic authorities:

A Catholic Dictionary: “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power particularly in the heart of man.”2

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The OT clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person . . . God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. . . . The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”3

The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.”4

Catholic theologian Fortman: “The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power.”5

Placing these comments into the overall context of Catholic belief, we appreciate the sincerity of these admissions, while at the same time recognizing their acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, as based upon church authority and tradition. We quite agree that God’s Spirit is “something, not someone.” Our purpose in excerpting these quotations is to point out the candid admissions that are made in respect to the lack of Biblical evidence to support the personhood of the holy Spirit.

CHAPTER FOUR

Further Scriptural Harmony

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of God.” (2 Tim. 2:16, NIV)

God (‘Elo-him’) in Plural Form

THE reasoning is presented that the Old Testament Hebrew word for God is often in plural form. To the Trinitarian mind, this is supposed to prove that God is a composite of three beings somehow congealed into one identity. It never had such a connotation to the Jewish writers of the Old Testament. They did not believe in a Trinity. It is an enigma to them that, after the fact, some Christians come along and prove the Trinity where none existed in the minds of the writers of the Old Testament. Trinity never was in their thinking, and therefore it was not in their ink quills.

Commenting on Gen. 1:1, where God is mentioned in the plural as ‘elohim,’ Dr. Rotherham says: “It should be carefully observed that, although ‘elohim’ is plural in form, yet when, as here, it is construed with a verb in the singular, it is naturally singular in sense; especially since the ‘plural of quality’ or ‘excellence’ abounds in Hebrew in cases where the reference is undeniably to something which must be understood in the singular.”

Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes on this matter in his Synonyms of the Old Testament: “Many critics, however, of unimpeachable orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty, and as indicating the greatness, the infinity, and the incomprehensibleness of the Deity.”1 The truth on this matter is clearly perceived by many scholars, but it is hard to restrain some hard-pressed Trinitarians from stretching the truth to prove the unprovable.

It should be mentioned also that the Hebrew “elohim” is used to describe pagan gods such as Dagon (1 Sam. 5:7) and Marduck (Dan. 1:2). These were singular gods. No one has claimed they were triune gods. Hence, it seems many Trinitarian scholars wince at excesses of their brethren. The higher ground for the Trinitarian is still that the Trinity is not understandable, nor explainable, and must simply be accepted as a theological mystery. This is especially difficult for fundamentalist Bible believers to accept. They find this an uncomfortable posture in which to be.

“Immanuel” and the “Mighty God”

Isaiah 7:14 reads: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” We shall not enter the discussion as to whether this verse may have had a fulfillment other than to our Lord Jesus. Be that as it may, we have Matthew’s application of this verse being fulfilled in Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:23). It is, therefore, on Apostolic authority, applied to our Lord, and that should be the end of all strife. However, when it came time to give our Lord a name, he was not called Immanuel, meaning “God with us,” but Jesus, “Savior” (Matt. 1:25). Hence, the name is a title, very much as the Son of God or the Son of Man. If God was sending His only begotten Son to dwell with men, that surely would be a sign that God was with us, lifting up His countenance upon us and being gracious to us. Even today we use the expression, “God be with you.” No more than this need be implied in Isaiah 7:14.

Isaiah 9:6 gives our Savior the title, “The mighty God.” But the Jewish writers were not saying that the Messiah would literally be Jehovah. If judges of Israel were called “gods,” as in Ps. 82:1-7, what would be earthshaking about calling Jesus the “mighty God” (Hebrew, ‘El Gib-bohr’)? Notice, he is not called ‘El Shad-dai,’ a term exclusively applied to Jehovah. Further, “God” in the Isaiah text is the Hebrew EL, defined by Dr. Strong as “strength; as adj[ective] mighty; espec[ially] the Almighty (but used also of any deity).”2 The fact that the same word (EL) is used in Isa. 57:5 in describing idols shows indeed that it is a general term used to describe any mighty being and, hence, quite appropriately may be applied to our Savior, Jesus, in Isa. 9:6.

The following sources offer additional comments on Isa. 9:6 and Ps. 82:1-7: The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself.”3 And the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, says: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive. . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject.”4

Scriptures with Groupings of Three Titles

Some Bible texts mention three subjects in continuity and have been seized upon as proof of the Trinity. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 are found Spirit, Lord and God; 2 Corinthians 13:14 lists Christ, God and the Holy Ghost [Spirit]; Galatians 4:4-6 lists God, Son and Spirit of his Son; Ephesians 4:4-6 lists Spirit, Lord and God and 1 Peter 1:2 lists God, Spirit and Jesus Christ. If we were to accept such logic as proof of the Trinity, then we would be led to believe that Peter, James and John are a Trinity because they are listed together. (See Luke 9:28.) 1 Timothy 5:21 says: “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels.” Does this make angels a part of the Trinity?

Then there is the great commission text, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” (Matt. 28:19). However, sentiment is mounting that this text is a forgery. In every other instance where baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, it is shown to be in the name of Jesus. Further, many of the early Church fathers, in quoting this passage, leave out the Trinitarian formula and say simply “in my name”; that is, in the name of Jesus alone the baptism was to be carried out. In 1960, The British & Foreign Bible Society published a Greek Testament, and in Matt. 28:19 the phrase “in my name” is given as an alternative reading, with Eusebius cited as the early Church authority.

Let us note what some theologians have to say on this matter:

Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, in commenting on Matthew 28:19 as proof that the Father, Son and holy Spirit were three persons, says: “‘But this I can never believe.’ I cannot help that—you shall not be persecuted by me for differing from my opinion. I cannot go over to you; I must abide by what I believe to be the meaning of the Scriptures.” He then shows how the New Testament believers in Acts 2:38; 8:16 and 19:5 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus alone.5 Also, G. Kittel, in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, states forthrightly: “The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT.”6 Hence, there is such a thing as trying too hard to use Scriptures to infer meanings not intended, and some scholars refuse to do that.

“My Lord and My God”

One verse often used in an attempt to prove the Trinity doctrine is John 20:28. “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” First, let us notice Thomas did not mention the holy Spirit. He would have needed to do so for this verse to sustain any Trinity connotation. Failing in this, it becomes, at best, a stool with only two legs—not good to stand on. This verse reveals Thomas’ happy response on finding his Master appearing before him. He was slow to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and it took this personal interchange with the Master to make a true believer out of him. He was the last of the Apostles to have been honored with a visit from the Master after his resurrection. This probably hurt his feelings to think that so many others had met with the resurrected Lord and he had not been so blessed.

Thomas resolved: “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe [in his resurrection]” (John 20:25). Did Thomas believe that it was God the Father who was dead? Surely not. But if he believed Jesus was God, how could he believe that it was Jesus who was dead? Yet if anything at all is clear, it is that Thomas did believe Jesus was dead and was overjoyed to find him alive.

When Jesus offered to fulfill all the necessary conditions to make him believe his resurrection, Thomas cried out, “My [the] Lord and my [the] God” (John 20:28). God here is a translation of the Greek THEOS, which is defined by Dr. Young as “God, a god, object of worship.”7 It is a general term in the New Testament, used frequently to denote the Heavenly Father (such as in Matt. 27:46, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” and in many additional places). However, it is also used to depict other beings, whether good or bad. THEOS is used to describe Satan, “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), the saints, “gods, sons of the Most High” (John 10:34, 35, from Ps. 82:6, RSV), idols, or fabricated “gods who will go before us” (Acts 7:40), and heathen gods, “the gods have come down to us in human form!” (Acts 14:11, 12). Hence, THEOS is quite general in its application in Scripture, and the fact that it is occasionally used of Jesus should not be taken as proof that he was God the Father. Such usage alone is not conclusive to warrant such a distinction.

The Jews had earlier accused Jesus of blasphemy because, being a man, he made himself “God”—but this was a false and exaggerated accusation against Jesus which he never is recorded as saying. Jesus’ response was, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36). Even to be called God was not earthshaking. Jesus pointed out that those to whom the Word of God came were called “gods.” (The original early manuscripts were written with all capitals. Hence, translators must decide whether to capitalize or not.) But Jesus did clarify who he was. He said, “I am the Son of God.”

Did Thomas now believe something different than Jesus claimed for himself? If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods,” what would be extraordinary about Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and my God”? Herod’s voice was called “god’s” voice, and Paul was called “god” (Acts 12:22; 28:6). This, undoubtedly, was a very emotional moment for Thomas and certainly not an attempt on his part to offer advanced theology. The fact that he says “the Lord” and “the God” seems appropriate to his emotional state wherein he accepts Jesus as his resurrected “the Lord” and “the God.” His very Jewishness prohibits us from concluding he thought Jesus was “God the Father.” He could not possibly have fused Jesus and God the Father into one. Jesus had been his “Lord” (or “Master”), and now, believing his resurrection, he accepts him as his “God” (or “mighty one”).

In addition to the foregoing, there is an alternative explanation that should be considered. This was an emotion-filled moment for Thomas, a moment about which he had spent much time in prayer to God. It may be that Thomas was merely crying out to God, his Father, “My Lord and my God” as an exclamation for answering his prayers. Today, people cry out “My God” in moments of overwhelming sorrow or joy. Jesus cried out, “My God, my God” on the cross. This may be what Thomas meant by his expression on this occasion. There is nothing to preclude this thought. One thing we know, his assertion did not include the holy Spirit, and therefore the Trinity cannot have been implied.

The Apostle John, who wrote his Gospel long years after Pentecost, likewise did not believe Jesus was God. John quotes Jesus’ reminder to Mary, saying, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus had the same Father and God as Mary. Additionally, John sums up his lesson covering these momentous events, saying, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). The Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to the view that the “Lord our God is one.” To argue that he forsook his Jewish religious training at the moment in question and received Jesus as (the) God the Father is an unlikely scenario. John, who is aged and serene while writing his Gospel, summarizes this entire chapter saying, “Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.” That’s what he wanted us to believe—and that’s what Thomas believed as well.

“In Three Days I Will Raise It Up”

In John 2:19 we read: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The argument is made that Jesus was God and that he raised himself from the dead. This is said in spite of the clear and oft repeated statement of Scripture that “God raised him from the dead.” (Please see our Bible readings in Chapter VI.) The testimony of Scripture is so complete and overwhelming that God raised Jesus from the dead that there cannot be any shade of doubt about it.

Now let us examine some of our Lord’s statements on this to see if they can be harmonized. In Matthew 17:22, 23, Jesus said, speaking of his approaching death: “The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.” (See also Luke 9:22; Matt. 16:21.) The angels quoted our Lord’s words to the women who witnessed his resurrection, saying: “Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee saying, the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words” (Luke 24:6-8). These verses fit in with the Bible testimony that God raised Jesus on the third day.

However, in John 2:19, Jesus said, in response to the Jews’ request for a sign from him: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John quotes Jesus and then gives the proper understanding of Jesus’ words. He says, “But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). Here the aged John is suggesting what Paul confirms: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27). Further insight is provided in 2 Cor. 4:14, which reads: “Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by [with, through] Jesus, and shall present us with you.” In John 6:44 we read a similar thought: “No man can come to me, except the Father . . . draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” This shows that God’s power would not be exercised independently but through Jesus in the resurrection of the Body of Christ.

Hence it is Jesus who will take an active role in raising his Church from the dead. John shows in 14:2, 3 when that will be. He says: “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” So it is at Jesus’ second advent that his faithful followers will be rewarded. Other Bible texts detail the timing of the Church’s resurrection yet further. Peter declares that “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3:8). If we divide the time from man’s creation into one-thousand year days, Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the fifth (thousand year) day. If he returns in three days to raise his body members, counting inclusively from the fifth day, we arrive at the seventh (thousand year) day, which is the grand Millennial Day of blessing.

Now let us examine John 2:19—”In three days I will raise it up”—from another standpoint. The disciples had come to regard Jesus’ death and resurrection as a precursor of their own resurrection. They remembered his promise: “Because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19). Hence we read: “When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said” (John 2:22). We must remember that before Pentecost, Jesus’ disciples did not entertain a heavenly hope. The last thing they asked our risen Lord before he ascended was: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Subsequently, they came to realize they were to be a part of the body of Christ and that God would “raise up us also by Jesus” (2 Cor. 4:14). That is what they remembered Jesus’ words to mean.

Challenges of Interpretation

Some while back, a 31-page booklet entitled “Should You Believe the Trinity?” was circulated, which caused quite a stir in Trinitarian circles. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., rose to the occasion and wrote an entire book in reply entitled Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. His work enables one to see how a Trinitarian studies the Bible and how he comes to his conclusions. It demonstrates that an effort can be made to defend the Trinity and that Bible verses may be used in an endless array to justify said beliefs. Yet, despite a valiant overall effort, Mr. Bowman clearly falls short of the mark in at least one direction—and that is in clarifying the doctrine for us. After attempting at length to explain the unfathomable mystery of the Trinity, he finally admits in summary: “The choice is therefore between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself, mystery and all, or believing in a God who is relatively simple to understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they can’t fully comprehend.”8

Most of his arguments pertain to Bible verses where God and Christ may be, with a little effort, fused into one Being. The hard part was in adding the holy Spirit to make Trinity complete. He says, to lay the foundation for his argument: “The Holy Spirit is nothing less than God himself. God is present everywhere, so he has no problem controlling his works. He needs no force outside himself to do his works, nor does he need to emanate some of his own energy to places far from his presence in order to ‘be there.’”9 Unfortunately, he asserts God is “everywhere” without a Bible citation. One must suppose this is accepted in theology. However, our Lord Jesus taught us to pray, “Our Father, which art in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Jesus could have helped theology if he taught us to pray: “Our Father, which art everywhere,” but he did not say this.

Such reasoning comes close to New Age theology which teaches that God is everywhere and in everything and if we identify with the earth, sun, water, etc., we become a part of God. The wise man said: “God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (Ecc. 5:2). When Moses wished to see God’s glory, God caused a representation of Himself to pass before Moses. The restriction was that Moses would see God’s “back parts” (Ex. 33:23). How could a God who is everywhere be represented by God’s glory as it passed by? How long would it take for everywhere to pass before Moses? Also God is said to dwell in “light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16). If God is everywhere, he must also be in the dark holes of the universe. How could it be said: “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5)?

If God is everywhere, then Jesus is everywhere and so also the holy Spirit. This raises a question in logic. In John 14:3, Jesus promises: “I will come again.” How does someone who is everywhere come again to somewhere? Jesus also promised in John 15:26: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you . . . he shall testify of me.” How do you send someone who is everywhere? Why would you need to? How can everywhere be moved to somewhere?

Mr. Bowman asserts God “needs no force outside himself to do his works, nor does he need to emanate some of his energy to places.” It is doubtful if many theologians would back such an extravagant assertion. This would seem to rule out any use of the holy Spirit as the mind, influence, power, etc., of God. For a case in point, God says: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). How could a God-person, who is everywhere, be poured out on “all flesh”? Logic and common sense require even Trinitarians to read certain verses with the same meaning as non-Trinitarians. That is the hard part of arguing against the Trinity; it seems everyone defending it has some different ideas.

Greater minds than his have struggled to find the formula to merge three persons into one and have conceded that, after having done their best, their concepts were “incomprehensible.” Mr. Bowman concludes the same, as we have observed: “Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they can’t fully understand.” The Trinity is a doctrine of inference—not of Biblical statement. We doubt that many theologians would support his position that it is unnecessary for the Spirit ever to be a power or influence or the mind of God. His position seems untenable here.

Finally, every Christian must realize that there is nothing they believe that cannot be assailed by someone somewhere. The Devil quoted the Bible trying to beguile our Lord. The Judaizing Jews quoted Scripture verses to bring Gentiles under the Law. Were they sincere? Probably, but misinformed. There is not a single doctrine believed by any Christian which is not assailed with vigor and even sometimes with forceful presentations. What do we do in such an event? We can close our mind to all discussion and retreat to our trenches. That is probably good if indeed our belief is well-founded in the Word. There definitely is a cloud over the Trinity which is very troubling to many, and we trust that such will be blessed by this presentation.

CHAPTER FIVE

Confronting Gnostic Heresies

“Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge[GNOSIS], which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.” (1 Tim. 6:20, NIV and NJB)

WHEN the Apostle John spoke of those who do not “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9), what false teaching was he refuting? We believe he was confronting a particular false teaching being advocated in his time and place. As mentioned earlier, the Trinity doctrine was not yet formulated, and John was not confronting it. It was not troubling the Church at that time. In Acts 15 the early Church did have a heated conference of elders and Apostles, but it addressed the issue of Gentiles coming into the Church and being pressured to keep the Jewish Law Covenant. The council ended with a very clearly-worded message: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost [Spirit], and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:28, 29).

Now, you would think if the Trinity was even faintly mentioned in Church teachings, it would need some clarification. Certainly, those of the Priesthood (Acts 6:7) who had become believers and who were trying to bring Gentiles under the Law would have raised eyebrows at any teaching beclouding the one-God concept of the Jewish Law. The leadership of the Church were all mainly Jews carried over from the Law arrangement. Yet not one word emerged about a tripersonal deity. How could the Trinity not have been mentioned in this conference, or in the Bible itself, if it was an essential doctrine for Jews and Gentiles alike to believe?

John’s Gospel, as well as his epistles, are believed to have been written toward the close of the first century. McClintock & Strong on “John,” says:

“Ephesus and Patmos are the two places mentioned by early writers, and the weight of evidence seems to preponderate in favor of Ephesus. Irenaeus . . . states that John published his Gospel whilst he dwelt in Ephesus of Asia. Jerome . . . relates that John was in Asia . . . Theodore of Mopsuestia . . . relates that John was living at Ephesus when he was moved by his disciples to write his Gospel.

“The evidence in favor of Patmos comes from two anonymous writers. The author of the Synopsis of Scripture, printed in the works of Athanasius, states that the Gospel was dictated by John in Patmos, and published afterwards in Ephesus. . . . [Another] author . . . states that John was banished by Domitian to Patmos, where he wrote his Gospel.”1

Quoting McClintock and Strong, on “John, First Epistle,” we read:

“It has been conjectured by many interpreters, ancient and modern, that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The more ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at Ephesus, and a less authentic report refers it to the island of Patmos . . . it was probably posterior to the Gospel, which seems to be referred to in 1 John 1:4. Some are of the opinion that the Epistle was an envelope or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that they were consequently written nearly simultaneously.”2

These comments suggest John’s writings were the writings of his old age. Having outlived the other Apostles, John could see the essential fabric of Christianity beginning to be subjected to intellectual Hellenistic philosophy and gnosticism. John was the last Apostolic outpost defending the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). He was dearly loved by the brethren of that time, but not by all. “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not” (3 John 9). It is hard to believe anyone would not receive John in the Christian community. However, ambition and power-lust were running high, and hence even the beloved Apostle found himself put upon. This should make us wary of accepting beliefs not originating in Apostolic times.

Confessing Jesus Christ Is Come in the Flesh

John, in his epistles, as well as in his gospel writings, was dealing with certain gnostic heresies that had started to trouble the early Church. In 1 John 4:3, we read: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.” What was John addressing here? For an answer we quote McClintock & Strong:

“Irenaeus says, ‘Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power (Demiurge) separate from Him, and below Him, and ignorant of Him. Jesus he supposed not to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph and Mary, born altogether as other men are; but he excelled all men in virtue, knowledge, and wisdom. At His baptism, the Christ came down upon Him, from God who is over all, in the shape of a dove; and then He declared to the world the unknown Father, and wrought miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again, but the Christ being spiritual, was impassible.’”3

This view presents Jesus as a mere man fathered by Joseph, who later became possessed by Christ at Jordan and deserted by Christ before Jesus was crucified. Hence, Christ did not come in the flesh, nor did he suffer in the flesh, but simply took possession of a man named Jesus from Jordan and left him before he was crucified. Under this teaching, Christ neither suffered nor died. It was Jesus the man who suffered and died and was resurrected. This concept may have arisen from the practice of demons entering fleshly bodies to possess them, such as evidently was fairly commonplace in Jesus’ day.

We refer again to McClintock & Strong on Cerinthus:

“The account of Irenaeus is that he [Cerinthus] appeared about the year 88, and was known to St. John, who wrote his Gospel in refutation of his errors. Irenaeus, on the authority of Polycarp, narrates that the Apostle John, when at Ephesus, going on a certain day to the bath, and finding Cerinthus within, fled from the building, saying ‘Let us even be gone, lest the bath should fall to pieces, Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being within.’”4

This scrap of history would confirm John’s unwillingness to have any interchange or contact with one who was introducing such mind-beguiling errors into the Churches. Yet, the point to be noted is that, even while the Apostle John still lived, various forms of gnostic errors affecting the nature of Christ were indeed infecting Christianity. What would happen when all the Apostles fell asleep? Surely, no one would logically expect truth to triumph.

Jesus taught—”While men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way” (Matt. 13:24-30). What were the “tares” the enemy sowed? Errors or false teachings which would subvert true Christianity. Yes. Even before the Apostles fell asleep, the Devil was busy trying to infuse gnostic beliefs among the people of God. Paul confirms this, saying, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thess. 2:7). We must always remember, these false teachings were kept out of the Bible, but not out of the Church. What was to be a “wheat field” turned into a field of “tares,” the planting of the Wicked One. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matt. 13:24-30) was given by the Master to foretell what would follow the death of the Apostles. For anyone to go to the fourth and fifth centuries to seek the truth is to ignore this clear warning of Jesus.

Docetae—Docetism

Docetism appeared in the latter half of the second century. It was, in fact, only another form of gnosticism. McClintock & Strong, commenting on Docetae, say:

“In order to remove the author of all good from all contact with matter, which they conceived to be the same as evil, they called in the aid of Oriental philosophy in order to people the space between God and matter with a vast succession of superhuman beings as mediators between God and the world. These, emanating from the Deity, were called aeons; among these the highest rank was assigned to Christ. Here, however, they seem to have split. ‘Many imagined that Jesus was a mere man, and maintained that the aeon Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him immediately before his crucifixion, so that Christ was not, in fact, subjected to pain and death; while others held that the body, with which Christ appeared to be invested, was not really human and passable, but unsubstantial or etherial, or, at least immaterial: these last were called Docetae.’ (Waddington’s History of the Church, p. 74, 75). They denied the whole humanity of Christ, regarding it only as a deceptive show, a mere vision.

“Docetism was a most subtle element, which wrought variously before it had any discernible concentration in any leading men or sects, and it infused its unreal and fantastic leaven into various Gnostic sects, and other later ones which grew out of Gnosticism. It was a deep, natural, rationalistic, pseudo-spiritualistic, anti-incarnation element.”5

The errors introduced by Cerinthus did not disappear, but infected the Church heavily in the second century. It was these errors that were leavening the lump, and to offset them, both truth and additional errors were used to put down these gnostic teachings. The hardest thing is to defend the truth without exaggerating matters. The Devil does not care which ditch one gets into, as long as one leaves the strait and narrow path of truth.

Gnosticism in the Church

The early Christians did seek knowledge of spiritual things. Paul says some were given the “word of knowledge (gnosis) by the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:8). There was a proper knowledge that came to saints of that day, and then there were supposed superior knowledge and insights that were nothing more than heretical gnosticism. The Church was put upon by these claimants of superior knowledge. McClintock & Strong, on Gnosticism, say:

“The name Gnosticism has been applied to a variety of schools which had sometimes little in common except the assumption of a knowledge higher than that of ordinary believers. . . . They seldom pretended to demonstrate the principles on which their systems were founded by historical evidence or logical reasonings, since they rather boasted that these were discovered by the intuitional powers of more highly endowed minds, and that the materials thus obtained, whether through faith or divine revelation, were then worked up into ascientific form according to each one’s natural power and culture. Their aim was to construct not merely a theory of redemption, but of the universe—a cosmogony. No subject was beyond their investigations. Whatever God could reveal to the finite intellect, they looked upon as within their range. What to others seemed only speculative ideas, were by them hypostatized or personified into real beings or historical facts. It was in this way that they constructed systems of speculation on subjects entirely beyond the range of human knowledge, which startle us by their boldness and their apparent consciousness of reality.”6

Most of the controversies of the early Church were Judaistic in nature, but evidence is found early on of heretical influences that affected the brotherhood. Quoting again from McClintock & Strong on Gnosticism:

“The heretical gnosis did not make its appearance with an uncovered head until after the death of the apostles, but . . . that it previously worked in secret. . . . While most of the heresies of that period were Judaistic, there was an obvious difference between those reproved in the Galatian churches and those noticed in the epistles to the Colossians and Timothy. The latter are treated much more mildly, and we readily perceive that they must have been much less developed and less subversive of the Christian system. They are expressly called (1 Tim. 6:20) a false gnosis, and were characterized by empty sounds without sense and subtle oppositions to the truth, a depreciation of the body, and a worship of angels (Col. 2:18, 23), and interminable genealogies and myths (1 Tim. 1:4). These seem more akin to Jewish than to heathen speculations, and imply not the completed Gnosticism of the second century, but the manifest germs of Docetic emanations and Gnostic dualism.”7

It is easy to see how such forces at work within the early Church were like leaven that needed an incubation period before it “leavened the whole.” While the leaven was rising, it induced a power struggle among the bishops, some for truth and some for error and, more often than not, a struggle for preeminence and power. To secure these, one needed some platform that played well and would seduce the largest numbers. Later, the seduction was directed toward the Emperor Constantine, for the imperial power would make or break the bishops. Those who contended for the faith “once delivered unto the saints” became merely voices crying in the wilderness (Jude 3).

To believe that most Church leaders were the great preservers of the “faith once delivered to the saints” is to believe the unbelievable. The Great Wall of China was built to keep out invading enemy forces. However, the wall was breached three times within the first century of its construction—in each instance from within. Once we leave the Apostolic Era and the Word of God, it becomes stormy and treacherous.

What John Was Confronting

The Apostle John, in his Gospel, was filling in details left out in other Gospel accounts as well as lightly addressing some subtle errors of that era. In John 1:1-18, we find John refuting gnostic heresies. He shows that Jesus was a spirit who was “with God” and who subsequently became flesh. He says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (vs. 14). This is a plain statement of fact. Jesus was “made flesh.” He did not possess another’s body or form, but he was, in fact, “flesh.” Neither was he a mixture of natures—spirit and flesh. He was “flesh.” Peter confirms this truth, saying, “Being put to death indeed in flesh, but made alive in spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18, Rotherham). The gnostic teaching that Christ was a composite of spirit and flesh did finally emerge. But the Bible is quite clear that Jesus was made “flesh.” It does not say he assumed a fleshly body and then left it. He died on the cross and was raised from the dead by God on the third day (Matt. 28:7; Acts 2:31, 32).

John 1:18 reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten son [some authorities read God], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Men did see Jesus. No man has ever seen God, nor can they and live. Jesus, then, is the revealer of God, the one through whom we may know the Father.

What did John mean when he said: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9)? Why didn’t he add: “hath the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit”? Obviously, John was not dealing with any part of the Trinity when he wrote these words. He was meeting the errors of Cerinthus and gnosticism, which were beginning to surface in that very early era when the Apostles still lived. He was endeavoring to prevent Cerinthus and his deceived followers from bewitching the Church with their Satan-inspired, beguiling errors.

The battle did not cease after the Apostles fell asleep. The Church of God became infested with philosophy, gnostic dualisms, docetic emanations, etc. The stage was being set for the dualism of God and Christ to be fused into one substance, composed of spirit and flesh simultaneously. Because these earliest errors had to do with the nature of Jesus Christ in human flesh and his relationship to God, it became increasingly difficult to separate fact from fancy. A thick cloud of confusion settled upon Christians. As a result, theologians left the simplicity of the unitarian God of the first century and fused Jesus and God into one Being in the fourth century.

At last in the fifth century, the Trinity was born even while the Christian Church began its descent toward the Dark Ages. If at least we could see the Church moving toward more brotherly love and kindness after the Trinity concept took root, we could sense that something good had emerged. But such was not the case. The picture that emerges is of a Church steeped in worldliness, pomp and ceremony, leaving the purity and simplicity of its early faith far behind. Even worse are centuries filled with bloodletting and ruthlessness that followed, with the Church bent on world conquest. All contrary religious thought was stifled as the Church grasped for total world-control.

Hellenistic Influences in the Church

Hans Kung writes:

“If we take the New Testament as a criterion, we cannot deny that the Council of Nicaea certainly maintained the New Testament message and did not Hellenize it totally. But it is equally beyond dispute that the council remained utterly imprisoned in Hellenistic concepts, notions and thought-models which would have been completely alien to the Jew Jesus of Nazareth and the earliest community. Here in particular the shift from the Jewish Christian apocalyptic paradigm [beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community] to the early church Hellenistic paradigm had a massive effect.”8

There is little doubt that after the Hellenization of the Church, it would have been unrecognizable to early Jewish Christians.

When the Church became Hellenized, it became a tool for Constantine. Hans Kung says:

“He not only convened the ecumenical council but directed it through a bishop whom he had commissioned, with the assistance of imperial commissioners; he adjourned it and concluded it; by his decision the resolutions of the council became imperial laws. Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. . . . It was now clear to Constantine, the political strategist, that the imperial church needed more than just the more or less varied confessions of faith of the individual local or provincial churches. It needed a uniform ‘ecumenical creed,’ and this was to be the church law and imperial law for all the churches. He believed that only in this way could he ensure the unity of the empire under the slogan ‘one God—one emperor—one kingdom—one church—one faith.’”9

While Constantine was using the Church for his own political agenda, it must be remembered that, although confessing to be a Christian, he was actually a ruthless opportunist. He still presided at all pagan festivities, commissioned many of the new Churches to be adorned with pagan artwork, and was responsible for murdering members of his own family. In 326 A.D., long after his “conversion,” he had his wife, Fausta, and his eldest son, Crispus, put to death. When convinced that his own death was near, he received baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, in 337 A.D. He had delayed baptism to the end, since he felt he could not avoid committing “mortal” sin during his lifetime, and such sin after baptism was considered to be unforgivable.10 This was the man who forced his will upon the Nicene Council, dictated the wording of its creed, and thereby directed the doctrinal course of the Church for centuries to come. But is this the kind of man to whom we should be entrusting our most sacred beliefs?

Hans Kung makes another observation:

“Nor did Paul want to replace Jewish belief in one God with a Christian belief in two Gods. Rather, he always regarded the Jesus who had been exalted by God’s spirit to God as subordinate to this one God and Father: as the Messiah, Christ, image, Son, of the one God. So his christocentricity remains grounded in and culminates in a theocentricity: ‘from God through Jesus Christ’—‘through Jesus Christ to God.’ To this degree Paul’s christology is directly compatible with Jewish monotheism.”11

We realize, too, that Paul was not opposed by his Judaizing Jewish brethren because of his presentations of God. It was his opposition to bringing Gentile Christians under bondage to the Law arrangement that incurred their ire.

We quote again from Hans Kung:

“We should note that whereas the Council of Nicaea in 325 spoke of a single substance or hypostasis in God, the starting point in the 381 Council of Constantinople was three hypostases: Father, Son and Spirit. There has been much discussion in the history of dogma as to whether the transition from a one-hypostasis theology to a three-hypostasis theology is only a terminological change or—more probably (as the temporary schism in Antioch between old and new orthodox shows)—also involved an actual change in the conceptual model. At all events it is certain that we can speak of a dogma of the Trinity only after the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.”12

There is little doubt when Trinity became a Church dogma. For those willing to accept the Council of Constantinople as the basis of their faith, we wish them well, but our conviction is that Christians should be free to believe only what was taught by the Apostles.

Trinity a Recognized Stumbling Block

When the Church united with the Roman powers, it seemed certain that the conquest of the world lay before it. Rome was the leading power of the world, and the Church was able to march under two banners—Christ and Rome. It was seemingly invincible. Why did it fail? Hans Kung says:

“A main cause of the failure of Christianity seems to have lain in the inadequate foundation of the dogmas of christology and the Trinity. The Catholic theologian Hermann Stieglecker, who gives an admirable account of the theological controversies between Christians and Muslims in his book on The Doctrines of Islam, rightly regards this lack as one of the most serious causes of the collapse of Christianity, particularly in its homelands, in the Near East and North Africa. It was in fact simpler to believe in the One God and Muhammad, the Prophet after Jesus. In addition, however, there were also the lamentable internal divisions within Christianity.”13

Christianity was born in the Middle East, and for the churches to have lost that whole area is most painful to them. While a few churches are now tolerated there, what hope is there in regaining what the Muslims have taken? The Trinity, which seemed a popular route to take in conquest of the world, has turned out instead to be a great impediment. That is why Hans Kung and a host of men like him are trying to break out from this “incomprehensible” Trinity concept. No matter how it is explained, no matter how it is qualified, no matter how it is propped up, its inherent weakness remains—it is unreasonable and consequently incomprehensible.

An Overview of the Controversies Concerning Christ

Let no one come away thinking that only two views of Christ have existed. The controversies were many. We quote from Christian History:14

Those Believing Jesus Was Either Divine or Human

“Docetists, e.g., Gnostics: The divine Christ would never stoop to touch flesh, which is evil. Jesus only seemed (dokeo, in Greek) human and only appeared to die, for God cannot die. Or, in other versions, “Christ” left “Jesus” before the Crucifixion.

“Apollinarians: Jesus is not equally human and divine but one person with one nature. In Jesus’ human flesh resided a divine mind and will (he didn’t have a human mind or spirit), and his divinity controlled or sanctified his humanity.

“Modalists, a.k.a. Sabellians: God’s names (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) change with his roles or ‘modes of being’ (like a chameleon). When God is the Son, he is not the Father. There is no permanent distinction between the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity, otherwise you have three gods.”

Those Believing Christ May Be Special, But Not Divine

“Ebionites: For these conservative Jewish Christians, God is one, and Jesus must be understood in Old Testament categories. Jesus was merely a specially blessed prophet.

“Adoptionists, a.k.a., dynamic monarchianists: No denying Jesus was special, but what happened is this: at birth (not conception) or baptism, God ‘adopted’ the human Jesus as his special son and gave him an extra measure of divine power (dynamis, in Greek).

“Arians: The Son as Word, Logos, was created by God before time. He is not eternal or perfect like God, though he was God’s agent in creating everything else.”

Those Believing Christ Has One Nature

“Monophysites, e.g., Eutychians: Jesus cannot have two natures; his divinity swallowed up his humanity ‘like a drop of wine in the sea.’

Those Believing Christ Was Two Persons

“Nestorians: If you dismiss Jesus’ humanity like that, he cannot be the Savior of humankind. Better to say he has two natures and also two persons: the divine Christ and the human Christ lived together in Jesus.”

The Orthodox View: (The Majority View, Right or Wrong)

“Trinitarians: Jesus is fully human and fully divine, having two natures in one person—‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.’”

Every inquirer for truth should know how widespread, divisive and confusing these controversies were before the Trinitarians were able to crush the opposition, taking over schools of learning much as evolutionists have done in our day. The law at work here might be likened to that of the Wild West, where the man with the fastest draw became the established authority. History records that the Church “was racked by feuding, recriminations, and downright treachery. . . . Bishops turned against one another, often mounting intricate intrigues to promote their theological viewpoints. To win the day, or just to survive, churchmen needed both a theologian’s wisdom and a politician’s savvy.”15

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and called a saint by his followers, is an outstanding example of a Trinitarian leader noted for his strong stand against Arianism. But consider the kind of man he was—ruthlessly and tenaciously opposing Arius, the kindly, intelligent and popular presbyter in Alexandria, who courageously defended the early Church view of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. Athanasius, in contrast, staunchly upheld the Nicene Creed, “was incapable of compromise, and believed that anyone who disagreed with him was not only wrong but also evil.” He was harsh and acrimonious in manner and was known for being “autocratic in his dealings with dissenters in his church.” He was variously accused of employing black magic, attempting to levy improper taxes for priestly vestures, and even of rape and murder. Called before a full ecclesiastical council at Tyre in 335, just ten years after Nicea, he was deposed as bishop and thereafter was exiled no less than five times. Yet, despite all this, he is considered one of the Fathers of the Church—solely because of upholding the “faith of Nicea.”16

It is also common knowledge that the victor in the kind of strife that occurred here is the one who controls the history of the period. The evidence for the opposing view is methodically squelched or distorted. In this instance, an effort was made to give the impression that Trinity was the accepted Christian belief from the very beginning of the Church, rather than the labored product of centuries of theological squabble and fusion with pagan beliefs.

In retrospect, it seems odd that the one view which seems least understandable, and the least logical, would be the one that claims orthodoxy today. And yet we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by what the Apostle Paul termed “the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [Greek, GNOSIS], for by professing it, some have missed the mark as regards the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20, 21, RSV). What a hollow victory for Trinity to have carried the day with such an incomprehensible and mysterious teaching.

Finally, when we turn to artwork, we find that artists created other heresies when they tried to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity. Medieval art depicted God with three faces and one body, which really is modalism, which denies differences between the Father, Son and holy Spirit. Another medieval Hungarian portrait showed God on a throne with the holy Spirit as a dove resting upon Jesus, who is portrayed as a man. This shows God as three separate beings. Alas, nothing seems able to describe this mystery adequately, even in artwork! Yet Jesus confidently taught us, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11). And the Apostle Paul said, “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew . . . but God hath revealed . . . unto us by his Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:7-10).

CHAPTER SIX

Readings From the Inspired Word of God

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for rebuking error, for correcting faults, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17, KJV and TEV)

THE following Scriptural references are a compilation of numerous Biblical texts which state Jesus was the SON of God—not God Himself. The fervent prayer is offered that this study will be a valuable aid to those seeking to know the true identity of our Lord and Master, Christ Jesus. Weigh the evidence with Bible in hand and a prayerful honest heart. By the Lord’s grace, you may come to see the facts long hidden by controlled theology. We are no longer a “voice crying in the wilderness” on the “doctrine of Christ.” Many voices are now being raised together with clear Bible readings to depict the harmony of the Bible on the nature of the man Christ Jesus.

Please notice that the verses cited also contain typical Trinitarian “proof” scriptures, as well as those of our own persuasion. Most of the quotations are self-explanatory when one realizes the simple truth, that Jesus was God’s only begotten son—a Lord and a god—above all angels, who sits at the right hand of God. This should become obvious as one objectively reads the presentations below in their entirety.

Italicized words indicate the author’s emphasis to help the reader “key in” on the main points. Sometimes a brief comment is supplied to emphasize the scriptural point of logic. “A good honest heart” is the prerequisite of every true Christian. (See Luke 8:15, RSV.) In Jesus’ time, many did not follow their hearts, because they asked, “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48). Of yet another class we read, “Many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42, 43). We must be honest to God and to our own hearts be true.

All the citations are from the King James Bible.

Exodus 33:20 “And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” (Many saw Jesus’ face and lived; therefore, how could Jesus be God?) Compare John 5:36.

Psalms 110:1 “The Lord [Yahweh or Jehovah] said unto my [David’s] Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (We note here that the instructions were given by the Father [Jehovah] to the Son [David’s Lord]; this order is never reversed in Scripture, with the Father always preeminent. See p. 7 for comments on Matt. 22:42-43, wherein Jesus discourses with the Jews on the meaning of Ps. 110:1.)

Proverbs 8:22-30 “The Lord possessed [created, see Strong’s] me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: when he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” See Rev. 3:14.

Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God [El, Strong’s, #410, ‘strength, mighty, Almighty,’ applicable ‘to any deity’], The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Christ is appropriately called “Father” from the standpoint of his becoming the second Adam—lifegiver to the race—and “source of eternal salvation” (1 Cor. 15:47; Heb. 5:9). Christ is no longer a branch (receiver) but the “root” (giver of life) in the regeneration (Rev. 22:16; Matt. 19:28).

Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (God does not give His glory to another. In contrast, Jesus invites the saints to share his glory as a bride.) See Romans 6:3-6; 8:17, 18; Col. 3:4; 1 John 3:2.

Dan. 7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.”

Matt. 3:17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (We note that it was the Father, speaking from heaven, who indicated His good pleasure in His Son upon the earth. Jesus always strove to be pleasing to his Father, to carry out His will, and to receive His commendation and approval. The Scriptures never reverse this relationship, always giving the Father the preeminence.)

Matt. 4:1 “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” (James 1:13 states “God cannot be tempted!”) See Luke 4:1, 2, 13.

Matt. 10:40 “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

Matt. 16:16 “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matt 17:5 “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

Matt. 18:10 “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

Matt. 20:23 “And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup . . . but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Jesus lacked authority in this matter.)

Matt. 24:36 “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (This demonstrates that God and Jesus are not equal in knowledge!) See also John 7:16; 12:50; 17:8.

Matt. 26:39 “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (This verse implies Jesus had one will and his Father had another. Two different wills imply two different beings!) See also Matt. 26:42; John 5:19-22.

Matt. 27:46 “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, La-ma sa-bach-tha-ni? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” ( If Jesus were God . . . had he forsaken himself? Is this logical? Clearly, Jesus was speaking to another being, his Father.)

Matt. 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Jesus was given power not previously possessed.)

Mark 1:24 “What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” (The unclean spirit knew Jesus was not God but rather the Holy One of God.)

Mark 12:36 “For David himself said by the Holy Ghost [Spirit], The Lord [Jehovah] said to my [David’s] Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Hebrews 1:13 identifies the Lord Jesus as the one who sits on the right hand of the Lord God.)

Luke 2:49 “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

Luke 2:52 “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (How and why should Jesus increase in favor with himself?)

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son [many manuscripts read "only begotten God"], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (The following verses confirm that Jesus died for our sins! Rom. 5:10; Romans 14:9; Acts 3:15; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5, 18; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 4:9, 14; Rev. 5:9)

John 3:34, 35 “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.“

John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”

John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (Jesus was seeking another being’s will—not his own!)

John 5:37 “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.“

John 6:38 “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (Two wills—two beings.)

John 7:16-18 “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.”

John 8:17-19 “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” (Note there was no third witness—only the Father and the Son. Jesus omits the holy Spirit. Why?)

John 8:42-44 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”

John 10:29 “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. (Note John 17:21, 22.) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (This would have been the perfect place to state that he was, indeed, God the Father.)

John 14:1 “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (An unnecessary injunction for those who believe in the Trinity.)

John 14:20 “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (Would this make Jesus’ disciples a part of the Trinity? Shown here is the oneness of the family of God—not a oneness of person, but oneness of purpose and will.) Compare John 17:21-22.

John 14:28 “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (How can the Father be greater than Jesus, if Jesus and his Father are equal? Admittedly, some Trinitarians recognize Christ was inferior in flesh. Even so, then his sacrifice on the cross was less than God. How could Jesus in flesh be “co-equal” with God?) See 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3.

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

John 17:11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (If Christ’s true followers are to be “one” as are God and Jesus, could that oneness be anything more than “oneness” of purpose and will? Could we be a part of the Trinity? See also John 17:21-23.)

John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” (Jesus had a God and brethren. God has no God and no brethren!) See Eph. 1:17; Rev. 3:12; Mark 15:34; 1 Cor. 15:24 (Rotherham’s).

Acts 3:15 “And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” (Isn’t it logical to conclude the one that was dead is separate from the One who raised him from the dead?) See 1 Cor. 15:12-21; Acts 2:24; 5:30; 7:56; 13:34 and Col. 2:12.

Acts 7:55, 56 “But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost [Spirit], looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (God and Jesus are twice depicted separately. Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit” but did not see the holy Spirit. God and Jesus were not everywhere either, but Jesus was “standing on the right hand of God” in heaven.)

Acts 12:22 “And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god [theos], and not of a man.” (King Herod was referred to as “[a] god”— “a” is supplied by translators and is not in the text. This is the same Greek word for god [theos] which in other places is used of Christ. It is defined as “gods, objects of worship, judges,” and is used variously to depict Jehovah, Satan, the saints, and idols, as well as Christ.) See also Acts 28:6—in reference to Paul.

Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost [Spirit] hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (God is a Spirit and Spirits do not have flesh and blood [Luke 24:39]. Rotherham reads: “With the blood of his own [son]“; Revised Standard Version, footnote: “With the blood of his own son”; Barclay: “At the price of the blood of his own One.”) See also Marshall’s Diaglott and Concordant.

Rom. 8:11 “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” See Rom. 4:24; 7:4.

Rom. 8:17 “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” (Could Christ be his own heir? How, then, could we be joint-heirs with him?)

Rom. 8:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

Rom. 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

1 Cor. 8:5, 6 “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (All things are OF the Father and BY the son. Jesus is the agent of God.) Compare Heb. 1:1, 2; John 1:2, 3; Col. 1:16, 17; Gen. 1:26.

1 Cor. 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (God, Christ, man and woman are all separate entities.)

1 Cor. 15:27, 28 “For he [God] hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [God] is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (These verses distinguish two separate beings: namely, the Father and His son. How could God place all things under His feet to subdue all things, and then later become subject to Himself? This defies reason.)

Eph. 1:20-22 “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.”

Eph. 3:9, 10 “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” (If Jesus was God incarnate, what possible reason would God have had to create all things from the beginning of time by Jesus Christ?)

Eph. 4:6 “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (One God and Father of “all”—the “all” includes Jesus.)

Philip. 2:5, 6 “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Revised Standard Version: “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Can anyone try to be equal with himself? Rather, Jesus did not strive by vainglory to grasp God’s preeminence.)

Philip. 2:8 “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death.” (If Jesus were God, who would God have to become obedient to? No one! Therefore, this must be another entity, namely, his only begotten Son, clearly distinguishable from the Heavenly Father.)

Col. 1:13-17 “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

1 Tim. 2:5-6 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (A mediator is one who endeavors to reconcile two opposing parties. Could Christ be God and still mediate between God and men? Ransom here means a “corresponding price.” How could a God-man be the exact equivalent of the perfect man Adam?)

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [hos, who] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (Nearly all ancient MSS, and all the versions have “He who,” [referring to Christ] instead of “God,” in this passage. Sir Isaac Newton wrote a paper stating that this verse is a false reading. The Concordant Bible, p.18: “In the Sinaitic there can be no doubt that it originally read ‘who.’ A late corrector has added ‘God’ above the line.”)

Heb. 1:2-5 “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” (If Jesus was God, how could he have “by inheritance obtain[ed] a more excellent name?” Clearly, one does not inherit that which he already possesses!)

Heb. 1:8, 9 “But unto the Son he [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy [Jesus’] God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (What “fellows” was Jesus anointed above? Two Gods are involved here—the greater, Yahweh, anointing the lesser, Jesus. This exaltation of Jesus takes place after he demonstrates he “loved righteousness” and “hated iniquity.” No one contests that Jesus is a God. Remember, the greater always anoints the lesser, as is here demonstrated.)

Heb. 2:10 “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (God the Father has always been perfect and did not require the experience of suffering to crystallize His character. Jesus, by way of contrast, did require this development.)

Heb. 5:7, 8 “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered.” (Again, Father vs. Son, clear-cut distinctions are very evident. The Father did not need to learn obedience; His Son did. In his distress, Jesus prayed to his Father for strength and grace; it is never the other way around.)

Heb. 9:14 “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (If Christ was God incarnate, is it reasonable that he should offer himself to himself?)

Heb. 9:24 “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” (Jesus functions as our Advocate before the Father.)

Heb. 11:17-19 “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it is said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.” (In this scenario, Abraham was a type of God, and Isaac represented Christ. Abraham thus pictured God’s willingness to sacrifice His Son, Christ, to provide the ransom (John 3:16). Just as in the figure Isaac was not Abraham, so Christ must be distinguished from God as a separate being.) See Gal. 3:29; 4:28.

James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (If Jesus was tempted, as in Matthew 4:1, and God cannot be tempted, clearly they must be two distinct and separate entities.)

1 Pet. 1:19-21 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.”

2 Pet. 1:17 “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Whose voice was this? Was God pleased with Himself or His Son?)

1 John 3:1 “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” (We are sons of God, NOT the sons of Jesus. Note carefully this distinction. We are brothers of Jesus, NOT of God. The Church is never referred to as God’s brethren! Hebrews 2:11, 12; Romans 8:29).

1 John 4:2, 3 “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (Could Christ in the flesh be half-human and half-divine? This is what Cerinthus, a heretical teacher in the early Church, taught! Does the Trinity come dangerously close to this teaching? Isn’t this a strong basis for doubt of the Trinity?)

1 John 4:12-16 “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (Men did see Jesus, but not God. Those who love one another in Christ are privileged to share a similar relationship with God as does Jesus. Do you confess Jesus was God or the Son of God?)

1 John 5:7-8 “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Words in brackets are spurious! They are not retained by any manuscripts of earlier date than the seventh century and are not in the Revised Version. One hundred and twelve of the oldest manuscripts do not retain them. Trinity thus loses its supposed main Scriptural support.)

Rev. 1:1 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him [Jesus Christ], to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

Rev. 1:5, 6 “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”

Rev. 2:27 “And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” (Jesus’ kingdom authority is received from the Father.)

Rev. 3:12 “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” (Jesus, in resurrected glory, retains his relationship to his God and Father, highly honored but always subordinate.)

Rev. 3:14 “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (Could God be the beginning of his own creation? Clearly, you cannot create yourself! Refer to Col. 1:15 and then compare God not having a beginning. Ps. 41:13; 90:1-2.)

Rev. 3:21 “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Jesus did not have a throne co-eternal with the Father. Only after overcoming was he enthroned, and thus also will it be with his followers.)

Rev. 5:12 “Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” (You receive power, etc., from another, not from yourself! Why or how could you give yourself something you already possess?)

CHAPTER SEVEN

Views of the Early Church Fathers

“To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and for whom we live; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and through whom we live.” (1 Cor. 8:6, KJV and NIV)

If Jesus taught and revealed himself to be an uncreated “God the Son” rather than the Son of God, it should have been universally accepted by our early Church brethren. Their writings should show the Trinity to be understood and developed from the very start of the Apostolic Era. The fundamental doctrines of the Church were not to be originated by those following the Apostles. God did not give further revelations after their passing. (See Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 John 9, NAS.)

The doctrine of the Trinity, defined over a 264-year period from The Council of Nice in A.D. 325 to The Third Synod at Toledo in A.D. 589, states that there are three distinct persons of the same spiritual nature—The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It is claimed that all three persons are uncreated and share in omnipotence, making them one. Therefore, the Trinity fails once it can be established that (1) There was a time when the uncreated Father was alone, (2) The Son, Jesus, was produced from the first creative act of God, and (3) The holy Spirit is not a person, but the power, the energy or force used by God (and in this sense is also uncreated).

Let’s examine what the students of the Apostles, their friends, peers and subsequent students had to say between A.D. 96–A.D. 320. We present these historical readings, not as a foundation for Truth, but simply to show that these early Christians had not come to believe in the Trinity. To those who feel comfortable going to the fourth and fifth centuries to establish this doctrine, we wish them well, but we cannot leave the Apostolic Era to come over to them. Biblically and historically, this early period is just too important to abandon. We submit the following:

Clement of Rome: according to many Christian writers before the Nicene Council, he is the Clement of Philippians 4:3. He was an elder in the Rome congregation from about A.D. 92-101. His Corinthian Epistle, written about A.D. 96, was held in high esteem, considered by many to be equal to the writings of the Apostles and was frequently used in their Sunday meetings. He was born about A.D. 30 and died about A.D. 100.

“We know you alone are ‘highest among highest’ . . . You have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved son, through whom you have instructed, sanctified and honored us. . . . Let all nations know that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your son and that we are your people.” To The Corinthians, Chap. 59, vs. 3, 4.

Ignatius of Antioch: was surnamed “Theophorus,” meaning “God-bearer,” because of his gentle, kindly nature. He was an elder at the Antioch, Syria, congregation and was a student of the Apostle John. His authentic writings, being the short version of his seven epistles, were written about A.D. 110. He was born about A.D. 50 and was martyred A.D. 116.

“There is one God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ, His son, who being His Word, came forth out of the silence into the world and won full approval of Him whose ambassador he was.” To the Magnesians, Chap. 8, vs. 2.

“. . . who also really rose from the dead, since his Father raised him up,—his Father who will likewise raise us also who believe in Him through Jesus Christ, apart from whom we have no real life.” To The Trallians, Chap. 9, vs. 2.

“You are well established in love through the Blood of Christ and firmly believe in our Lord. He is really ‘of the line of David according to the flesh’ and the son of God by the will and power of God.” To The Smyrnaeans, Chap. 1, vs. 1.

Polycarp: born about A.D. 69, was also a student of the Apostle John, as well as a close friend of Ignatius of Antioch. He was an elder at the congregation in Smyrna, Asia Minor, and wrote his Philippian epistle before A.D. 140. He was burned at the stake February 23, 155.

“Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Eternal Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the son of God, build you up in faith and truth.” To The Philippians, Chap.12, vs. 2.

“. . . to Him who is able to bring us all in His grace and bounty, to His Heavenly Kingdom, by His only-begotten child, Jesus Christ, be glory, honor, might and majesty forever.” Martyrdom, Chap. 20, vs. 2.

Justin: called “Martyr” because of his martyrdom in A.D. 166, was born about A.D. 107 in Rome. He was a heathen philosopher converted to Christianity about A.D. 130. His first work, Dialogue with Trypho, was written in A.D. 135 as Trypho, a Jew, was fleeing Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt. He wrote between A.D. 135 until just before his beheading.

“God begat before all creatures a Beginning who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the holy spirit now ‘The Glory of the Lord,’ now ‘The Son,’ again ‘Wisdom,’ again ‘an Angel,’ then ‘God,’ then ‘Lord’ and ‘Logos;’ and on another occasion he calls himself ‘Captain.’” Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. 61.

“We follow the only unbegotten God through His Son.” First Apology, Chap. 14.

“We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God.” First Apology, Chap. 22.

“The Father of all is unbegotten . . . And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word . . . was with Him and was begotten before the world. . . .” Second Apology, Chap. 6.

Tatian: born in Assyria about A.D. 110, was a student of Justin Martyr. He wrote the earliest Bible commentary of the four Gospels known to exist. Sometime he became the leader of the Encratite sect of the Gnostics. Despite this, his writings give a semi-fair view of Christian doctrines. He wrote between A.D. 161-170 and died about A.D. 172.

“The Lord of the Universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone. . . . And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain becomes the first-begotten work of the Father and was the beginning of the world.” To The Greeks, Chap. 5.

Melito: born about A.D. 110, was an elder at Sardis, Asia Minor, from about A.D. 160-170 and a friend of Ignatius of Antioch as a young child. He wrote between A.D. 165-70 and was martyred A.D. 177. Only small fragments exist.

“There is that which really exists and it is called God . . . This being is in no sense made, nor did He come into being, but has existed from eternity.” Apology 1: To Antonius Caesar.

“Jesus Christ . . . is perfect Reason, the Word of God, he who was begotten before the light, he who is creator together with the Father.” Apology 4: On Faith.

Theophilus of Antioch: was born about A.D. 130 and was an elder at Antioch, Syria, around A.D. 170-180. He wrote before A.D. 175 and died A.D. 181.

“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own womb begat him, emitting him along with His own Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by him He created all things.” To Autolychus, Chap. 10.

Athenagoras: born in Athens of heathen parents in A.D. 134 wrote his work “Defense for the Christians” in A.D. 176 and presented it to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, a fierce persecutor of Christians, in A.D. 177. He died A.D. 190.

“We acknowledge one God uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, illimitable . . . by whom the universe has been created through His Logos and set in order . . . I say ‘His Logos’ for we acknowledge also a Son of God . . . He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity endowed with spiritual reason, coming forth as the idea and energy of all material things.” Defense for the Christians, Chap. 10.

Irenaeus: one of the most recognized early Christians, was born A.D. 140 and was a student of Polycarp. He was an elder at the Lyons, France, congregation from A.D. 178. He was well known throughout the Western world of the time. He died in France A.D. 202. His writings can be dated from about A.D. 180.

“If anyone, therefore, says to us, ‘How, then, was the Son produced by the Father?’ we reply to him, that no one understands that production, or generation . . . no powers possess this knowledge but the Father only who begat and the Son who was begotten.” Against Heresies, Book 2, Chap. 28, vs. 6.

Clement of Alexandria: born Titus Flavius Clemens A.D. 150, was born, raised and became an elder at Alexandria, Egypt. He wrote between A.D. 190-195 and died about A.D. 220. His writings are valuable because once he was converted to Christianity, he traveled throughout the Roman Empire to learn pure Christianity from the oldest and most respected Christians alive.

“The best thing on earth is the most pious: perfect man; and the best thing in heaven, the next and purer in place, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature of the Son, which is next to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect.” Miscellanies, Book 7, Chap. 2.

“He [Jesus] commences his teaching with this: turning the pupil to God, the good, and first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the Son, who received it of Him, gives to us.” Salvation Of The Rich Man, Chap. 6.

Tertullian: was born in Carthage, Tunisia A.D. 160, of Libyan descent and a distant relative of Arius. His writings began about A.D. 190, about 10 years before he joined the Montanist sect of Christianity, who believed in continuing revelation [speaking in tongues, healing , etc.] and a life of asceticism. He continued writing until about A.D. 210 and died A.D. 230 in Carthage, where he was also an elder.

“Before all things God was alone—being in Himself and for Himself . . . the Word was in the beginning with God although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient . . . For although God had not yet delivered His Word, He still had him within Himself . . . Now, while He was actually thus planning and arranging with His own reason, He was actually bringing forth the Word.” Against Praxeas, Chap. 5.

“The Word, no doubt, was before all things. ‘In the beginning was the Word’; and in that beginning he was sent forth by the Father. The father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have order or rank.” Against Praxeas, Chap. 5.

Hippolytus: born about A.D. 160, was a student of Irenaeus. He wrote about A.D. 220, dying August 13, 235, after being banished to the Mediterranean island of Sardinia.

“If therefore, all things are put under him [Jesus] with the exception of Him [God] who put them under him, he is the Lord of all and the Father is Lord of him . . . And this indeed is said by Christ himself, as when in the Gospel he confessed Him to be his Father and his God. . . . He [Jesus] did not say, ‘I and the Father am one,’ but ‘are one.’ For the word ‘are’ is not said of one person, but refers to two persons and one power. He has himself made this clear when he spoke to his Father concerning his disciples [in John 17:22-3] . . . For Christ had spoken of himself and showed himself among all to be as the Son . . . And as the author and fellow-counsellor and framer of the things that are in formation He begat the Word . . . He sent him forth to the world as Lord . . . And thus, there appeared another beside himself . . . For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom comes this power, the Word . . . and was manifested as the Son of God. All things, then, are by Him and He alone is the Father.” Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, Chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11.

Origen: born of Christian parents A.D. 185 in Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was the most prolific of all early Christian writers. Trained by Clement of Alexandria, he was elected elder at the age of 18 when Clement had to flee for his life. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith.

“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.” Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2.

Novatian: who was born about A.D. 200 is known for his work that was posthumously titled Commentary on the Trinity. It was written about A.D. 240, 18 years before his death in 258.

“God the Father and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning . . . when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born . . . But now, whatever he is, he is not of himself because he is not unborn, but he is of the Father, because he is begotten . . . he owes his existence to the Father . . . He therefore is god, but begotten for this special result, that he should be god. He is also the Lord, but born for this very purpose of the Father, that he might be Lord. He is also an Angel, but he was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the great counsel of God . . . God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His son himself whom He begot.” Commentary on the Trinity, Chap 31.

Arnobius: born A.D. 253 in Sicca, Algeria, was first an enemy of Christianity. When converted, he became a teacher to many new Christians in the West. He wrote Against the Heathen about A.D. 300 and died about A.D. 327.

“We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme King and Head, under our master, Christ . . . O greatest, O Supreme Creator of all things invisible . . . You are illimitable, unbegotten, immortal, enduring for age, God yourself alone, whom no bodily shape may represent, no outline delineate . . . ‘Is that Christ of yours a god, then?’ some raving, wrathful and excited man will say. A god, we will reply, and a god of the powers of heaven, and—what may still further torture unbelievers with the most bitter pains—he was sent to us by the King Supreme for a purpose of the very highest order.” Against The Heathen, Book 1, Chaps. 27, 31, 42.

Lactantius: Lucius Coelius Firmianus Lactantius, born in Rome A.D. 260, was a student of Arnobius. He was the teacher of Emperor Constantine’s oldest son, Crispus. His work entitled The Divine Institutes was written about A.D. 320. Eventually moving to France, he died about A.D. 330.

“God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name.” The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6

Summary and Conclusions

Some 1600 years have passed since the Trinity was forged. In all that time, no one has been able to provide a clear and logical statement of it. It has begged an explanation in every age. Oddly enough, no scholar or groups of scholars have been able to coin a clear and workable formula that is an acceptable standard for all time. Every explanation is flawed and needs more theology to clarify it. Endeavors at clarification, more often than not, lead into a labyrinth of words with the fog-level index going out of sight. And there we would be left—hopelessly lost and struggling for truth.

The Trinitarians paradoxically operate on two levels. When reading or quoting the Bible, both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians sound alike. Both refer to the same verses, and their readings are similar. As long as the Bible is adhered to, they are hard to tell apart. But when the Bible is departed from and philosophical arguments are introduced, a wide gap soon appears. Because the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, and not of statement, it can be sustained only as long as it is continually inferred from the Bible. Whenever the Scriptures are merely read and quoted, the Trinity loses ground. Hence, every so often, the doctrine must be “injected” into the consciousness of the hearers lest they forget. The Trinity has to be piped into Scripture before it can be piped out.

Everyone knows you do not get cider from cotton. Yet, in fact, you can squeeze cider from cotton. However, you must first soak the cotton with cider, and then, lo, and behold, you can squeeze cider from cotton. That is how you may extract the Trinity doctrine from the Bible. First, saturate the Bible texts to be used with the concept; then squeeze it out. That is why Dr. Pelikan, who has been called “perhaps the foremost living student of Church history,” said, in effect, no one could find the Trinity by just reading the New Testament (see p. 8). You need the theologians to superimpose their theology upon the Word before you can find it there.

In our brief consideration of this subject, we have found the Scriptures unequivocally teach that “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Cor. 8:6). These are the two great personalities of the Bible, with the holy Spirit an expression of their power and influence. The Father, always supreme and preeminent, exists “from everlasting to everlasting.” The Son, the direct creation of the Father, was highly exalted for his faithfulness in becoming the world’s redeemer; yet he always remains in harmony with and in submission to his Father’s will.

It was also shown that Trinity as a concept was an integral part of heathen religions many centuries prior to Christianity. The idea was borrowed by some later theologians, who, during the third to the fifth centuries, developed it into a basic dogma of the Christian religion. The gradual emergence of the Trinity doctrine is freely acknowledged by most historians, attested by its lack of Scriptural support and demonstrated by the evolving sequence of the basic creeds of the faith.

Hence, rather than being pure truth taught by Jesus and his Apostles, the Trinity turns out to be Church dogma arising gradually from the philosophy of men who attempted to fuse certain heathen and Christian ideas together. It required many years to fashion and shape it against the objections of many of the outstanding leaders of the early Church, as we have noted. In the end, the effort prevailed, a doctrinal theory was created, and it was given the blessing of orthodoxy by official Church councils. Yet all of this does not make it valid, for eternal truth is not the handiwork of man but stems only from our immortal and all-wise God.

We opened this treatise with a discussion of the “doctrine of Christ.” We found this to mean that Jesus had come in the flesh and died in the flesh. It holds that he was the “Anointed” of God, anointed King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and also the abiding Melchizedek priest. He is the glorious Bridegroom for whom the Heavenly Father is selecting a bride during this Gospel age. As Christians, we hope to be joined with our Master in the marriage of the Bride and the Lamb. No Christian can anticipate marriage to God, but only to God’s dear Son. In another figure, he is the vine and we are the branches (John 15:5). And in yet another, he is the head of the body of Christ of which the faithful believers are members (Col. 1:18). In contrast, God is spoken of as being “the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3).

Repeating our opening text, 2 John 9 (RSV)— “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.” The lesson is clear. We cannot have access to the Father apart from the doctrine of Christ—that he is the Anointed One of God. When we accept the singular personhood of Jesus as God’s Anointed, then by addition, we have two—both the Father and the Son. Let us then abide in the doctrine of Christ. In so doing we shall have the extravagant blessing of having both the “Father and the Son”—and that is everything!

The Trinity was a theological attempt at fusion. Somehow, with the incantation of words, the effort was made to fuse God, Jesus and the holy Spirit into one. We get the feeling, sometimes, that many scholars wish they had not done this, but like the leaning Tower of Pisa, it will just have to remain a religious wonder until it falls of its own weight and imbalance due to an unscriptural foundation.

A comment…

To Those Who Have Ears . . .One of my main fields of study has been the paganization of the early church, exactly how far this process extended and whether it was malignant or benign. I have done some research on this topic, and I have discovered something, which I believe must be publicized. The “secret doctrine” of the ancient mystery cults, according to Cardinal Newman, was “perpetuated” in the “early Councils.”1 The “secret doctrine,” according to other sources, e.g. Alexander Hislop, etc., was, in its simplest terms, the doctrine of the triunity of God:

“Now, viewed in this light,” Hislop wrote, “the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal faith. First, there is the head of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for “the seed”; and lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove; showing, though blasphemously, the unity of Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost. While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib’s time, yet there is evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation . . . .”2

Also central to the secret doctrine was the doctrine of the equality and even the identity of the Father and the Son:

“This lamented one,” Hislop went on, speaking of the basic Babylonian myth of Nimrod, Ninus and Semiramis, the father, son and mother of the Babylonian trinity, “exhibited and adored as a little child in his mother’s arms, seems, in point of fact to have been the husband of Semiramis, whose name, Ninus, by which he is commonly known in classical history, literally signified ‘The Son’ . . . . Now, this Ninus, or ‘Son,’ borne in the arms of the Babylonian Madonna, is so described as very clearly to identify him with Nimrod . . . . Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that assumption itself . . . . Thus, then, looking at the fact that Ninus is currently made by antiquity the son of Belus, or Bel, when we have seen that the historical Bel is Cush, the identity of Ninus and Nimrod is still further confirmed . . . .”3

When the languages of the world were confounded at the Tower of Babel, this “mystery Babylon,” according to Hislop, spread all over the world and formed the basis of the various mysteries such as those of Dionysus, Eleusis, the Phrygian mysteries, the cults of Adonis and the Egyptian mysteries (hence the apostolic expression, “mother of harlots”4. The names varied according to locality, but the underlying “mystery” did not change:

“In every case [of the mystery cults] there is a basic pair of deities dissimilar in rank. Of these two, the female figure embodies fertility itself, whereas her male companion (who is intended to portray fecundity, the result of fertility, i.e., the abundant growth of plants and animals) is represented sometimes as her son, sometimes as her lover, and hence exhibits a peculiar hybrid character.”5

It is easy to recognize in this description the basic elements-Nimrod the rebellious father, Semiramis the lascivious “Queen of heaven” and Ninus the illegitimate, incestuous son-of the pagan trinity, the “mystery of iniquity,” as described by Hislop. The “peculiar hybrid character” of the male deity corresponds to the Babylonian maxim, “Ninus is Nimrod,” referring to the “miraculous” replacement of the dead father, Nimrod, by the bastard, Ninus, who becomes his mother’s husband and thus exhibits the “peculiar hybrid character” of son-lover. It is easy to see, in other words, that the data in the New Catholic Encyclopedia corroborates both Hislop and Newman concerning the identity of “mystery Babylon.” Three weighty authorities, two Catholic and one Protestant, thus agree in regard to “mystery Babylon,” and these three authorities base their scholarship in turn on many other specialists in ancient civilization. We can, therefore, presume that additional research will simply bear out past research and that we can be confident that “MYSTERY BABYLON” has been identified.

“If it be inquired what was the object and design of these ancient “Mysteries,” it will be found that there was a wonderful analogy between them and the “Mystery of iniquity” which is embodied in the Church of Rome . . . . These Mysteries were long shrouded in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the “Mysteries” occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all essential respects these “Mysteries” in the different countries were the same.”6

Here Hislop is just echoing the previous quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia to the effect that the basic trinitarian pattern is ubiquitous in paganism. When Newman says that the secret doctrine was “perpetuated” in the “early Councils,” what he is saying is that the Alexandrian faction at Nicaea, long noted for their gnosticizing tendencies,7 cast the secret doctrine, or “MYSTERY BABYLON,” in Biblical terms, though it took some wrenching to do this:

“The decisions of Nicaea,” according to Henry Bettenson, “were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms ek ths ousias ["of the substance"] and homoousias ["of the same substance"] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism [i.e. tending to exaggerate the divinity of Yeshua to the point that the distinction between the Father and the Son ceased to exist] and erroneous metaphysically.”8

This wrenching at Nicaea immediately led to 50 years of war, followed by recurrent storms throughout history up to the present. Thus, the secret doctrine was preserved or “perpetuated,” unbeknownst to any but the elite initiates into the mysteries. Newman’s entire book, in fact, incredible as it may seem, defends Nicene orthodoxy, the very centerpiece of Roman Catholicism and much of Protestantism, on this basis! There had always been certain striking resemblances between Biblical and pagan religion, but there had always been certain critical differences, too. When the Apostolic faith came along in antiquity, the pagan priests, feeling mortally threatened, sought to efface the differences between pagan and Biblical religion. Paganism, according to E. L. Woodward, “could only rival Christianity by using the methods and even the doctrines of the church, and . . . These new elements could never really attach themselves to the old pagan foundations.”9 This statement by Woodward is extremely important to understanding what really happened in and after the Trinitarian Controversy of the fourth century. Now that we can see what the secret doctrine was, clearly it is evident that an attempt was made at Nicaea, contrary to the objections of many, to bridge the gap between “the old pagan foundations” and the new Apostolic faith, to effect a compromise, and that the hue and cry that followed was and is simply the inability, as Woodward put it, of the “new elements” to “attach themselves to the old pagan foundations.”

The “secret doctrine,” therefore, was foisted on the bishops at Nicaea and possibly on Constantine as well by the so-called “orthodox” fathers, e.g. Ossius (Hosius), bishop of Cordova, Spain, who was Constantine’s key religious advisor, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria and opponent of Arius the presbyter, Athanasius, Alexander’s successor, etc. Nimrod, Zeus, Osiris, Baal, etc., were all lumped together to become “the Father.” Hislop also explains how “the Mother” or “Queen of heaven,” Isis, Hera, Astarte, etc., came to be identified as “Mary,” the “Mother of God” and the Holy Spirit, and the place of “the Son,” otherwise known as Ninus, Apollo, Horus, Bel, etc., was taken, of course, by “Ye-Zeus,” i.e. “Jesus.” The infamous “homoousion,” which was the cause of so much “strife about words,” was simply the translation of the basic pagan doctrine that “Ninus is Nimrod,” i.e. the son is (of the same “substance” or “essential being”10 as) the father. With a relatively small amount of manipulation and subsequent dissent, the Biblical data was forced at Nicaea into the foreign mold of the secret doctrine creating a perfect, though monstrous, marriage of Biblical and anti-Messianic elements which had the double “virtue” of not provoking a wholesale revolt by the faithful and reconciling pagans with the mushrooming new religion from the Middle East. The secret doctrine, “MYSTERY BABYLON,” the “doctrine of the Nicolaitans,” the “mystery of iniquity” and “anti-Messiah” apparently are all terms for the same thing.

What Newman is really saying, therefore, is that the secret doctrine, which is really “MYSTERY BABYLON,” was and is the basis of the very trinitarian or “triunitarian” dogma which continues to predominate in most Christian denominations, including Messianic Judaism. Not only is it the basis of trinitarian dogma: It is trinitarian dogma. The pagans had no problem with changing the names of the gods whenever it suited them. It was no great hurdle, then, to annex the New Testament terminology so long as the critical elements and spirit under the surface continued to advance the basic pagan agenda, following the Tower of Babel, of world domination and control, irrespective of, or rather in opposition to, the Kingdom of Yah’weh. “Constantine,” as Newman put it, “in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own.”11 The heathen world possessed traditions, Newman wrote, “too ancient to be rejected and too sacred to be used in popular theology.”12 The doctrine of the trinity, he said, was:

A “shadow,” a “representation, . . . necessarily imperfect, as being exhibited in a foreign medium, and therefore involving apparent inconsistencies or mysteries;” it was given to the Church by “oral” tradition “contemporaneously with those apostolic writings, which are addressed more directly to the heart;” but it was “kept in the background in the infancy of Christianity, when faith and reason being disproportionately developed, and aiming at sovereignty in the province of religion, its presence became necessary to expel an usurping idol from the house of God.”13

Here, in his oblique way, Newman names the secret doctrine of which he had been speaking. It is the doctrine of the trinity, which comes, not from the Bible nor even from Judaism but from the “dispensation of paganism”-the mystery cults. Here Hislop and Newman are in agreement; they both identify the secret doctrine as the same thing. First, in the “infancy of Christianity,” this “mystery” was in the background, viz. in the pagan mystery cults. Later, when the opportunity arose, when there were no more Apostles around to speak authoritatively against it, it leapt into the mainstream of Christianity and has been there ever since. Far from expelling an usurping idol, it was and is an usurping idol-the very idolatry from which all the other idols came.

Just as the devil told Chava (”Eve”) that it was ok to eat of the forbidden fruit, today he is still secretly trying to trick people into eating of the forbidden fruit of “MYSTERY BABYLON” by confusing it with Biblical faith. According to the Apostles, however, the idols of the pagans are “demons,” and “you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons . . . .”14 So likewise today, it is still a fatal mistake to subscribe to both trinitarian or “triunitarian” dogma and the doctrine of the Apostles. They are two different things, as different as night and day. The basic doctrine of Biblical Christianity or “Messianic Judaism” is that “Yah’weh is our God, Yah’weh is one,” which does not mean three or “triune” or “plural,” and that the Messiah Yeshua is the yachid (unique, one-of-a-kind, beloved) Son of Yah’weh. That Yeshua did not claim to be Yah’weh is abundantly clear in the New Testament. He claimed to be one with Yah’weh. There is a difference between being someone and being one with someone. Yeshua said he was “in” the Father, and the Father was “in” him,15 just as all believers are “in” Yeshua and Yeshua is “in” all believers.16 There is a sense, then, in which believers are Yeshua and a sense in which they are not. If believers express their oneness with Yeshua wrongly, if they claim to be the Messiah in the sense of taking his place rather than obeying him, they may be guilty of spiritual aggression, a kind of ambition contrary to Godliness. Indeed, they may not even be believers but have a wrong spirit. The same kind of spiritual aggression or ambition is fostered by the dogmatic notion of the “deity” of Yeshua, not taking into account all the pertinent scriptures and projecting the idea that Yeshua is “God” in an aggressive, ambitious sense rather than in the correct sense in which the term “God” is applied to Yeshua in the New Testament. This aggressive ambition to take Yah’weh’s place comes from the enemy, i.e. Satan, not from scripture, and trinitarian dogma, alias “MYSTERY BABYLON,” is Satan’s hidden way of promoting his agenda of “[sitting] as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”17 The “head” of the Messiah is Yah’weh.18 “My Father is greater than I,”19 Yeshua said. The same “God” who is our God is also the “God” of Yeshua.20 These and many other pertinent scriptures which highlight the inequality of the Father and the Son are being hidden in the dark cloud of trinitarian dogma in Messianic Judaism today just as they have been suppressed in Christianity ever since the monstrous “early Councils” of the fourth century. The question might also be asked: How can God be eternally triune when He will be “all in all” when the Son in the end “delivers the kingdom to God the Father”?21 When Yah’weh is “all in all,” there won’t be anything but Yah’weh. So Yah’weh in the end is not “triune” or “plural.” He is echad, one, or first, and echad does not mean “triune.”

The scarlet beast under the whore in Rev 17:3 is “full of blasphemous names.” The mysteries and their gods, therefore, are blasphemous. How much more, then, is the mother, the source, of these mysteries and gods, “MYSTERY BABYLON,” blasphemous, so much so that the name on the forehead of the whore, “ BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH,” is written in all capital letters in the New Testament. So long as trinitarian dogma continues to be a predominant membership standard in contemporary Messianic Judaism, not to mention Christianity, “MYSTERY BABYLON” continues to be written on its forehead, and Messianic/Christian organizations continue to be in the infernal “whore” of Rev 17-18. When the “voice from heaven” says, “Come out of her, my people,”22 what this means for us today is that we must replace trinitarian dogma in Messianic and Christian membership standards with the fundamental Biblical principles of the deity and oneness of the Father and the acceptance of the Messiah Yeshua as the yachid (unique, one-of-a-kind, beloved) Son of Yah’weh, the “Word,” as described in the prologue of the book of Yohanan, the “image of Yah’weh,”23 and so forth, according to the scriptures, but “Babylonian” expressions such as “God the Son,” “fully God and fully man,” the “deity” of Yeshua, the “triunity” of God, etc., which are not found expressly in scripture, must be eliminated. These are the “accursed Babylonian garments” hidden in our midst, which, like the accursed Babylonian garments in the time of the conquest of the promised land under Yehoshua (Joshua),24 will only bring us defeat and misery in the form of the “sins” and the “plagues” of the iniquitous “whore” in the perilous days ahead and which, like those ancient Babylonian abominations, must be burned and buried. Only in this way can we elevate the Word to its proper place, viz. the “head,” in contemporary Messianic Judaism and Christianity, and put “mystery Babylon” in its proper place, viz. the garbage heap, even the “Gehenna” of “unquenchable fire.”25

Skip notes. Jump to the Grand Finale!

Notes

1. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century (Westminster, MD, 1968), p. 55

2. Rev. Alexander Hislop, Two Babylons (London, 1932), p. 18-19

3. Hislop, pp. 22-23, 25 and 28-29 (emphasis mine)

4. Rev 17:5

5. “Greco-Oriental Mystery Religions” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), pp. 155-156

6. Hislop, pp. 5 and 12

7. Cf. John C. Dwyer, Church History (New York, 1985), pp. 80-81

8. Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 41. See also Dan Juster, “The Christological Dogma of NicaeaCGreek or Jewish?” in Mishkan 1:1 (Jan 84?), p. 51, in regard to the “docetic” tendencies and other weaknesses of the Nicene formula

9. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire (London, 1916), p. 10

10. J. F. Bethune-Baker, B.D., The Meaning of Homoousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed (London, 1901), pp. 60-61

11. Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 352

12. Newman, Arians, p. 91

13. Newman, Arians, p. 145

14. 1 Cor 10:30 (RSV)

15. Jn 14:10

16. Jn 14:20

17. 2 Th 2:4

18. 1 Cor 11:3

19. Jn 14:28

20. Jn 20:17

21. 1 Cor 15:24

22. Rev 18:4

23. 2 Cor 4:4

24. Cf. Josh 7

25. Mat 3:12, Lk 3:17

The responsibility of being a Christian.

By definition, a follower of Christ. For the majority of professed Christians this changes to, by a narrower definition, a member of a denomination within Christianity.

Baptists believe this. Church of God believes that. Lutherans believe the other. The individual Church creeds and doctrines have been established over the years with or without reference to the Holy Scriptures as seen fit by the church elders in manufacturing the individual church statement of belief.

There is a common thread in Christianity, who origins go back to the post apostolic church in Rome. This church, established to connect all the diversity of religion, under the banner of Rome and nominally asserted to be Christian, was not Christian in itself or its leaders. Consequently and subsequently, The Catholic church became THE church called Christian. All Protestant denominations and their core doctrinal beliefs, are derived from the Church in Rome, despite separation in years past.

My research with regard to modern Christianity has led me to conclusively believe that there are a number of existing doctrinal issues that have a verifiable starting place in recorded history, and have no biblical connection, and as such, have no place in the hearts and minds of Christs followers.

I no longer argue semantics or word discrepancies or Bible translation errors where history can clearly define the infiltration of a pagan practice into true worship. It makes argument post insertion redundant.

It must be stated here, that the Doctrines I refer to are not minor issues. These are the CORE BELIEFS of modern Christianity. With due respect to the believers of what I refer to, I offer information that can be verified with a little effort on your part. In days gone by, information was gathered by researchers such as myself by visiting countries and universities and writing Bible scholars to collect information. In this day and age, most, if not all of the information van be obtained from the Internet.

My reason for writing this article, is not to promote a denomination or sect or creed. I believe that the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, and as such has been the subject of a very successful counter attack within Christianity by the demonic forces who wish to ruin every individuals relationship with God. What better way than to lay a foundation of untruth and deception and have it accepted as Biblical truth and practiced by the majority of Christians centuries later.

It’s a hard thing to find validity in history that contradicts your belief in church and creed. I know first hand how many years it took me to accept I was following inspired utterances of demons and men rather than the word of God.

I wish to print here an excerpt from a dissertation I received earlier regarding the origins of the Trinity. The Author David Kembal-Cook has a Cert H.E. in Theology from the Open Theological College, a Theological Studies Diploma, and a Religious Studies Certificate from Bible Way Training Institute. He has a first class degree in mathematics and philosophy from Oxford University and a doctorate in economics from London Business School. My reason for mentioning his academic credentials is merely to point out that David along with other scholars has a proven ability for detailed research.

I understand David will be asked to leave his church because of publishing the research material.

I have copies his book in pdf format which will be made available shortly for free.

The post-apostolic church (90-140AD)

The period following the Apostolic Church is sometimes known as that of the

Apostolic Fathers. They include Clement of Rome (perhaps the same Clement

as the Bishop of Rome at that time), Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch), Polycarp

(Bishop of Smyrna), Papias, Hermas and the anonymous author(s) of the

Didache. They are termed ‘apostolic’ because it is believed that they either knew

or derived their teaching from the apostles. Therefore this period is an

important one when considering questions of doctrine.

David Bernard, in Oneness and Trinity, AD100-300, analyses ancient Christian

writings to try to determine the extent to which the early church can be said to

be Trinitarian. There are two questions:

1. Whether it was believed that God was one person, as opposed to three persons

2. Whether it was believed that Jesus Christ was God

Bernard believes that there is good evidence that some at least of the Apostolic

Fathers would not dissent from the non-Trinitarian, or ‘oneness’, belief that God

is one and not three. He suggests that passages in their writings that suggest a

Trinitarian position maybe either:

(a) elaborations of New Testament passages which are capable of being

interpreted in a oneness light (for instance Mathew 28:19); or

(b) later additions, alterations or interpolations (for instance from the fourth

century).

In I Clement, Clement writes from Rome to Corinth (to urge the Corinthians to

think again, after they had deposed their leaders). Bernard identifies the

emphasis that Clement places upon the singular name of God. He notes that

only two sentences could be seen to imply a Trinity. One of these is

reminiscent of Ephesians 4:4-6, where the key thought is the three ways in

which God can be known, and does not imply the classical Trinity. The other

passage exists only in one Greek manuscript (datedAD1056) and is missing

from the other one.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (martyred c AD 115) is known for his passionate

emphasis upon the divinity of Christ. He stated that ‘Christ was truly God’ and

spoke about ‘Jesus Christ our God’, ‘the Blood of God’, ‘God existing in flesh’.

He also wrote of God being manifested in human form, and ‘There is one God,

Who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word’

Bernard points out that along with 7 genuine letters of Ignatius there are 6

spurious ones dating from the fourth century and 3 from the twelfth century,

and that there are passages in the spurious ones that attempt to credit him with

Trinitarian sayings. Furthermore there are long versions of his letters which

appear to be filled with fourth century interpolations, some of which add

Trinitarian-sounding glosses to the original (‘medium’) version. Trinitarian-

sounding passages in his (genuine) letters can be accounted for as parallel to

New Testament scriptures such as 2 Corinthian13:14 or John 1:14. The study

of Ignatius indicates that:

1. Ignatius would, if faced with a choice, declare for non-Trinitarian belief.

2. Later writers were keen to disguise Ignatius’ true beliefs and to portray him as a

Trinitarian.

The Didache is particularly relevant because it contains the first so-called

Trinitarian formula for baptism outside the New Testament, using the words of

Mathew28:19 ‘… to baptize into the name of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Spirit’

Some Trinitarian scholars have claimed that the Didache is as early as AD 35-60,

and therefore predates some New Testament writings. If true, this would give

support to the view that the apostolic church was Trinitarian in belief.

However most scholars place the Didache in the period AD70-11016. Bernard quotes

other studies which question the reliability of the document as a guide to

apostolic beliefs and practices, mentioning the likelihood of changes in the 900

years between its date of writing and the only surviving copy dated 1056, and

also the mention of practices (such as fasting before baptism) which are not

biblical. The prayers are addressed to the Father, not to the Father, Son and

Holy Spirit.

In any case, the use of a baptismal formula based on Mathew 28:19 is not conclusive for Trinitarian belief for this period. The Didache itself (Bernard notes) also refers to baptism into the name (singular) of the Lord, and the same passage refers to the Lord as Jesus.

The dissertation is full of verifiable historical information regarding this subject.

Faith must be built on sound and accurate taking in of knowledge.

Over to you.

Predestination or Free Will

There are few subjects that manage to affect the majority of mankind more than the issue of Predestination. Major Eastern religions have based their whole theology on predestination and reincarnation. Now more and more, the issue is coming to the fore with sections of the Christian community. I present the following work of which I was a very minor contributor in the 70’s for thoughtful reflection.

My colleague L. Ray Smith on his web www.bible-truths.com holds the conviction that man does not have a free will in the sense of the word. He presented the premise that God is the sole creator of evil from the outset and is the sole director of every single step action and thought of man. Prior to presenting the main article, I have a small treatise dealing with my (and others) findings regarding the creation of evil.

I wish to state at the outset, that the differences presented between researchers work, is one of the results of human interpretation and understanding. Bible research is fraught with underlying problems, not least, translation issues. Using connections between scriptures is risky without viewing the whole picture. That said, The Divine God will make the truth known as he see fit and correct us in his time. For the mistakes made, we humbly ask his forgiveness.

The name JEHOVAH is used throughout the main text to singularly differentiate GOD from general terms such as God or Lord which may or not apply to others.

Did God create Evil?

Predestination asserts that the Creator did and quotes JOHN 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”

I will come to the contextual use of this shortly.

EZEKIEL 28:12

“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries . . .” (NIV)

True, Satan is never mentioned by name in this passage. There are some clues in Ezekiel 28 that identify the entities being spoken of here. The chapter starts with God’s proclamation against the “Prince of Tyre” (v. 2). This prince is proud and says, “I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods” (v. 2). These words appear to mirror what Paul says about the “Man of Sin” (2 The. 2:4).

Ezekiel 28:11, this one addressed by God to the “King of Tyre.” However, because of the things said about this king, it is seems clear that God is not speaking to a mere man. This king is the one who will give his authority to the Prince of Tyre at the end of the age (Rev. 13:2). This king would appear to be paralleled with the ancient dragon, Satan. ( I accept that the King of Tyre may be a composite of all the rulers who disobeyed God, yet the link seems too strong to ignore.)

What I get from this commentary, is that Satan was resident in the Garden BEFORE Adam and Eve and was in good standing until the defiant episode with Eve.

This verse: “14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.” Indicates to me that Satan was created as a beautiful creature who became enamored with himself. “17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.”

As to the reasons why Satan fell?

I looked at GENESIS 1:26 Then God ['elohim] said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God ['elohim] created man in His own image; in the image of God ['elohim] He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God ['elohim] blessed them, and God ['elohim] said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (NKJV)

Well I TIMOTHY 3:6 Not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. (NKJV) in talking about appointing church elders and deacons makes this curious unbacked up statement. Pride? condemned as the devil?

A little research would show this interesting fact.

PSALM 8:4 What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? 5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen — even the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas. (NKJV)

So here was man, lower than the angels, yet had COMPLETE dominion over all the earth. The beautiful angel might have felt slighted, after all, man was lower than him!

Ezekiel 28:16 tells us that Satan was filled with violence and sinned through his “widespread trade.” The Hebrew word rendered “trade” in Ezekiel 28:16 is rekullatekha; it is a form of the noun rekulla, which means “merchandise” or “traffic.” However, rekulla is derived from the root word rakal, which means “to go about.” A closely-related derivative, rakil, means “slanderer.” In the New Testament, Satan is often called the “devil,” or diabolos in Greek. Not coincidentally, the literal meaning of diabolos and its variations is also “slanderer.”

The account of Satan in Ezekiel 28 probably involves aspects of both “merchandising” and “slander.” The Scriptures imply that Satan, likely through peddling his slander, turned one-third of the angelic host against God (Rev. 12:3-4). It’s not hard to imagine that Satan went around to the angels, seeking to build support for his contention that they were far better qualified to run the earth than mankind was. It was through this slanderous “merchandising” that Satan became filled with violence against humanity.

Now here is supposition on my part. If the postulations above are in keeping with the scriptures, Satan developed a plan to take over his “rightful place” as ruler of the earth and seduced Eve with his words.

Contextually GENESIS 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (NKJV)

Satan did not outright LIE to Eve, he twisted words and meaning. He placed doubt.

Satans tactics did not lead him to gain the advantage he desired, and put right the “mistake” God made.. God was less than pleased.

He got cursed and from that day on has been the adversary of mankind

JOHN 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (NASU)

“The beginning” spoken of by God appears to refer to the beginning of God’s plan, when mankind was in the Garden of Eden before the fall (Gen. 2). “The beginning” here is not referring to Satan’s creation, because it appears God originally made him perfect within the context of earthly understanding of perfection. (Eze. 28:15; Gen. 1:31).

Predestination

Foreknowledge means knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists; also called prescience. In the Bible it relates primarily, though not exclusively, to Jehovah God the Creator and his purposes. Foreordination means the ordaining, decreeing, or determining of something beforehand; or the quality or state of being foreordained.

Original-Language Words. The words generally translated as “foreknow,” “foreknowledge,” and “foreordain” are found in the Christian Greek Scriptures, although the same basic ideas are expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

“Foreknowledge” translates the Greek pro´gno·sis (from pro, before, and gno´sis, knowledge). (Ac 2:23; 1Pe 1:2) The related verb pro·gi·no´sko is used in two cases with regard to humans: in Paul’s statement that certain Jews were “previously acquainted” with him (knew him beforehand), and in Peter’s reference to the “advance knowledge” had by those addressed in his second letter. (Ac 26:4, 5; 2Pe 3:17) In this latter case it is obvious that such foreknowledge was not infinite; that is, it did not mean that those Christians knew all the details of time, place, and circumstance about the future events and conditions Peter had discussed. But they did have a general outline of what to expect, received as a result of God’s inspiration of Peter and of other contributors to the Bible.

“Foreordain” translates the Greek pro·o·ri´zo (from pro, before, and ho·ri´zo, mark out or set the bounds). (The English word “horizon” transliterates the Greek word ho·ri´zon, meaning the “bounding” or “limiting.”) Illustrating the sense of the Greek verb ho·ri´zo is Jesus Christ’s statement that, as “the Son of man,” he was “going his way according to what [was] marked out [ho·ri·sme´non].” Paul said that God had “decreed [marked out, ho·ri´sas] the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of men.” (Lu 22:22; Ac 17:26) The same verb is used of human determination, as when the disciples “determined [ho´ri·san]” to send relief to their needy brothers. (Ac 11:29) However, specific references to foreordaining in the Christian Greek Scriptures are applied only to God.

Factors to Recognize. To understand the matter of foreknowledge and foreordination as relating to God, certain factors necessarily must be recognized.

First, God’s ability to foreknow and foreordain is clearly stated in the Bible. Jehovah himself sets forth as proof of his Godship this ability to foreknow and foreordain events of salvation and deliverance, as well as acts of judgment and punishment, and then to bring such events to fulfillment. His chosen people are witnesses of these facts. (Isa 44:6-9; 48:3-8) Such divine foreknowledge and foreordination form the basis for all true prophecy. (Isa 42:9; Jer 50:45; Am 3:7,8 ) God challenges the nations opposing his people to furnish proof of the godship they claim for their mighty ones and their idol-gods, calling on them to do so by foretelling similar acts of salvation or judgment and then bringing them to pass. Their impotence in this respect demonstrates their idols to be ‘mere wind and unreality.’—Isa 41:1-10, 21-29; 43:9-15; 45:20, 21.)

A second factor to be considered is the free moral agency of God’s intelligent creatures. The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27;) Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures.

A third factor that must be considered, one sometimes overlooked, is that of God’s moral standards and qualities, including his justice, honesty, impartiality, love, mercy, and kindness. Any understanding of God’s use of the powers of foreknowledge and foreordination must therefore harmonize with not only some of these factors but with all of them. Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, so that God is able to call “things that are not as though they were.”—Ro 4:17.

Does God know in advance everything that people will do?

The question then arises: Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?

Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus.—1Co 2:16.

Predestinarian view. The view that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.

To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3, 4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.

This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.

If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.

Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.

Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.

Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.

Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.

To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.

Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.

In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.

Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Re 22:17.

The Things Foreknown and Foreordained. Throughout the Bible record, God’s exercise of foreknowledge and foreordination is consistently tied in with his own purposes and will. “To purpose” means to set something before oneself as an aim or an object to be attained. (The Greek word pro´the·sis, translated “purpose,” means, literally, “something placed or set forth before.”) Since God’s purposes are certain of accomplishment, he can foreknow the results, the ultimate realization of his purposes, and can foreordain them as well as the steps he may see fit to take to accomplish them. (Isa 14:24-27) Thus, Jehovah is spoken of as ‘forming’ or ‘fashioning’ (from the Hebrew ya·tsar´, related to the word for “potter” [Jer 18:4]) his purpose concerning future events or actions. (2Ki 19:25; Isa 46:11; compare Isa 45:9-13, 18.) As the Great Potter, God “operates all things according to the way his will counsels,” in harmony with his purpose (Eph 1:11), and “makes all his works cooperate together” for the good of those loving him. (Ro 8:28) It is, therefore, specifically in connection with his own foreordained purposes that God tells “from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done.”—Isa 46:9-13.

When God created the first human pair they were perfect, and God could look upon the result of all his creative work and find it “very good.” (Ge 1:26, 31; De 32:4) Instead of distrustfully concerning himself with what the human pair’s future actions would be, the record says that he “proceeded to rest.” (Ge 2:2) He could do so since, by virtue of his almightiness and his supreme wisdom, no future action, circumstance, or contingency could possibly present an insurmountable obstacle or an irremediable problem to block the realization of his sovereign purpose. (2Ch 20:6; Isa 14:27; Da 4:35) There is, therefore, no Scriptural basis for the argument of predestinarianism that for God to refrain from exercising his powers of foreknowledge in this way would jeopardize God’s purposes, making them “always liable to be broken through want of foresight, and [that] he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the contingence of the actions of moral agents.” Nor would this selective exercise of foresight give his creatures the power to “break [God’s] measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him into confusion,” as predestinarians claim. (M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, 1894, Vol. VIII, p. 556) If even God’s earthly servants have no real need to be “anxious about the next day,” it follows that their Creator, to whom mighty nations are as “a drop from a bucket,” neither had nor has such anxiety.—Mt 6:34; Isa 40:15.

Concerning classes of persons. Cases are also presented in which God did foreknow the course that certain groups, nations, or the majority of mankind would take, and thus he foretold the basic course of their future actions and foreordained what corresponding action he would take regarding them. However, such foreknowledge or foreordination does not deprive the individuals within such collective groups or divisions of mankind of exercising free choice as to the particular course they will follow. This can be seen from the following examples:

Prior to the Flood of Noah’s day, Jehovah announced his purpose to bring about this act of destruction, resulting in loss of human as well as animal life. The Biblical account shows, however, that such divine determination was made after the conditions developed that called for such action, including violence and other badness. Additionally, God, who is able to “know the heart of the sons of mankind,” made examination and found that “every inclination of the thoughts of [mankind’s] heart was only bad all the time.” (2Ch 6:30; Ge 6:5) Yet individuals, Noah and his family, gained God’s favor and escaped destruction.—Ge 6:7, 8; 7:1.

Similarly, although God gave the nation of Israel the opportunity to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” by keeping his covenant, yet some 40 years later, when the nation was at the borders of the Promised Land, Jehovah foretold that they would break his covenant and, as a nation, would be forsaken by him. This foreknowledge was not without prior basis, however, as national insubordination and rebellion already had been revealed. Hence, God said: “For I well know their inclination that they are developing today before I bring them into the land about which I have sworn.” (Ex 19:6; De 31:16-18, 21; Ps 81:10-13) The results to which such manifest inclination would now lead in the way of increased wickedness could be foreknown by God without its making him responsible for such conditions, even as one’s foreknowing that a certain structure built of inferior materials and with shoddy workmanship will deteriorate does not make that one responsible for such deterioration. The divine rule governs that ‘what is sown is what will be reaped.’ (Ga 6:7-9; compare Ho 10:12, 13.) Certain prophets delivered prophetic warnings of God’s foreordained expressions of judgment, all of which had basis in already existing conditions and heart attitudes. (Ps 7:8, 9; Pr 11:19; Jer 11:20) Here again, however, individuals could and did respond to God’s counsel, reproof, and warnings and so merited his favor.—Jer 21:8, 9; Eze 33:1-20.

God’s Son, who also could read the hearts of men (Mt 9:4; Mr 2:8; Joh 2:24, 25), was divinely endowed with powers of foreknowledge and foretold future conditions, events, and expressions of divine judgment. He foretold the judgment of Gehenna for the scribes and Pharisees as a class (Mt 23:15, 33) but did not say thereby that each individual Pharisee or scribe was foredoomed to destruction, as the case of the apostle Paul shows. (Ac 26:4, 5) Jesus predicted woes for unrepentant Jerusalem and other cities, but he did not indicate that his Father had foreordained that each individual of those cities should so suffer. (Mt 11:20-23; Lu 19:41-44; 21:20, 21) He also foreknew what mankind’s inclination and heart attitude would lead to and foretold the conditions that would have developed among mankind by the time of “the conclusion of the system of things,” as well as the outworkings of God’s own purposes. (Mt 24:3, 7-14, 21, 22) Jesus’ apostles likewise declared prophecies manifesting God’s foreknowledge of certain classes, such as the “antichrist” (1Jo 2:18, 19; 2Jo 7), and also the end to which such classes are foreordained.—2Th 2:3-12; 2Pe 2:1-3; Jude 4.

Concerning individuals. In addition to foreknowledge concerning classes, certain individuals are specifically involved in divine forecasts. These include Esau and Jacob (mentioned earlier), the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Samson, Solomon, Josiah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, John the Baptizer, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son Jesus.

In the cases of Samson, Jeremiah, and John the Baptizer, Jehovah exercised foreknowledge prior to their birth. This foreknowledge, however, did not specify what their final destiny would be. Rather, on the basis of such foreknowledge, Jehovah foreordained that Samson should live according to the Nazirite vow and should initiate the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, that Jeremiah should serve as a prophet, and that John the Baptizer should do a preparatory work as a forerunner of the Messiah. (Jg 13:3-5; Jer 1:5; Lu 1:13-17) While highly favored by such privileges, this did not guarantee their gaining eternal salvation or even that they would remain faithful until death (although all three did). Thus, Jehovah foretold that one of David’s many sons would be named Solomon and he foreordained that Solomon would be used to build the temple. (2Sa 7:12, 13; 1Ki 6:12; 1Ch 22:6-19) However, though favored in this way and even privileged to write certain books of the Holy Scriptures, Solomon nevertheless fell into apostasy in his later years.—1Ki 11:4, 9-11.

Likewise with Esau and Jacob, God’s foreknowledge did not fix their eternal destinies but, rather, determined, or foreordained, which of the national groups descending from the two sons would gain a dominant position over the other. (Ge 25:23-26) This foreseen dominance also pointed to the gaining of the right of the firstborn by Jacob, a right that brought along with it the privilege of being in the line of descent through which the Abrahamic “seed” would come. (Ge 27:29; 28:13, 14) By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations. Nor are divinely assigned privileges to be dispensed solely on the basis of works, which might allow a person to feel he has ‘earned the right’ to such privileges and that they are ‘owed to him.’ The apostle Paul stressed this point in showing why God, by undeserved kindness, could grant to the Gentile nations privileges once seemingly reserved for Israel.—Ro 9:1-6, 10-13, 30-32.

Paul’s quotations concerning Jehovah’s ‘love for Jacob [Israel] and his hatred for Esau [Edom]’ comes from Malachi 1:2, 3, written long after Jacob and Esau’s time. So the Bible does not necessarily say that Jehovah held such opinion of the twins before their birth. It is a scientifically established fact that much of a child’s general disposition and temperament is determined at the time of conception because of the genetic factors contributed by each parent. That God can see such factors is self-evident; David speaks of Jehovah as seeing “even the embryo of me.” (Ps 139:14-16; see also Ec 11:5.) To what extent such divine insight affected Jehovah’s foreordination concerning the two boys cannot be said, but at any rate, his choice of Jacob over Esau did not of itself doom Esau or his descendants, the Edomites, to destruction. Even individuals from among the accursed Canaanites gained the privilege of association with God’s covenant people and received blessings. (Ge 9:25-27; Jos 9:27;) The “change of mind” that Esau earnestly sought with tears, however, was only an unsuccessful attempt to change his father Isaac’s decision that the firstborn’s special blessing should remain entirely with Jacob. Hence, this indicated no repentance before God on Esau’s part as to his materialistic attitude.—Ge 27:32-34; Heb 12:16, 17.

Jehovah’s prophecy concerning Josiah called for some descendant of David to be so named, and it foretold his acting against false worship in the city of Bethel. (1Ki 13:1, 2) Over three centuries later a king so named fulfilled this prophecy. (2Ki 22:1; 23:15, 16) On the other hand, he failed to heed “the words of Necho from the mouth of God,” and this led to his being killed. (2Ch 35:20-24) Hence, while foreknown by God and foreordained to do a particular work, Josiah was still a free moral agent able to choose to heed or disregard advice.

Similarly, Jehovah foretold nearly two centuries beforehand that he would use a conqueror named Cyrus to effect the release of the Jews from Babylon. (Isa 44:26-28; 45:1-6) But the Persian to whom that name eventually was given in fulfillment of divine prophecy is not stated in the Bible to have become a genuine worshiper of Jehovah, and secular history shows him continuing his worship of false gods.

These cases of foreknowledge prior to the individual’s birth thus do not conflict with God’s revealed qualities and announced standards. Nor is there any indication that God coerced the individuals to act against their own will. In the cases of Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son, there is no evidence that Jehovah’s foreknowledge was exercised prior to the person’s coming into existence. Within these individual cases certain principles are illustrated, bearing on God’s foreknowledge and foreordination.

One such principle is God’s testing of individuals by causing or allowing certain circumstances or events, or by causing such individuals to hear his inspired messages, the result being that they are obliged to exercise their free choice to make a decision and thus reveal a definite heart attitude, read by Jehovah. (Pr 15:11; 1Pe 1:6, 7; Heb 4:12, 13) According to the way the individuals respond, God can also mold them in the course they have selected of their own volition. (1Ch 28:9; Ps 33:13-15; 139:1-4, 23, 24) Thus, “the heart of earthling man” first inclines toward a certain way before Jehovah does the directing of the steps of such a one. (Pr 16:9; Ps 51:10) Under testing, one’s heart condition can become fixed, either hardened in unrighteousness and rebellion or made firm in unbreakable devotion to Jehovah God and the doing of his will. (Job 2:3-10; Jer 18:11, 12; Ro 2:4-11; Heb 3:7-10, 12-15) Having reached such a point of his own choice, the end result of the individual’s course can now be foreknown and foretold with no injustice and no violation of man’s free moral agency.—Compare Job 34:10-12.

The case of faithful Abraham, already discussed, illustrates these principles. A contrasting case is that of the unresponsive Pharaoh of the Exodus. Jehovah foreknew that Pharaoh would refuse permission for the Israelites to leave “except by a strong hand” (Ex 3:19, 20), and he foreordained the plague resulting in the death of the firstborn. (Ex 4:22, 23) The apostle Paul’s discussion of God’s dealings with Pharaoh is often incorrectly understood to mean that God arbitrarily hardens the heart of individuals according to his foreordained purpose, without regard for the individual’s prior inclination, or heart attitude. (Ro 9:14-18) Likewise, according to many translations, God advised Moses that he would “harden [Pharaoh’s] heart.” (Ex 4:21; compare Ex 9:12; 10:1, 27.) However, some translations render the Hebrew account to read that Jehovah “let [Pharaoh’s] heart wax bold” (Ro); “let [Pharaoh’s] heart become obstinate.” (NW) In support of such rendering, the appendix to Rotherham’s translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that “even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission.” Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives “caused the male children to live,” whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M. M. Kalisch, H. F. W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharaoh is that “God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart—spared him—gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all.”—The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa 10:5-7.

Corroborating this understanding is the fact that the record definitely shows that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart.” (Ex 8:15, 32, KJ) He thus exercised his own will and followed his own stubborn inclination, the results of which inclination Jehovah accurately foresaw and predicted. The repeated opportunities given him by Jehovah obliged Pharaoh to make decisions, and in doing so he became hardened in his attitude. (Compare Ec 8:11, 12.) As the apostle Paul shows by quoting Exodus 9:16, Jehovah allowed the matter to develop in this way to the full length of ten plagues in order to make manifest his own power and cause his name to be made known earth wide.—Ro 9:17, 18.

Did God predestine Judas to betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy?

The traitorous course of Judas Iscariot fulfilled divine prophecy and demonstrated Jehovah’s foreknowledge as well as that of his Son. (Ps 41:9; 55:12, 13; 109:8; Ac 1:16-20) Yet it cannot be said that God foreordained or predestinated Judas himself to such a course. The prophecies foretold that some intimate acquaintance of Jesus would be his betrayer, but they did not specify which of those sharing such acquaintance it would be. Again, Bible principles rule against God’s having foreordained Judas’ actions. The divine standard stated by the apostle is: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.” (1Ti 5:22; compare 3:6.) Evidencing his concern that the selection of his 12 apostles be wisely and properly made, Jesus spent the night in prayer to his Father before making known his decision. (Lu 6:12-16) If Judas were already divinely foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God’s direction and guidance and, according to the rule, would make him a sharer in the sins that one committed.

Thus, it seems evident that at the time of his being selected as an apostle, Judas’ heart presented no definite evidence of a treasonous attitude. He allowed a ‘poisonous root to spring up’ and defile him, resulting in his deviation and in his accepting, not God’s direction, but the Devil’s leading in a course of thievery and treachery. (Heb 12:14, 15; Joh 13:2; Ac 1:24, 25; Jas 1:14, 15.) By the time such deviation reached a certain point, Jesus himself could read Judas’ heart and foretell his betrayal.—Joh 13:10, 11.

True, in the account at John 6:64, on the occasion of some disciples stumbling over certain teachings of Jesus, we read that “from the beginning [“from the outset,” JB] Jesus knew who were the ones not believing and who was the one that would betray him.” While the word “beginning” (Gr., ar·khe´) is used at 2 Peter 3:4 to refer to the start of creation, it can also refer to other times. (Lu 1:2; Joh 15:27) For example, when the apostle Peter spoke of the holy spirit falling on Gentiles “just as it did also upon us in the beginning,” he obviously was not referring to the beginning of his discipleship or apostleship but to an important point in his ministry, the day of Pentecost, 33 C.E., “the beginning” of the outpouring of the holy spirit for a certain purpose. (Ac 11:15; 2:1-4) It is therefore interesting to note this comment on John 6:64 in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (p. 227): “Beginning . . . means not, metaphysically from the beginning of all things, . . . nor from the beginning of His [Jesus’] acquaintance with each one, . . . nor from the beginning of His collecting of the disciples around Him, or the beginning of His Messianic ministry, . . . but from the first secret germs of unbelief [that produced the stumbling of some disciples]. So also He knew His betrayer from the beginning.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976; compare 1Jo 3:8, 11, 12.

Foreordination of the Messiah. Jehovah God foreknew and foretold the Messiah’s sufferings, the death he would undergo, and his subsequent resurrection. (Ac 2:22, 23, 30, 31; 3:18; 1Pe 1:10, 11) The realization of things determined by God’s exercise of such foreknowledge depended in part upon God’s own exercise of power and in part upon the actions of men. (Ac 4:27, 28) Such men, however, willingly allowed themselves to be overreached by God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil. (Joh 8:42-44; Ac 7:51-54) Hence, even as Christians in Paul’s day were “not ignorant of [Satan’s] designs,” God foresaw the wicked desires and methods the Devil would devise against Jesus Christ, God’s Anointed One. (2Co 2:11) Obviously, God’s power could also thwart or even block any attacks or attempts upon the Messiah that did not conform to the manner or time prophesied.—Compare Mt 16:21; Lu 4:28-30; 9:51; Joh 7:1, 6-8; 8:59.

The apostle Peter’s statement that Christ, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, was “foreknown before the founding [form of Greek ka·ta·bo·le´] of the world [ko´smou]” is construed by advocates of predestinarianism to mean that God exercised such foreknowledge before mankind’s creation. (1Pe 1:19, 20) The Greek word ka·ta·bo·le´, translated “founding,” literally means “a throwing down” and can refer to the ‘conceiving of seed,’ as at Hebrews 11:11. While there was “the founding” of a world of mankind when God created the first human pair, as is shown at Hebrews 4:3, 4, that pair thereafter forfeited their position as children of God. (Ge 3:22-24; Ro 5:12) Yet, by God’s undeserved kindness, they were allowed to conceive seed and produce offspring, one of whom is specifically shown in the Bible to have gained God’s favor and placed himself in position for redemption and salvation, namely, Abel. (Ge 4:1, 2; Heb 11:4) It is noteworthy that at Luke 11:49-51 Jesus refers to “the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world” and parallels this with the words “from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah.” Thus, Abel is connected by Jesus with “the founding of the world.”

The Messiah, or Christ, was to be the promised Seed through whom all righteous persons of all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Ga 3:8, 14) The first mention of such “seed” came after the rebellion in Eden had already been initiated, but prior to the birth of Abel. (Ge 3:15) This was some 4,000 years before the revelation of “the sacred secret” was made by the clear identification of that Messianic “seed.” Hence, it was, indeed, “kept in silence for long-lasting times.”—Ro 16:25-27; Eph 1:8-10; 3:4-11.

In his due time Jehovah God assigned his own firstborn Son to fulfill the prophesied role of the “seed” and become the Messiah. There is nothing to show that that Son was “predestined” to such a role even before his creation or before rebellion broke out in Eden. God’s eventual selection of him as the one charged with fulfilling the prophecies likewise was not made without prior basis. The period of intimate association between God and his Son previous to the Son’s being sent to earth undoubtedly resulted in Jehovah’s ‘knowing’ his Son to an extent that He could be certain of his Son’s faithful fulfillment of the prophetic promises and pictures.—Compare Ro 15:5; Php 2:5-8; Mt 11:27; Joh 10:14, 15).

Foreordination of the ‘called and chosen.’ There remain those texts that deal with the Christian “called ones,” or “chosen ones.” (Jude 1; Mt 24:24) They are described as “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God” (1Pe 1:1, 2), ‘chosen before the founding of the world,’ ‘foreordained to the adoption as sons of God’ (Eph 1:3-5, 11), ‘selected from the beginning for salvation and called to this very destiny’ (2Th 2:13, 14). The understanding of these texts depends upon whether they refer to the foreordination of certain individual persons or whether they describe the foreordination of a class of persons.Eph 1:22, 23; 2:19-22; Heb 3:1, 5, 6.

If these words apply to specific individuals as foreordained to eternal salvation, then it follows that those individuals could never prove unfaithful or fail in their calling, for God’s foreknowledge of them could not prove inaccurate and his foreordination of them to a certain destiny could never miscarry or be thwarted. Yet the same apostles who were inspired to write the foregoing words showed that some who were “bought” and “sanctified” by the blood of Christ’s ransom sacrifice and who had “tasted the heavenly free gift” and “become partakers of holy spirit . . . and powers of the coming system of things” would fall away beyond repentance and bring destruction upon themselves. (2Pe 2:1, 2, 20-22; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29) The apostles unitedly urged those to whom they wrote: “Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for if you keep on doing these things you will by no means ever fail”; also, “Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (2Pe 1:10, 11; Php 2:12-16) Paul, who was “called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1Co 1:1), obviously did not consider himself individually predestinated to eternal salvation, since he speaks of his strenuous efforts in striving to attain “the goal for the prize of the upward call of God” (Php 3:8-15) and his concern lest he himself should “become disapproved somehow.”—1Co 9:27.

Similarly, “the crown of life” offered such ones is granted subject to their faithfulness under trial until death. (Re 2:10, 23; Jas 1:12) Their crowns of kingship with God’s Son can be lost. (Re 3:11) The apostle Paul expressed confidence that “the crown of righteousness” was “reserved” for him, but he only did so when he was certain that he was nearing the end of his course, having “run [it] to the finish.”—2Ti 4:6-8.

On the other hand, viewed as applying to a class, to the Christian congregation, or “holy nation” of called ones as a whole (1Pe 2:9), the texts previously cited would mean that God foreknew and foreordained that such a class (but not the specific individuals forming it) would be produced. Also, these scriptures would mean that he prescribed, or foreordained, the ‘pattern’ to which all those in due time called to be members thereof would have to conform, all of this according to his purpose. (Ro 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-12; 2Ti 1:9, 10) He also foreordained the works such ones would be expected to carry out and their being tested because of the sufferings the world would bring upon them.—Eph 2:10; 1Th 3:3, 4.

Fatalism and Predestinarianism. Among the pagan peoples of ancient times, including the Greeks and Romans, one’s fate, particularly the length of the individual’s life, was often considered to be determined beforehand for all individuals by the gods. Grecian mythology represented the control of men’s destiny by three goddesses: Clotho (spinner), who spun the thread of life; Lachesis (disposer of lots), who determined the length of life; and Atropos (inflexible), who cut life off when the time expired. A similar triad was found among the Roman deities.

According to Jewish historian Josephus (first century C.E.), the Pharisees endeavored to harmonize the idea of fate with their belief in God and with the free moral agency granted to man. (The Jewish War, II, 162, 163 [viii, 14]; Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 13, 14 [i, 3]) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says: “Previous to Augustine [of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.] there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.” Before Augustine, earlier so-called “Church Fathers” such as Justin, Origen, and Irenaeus “know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.” (Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1919, Vol. X, p. 231) In their refutation of Gnosticism, they are described as regularly expressing their belief in the free moral agency of man as “the distinguishing characteristic of human personality, the basis of moral responsibility, a divine gift whereby man might choose that which was well-pleasing to God,” and as speaking of “the autonomy of man and the counsel of God who constraineth not.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by S. Jackson, 1957, Vol. IX, pp. 192, 193. Excerpts from the writings of the WTBTS of New York are reprinted verbatim in the above treatise.

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED: Do the Scriptures support this?

The majority of denominational people today believe that the ordinances and doctrines of their church are Scripturally correct. Such an assumption should not be made until the various doctrines are examined in light of what the Word of God has said on any given subject. Since the Word of God is ALL Authoritative it should be our standard of Investigation. As a balance is used to measure foods and a rule is used to measure lines, the Word of God is the measure by which we should test and try the various doctrines which are presently being taught today.

Since the doctrine of Calvin is taught concerning the Election and the Perseverance of the Saints in many denominational bodies, one must conclude that one is either saved eternally and cannot fall from the Grace of God or that one is lost eternally and cannot come to know the Grace of God. Nothing you do or say or pray for will ever change this fact. In light of such teaching one must ask the question, “IS ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED SCRIPTURAL?”

DOES THIS DOCTRINE AGREE WITH THE SCRIPTURES ?

As we study the Scriptures we shall see clearly that Eternal Life is Conditional and not Unconditional and that it is in the Future.

1. “Take heed … continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself,…” 1 Tim. 4:16

2. “… give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: ….abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter 1:10-11

3. “…, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,….and in the world to come eternal life.” Mk.10:29-30.

4. “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” Romans 6:22

5. “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life,…” 1 Timothy 6:12

6. “…, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Rev.2:10

7. “Blessed {are} they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev.22:14

8. “…; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” Gal.6:8

9. “And ye shall be hated of all {men} for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” Matthew 10:22

10.”And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward {is} with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Rev.22:12

11.”Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21

12.”…, Well done, {thou} good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” Matthew 25:21

{King James Version}

As can be clearly seen from the above scriptures and table, salvation IS CONDITIONAL and in the FUTURE. Should we deem fit to stop here this should convict us that Once Saved Always Saved is NOT taught in the Word of God and that it is another Gospel of which Paul warns; “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-8)

Let us note yet another segment of the Scriptural Conditions upon which one is saved. The very fact should be clear that though one is saved at some point in their lives it is possible for one to lose that condition should one do the following things:

We are saved by God (Isa 12:2, Rom 6:23) but can depart from God (Heb 3:12)

We are saved by the ransom (1tim 1:15) but can deny Jesus (2 Peter 2:1)

We are saved by Faith (Rom 5:1) but can depart from, or deny, or shipwreck or cast off. (1Tim 1:5-6., 4:1., 5:8., 1:19., 5:12.)

The next avenue of our study concerning the conditions of keeping one’s salvation centers on a study of the Word IF.

1. 1Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”

2. Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”

3. Colossians 1:22-23 “In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and {be} not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, {and} which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;”

4. 1John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

5. 2Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

6. John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, {then} are ye my disciples indeed;”

7. John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

8. John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will {my} Father honor.

9. Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

You are saved if Keep in memory

Lords House if You hold fast

You will be holy if Continue in faith

Cleansed by blood if Walk in the light

Never Fall if Do these things

Disciples in deed if Continue in the Word

Eternal Life if Keep the sayings

Father will honor if Serve his son

We shall reap if we faint not

One must recognize that the word IF is conditional. Since this is the fact one must also recognize that one’s status is conditional upon his keeping those conditions laid out by the Lord.

In our last segment of this study let us note from the Scriptures a few things that the child of God can do:

1. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal.5:4

2. “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know {these things} before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.” 2Peter 3:17

3. “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

4. “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 1Corinthians 8:11

5. “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and {your} nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” James 5:12

6. “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and {be} not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, {and} which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made minister;” Colossians 1:23

7. “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2Peter 2:1

8. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” Heb.3:12

9. “But I keep under my body, and bring {it} into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1Corinthians 9:27

From these scriptures we see that a Child of God Can:

Fall from Favor

Be led away with error from the wicked

Err from the truth

Weak brother may perish

Fall into condemnation

Be moved away from hope

Deny Christ

Depart from God

This simply it is an investigation of one of the most commonly held beliefs in religion today. Should you realize that the Scriptures teach something different than what you have believed and held to, then you must either conform your life to God’s Will or stay in your present state hoping that God will understand at the Day of Judgment. It is our prayer that you will conform for life to God’s Way. Remember that nothing suffers from investigation except error.

What matters to God?

ADMIN COMMENT

Strange question considering we have a collection of 66 books outlining the history and direction of Gods people from the creation of man till a short time after Jesus’ resurrection. You would think we would have the answer.

There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world, and about the same number who claim to be Christian of one denomination or another. That leaves just a touch over 4 billion persons of other persuasions out there. One third approximately of the world then claim to be followers of Christ or believers in the Bible.

I have over the years, had the privilege of travel to many countries. During my time in the various countries, I have taken the time to talk with people and visit the museums and religious centers that are held sacred by the respective citizens. It did not take long to see a pattern emerge of convergent beliefs and attitudes between races. Conversely, where one would expect to see similarities, there were huge differences in belief.

The closest similarities in religious affiliation I found strangely enough were between the Hindus and Catholicism.

Historical research conducted later in life, would account for this. More later.

I am not much of a prophecy interpreter. I read the Bible books related to the subject matter, I then read every single piece of information available on the subject, I then collate the information into areas of agreement and disagreement between scholars, and then take the relevant information and trace it through the Bible scriptural references and see where it appears to be in agreement and where the interpretations seems to wander off track. If I do not get a sense of understanding or cohesion from this research, I simply state” I do not know”, and wait for further clarification as it appears.

I simply am not prepared to guess at dates or events in relation to the second coming of Christ and the Biblical tribulation prior to Armageddon. Jesus stated very clearly that no man knows the day or the hour, not even the son, and that is good enough for me.

It would appear that Jesus gave a general account of events that would be a sign of the time. (Matt 24) and a few other comments would seem to place us in the 21st century as possibly being close to events. BUT.. Im not prepared to interpret scripture and state categorically that it is now. My general understanding that we are in end times, but how far along I hesitate to conjecture.

All this aside, the purpose of this brief commentary, is too take a look at where we as individuals are in relationship to God.

All modern Christian denominations derive their teachings in one form or another from the Catholic Church.  History shows the beginnings of christianity as we know it, is different from the Christianity of the Bible. I would not have known had I not been instructed in my teens to research everything I was ever told was truth…and prove it truth.

The Bible teaches: One God with a personal name Jahweh or Jehovah.

One primary creation, one only begotten first born, later to become Jesus the Christ who fulfilled the exchange of ransom for mankind by suffering as a human once and for all time, who redeemed us from the bondage of Adamic sin and eternal death in the grave.

A heavenly spiritual realm filled with different forms of spirit creatures.

A heavenly disagreement between another created angel who came to known as Satan, and the Lord God himself over the right to rule. This disagreement spilled over into the earthly realm right at the beginning of mankinds existence and has blighted the whole earthly creation ever since.

The Bible does not talk about a trinity or triune God head. Neither about eternal Hell for sinners. There is no “once saved always saved”. The need for prophecies and talking in tongues ended with the death of the Apostles and was replaced with the “complete knowledge”, ie the collection of the 66 books made into the Bible for our understanding and education. There is no Rapture mentioned in the Bible. No worship of men or statues or praying to Jesus. There is no obligation for Christians under the Mosaic law to tithe.  There is a mention in the Bible of eternal life on earth for individuals and some who share with Christ in the heavens.

Does your church teach any of the above? Have you taken the time to research each point and prove to yourself that the teachings are valid..or not?

Its easy to sit in church and go with the flow. Nice Pastor and wife, good BBQs on Sunday after the service, nice friendly spirit in the church. I wish we all had that kind of peacefulness, I went to that kind of Church.One day I questioned a couple of things and was told that I should go along with it as that was official policy. (Conversely, As a Church minister, I would be removed from my position if I discussed anything of my researched doubts).

So here I am,  without a church body, without the finances generated by wrong teachings, a lot less financially stable but free to discuss research and biblical truths as above.

Do I have concerns that I might be in error leaving the church body? yes, I often pray to God and ask if I made a mistake in leaving, that I should have stayed within and swallowed the differences I found.

The truth is, I miss the fellowship. I miss my friends. I miss the friendliness. I miss the acceptance of worship within.

I dont miss the wrongful teachings of doctrine that made me anxious and sad.  I dont miss the judgment placed on me that I was not spiritual because of these researched differences.

My colleagues and I write these articles re: doctrinal issues because it is the truth as we find them. There is no ax to grind. God is God and he will correct us as he sees fit if we mislead on purpose or unintentionally. Either way, truth is truth.

So, if there is no trinity, no hell, no once saved always saved, no infant baptism, no tithing, and a whole slew of other things, what matters to God is that YOU take the time to serve him as he wants.

Child Baptism

Tertullian—Baptism of Children in Africa—Origen—First Appearance
of Infant Baptism—The Clinics—Christianity in England.

We are now approaching the development of those corrupting influences which had been at work from the Apostolic age, silently sapping the foundations of personal piety. In adverting to the language employed by Justin Martyr and Ireneus, we endeavoured to clear those authors from the imputation of unevangelical sentiments, and to interpret their expressions in a sound and safe sense. But though it may be possible to hold them guiltless, it is feared that many of their cotemporaries were fairly open to the charge of holding unscriptural opinions. A notion had grown up, that baptism actually accomplished what was professed in it. As the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often bestowed upon believers immediately after their baptism, men began to think that it was then first that the Spirit wrought on the soul. And as the act of obedience to the Saviour in the ordinance was commonly associated with spiritual enjoyments and manifestations, and happy converts, like the eunuch, “went on their way rejoicing,” there were some who came to the conclusion that what was connected with baptism was produced by it. If the convictions that led the candidate to the baptismal water, and impelled him to the act of dedication to the Savior’s service, were greatly strengthened at his baptism, so that he then experienced a more intensely satisfying consciousness of pardon and union with Christ, results were confounded with causes, and the new believer was taught to ascribe to baptism the blessings which he had in fact enjoyed before, but which he realized more vividly when he obeyed the Lord.

This step taken, the transition to yet more perilous errors and evils was easy. When baptism was thus invested with a kind of supernatural power, the outward act was soon substituted for the spiritual qualification. Instead of directing inquirers to the Atonement, and encouraging them to seek by prayer for the teaching and aid of the Holy Spirit, the religious instructions of that age expatiated on the vast powers of baptism. Tertullian, for example, a Christian writer who flourished at the close of the second and the commencement of the third century, “declares the following spiritual blessings to be consequent upon baptism:—remission from sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and participation in the Holy Spirit. He calls it the ‘sacrament of washing,’ the ‘blessed sacrament of water,’ the ‘laver of regeneration.’”¹ When such opinions as these were entertained, is it not evident that the door was open to manifold abuses, and that those who had so far departed from Christian truth, would be likely enough to interfere with Christian worship and obedience?

Tertullian was a native of Carthage in Africa, and spent most of his life in that city. It is supposed that he died about the year 220. His tract, “De Baptismo,” was probably written twenty years before his death. From that tract and from other writings of his, we learn that at the beginning of the third century, there were some strange additions to the ordinance of baptism. The new convert was placed among the catechumens, that he might be fully instructed in the faith. After a sufficient probation he was admitted to baptism. The following account of the manner in which it was administered is taken from the late Bishop of Bristol’s “Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian”:—

“The candidate, having been prepared for its due reception by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils, professed, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, that he renounced the devil, his pomp, and angels. He was then plunged into the water three times, in allusion to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, making certain responses which, like the other forms here mentioned, were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested on custom and tradition. He then tasted a mixture of milk and honey—was anointed with oil, in allusion to the practice under the Mosaic Dispensation of anointing those who were appointed to the priesthood, since all Christians are, in a certain sense, supposed to be priests—and was signed with the sign of the cross. Lastly followed the imposition of hands, the origin of which ceremony is referred by our author to the benediction pronounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph.”²

The administration of baptism was at that early period encumbered by ceremonies of merely human invention; in fact, Tertullian complains, in another work, that “various forms and observances had been introduced into the Christian worship, of which some bore too close a resemblance to the customs and practices of the Gentiles.” The signing with the sign of the cross was a superstition early practiced among the Christians. They crossed themselves perpetually. Whatever they undertook or engaged in—when they went out—when they returned home—when they dressed themselves, or put on their shoes, or sat down to a meal, or went to the bath or to bed—the sign of the cross was associated with everything. We need not wonder that the heathen suspected it to savour of magic.

We have mentioned these particulars for the purpose of showing that, at the beginning of the third century, religious declension had considerably advanced. No one will now be surprised at hearing that an attempt was made to extend the administration of baptism in an unwarrantable manner. It is referred to by Tertullian in his tract, “De Baptismo,” in terms of strong disapproval. Some persons had introduced children (not infants) to baptism, or advocated the administration of the ordinance to them. Tertullian indignantly reproves the practice. “Let them come,” he says, “when they are taught to whom they may come; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins?”³ Now, is it not obvious that Ter�tullian was entirely unacquainted with infant baptism, and that this children’s baptism, which then first began to be talked of, was regarded by him as an unauthorized innovation? The sign of the cross, the giving of milk and honey, and similar ceremonies, were comparatively, small matters, trifling circumstances; they were uncalled-for additions to the ordinance, and were so far mischievous but they did not change it. It was still connected with knowledge, and repentance, and faith. But the admission of children, if they were not old enough to repent and believe, would change the ordinance. It would dissever it from those religious prerequisites with which it had been hitherto uniformly associated. The Gentile or Jewish rites which had been added to it tended to make it more imposing, and so attracted the notice of the weak-minded; but to allow children to be baptized, who were not subjects of repentance and faith, would be, in Tertullian’s opinion, to revolutionize the institute altogether. We act more wisely, he remarked, in temporal matters; surely we ought not to admit to baptism those whom we consider unfit to manage temporal affairs. So he argued.

The case is quite clear. Children (not infants, but probably children from six to ten years old) are first mentioned in connection with the ordinance at the beginning of the third century, and then with disapproval. “Tertullian’s opposition,” the learned Baron Bunsen remarks, “is to the baptism of young, growing children; he does not say a word about new-born infants.”⁴

Some writers have laboured hard to prove that Origen referred in his writings to infant-baptism as a then existing fact, and that he assigned to it an Apostolic origin. Origen was the most learned Christian of that age. He flourished from A.D. 203 to A.D. 254, and attained high repute, both as a teacher in the catechetical school of Alexandria and as an author. But his references are to child-baptism, not to infant-baptism; and the difference between him and Tertullian is, that the latter decidedly objected to the practice, while Origen spoke of it with approbation. How far, however, did that approbation extend? Only to the baptism of such children as were capable of instruction, and gave indications of piety; for he uniformly taught that “the benefit of baptism depended on the deliberate purpose of the baptized.” His reply to an objection of Celsus expresses his views. That heathen writer, having stated that “intelligent and respectable persons” were invited to initiation in the heathen mysteries, proceeds thus:—“And now let us hear what persons the Christians invite. Whoever, they say, is a sinner, whoever is unintelligent, whoever is a mere child, and, in short, whoever is a miserable and contemptible creature, the kingdom of God shall receive him.” Origen answers him in the following manner:—“In reply to these accusations we say, it is one thing to invite those who are diseased in the soul to a healing, and it is another to invite the healthy to a knowledge and discernment of things more divine. And we, knowing the difference, first call men to be healed. We exhort sinners to come to the instruction that teaches them not to sin, and the unintelligent to come to that which produces in them understanding, and the little children to rise in elevation of thought to the man, and the miserable to come to a more fortunate state, or (what is more proper to say) a state of happiness. But when those of the exhorted that make progress show that they have been cleansed by the Word, and, as much as possible, have lived a better life, THEN we invite them to be initiated among us.”⁵

Such children as Origen here describes would be “initiated,” that is, baptized by any Baptist in these days. If they have been “cleansed by the Word,” what more can we require? Tertullian’s objection seems to have arisen from the undue eagerness of some persons to hurry children to the baptismal water before they could fully understand and receive the truth. But neither of these fathers refers to infants. They ascribed influences to baptism which are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. They used language implying that an outward ceremony produced an inward, spiritual effect. They taught the necessity of baptism in order to pardon and salvation. And yet they also maintained the necessity of repentance and faith; and therefore they demanded, that, if young children were baptized, they should not be admitted to the ordinance till they were “able to know Christ,” and were “cleansed by the Word.”

We have at length arrived at the origin of Infant Baptism. Its birth-place was a district of Northern Africa, one of the least enlightened portions of the earth in that age; the time, the middle of the third century; the occasion, certain unscriptural notions which had gradually gained prevalence respecting the design and efficacy of the baptismal rite. Having adverted to those extravagances in a former section, it is unnecessary to adduce further proof. But the reader can easily trace the pro�gress of error. When believers, newly baptized, rejoiced in the forgiveness of sin, and exhibited satisfactory evidence of a regenerated state, men soon began to regard pardon and regeneration as the effects of baptism. Hence sprang the opinion of its necessity to salvation. That being admitted, the question of time came next under consideration. Was it not desirable to obtain pardon and regeneration at the earliest period possible? And besides, were not infants circumcised under the Jewish law? These questions were in the mind of Fidus, a bishop of some place in Northern Africa. We can have no doubt as to his duty under such circumstances. He ought to have searched the New Testament, if he had one (we cannot be sure of it, for books were scarce and dear in those days), and inquired into the differences between the Old and the New Dispensations, the carnal and the spiritual Israel. If he had carried on the inquiry fairly, his difficulties would have been removed without further reference. But he either could not or would not conduct the requisite investigation. Cyprian was at that time Bishop of Carthage, and was reverenced as a great authority in all Church affairs. Fidus wrote to Cyprian. Certain persons, he said, had advised the baptism of infants immediately after birth; but he could not agree with them, and particularly for this reason, that whereas it was customary to receive the baptized with a brotherly kiss, a newly-born infant could not be so received, being treated as unclean for several days after its coming into the world. He thought it best, therefore, to wait till the eighth day, and to baptize the infant at the same time at which, under the law, it would have been circumcised. But he asked advice of Cyprian, who laid the case before a council which had assembled at Carthage, in the year 252, for the settlement of various ecclesiastical matters. Sixty-six bishops met on that occasion. The answer is given in a letter written by Cyprian, from which the following extract is taken:—

“None of us could agree to your opinion. On the contrary, it is the opinion of us all, that the mercy and grace of God must be refused to no human being, so soon as he is born; for since our Lord says in His Gospel, ‘The Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s souls, but to save them,’ so everything that lies in our power must be done that no soul may be lost. As God has no respect of persons, so too He has no respect of age, offering Himself as a Father with equal freeness to all, that they may be enabled to obtain the heavenly grace. As to what you say, that the child in its first days of its birth is not clean to the touch, and that each of us would shrink from kissing such an object, even this, in our opinion, ought to present no obstacles to the bestowment of heavenly grace; for it is written, ‘To the pure all things are pure;’ and none of us ought to revolt at that which God has condescended to create. Although the child be but just born, yet it is no such object anyone ought to demur at kissing it to impart the divine grace and the salutation of peace, since each of us must be led, by his own religious sensibility, to think upon the creative hands of God, fresh from the completion of their work, which we kiss in the newly formed man when we take in our arms what God has made. As to the rest, if anything could prove a hindrance to men in the attainment of grace, much rather might those be hindered whose maturer years have involved them in heavy sins. But if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sin on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how much less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, cannot have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins, because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own, but those of another?”⁶

This is very misty theology. In fact, the religion of great numbers, in the third century, was a compound of Judaism and Paganism, with a slight seasoning of Christianity. Gaudy ceremonials were delighted in, and the strange power which had been ascribed to magical influences was transferred to the ordinances of the Gospel. The immersion in water, the eating of the bread, and the drinking of the wine, were associated in their minds, as producing causes, with spiritual transformations and blessings. The bodily act was substituted for the mental, and “faith was made void.” We do not affirm that every professing Christian was enveloped in this darkness; but it is too evident that the views of the majority were confused, and that, under the leadership of such men as Cyprian, the churches were fast drifting into dangerous notions.

Nevertheless, they were consistent in some things. They did not separate baptism from the Lord’s Supper, as is done by all P�dobaptist in these times. They held that those who were entitled to the one had an equal right to the other. When the infant had been plunged into the baptismal water, it was considered a member of the Church, and received the Lord’s Supper. If it was too young to eat the bread, they poured the wine down its throat. This, too, originated in Northern Africa, and there only we find it, in the period now under notice.⁷

Another innovation is traced to the third century. We allude to clinic baptism, that is, the baptism of sick persons, confined to their beds. It was not baptism, properly so called, as they were only sprinkled with water, or had water poured on them. The reason alleged for this departure from Apostolic practice, was the necessity of baptism to the salvation of the soul, and the consequent danger of deferring it, lest the sickness should terminate in death. Thus one error led to another. If those clinics recovered, they were not baptized afterwards; but they were not admitted to the ministry. Novatian, however, was an exception to this rule. He had been sprinkled or received a pouring on his bed, when his dissolution was hourly expected. After his recovery, his eminent qualifica�tions for the ministry induced the churches to deviate from the established custom, and he was ordained. Subsequently he took a high stand as a reformer.

We are now brought down to the year 254, the date of Origen’s death. The downward tendency is before us. Baptism, at first the voluntary act of a believer in Christ, has become, in numerous instances, the performance of a ceremony upon an unconscious infant. In all these cases the design of the Christian profession is subverted. Members are introduced into the churches who are necessarily destitute of the spiritual qualifications enumerated in the New Testament. It does not require the gift of prophecy to foretell the disastrous consequences. Religious declension was both the cause and the effect of the introduction of infant-baptism. The cause, inasmuch as so great a change could not have taken place if the Christian mind had not previously lost a due sense of the spiritual nature of religion: the effect, since the unholy mixture arising from the new arrangement could not but prove injurious to the interests of piety. “What communion hath light with darkness?”

It may be expected that some account of the introduction of Christianity into England should be given. It is highly probable that the Gospel reached this country at an early period, by means of merchants of Gaul in the first instance, and of missionaries afterwards. But dates and details are wanting. The statements of Tertullian and others are rather rhetorical flourishes than truthful records. That Joseph of Arimathea went to England, with several companions, and built a church “made of rods, wattled or interwoven,” in which they “watched, prayed, fasted, preached, having high meditations under a low roof, and large hearts betwixt narrow walls,”⁸ is now generally acknowledged to be a fable. That the Apostle Paul visited Britain when he traveled “to the extreme bounds of the West,” as Clemens Romanus expressed it, is more easily said than proved. That Claudia, mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21, was of British origin, is a conjecture, and nothing more. The story of King Lucius, as Dean Milman observes, “is a legend.”⁹ We must be content to remain in ignorance of the special instrument employed for the enlightenment of England, and can only remark that the Christian Church, when planted there, harmonized, in its doctrines and services, with the churches of Gaul, from which country missionary expeditions naturally took their westward course.

1 Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 432.

2 P. 434.

3 De Baptismo, chap. 18.

4 Christianity and Mankind, ii. p. 115.

5 See Christian Review, April, 1854, containing an article by Dr. Ira Chase on the “Opinions of Origen especting Baptism.”

6 Labbe and Kossart, Concil. i. pp. 742-744.

7 Bingham’s Christian Antiquities, book xii. chap. i. sect. 3, and book xv. chap. iv. sect. 7.

8 Fuller’s Church History, cent. i. sect. 13.

9 History of Latin Christianity, book iv. chap. iii.

CopyRight http://www.reformedreader.org

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT THE TRINITY

You have learned that almost none of the scholarly explanations of the trinity come from the Bible, but are rather derived from philosophers and theologians. We also learned that even a certain element of politics within the Roman Empire played a role in what we know today as the trinity and what most consider the true God of the Bible.

As touched upon in the introduction, there could be no more important doctrine than the nature of God, and correctly identifying the God of the Bible. To understand and worship the wrong god is tantamount to building one’s entire religion by starting with a wrong premise—building on a wrong foundation—thus ending in uselessness!

The author of the Bible—the all-powerful Creator—would surely leave an explanation in His Word of who and what He is. The Bible offers explanations of every doctrine mentioned within its pages. Notice Psalm 12:6: “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” This would certainly apply to what He has written about Himself, and what He records would also have to be sufficiently thorough for His followers to know exactly who they were following. They would also be equipped to know what gods they should not follow!

Through the pages of His Word, God teaches: the awesome potential of man, why the world is in a state of chaos, how world peace will come, what prophecy reveals lies ahead for mankind, what is human nature, who and what is the devil, the truth about angels, the nature of conversion, proper mode of baptism, financial laws, healing and laws of health—and many other truths.

Paul declared that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). God perfectly thought out each of the above subjects, and “ purified them seven times” in His Word.

He did the same with His own nature!

Let’s see what Scripture says about the “doctrine” of God’s nature. Within this chapter, we will see what the Bible actually says, by examining all the popular scriptures cited to supposedly prove the trinity. This will be followed by an examination of passages disproving it.

Biblical Proof?

You may be asking, “Could all the churches of the world be wrong about God?” If you are not yet pondering this, you probably will soon. Eventually, everyone must squarely face this fundamental question with an open mind—and then be willing to face the facts from the Bible.

Although some scholars openly acknowledge that there is no biblical proof for the trinity, most professing Christians either overlook or know nothing of such admissions, and choose to “accept on faith” as biblical truth what they are taught from the pulpit.

But is it?

Remember, the term “trinity” is found nowhere in Scripture. Nor are the phrases “three-in-one,” “triune god” or any similar term. Let’s establish this as an admission from trinitarians:

“The term ‘Trinity’ is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine” (“Trinity,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

Harper’s Bible Dictionary adds this: “The word [Trinity] does not occur in the Bible…The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]” (pp. 1098-1099).

But proponents of the trinity attempt to base their belief on a handful of passages, taken completely out of context and misapplied. Let’s examine them for their correct meaning.

I John 5:7-8

The “strongest” scripture supporting the trinity is I John 5:7-8. It states: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

At first glance, this passage appears to directly prove the trinity. Could this scripture be revealing that God is a trinity? Was it inspired by God so that mankind would understand who and what He is?

Here are the plain facts of this verse: Transcribers who believed in the trinity concept—but who could find no scriptural support—added the bold italicized words to support their beliefs. They are pure human invention. Those who use these verses to support the trinity doctrine are either unaware that the passage was altered, or they are aware but feel that their use serves a “greater good.”

Most Bible margins directly state the truth of the passage. For example, the New King James Version margin states, “NU, M [versions] omit the rest of v. 7 [after “record”] and through on earth of v. 8, a passage found in Greek in only four or five very late mss. [manuscripts].”

The Critical and Experimental Commentary says of this section that the verse was not found in the Latin Vulgate until the eighth century. The New Interpreter’s Bible states, “This verse in the KJV is to be rejected…It appears in no ancient Greek MS [manuscript].”

Here is what Adam Clarke’s Commentary, written by an avowed trinitarian, states, “But it is likely that this verse is not genuine. It is wanting [missing] in every MS. [manuscript] of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montifortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.”

Clarke continues, “It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.”

These verses should properly read, “There are three that bear record: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree as one.”

We must ask: What is the meaning of “three that bear record”? To “bear record” or “bear witness” is to attest or testify to something. When a witness testifies in a courtroom, he is telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Therefore, these three elements of the conversion process “attest” to the fact that a person is indeed a Christian.

This works in the following way:

(1) Spirit: Romans 8:16-17 states, “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.” Verse 9 continues, “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”

It is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that one is begotten by the Father. With this Spirit then dwelling in the mind, a person can begin to understand God’s Word and His Plan: “For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:11).

(2) Water: The death and burial symbolized by water baptism, preceding true conversion, is the means by which Christians show God their willingness to live a new life, to “put off…the old man” (Eph. 4:22; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:4-6) and walk “in newness of life.” It also demonstrates faith in Christ’s death and resurrection.

(3) Blood: It is the blood of Christ that cleanses people from their past sins (Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12) upon repentance and baptism. (You may wish to read our booklets What do you mean WATER BAPTISM? and What is true CONVERSION? to learn in detail about this process.)

Matthew 28:19

In Matthew 28:19, Christ gave His apostles the instruction to “[baptize] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Scholars and theologians have universally misunderstood the meaning of this instruction.

We must ask: What does this scripture actually mean? Does it validate the trinity? First, let’s understand some basics of the verse. It is clear that all three have a name—but a name does not make something a person. People name all kinds of things—mountains, buildings, pets, cars, boats, planes, estates, and many more. The point is that just because there is a name for all three, this does not mean that all three are persons or personalities.

What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? This is not difficult. The Father and Son have a name and the Holy Spirit conveys or bears that name to His children.

Let’s understand the baptism process more clearly.

The disciples were to baptize in the name of the Father, because it is the Father “of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). In other words, the Father is the Head of the house—the family—and families traditionally carry the name of the father. Also, it is God’s (the Father’s) goodness that leads one to the recognition and repentance of his sins (Rom. 2:4).

The apostles were instructed to baptize in the name of the Son, because His death, in our stead, makes salvation possible (Rom. 5:8; II Pet. 3:9).

But they were also to baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit, because the Father uses that Spirit—His Spirit—as the power through which the begettal is performed (Rom. 8:16).

This is what the passage means! God gives Christians His Holy Spirit, which is His seed. When they receive that seed, it gives them God’s name—they become heirs with Jesus Christ. From the point of conversion, Christians carry the name of God. When understood, this is why the name of the true Church has always been the “Church of God.” The word “Church” (Greek: ekklesia) literally means “the called out ones”—human beings are called out of the world, begotten as God’s children, put into His Church and given His name.

Note what John said about the “seed” within converted people: “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (I John 3:9). The Greek word for “seed” is sperma, from which comes the English word “sperm.” The Holy Spirit is the “sperm” or “seed” of God.

Notice another scripture, adding light to what the seed of God is: “Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again [begotten], not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever” (I Pet. 1:22-23).

While Christians will ultimately be born again into the kingdom of God at the resurrection, they are, at conversion, begotten of God through the Holy Spirit. This is similar to the human reproductive system. As soon as the sperm of a father attaches to the egg of the mother, a child is conceived. The child is not yet born, although he is begotten of the physical seed—the father’s sperm. We, once we have received the Holy Spirit—the seed of God—are begotten in this life, but not yet born! Like any human father who would say that his wife is carrying his child, God speaks of the Church—described as the “Mother” of Christians (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 12)—as carrying His children.

So then, does Matthew 28:19 establish the trinity? Clearly not! It simply reveals that when we are baptized, we are given God’s name through His Spirit.

Romans 8:9

Let’s further examine the begettal process before returning to other scriptures. Notice Romans 8:9: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” This passage represents what could be called the Christian “DNA test.” Everyone recognizes that one must have a man’s genes to be his biological child. God is the same. Without God’s Spirit, one cannot be His begotten child.

We can understand more about the process of spiritual begettal by examining the actual process of human begettal. In reproduction, an egg must be fertilized by a sperm cell, which then “seals off” the egg. The egg can never be fertilized by another sperm.

Now consider. Romans 8:9 spoke of Christians receiving in the same begettal the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Are these two different Spirits—yet, Christ said, “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30)? If they were two different spirits, this still would not validate the trinity. It would mean that there are four, not three, beings—God and His Spirit and Christ and His Spirit—in the Godhead.

Upon baptism and the laying on of hands (the point at which one receives the Holy Spirit), Christians are begotten by the Father, just as Christ was begotten in Mary’s womb by the Father. Once they are begotten, Christ lives in them (Gal. 2:20). At that point, they have the spirit of both Christ and the Father dwelling in them—which are one and the same Spirit. It is through this Spirit that Christians take on the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5).

It is important to recognize that a Christian can, however, “abort” in this lifetime—if he does not continue in the right path. It is possible to lose the Holy Spirit, and bring the new begotten life to an end. Notice: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6).

John 14, 15 and 16—Trinity Not Taught by Christ

John 14, 15 and 16 contain the verses cited most often as “proof” that the Holy Spirit is a person. In these accounts, Christ referred to the Spirit as “the Comforter.” The masculine pronoun “he” is used in reference to the word “Comforter” (Greek: parakletos). This is a result of the grammatical structure of the Greek language, in which the New Testament was originally written. Gender was not assigned to the Holy Spirit, merely to the word used to describe it. This will be explained later.

In the rest of the New Testament, the Greek word pneuma, meaning “breath” or “spirit,” is translated “Spirit.” It is the equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew word translated “spirit”—rûah. Grammatically, the word pneuma is neuter, properly represented by the English pronoun “it.”

We read earlier that Christ said, “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30). What does this mean? To properly understand what Christ meant, we must turn to the Old Testament.

Amos 3:3 asks a rhetorical question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Christ and the Father are of the same mind. They are unified in both thought and purpose. Notice that, in John 10:30, Christ did NOT say, “I and My Father and the Holy Spirit are One.” If God is a trinity, why would Christ have excluded the Holy Spirit in His explanation of the Godhead relationship?

This is a huge unanswered question.

In John 14:9, Christ said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Did Christ mean that He and the Father look alike? In shape and form, yes. Identical in appearance, no. By His actions, Christ showed what the Father was like. God and Christ are of the same mind. In Luke 2, He asked, “Know you not that I must be about My Father’s business?” These scriptures show that Christ and the Father both work.

Again, it is important to note that Christ did not say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father and the Holy Spirit.” John 1:1-3 shows the relationship that God and Christ have: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” Again, where is the mention of the Holy Spirit? Only two beings are referenced.

The Greek word Logos, translated “Word,” also means “spokesman.” Psalm 33 shows the role Christ had in the creation of the world: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (vs. 6).

In Matthew 19:17, Christ asked a young man who had questioned Him about salvation, “Why call you Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God.” If Christ knew that He was also God (Luke 2:49), what then did He mean by this?

Two things become apparent:

(1) He was giving deference to the Father (see John 14:28). Christ had completely emptied Himself of the power of the Godhead, taking on the form of physical flesh as a servant (Phil. 2:7). Christ was made of flesh, and there is nothing about flesh that is good. See Romans 7:18-24, among numerous other verses.

(2) In anticipation of the reaction in the young man—that he would reject Christ’s answer (vs. 22)—Christ was showing the paradox of the young man’s question. Consider. He called Christ, “Good Master,” and professed to want to do whatever Christ said, but his actions showed that he did not believe that he was talking to God—one who was “good.” Christ recognized that the young man had the same “worshipful” attitude held by so many who rejected Him. (See Luke 6:46; 20:17; Matt. 7:21; 21:42; 13:57; Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11.) Therefore, He was pointing the young man to what the Father requires.

Acts 5

In verses 3 and 4 of Acts 5, the apostle Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied unto men, but unto God.”

The question arises: Does this passage prove that the Holy Spirit is a person or separate being? In other words, how could Peter state that Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit is merely the inanimate power or agent of God? The chapter about the Holy Spirit will answer many questions that could arise from a verse such as this and will reinforce what you will read here.

But let’s take some time to demonstrate that it was merely the power—not the person—of the Holy Spirit both in Peter’s mind and their own minds that Ananias and Sapphira were lying to.

It was the Holy Spirit that gave Peter the ability to discern (Heb. 5:14) Ananias and Sapphira’s lies. Let’s understand this a little further. Notice I Corinthians 2:11: “what man knows the things of a man, except by the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man, except by the Spirit of God.” Human beings learn by the spirit of man given to all human beings. This does not mean that there is another person in each human person. Similarly, having the Holy Spirit in one does not mean there is another person in the person.

So, while there are things that human beings can learn and understand without having God’s Holy Spirit, certain things can only be understood with His Spirit. Discerning spiritual things comes through God’s Holy Spirit in the mind.

Christ demonstrated this ability of discernment in John 13:27: “And after the sop Satan entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him, That you do, do quickly.” Also notice Mark 8:33: “But when He [Christ] had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, Get you behind Me, Satan: for you savor not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” The Holy Spirit present in Christ’s mind made this possible.

To understand how Peter could “see through” Ananias and Sapphira, consider the following analogy:

An attorney is discussing an extremely technical legal matter with a potential client. The implications are such that only a lawyer with the utmost legal understanding could properly handle the case. Also, only with complete and total knowledge of every aspect and detail of the situation can the lawyer hope to proceed. But the client, having dishonest ulterior motives, intentionally omits some minor details. Those details are so minute that they could potentially escape the attention of an attorney not deeply, intricately versed in the law. But the attorney sees the deception for what it is. How does he see through it? Because of the knowledge of the law that he possesses. Without that knowledge, he would not recognize the lie for what it is. His knowledge of the law leads him to understand the man’s ulterior motives.

If one lies to a farmer about a matter dealing with aerospace engineering, the farmer probably will not recognize the lie. Likewise, if one lies to a rocket scientist about a matter concerning agriculture, the scientist will most likely not recognize it. Why? Because neither is versed in the particular subject being addressed. The lie goes “right over his head.”

It is the same with spiritual understanding: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge” (I Cor. 8:7).

Remember, Romans 8:14 defines Christians: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” They must allow the “Spirit of truth” (the same as the Spirit of God) to guide them (John 16:13).

In Acts 5, Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit working in his mind, was able to discern three things about Ananias and Sapphira:

(1) They had conspired together on their way to see him.

(2) Their sin and their motive.

(3) The punishment they would receive.

After Pentecost in A.D. 31, God communicated to His servants through His Spirit (John 16:13). The above shows why Peter could say they were lying to the Holy Spirit.

Peter could say they were also lying to God because:

(1) Peter was the leading apostle in God’s Church. Christ had told him and the other disciples, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

(2) Christ had also told His disciples, “And whatsoever you shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it” (John 14:13-14). Christ had given His disciples power to act on His behalf. God had to guide them in these matters.

(3) Conversely, He showed that anything done to or for Christians was considered to be done to or for Him. Notice: “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto Me” (Matt. 25:40).

Also notice the following Old Testament accounts:

(4) “And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness…And in the morning, then you shall see the glory of the Lord; for that He hears your murmurings against the Lord: and what are we, that you murmur against us?…for that the Lord hears your murmurings which you murmur against Him: and what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord” (Ex. 16:2, 7-8).

(5) “And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto you: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (I Sam. 8:7).

All the above passages illustrate why Peter could say that Ananias and Sapphira were lying to both God and the Holy Spirit. It was not because the Holy Spirit is a separate person in the Godhead. They were lying to one of God’s apostles, in whom He was working—through the power of His Holy Spirit.

Also, consider Peter’s statement, “You have not lied unto men.” Advocates of the trinity teaching ignore the fact that the husband and wife had lied directly to Peter (a man). Peter was a flesh-and-blood human being. Was he somehow elevating himself to the status of either God or the Holy Spirit? (See Acts 10:25-26; also 14:7-18.)

Why do trinitarians not consider this part of Peter’s statement? Their argument has no strength, because it is inconsistent and does not examine every aspect of the account. As is always the case, religionists have taken a single scripture out of context and either ignored or maligned other scriptures, building a doctrinal “house of cards.” The wise are always able to see through it and knock it down.

Acts 13

This scripture presents another perfect example of how so many religionists ignore context, sometimes vital context, focusing on a single aspect of a passage to make it say something it clearly does not. This one is supposedly proof of the personhood of the Holy Spirit, with it having “said” something.

Acts 13:2-4: “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia…”

Notice the seven elements of this scripture:

(1) “As they ministered to the Lord”: These men were seeking God’s will in a matter—specifically, the ordination of two men. James 4:8 states, “Draw near to God [not His Holy Spirit], and He will draw near to you.”

(2) “when they had fasted”: Fasting is one of the tools of Christian growth. It helps Christians acknowledge to God that they are nothing, of and by themselves, while allowing them to draw closer to Him. Fasting also binds Satan, blocking his influence. If you are drawing near to God, then you are also resisting Satan. And, as James 4:7 states, if you “Resist the devil…he will flee from you.” By fasting, these men demonstrated to God that they wanted His complete and total involvement in what they were doing.

Also, a fast involves going without food and drink for a period of at least 24 hours. Read Jeremiah 36:6; Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:35. So the period of time covered between Acts 13:2 and verse 3 is at least 24 hours. (You may read our helpful article “What You Need to Know About Fasting” to learn more about how to fast.)

(3) “…the Holy Spirit said”: To properly understand this part of the scripture, review the Acts 5:3-4 explanation. If they had heard a literal voice from God, why would they have felt the need to continue in fasting and prayer? They would have had their answer! None would suggest that God was speaking the same message to them non-stop for 24 hours. (Notice II Samuel 12:16-23; Daniel 10:3-13; Matthew 9:14-15.) They were being guided by the Holy Spirit within them, and they needed to be crystal clear about the intent of the message it was bringing. The sound of an audible voice eliminates any such need. Again, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

(4) “Separate Me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them”: It is God the Father who does the calling (John 6:44, 65). The Holy Spirit is the means by which He does this. It is Christ who determines who will be used in the ministry—and in what capacity (I Cor. 12:28). Also, if this were a literal audible voice from a God Being, spoken for all to hear, it would have been accompanied by obvious displays of natural forces. (Notice John 5:37 and also Acts 9:3-7.)

(5) “…and prayed”: Prayer is another tool of Christian growth, used to make our needs known to God. It is also the way we ask God to make His will known to us. (See Matthew 6:10; 26:39, 42.) Again, if they had already received an audible answer, why would they have continued in prayer?

(6) “…and laid their hands on them”: The laying on of hands is a symbolic act when God is called upon, in faith, to bless and sanctify or to impart authority and power. The power of the Holy Spirit is involved in four different and individual purposes—blessings, baptism, healing and ordination—when this ceremony occurs. We can look at some examples of each.

Genesis 48:13-20 records that Ephraim and Manasseh received a unique and very special blessing when Israel (Jacob) laid hands upon them. The blessing of little children is also preformed by the laying on of hands, as instructed by Christ (Mark 10:15-16; Matt. 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17).

In the baptism ceremony, the repentant person receives the gift of the Holy Spirit by having hands laid on him. This is first recorded in Acts 8:17-18: “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit…through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” Also see Acts 19:5-6 and II Timothy 1:6.

God’s healing is also the result of an elder’s prayer with faith, accompanied by the laying on of hands on the head of the afflicted person. We find this example in Acts 9:17: “…and Ananias [not the Ananias of Acts 5]…entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus…has sent me, that you might receive your sight.”

Ordination into an office in God’s Church is also done through the laying on of hands. The first example is found in Acts 6:6-8, involving the ordination of deacons: “…and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them…And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” God’s Church today faithfully observes this practice in all ordinations. Hebrews 6:2 specifically lists it as one of God’s doctrines.

(7) “…they sent them away”: These men were acting on God’s behalf, ordaining men into higher offices in the ministry. This part of the verse reveals two things: (a) In addition to prayer and fasting, they had also counseled together in order to reach a wise decision (notice Proverbs 11:14; 15:22); (b) the Holy Spirit did not, of itself, send these men out. Again, notice that the verse states, “…they [Niger, Lucius, Manaen] sent them away.”

To summarize: God, through the power of His Spirit, acting in response to those who were asking for His guidance, inspired the men involved to understand that He wanted Barnabus and Saul to depart.

Numbers 6:24-26—Old Testament Trinity Proof?

As we probe deeper into the foundation of the trinity doctrine, you are seeing that its “proofs” are questionable at best—that it is built entirely on “logical” quicksand, created by scholars and religionists who propose to explain Scripture with no greater tool than human reasoning.

Consider the following explanation from Unger’s Bible Dictionary (UBD): “Although the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit in the Old Testament, at the same time, it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the New Testament this truth can be found in the Old (e.g., Num. 6:24-26; Isa. 6:3; 63:9, 10, the sanctity of the symbolical number three)” (p. 1118).

Besides the fact that the New Testament does not, in fact, offer anything that helps bring the trinity to light in the Old Testament, another problem in the above argument is the misuse of symbolism associated with the number three. Throughout Scripture, we see a pattern of three used to denote completion of time and events—never in reference to God.

Consider these. God uses three annual Holy Day seasons to depict His Plan of salvation (Deut. 16:16), punctuated by three resurrections (I Thes. 4:16; Rev. 20:5-15). Jonah was in the belly of a great fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). Christ pointed to Jonah, giving as the only sign that He was the Messiah the fact that He would be three days and three nights in the grave (Matt. 12:39-40). Notice that these are all time-related events!

By examining just one of the scriptures cited in the UBD, one can see the invalidity of the argument presented—and the mentioned quicksand on which trinitarian illogic stands. Notice: “The Lord bless you, and keep you: The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you: The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Num. 6:24-26). Merely because it references three things that the Lord does, trinitarian theologians and scholars actually claim this verse as one proof that ancient Israel recognized a triune godhead. Before we explain why they believe this, do you see any part of this passage that espouses a triune godhead? Of course not! And it is “the Lord,” not the Father or the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned in all three places.

It should be a source of embarrassment for trinitarian theologians when they use such silly illogic to hold to what they call a mystery. Why not just let it stand as a mystery without pretending through use of such nonsense as the above that it comes from the Bible?

Then this: How can theologians attest that ancient Israel believed in the trinity when they later rejected Christ, accusing Him of blasphemy when He claimed to be God’s Son? And, as Acts 19:2 shows, some had not even “so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit.” If ancient Israel as a whole had recognized (in form or principle) the existence of the Holy Spirit as a third member of a supposed triune godhead, how could these Jews have no knowledge of it whatsoever?

Under plain and thorough examination, such “proofs” disintegrate.

If a belief in a trinity had been at the core of ancient Israel’s worship of God, and if Numbers 6:24-26 is a blueprint for it, why is it not explicit? If Numbers 6 constitutes a supposed trinitarian “deific formula,” as some assert, why would God hide its meaning in a cryptic and coded message, instead of clearly showing three members of the godhead in this passage?

God’s Name

The second problem with the argument, referenced above, is the claim that three separate members of the Godhead are each bestowing a blessing on Israel. But Deuteronomy 6:4 makes plain that “The Lord our God is one Lord.” Here, and in Numbers 6, the Hebrew word translated “Lord” (KJV) is YHVH, meaning the “self-Existent or Eternal,” not the “Eternal three-in-one.” This scripture will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

YHVH is first found in Genesis 2:7, where we find the record of the Lord God (YHVH) forming man “of the dust of the ground.” It was the Lord God who was in the Garden of Eden, the same One with whom Adam and Eve directly communicated. This was the same Being referred to as “the Word” in John 1:1.

This can be proven by examining and understanding the Hebrew root words from which YHVH is derived: HYH means “was,” HVH means “is” (actually, the present tense because the Hebrew language does not incorporate the verb “is”) and YHYH means “will continue to be.”

Do not be confused. By simply assembling the parts, the definition of YHVH becomes clear. It means literally “Was-Is-Will Continue to Be.” Scholars of the Hebrew language agree that YHVH is a derivation of the infinitive verb “to be.” This is seen in Exodus 3, where the One speaking to Moses identifies Himself as “I AM” (vs. 6), and “I AM THAT I AM” (vs. 14). We will see that this was the same Being who later became Christ!

Through His very name, God demonstrates that His existence and presence is not limited by time constraints—He has always existed and always will. Malachi 3:6 further shows this: “For I am the Lord [YHVH], I change not…” It is also expounded by the phrase, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8); and by the declarative statement, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

Trinity Not Acknowledged by the Apostle Paul

Bible scholars and religionists routinely twist and pervert the apostle Paul’s writings in order to make him “agree” with their own doctrinal positions.

Something is noticeably absent from all of the greetings at the outset of Paul’s 14 epistles. While he references the Father and Jesus Christ in every greeting, he continually overlooks a greeting from the Holy Spirit to the congregation addressed (Hebrews contains no greeting from either Father, Son or Holy Spirit). If the Holy Spirit is indeed a third, full-fledged member of the Godhead, why did Paul consistently omit a greeting from “him”—and thus insult “him”? If they were honest, proponents of trinitarian thought would have to accuse Paul of heresy—if not outright blasphemy—for this omission.

Notice the following eleven introductions:

Romans 1:1, 7-9: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God…Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all…”

I Corinthians 1:1, 3: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

II Corinthians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

Galatians 1:1, 3: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)…Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ephesians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus…Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

Philippians 1:1-2: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Phillipi…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:1-3: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

I Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians… Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

II Thessalonians 1:1-2: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians… Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philemon 1:1, 3: “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer…Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Titus 1:1, 4: “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness…To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Also, neither of Paul’s letters to Timothy included a greeting from the Holy Spirit. Again, if the Holy Spirit is a full-fledged member of the Godhead, why does Paul so consistently omit greetings from “him”?

Further Scriptural Proof

Now that we have discussed and explained some of the trinity “proof texts,” we can briefly look at some scriptures that prove plainly that God is not a trinity. Because these are simple and clear scriptures, it will not be necessary to have a thorough explanation for each passage. The reader should read each verse and then address each of the questions raised. Note that most of the questions arise over the fact that, when natural opportunities are presented, and the Father is being discussed, the Holy Spirit is overlooked or omitted time and again.

Matthew 27:46: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Why would Christ say this if He was a third of the trinity? How could Christ possibly forsake Himself?

Luke 10:22: “All things are delivered to Me of My Father: and no man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” When Christ came, He revealed the Father. The nation of Israel never knew the Father. Also, Israel did not know of the Holy Spirit. But why did not Christ also reveal and declare the Holy Spirit, if it is part of the Godhead?