In this issue:
The Trinity and the Foundations of the Christian Faith
Phildadelphia Fellowship & New Radio Program
More on Philadelphia vs. Laodicea
The Sabbath and the trinity
Kaj-R. Nilsen
Among Seventh-day Adventists it is
generally agreed that the Sabbath will be the all-important question in
the last days, before the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. A lot
of focus is put on the Sabbath, and of course we should keep the
Sabbath, but is something wrong with this end-time scenario? Is this all
there is to it? Is it so simple that based upon the practice of either
keeping the Sabbath or not, people will be separated into two parties;
one prepared for destruction, the other for eternal life?
Now first of all we must remember that the keeping of the Sabbath in
and of itself has no merit whatsoever. Keeping the Sabbath will never
save us. In fact, we will never be saved by works in any way. Only
through faith in the righteousness of Christ can any of us be saved, and
only as this faith produces a willing heart of obedience, will there
ever be any true Sabbath-keeping. We need a faith that works, not faith
plus works. Notice the Word of the Lord concerning this point:
Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and
them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. –
Ezekiel 20:12
The sabbath is the covenant sign. The keeping of the Sabbath signifies
a rest in God, a rest from our own frustrating attempts to be justified
by our own efforts. It signifies faith in a living God that loves, that
redeems and that gave His only begotten Son for us. He is able, and we
must die to the flesh. So behind the Sabbath day there are much deeper
issues at stake: faith, righteousness, love, a spirit-filled life of
obedience – Christ in you, the hope of glory. “Not I, but Christ” is the
watch-word of the believer.
The true believers who have experienced the deeper significance of the
Sabbath, will keep it both in the spiritual and the practical sense. It
will be a sign between them and God that they belong to Him, that there
is a living connection operating.
Rejecters of the Sabbath
But our attention will now be turned to those that learn about, but
reject, the true understanding of the Sabbath day. We are told by Ellen
G. White that there will be Adventists that will advocate the keeping of
Sunday from their own pulpits. Many of those Adventists will no doubt
keep on worshipping on both the Sabbath and on Sunday, and in doing so
they will in reality reject the Sabbath. Another group of Adventists
will keep the Sabbath only on a practical level, and not keep it in a
spiritual sense as they do not rest in Christ and His righteousness.
This group have either gone into a subtle form of legalism, or
anti-nomianism / liberalism. Lastly, the majority of the world will
learn about the Sabbath day and its significance, but will also reject
it.
But the great question is, “Why will even Adventists advocate Sunday
as a day of worship?” And why will the Sabbath be evaluated as a
question of minor importance by the world? Why is it even today seen as
such?
The Basis of Ecumenism
The truth is that there is a particular reason the Sabbath is, and in a
stronger sense will be, seen as not of primary importance. It has very
much to do with ecumenism.
What is ecumenism? It is a principle built on one very simple idea.
This idea is that those people that worship the same God, should have no
problems coming together and having fellowship even though they
disagree on other doctrines.
This idea is built on the premise that after all there is only one all-important doctrine.
The question is, if you are in agreement on this most fundamental
doctrine, then why care so much about the other doctrines? They are,
after all, only secondary and of minor importance, it is claimed.
Now the most important thing is the identity of the God you worship,
and I guess everyone will agree with that. This is a reasonable idea
that makes sense to many people! Not only is it reasonable, but it is
Biblically correct too!
So the ecumenical world is built on one single article that everyone
has to accept. This article consists of their definition of the god that
they worship – and this is a god in Trinity!
Notice: The Trinity god is the god of the ecumenical movement. It is the god of almost the whole Christian world.
This will not change, you can be pretty sure. Oh yes, the whole
ecumenical world WILL come together, as prophesied in Revelation
chapters 13 and 17, and they will stick to this fundamental principle:
The worship of the Trinitarian god.
Is it a safe thing to follow the ecumenical movement? What spirit is
leading those who are involved in it? Do they worship the true God?
Given the end-time picture as presented in the Bible, we can be certain
that any god that is worshipped by almost all of Christendom, cannot
possibly be the true God of the Bible. The god that is worshipped by the
majority of the world will have to be a false god. Why is this so? Read
what John says:
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. –
Revelation 13:3
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world. – Revelation 13:8
It is all the world, which will engage in false worship, and this
includes the great majority of professing Christendom. We are talking
about the greatest deception that has ever come upon human beings! And
we see it being prepared now. Alliances that no one dared to hope for
only years ago, are now being formed. Lutherans and Catholics,
Evangelicals and Catholics. Yes, we are stunned to read that there has
even been cooperation between Catholics and SDA’s in Poland for many
years, below the surface. Nothing is as revealing as that in signifying
the time in which we live. When fundamental Islam is “conquered” and the
US Constitution laid to rest in the dust, the whole world will be ready
for the Papacy and the US working in union to subjugate the world.
This is how
I submit to you that this is how Adventists will be persuaded to drop
the Sabbath. The argument that the whole Christian world worships one
and the same god, will be seen as the most important point. Every other
doctrine will be relegated to the back seat, effectively swept under the
rug. Our religion will be completely changed, and the new organization
will be up front. ”The Sabbath will be lightly regarded, as also the God
who created it” – all this just as the prophet of the Lord foresaw.
(1SM 205) Those Adventists that accept the Trinity god will find it
extremely hard to counter this forceful argument, and we see this today
even on a smaller scale.
Because today there apparently is no difference between Adventists and
the other denominations as to the definition of the god they worship,
the barriers have been broken down and Adventists are increasingly
seeking to establish ecumenical ties. The question is, “why not when we
have so much in common?” The trap is laid, and is working well already.
This is a tragedy that words cannot express. We desperately need the
distinction from the other denominations that our former fundamental
beliefs provided for us. These distinctions would have made it easier to
identify with the task we are here for: not to join Babylon, but to
call people out of it.
The Most important issue
So the true keeping of the Sabbath will identify those that do not
worship the same god as does the ecumenical, so-called “Christian”
world.
In other words: the Sabbath signifies a deeper issue, one of worship.
Which God you worship will be the most important issue, and it will have
consequences for how you relate to all the other doctrines.
Some people write me and say that we have now “gone off the deep end”
because we are focusing on the Trinity. But is this really so?
The truth about God is an issue that deals with the characteristics
and the identity of the God you worship. It deals with the question,
“Which God do you worship?” Thus it deals with the most fundamental
issues there are, issues, which led to the great rebellion in heaven in
the first place.
There is absolutely no way that the godhead question could be a
secondary issue, with the Sabbath issue being the more fundamental one.
In fact these issues cannot be separated. They both deal with worship,
but in two different ways.
The truth about God deals with the identity of God. The Sabbath deals
with the practical and spiritual reality that results from your worship
of the true God, signifying a living relationship with God. The first
issue is the starting point of it all, the cause, the very source of
life. The second issue is the result, the symptom, the sign of life
operating.
May God guide and help us as we seek to find and worship Him alone,
and may His Spirit inspire our hearts in willing service to Him Who is
all in all, is my prayer for all of us!!
Kaj-R. Nilsen
7387 Singsås, Norway
email: nic@world-online.no
website: www.sundaylaw.com.
Self-Deception
Howard Williams
Self-examination in the context of this article, may be defined as follows:
A careful investigation of our spiritual state, to know whether we are
in the faith, to know our defects that we may become aware of the
improvements that we must make.
A consideration of the following points will reveal the necessity of attending to this duty:
DECEPTION
Deception simply means, “to cause to believe what is not true.”
To deceive, betray, mislead, delude, dupe or bamboozle are verbs that
mean to lead into error, danger or a disadvantageous position.
While there is deception in every area of life, the deception that
leads to the loss of a soul, is the most important. Men very carefully
study the art of spending money wisely, and avoid investing in anything
that is not safe and secure. Yet they give their souls over to men to
decide their destiny for them. What is most important? Is it money that
lasts only for a lifetime on earth, or eternal life that never ends?
Jesus himself cautioned us that we should not be deceived (Matt.
24:3). He said that deception will be such in the last days, that if it
were possible the very elect would be deceived. (Matt.24: 24;Luke13: 22)
People who are deceived, are truly and honestly not aware that they
are deceived or they would not allow themselves to be taken by
deception.
WHAT CAUSES DECEPTION?
Deception is caused by ignorance of facts and trusting to the wrong people for an understanding of those facts.
With such an increase of knowledge and the availability of information
as there is today there is no excuse for ignorance on any worldly
subject to which our mind may become curious. But when it comes to
spiritual knowledge there is only one source, God himself. How could
Christians lose sight of this most important fact?
Tragically and paradoxically, the deception that needs our fullest attention is self-deception.
Can we deceive ourselves?
It is with utmost amazement that we see the people to whom God
entrusted the privilege of being His sentinels, deceived with regard to
their spiritual condition. How could the people through which he would
give the last message of mercy to a dying world reach the place where
they deceive themselves that they are, “… rich and increased with goods
and have need of nothing…” while they know not that they are, “wretched
and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” (Rev. 3:14)
Many are Laodiceans, living in a spiritual self-deception. They clothe
themselves in the garments of their own righteousness, imagining
themselves to be rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing,
when they need daily to learn of Jesus, His meekness and lowliness, else
they find themselves bankrupt, their whole life being a lie (Letter 66,
1894). 7BC 962
Often we ask ourselves the question, “how could seemingly intelligent
people freely give their allegiance to support and follow such men as,
Jim Jones, David Koresh and Marshall Apple-white, to the extent that
they committed suicide at the command of these men?” How could men and
women alive in our day and age dedicate their lives and wealth to these
Gurus and worships them as gods?
What could cause young fair women, with a desire to serve God allow a
priest to sexually assault their bodies and call that an act of
righteousness?
How could men believe and accept such fallacies as, confession to a man, buying indulgencies, penance and purgatory?
How could millions of Christians today openly defy the law of God and claim that in doing so they are fulfilling God’s will?
This kind of deception continues to the very end, when as the
scripture declares, “Many will say, Lord, Lord…” (Claiming a right to
his favour), “did we not prophesy…cast out devils…done many wonderful
works in thy name” (showing these as the evidence that they are Gods
children), but He (the Lord), will say to them, “I never knew you.”
(Matt.7: 22,23)
How then can we know truth? How can we know the right path? How can we know what God approves?
Are we left to grope about in darkness? Are we left at the mercy of
denominations? If this were so, then our hope of ever finding truth or
God would be extremely shaky!
THE GREAT STANDARD
What shall we use as a standard?
Shall we trust to men’s credentials, organisations and establishments?
Shall we trust the most popular and recognised groups? Shall we trust
to prophesying or casting out of devils or the doing of many wonderful
works or even miracles.
We need a criterion by which we can try these and all other false
standards, and that criterion is:- THE UNERRING WORD OF GOD. This should
be the test of piety and holiness as well as of truth, the man of our
counsel and the guide of our life, our only rule of faith, experience
and practice, to which all our feelings and actions should be referred,
and by which they should be tried. It is by this word that we shall be
judged, and by it we should now judge ourselves, and prove the
genuineness of our piety. If we should adopt a different standard, we
might expect to fall into serious mistakes.
This word gives us the root reason for self-deception, in the most fearsome and striking passage ever recorded.
“And then shall that wicked be revealed…even him whose coming is after
the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and
with all deceivableness of unrighteous-ness in them that perish, because
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and
for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believe not the truth
but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:8-12.
Today, something dangerous envelops the entire Christian world like a
blanket, and that is DECEPTION. People are sold out on denominations,
and they refuse to talk, or listen to anyone or to read anything that
does not carry the approval of their “church.” And even if they do
listen they must go back and ask the pastor if what has been said is
correct. Of course, anything the Pastor says will become gospel.
I have heard non-Christians express the disgust they feel towards the
confusion that exists in the different denominations and their confusion
as to where to find truth. Even in this I can see that the Bible’s
authority is neglected. A young lady asked me a question once, “There is
one Bible and yet many interpretations, how would we know the correct
interpretation?” I thought for a while and then I asked her, “who is the
author of the Bible?” When she agreed that God was the author. I
pointed out that since God is the Bible’s author and that since He is
available to all who wish to find Him, then the only safe thing to do is
to ask Him to show us the truth as it is in the Bible.
Too many times we fail to point others to God himself, for His leading
and direction, and instead we take God’s place in trying to lead others
to our way, even though it may be that we are in the right path, our
efforts must be to help others to find God Himself, so they can build a
relationship with him for life.
SELF-EXAMINATION
We cannot determine our state merely by looking at ourselves. We must
also look at the truth. We must examine ourselves in the light of God’s
word. This duty is enforced by a divine command. “Examine yourselves,
whether ye be in the faith,” is the language of inspiration. 2
Cor.13:5. See also 1Cor.11:28 ; Gal.6:4.
In self-examination we should search the truth not merely to become
acquainted with it as a theory, and to be able to handle it fluently,
but to apply it to our own individual cases. The truth will do us no
good unless we thus apply it to ourselves. Men may speak and write ably
and eloquently in defence of the truth, without knowing its sanctifying
power. It is one thing to see the truth at a distance, and as it is
brought to bear upon others, but it is another thing to bring the truth
home, and make a practical application of it to our own hearts and
lives.
As the Bible must be our standard, so our model must be the perfect
example of Jesus. We are required to walk even as he walked. It is safe
to follow the example of Jesus, and we can follow others only as far as
they agree with this perfect example.
Self-deception cannot exist where the work of self-examination is
rightly engaged in, and faithfully and perseveringly carried on. The
grand remedy for self-deception, is self-examination in light of the
word of God.
“The great reason why so many professed Disciples of Christ fall into
grievous temptation and make work for repentance is that they are
deficient in a knowledge of themselves. Here is where Peter was so
thoroughly sifted by the enemy. Here is where thousands will make
shipwreck of faith. You do not take your wrongs and errors to heart, and
afflict your souls over them. I entreat you to purify your souls by
obeying the truth. Connect yourselves with heaven. And may the Lord save
you from self-deception.” 4T 246
Says Dr. Watts, “It was a sacred rule among the Pythagoreans, that
they should every evening, thrice run over the actions and affairs of
the day, and examine what their conduct had been, what they had done, or
what they had neglected; and they assured their pupils that by this
method they would make a noble progress in the path of virtue.” And
shall we be behind these heathen philosophers in this important
exercise? Dr. Watts also furnishes the following lines, which we would
do well to remember:
“Nor let soft slumber close your eyes,
Before you’ve recollected thrice
The train of actions thro’ the day.
Where have my feet chose out the way?
What have I learned where’er I’ve been,
From all I’ve heard, from all I’ve seen?
What know I more, that’s worth the knowing?
What have I done that’s worth the doing?
What have I sought that I should shun?
What duty have I left undone,
Or into what new follies run?
These self-inquiries are the road
That leads to virtue and to God.”
In several non-Christian religions, the members are taught the
principle of meditation as a means of realizing true peace. They
meditate to empty their minds so they can feel peace.
In Christianity we have greater evidence on which to rely than that of
feeling and it is the evidence that comes from knowing.
“And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3)
Salvation is not based upon feeling, but on the fact that something is
happening in my life that I know is real. This knowledge is verified by
evidences of change in my life, changes that I can see taking place. I
cannot discern these changes without proper self-examination.
The scripture says, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that
good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:2)
What Does “MONOGENES” mean?
In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as the “only begotten Son of God,
several times. The term, only begotten is translated from the Greek
word, Monogenes. Although several modern authorities claim that the word
“monogenes” should be translated as, “unique” or “one of a kind,”
neither the word itself nor the roots from which the word is derived
lend any credence to that definition. Look at the meanings of the word,
“monogenes” and the words from which it is derived and you will see what
I mean. These definitions are taken from The Strongs Hebrew-Greek
dictionary.
monogenes :- only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).
(The word Monogenes is derived from the two greek words, Monos and Genos the meanings of which are given below.)
monos :- remaining, i.e. sole or single; by impl. mere:—alone, only, by themselves.
genos :- ”kin” (abstr. or concr., lit. or fig., indiv. or
coll.):—born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red),
nation, offspring, stock.
It is clear that the word literally signifies the only one of a
certain “kindred” (family stock) or of a person’s generation. The word
genos is of the same root from which we get words such as “genes,”
“genealogy,” “generation,” etc.
Since the word monogenes appears in the New Testament only nine times
and those nine usages are the basis upon which we must form our
conclusion as to what the word really means, then we need to ask the
question, does the word mean a ”unique” son or child in the sense of one
who is an offspring by some process other than birth? The Grace
Theological Journal says,
“The word translated “only begotten,” (monogenes) is used nine times in
the New Testament. It is used in reference to a certain widow’s son
(Luke 7:2), to Jairus’ only daughter (Luke 8:42), and to another only
child (Luke 9:38). It is used five times in reference to Christ (John
1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 ; 1 John 4:9), and once in referring back to an Old
Testament character (Heb 11:17).
The Greek translations of the Old Testament (Septuagint, Aquila,
Symmachus) also employ the word nine times, each time translating a form
of the Hebrew word ‘yahid.’ Each one of these occurrences refers to an
only child, seven of them to an only child in the ordinary sense. But
twice the term is used of Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen 22:2, Aquila;
22:12, Symmachus) . . . . “
The fact is that in every single usage of the word, monogenes, in both
the Old Testament (the Septuagint Greek version) and the New Testament,
the word refers to a child who was literally born of the parents. It
always signified a filial relationship. It never referred to an adopted
or designated child. Also, in almost every case it had reference to the
only child of the parents. The only exception to this is where it refers
to Isaac who was actually not the only child of Abraham. The
theologians make much of this and use this only case as the definitive
one by which they decide on the meaning of the word, “monogenes”
(because it fits with their ideas). In doing this they ignore the great
majority of cases. And yet, even in the case of Isaac it is not
difficult to see why Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s monogenes. He was
the only legitimate one as far as both God and Abraham were concerned.
God’s words to Abraham when He instructed him to sacrifice Abraham were,
“take now thy son, thine only son whom thou lovest . . ..”
Of course, we also need to remember that Isaac was the literal son of
Abraham. In every single case in the Bible the term monogenes has
reference to a truly begotten child.
While Allen Stump and I (David Clayton) were in Tasmania last year we had the pleasure of spending a few days with Brother Paul Borg and his lovely family. His wife Helen is of Greek descent and is from a family where Greek is the language naturally spoken. It was of interest to us to hear her say that she had always understood the word “monogenes” to mean “begotten” or “born of,” and that this was how the word had always been understood by her people. The following excerpt from an article by Scott Jones (found on the internet) is interesting in light of this. It is interesting to note that in spite of this defence, Mr. Jones is a Trinitarian (!!)
Defense of Monogenes
by Scott Jones
It is well known among native
Greeks that Modern Greek morphology is virtually identical to
Koine/Biblical morphology. That means the language has been relatively
stable for the past two thousand years and thus the definitions have
undergone virtually no change as well.
…. Native Greeks have been reading the scriptures in GREEK – their
own mother tongue – for the past two thousand years. They understand
their own language better than Anglo-bible scholars and modern version
translators who can’t speak Greek, even though these Anglo-bible
scholars and modern version translators who can’t speak Greek continue
to darken counsel by words without knowledge in their perennial boasts
of understanding a language they can’t even speak.
Following their own vain imaginations down the corrupt path of their
own inner delusions in their never-ending and systematic attempt to
devalue the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, the modern
Anglo-Sanhedrin states that monogenes means unique. Of course, only a
non-Greek speaker or someone with a huge theological bent would make
such an uninformed statement, as the Greek language has had a different
word for unique for more than two thousand years.
That word is monadikos and it antedates Christianity, having been
employed by Aristotle, Philo, and others. The Greek word monadikos means
unique or one of a kind and nothing else, as native Greeks know. Its
morphology hasn’t changed in over two thousand years. Monadikos is the
word that Greek speakers have been using for unique for more than two
thousand years, and it is the word native Greeks still use today when
they want to say unique or one of a kind.
Neither has the morphology of monogenes changed in over two thousand
years, and monogenes has always meant only begotten or its equivalent.
Just as only begotten is not equivalent to unique, so monogenes is
not equivalent to monadikos. The Greek word monogenes does not mean
unique, nor has it ever. The Greek word monadikos means unique. It has
always meant unique.
Had the writers of the New Testament wanted to say unique, they
would have used the Greek word which means unique – monadikos.
The reason the writers of the New Testament didn’t employ monadikos
when they penned the New Testament is simple – because the writers of
the New Testament didn’t mean unique. The writers of the New Testament
meant only begotten or it’s equivalent. That’s why they used the word
monogenes instead of monadikos.
According to both history and native Greeks themselves, the Greek
word monogenes means only begotten or its equivalent, and it has always
been so, notwithstanding the delusions of Anglo-bible scholars and
modern version translators who can’t speak Greek.
The Trinity And The Foundations of The Christian Faith
By Colin Gyles
The Trinity is held by popular professed Christianity to be the
central doctrine of the Christian faith. This doctrine, though nominally
embraced by most professed Christians, is widely considered to be a
mystery. So mysterious is this doctrine that many of its adherents do
not even venture to seek an understandable definition of the doctrine,
much more to investigate or analyze its coherency or any implications
that it might create for the overall perspective that is developed.
Webster’s Dictionary defines the Trinity as follows: “(a) A threefold
consubstantial personality existing in one divine being or substance.
(b) The union of one God; of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three
infinite persons.” A similar definition of the Trinity is given in the
Practical Catholic Dictionary by Jessie Corrigan Pegis as follows: “One
and the same God in three divine persons, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost. There are three distinct persons who are one God.”
In accordance with the historical development of the Trinity doctrine
and as indicated in the above definitions, the Trinity declares that
there are three distinct persons who are of the same substance and
constitute one being. This composite being is considered to be the God
of the Christian faith. Pictorially, the Trinity has been represented as
a composite head with three (3) faces or as three different heads that
are joined in a single body. Another popular representation is an
equilateral triangle wherein each of the three (3) equal sides
represents a member of the Trinity.
The various representations attempt to depict an underlying concept of
unity of substance, thus making the three personalities a single being
rather than separate beings. This concept of unity of substance
constitutes the primary basis on which the doctrine was formulated. The
formulation of the Trinity doctrine arose out of a controversy early in
the fourth (4″) century AD between one Arius, a Presbyter in charge of
the church at Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt, and Alexander, the Bishop
of Alexandria.
Arius proposed that Jesus Christ, the Son, was of like substance
(Greek-Homoiousion) as the Father while Alexander contended that the Son
was of the same substance (Greek Homoousion) as the Father. The
resolution of the dispute was done by a council of 3 18 bishops called
at Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD, which resolution
saw the condemnation and banishment of Arius and the acceptance of the
idea that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.
The concept of identity of substance was later applied also to the
Holy Spirit by Athanasius and a subsequent council held at
Constantinople in 381 AD enjoined equal worship of the Holy Ghost with
the Father and Son. It was also declared that the Son was begotten of
the Father by an Eternal Generation, a continuous process that has
neither beginning nor end, hence the Son is not separate from the
Father, but together they constitute one being. The Roman Catholic
Knights of Columbus declare: “The Christian belief is that the Christ of
History is the Son of God, eternally begotten by one ceaseless action
from the Father………” (Tell Us About God…. Who Is He? p. 30, The
Knights of Columbus).
An examination of the issues which gave rise to the formulation of the
doctrine of the Trinity indicate clearly that the doctrine was
formulated based on intellectual speculation and not on divine
revelation. Indeed the Bible is entirely silent on such questions as the
substance of the Father and the pre-incarnate Son. Further, none of the
apostles or prophets have even as much as alluded to any such thing as
worship of the Holy Spirit or made any suggestion as to the nature of
any process by which the Son was begotten. The Trinity is indeed a
mystery, but far from being a divine mystery, it is a man-made mystery,
and a mystery in the sense of being obscure and confusing.
NOT FROM THE APOSTLES
Roman Catholic officials are at least honest in admitting that the
Trinity doctrine was not founded on the Scriptures, as declared: “Our
opponents (Protestants) sometimes claim that no belief should be held
dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture……. But the
Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity
for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels….” – Life
Magazine, October 30, 1950.
It is rather significant that the various pictorial representations of
the so-called Christian Trinity bear marked resemblance to depictions
of pagan deities that have existed centuries before the founding of the
Christian church and which had no counterpart in the Jewish religious
experience. The reason for this is that popular professed Christianity
has been built on the foundation of imperial Christianity of the Roman
empire which was developed based on a mingling of Christianity with the
former pagan experience of Gentile converts. This is evident in the
Trinity concept, wherein essentially correct Biblical terminology such
as “One God” and “Only Begotten Son” are used to provide a veneer for
false, unscriptural, pagan ideas.
That Christianity which was of the apostolic flavour, did not feature
in the prominent and populous cities of the Roman Empire or in any of
the famous councils of the imperial church. The reason for this is to be
found in a dire hatred that Roman authorities had developed for the
Jews. One may recall that all the apostles were Jewish and the founding
members of the Christian Church were Jewish. The Christian Jews
constituted a sect called “Nazarenes” (The apostle Paul was referred to
as a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes – Acts 24:5 on account of
the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene, having been brought up in Nazareth –
Matt. 2:23).
On account of the non-Christian Jews seeking to assert independence
from the Roman authorities, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD
70. The Christian Jews escaped the scourge by fleeing to a city in Syria
called Pella (one of the ten cities of what is called Decapolis, in the
Bible).
Pella and Antioch (the place where the disciples were first called
Christians – Acts 11:26), both in Syria, became the main headquarters of
apostolic Christianity after the destruction of Jerusalem. This
remained so until as late as AD 370. Of these Christian Jews (Nazarenes)
the Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Nazarenes, an obscure
Jewish-Christian sect, existing at the time of Epiphaneus (fl. A.D. 370)
in Coele – Syria, Decapolis (Pella) and Basanitis (Cocabe). According
to that authority, they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of
the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before
the siege in A.D. 70; he characterizes them as neither more nor less
than Jews pure and simple, but adds that they recognized the new
covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in
the one God and His Son Jesus Christ…. Jerome (Ep. 79 to Augustine)
says that they believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin
Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, but adds that,
‘desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor
the other.’ They used the Aramaic recession of the Gospel according to
Matthew, which they called the Gospel to the Hebrews, but, while
adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded….
Sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the
apostolicity of Paul or the rights of (Gentile) Christians (Jer., Comn,
in Isa. 9:1)”. – The Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 19
For those who have read the Bible book of Acts, there should be very
little difficulty in identifying the characteristics of the Nazarenes as
described above with the apostolic church. It is noteworthy however,
that Jerome’s description reflected an attitude which had, by then,
developed among Gentile professed Christians which sought to dissociate
Christianity from any connection with the Jews.
Meanwhile, widespread rebellion of non-Christian Jews against the
Romans in AD 135 once again occasioned the Romans under emperor Hadrian
to plow Jerusalem under, change its name to Aelia and forbade the
Gentile Christians to have a leader of Jewish descent ~(Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, b.3, Ch. 5 p. 138, found in Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers). Thus, by the time the Council of Nicaea was
called, the Gentile Christians had largely distanced themselves from
their Jewish brethren, allied themselves to the Roman Imperial
authorities and capitulated to pagan customs, with which they were well
familiar, in order to avoid being classified with the Jews. Thus,
Christianity of the apostolic brand continued to exist in obscurity,
being kept aloof from such philosophical bungling as the Trinity.
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
The fundamental problem with the Trinity Doctrine in all its
variations is that it denies or confuses the reality of Jesus Christ
being the Son of God. This reality is the central truth that Christ
commanded that His church should be built on (Matt. 16: 16-18). To
remove or distort this truth and replace it with the pagan concept of a
Trinity, as the central doctrine of Christianity can only undermine the
true gospel of salvation and establish a false faith that does not
commend itself to reason.
The gospel is a story which demonstrates the price of genuine and
lasting peace. The honourable Chief Justice has reminded us that there
can be no peace without justice. God could have destroyed the Devil
before his rebellion and malicious lies against the Government of God
are proven to be baseless, but the entire universe would cry: Foul! The
seeds of distrust that were insinuated by the Devil (then called
Lucifer), first in heaven among the angels and then in the hearts of our
first parents (Adam and Eve) and their posterity may be rooted out only
by due process of justice which must not only be done, but be
manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.
The cost to God of allowing due process has been immeasurable,
involving even the ignominious death of His only begotten Son. Jesus
Christ, as a willing and obedient Son, being the express image of His
Father’s person (character) demonstrated on earth the Father’s virtuous
character and allowed the entire universe to see the Devil’s malice
toward God by enduring the Devil’s venom even to the point of death. God
himself being the ultimate source and sustainer of all things could not
have condescended in such a manner and die, otherwise the universe
would collapse and cease to exist. Of the Father, the Scriptures
declare: “who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and
Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no
man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see”. 1 Tim.
6:15, 16. “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things……” 1 Cor. 8:6.
Though the Father Himself could not die, nevertheless, through His
divine power, His only begotten, beloved Son could be manifested in a
form whereby He could die and did die. One cannot begin to imagine what
must have occurred in the heart of God, the loving Father, who loves far
greater than any other being, when he saw the agony of His Son – His
only begotten Son, as Jesus, in the frailty of human flesh, cried “My
God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27. 46. Such has been the
cost of securing lasting peace for the entire universe. The argument of
Calvary is profound. It shows:
1. The enormity of sin – that sin ultimately engenders the destruction of all that is good.
2. The matchless love of a Holy God, even for a race of rebels;
notwithstanding the fact that the rejecters of His grace will be called
to account for the death of His Son.
In explaining his mission, Jesus declared “I proceeded forth and came
from the Father; neither came I of myself, but He sent me.” John 8: 42.
Having fulfilled the will of His Father, Jesus Christ has been even more
endeared to His Father. Jesus said: “Therefore doth my Father love me,
because 1 lay down my life, that I might take it again.” John 10:17.
Accordingly, God has not only raised him from the dead (Acts 5:30, 31)
and has “highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every
name” (Phil. 2: 9), but has “committed all judgement unto the Son: That
all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” John
5:22, 23.
The gospel is intended to open to the world the irrefutable evidence
of divine love, patience, selflessness and justice. However, through
such distortions as the Trinity doctrine the Devil seeks to obscure the
truth. Nevertheless, we are assured that “this gospel of the Kingdom
shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and
then shall the end come.” Matt. 24: 14. But first, the gospel will be
cleared of all distortions so that it will shine with unshadowed
brilliance and clarity, showing that sin is without excuse, thus
preventing any recurrence of evil, once an end has been put to it.
An Interesting Exchange
The following consists of a series of exchanges on an internet chat
forum between brother Terry Hill of Bristol, England and a Seventh-day
Adventist minister, on the subject of the godhead. .Terry posted the
first question which started the discussion.
You have seen a lot of emails on
the trinity debate. If you are still wondering what the ‘fuss’ is all
about, please read very carefully statement No. 2 of our 27 fundamentals
(see below) and ask yourself this question, According to this
statement, what is God?
2. The Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three
co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above
all, and ever present.
Now answer these questions as honestly as you can.
1. Does the above statement make sense to you? Is it intelligible?
2. According to this statement, is God a person?
3. If you answered ‘yes’ to the previous question, are you happy to believe that there are three persons in one person?
4. Would you say that the statement is Biblical?
5. Do you believe what the statement says?
Sometimes we need to take stock of what we really are saying when we
make claims to certain beliefs. After all, we would like others to
believe what we believe. Perhaps there is a need for a re-think.
Regards
Terry
Only one person on the forum answered the email and that was the
moderator/owner, an SDA minister. His reply I must admit did shock me.
Here it is.
Terry:
Let’s be careful here. There is stated to be one God composed of three
persons. I am entirely comfortable with that because it is the
testimony of Scripture. The only thing I don’t like about that statement
is its heading: “The Trinity.”
1. Is it intelligible? Yes. Perhaps you wish to ask rather whether it
seems to make sense to limited finite beings (three in one), with a
presumed answer of no.
2. According to the statement, God is one; the three, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are persons. God is not a person according to this
statement.
3. Since I reject item two, three through five, apparently relating to
two are not questions for me. However, if one would ask whether I find
the fundamental belief statement itself biblical, I say yes, of course.
And if it is asked whether I believe it, I also say yes.
The Bible says both, that God is one and that there are three persons
in God. How these biblical facts can both be true can be difficult for
us. However, Mrs. White says that if everything about God could be
figured out by finite man, He wouldn’t be God (my words. For hers, see
SC 108-109). We must be careful that we do not, as the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, the Mormons, or others do, try to stretch the facts of
Scripture until they can be explained in our finity. Sometimes two
concepts converge within our sphere of understanding, sometimes they
don’t. Scripture testifies of two truths. It is enough.
This does not change the facts, and I think they are established
facts, that several of our pioneers did indeed hold viewpoints different
than the current belief statement. They were no less Adventist than we
though, and I don’t think we are any less Adventist than they for
holding this belief. Historically, Adventism has embraced both
viewpoints and I can call another holding either viewpoint Seventh-day
Adventist. That does not mean I reject their concerns or that I find
their teaching biblically compelling, or that I don’t think their view
of the atonement may be found untenable if they hold to some form of
arianism. The most biblical position I can presently find to sustain our
current teaching but reject the label “trinity,” for it carries so much
needless baggage that it has a part in spawning debates such as this
one. I appreciate the study that’s been done on this topic, both here on
the forum and elsewhere.
Signed XXXX
For reasons of Christian ethics, I will not reveal his name but I
really was surprised that someone, particularly an SDA minister would
come out and say that God was not a person. As you can imagine, I did
challenge him on this point and sent him this simple email:
Dear XXXXX
Where does it say in the Bible that God is composed of three persons?
You gave no Biblical reference. You also say that God is one, but you do
not say one what? Could you explain please?
Terry
To this he gave this totally evasive reply and did not answer my question
Terry:
The Bible makes evident that there are three PERSONS. Example texts
include Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14. The Bible says that God
is ONE in texts such as Deuteronomy 6:4. We both know that you know of
these texts. What is God “one” of? We all have the same information on
that in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, so I’m not sure what I can
add.
As you can see, his answer was not an answer at all. I did tell him that to which he replied
Terry:
I’m not quite sure what was confusing about the answer I gave. God the
Father is a person. Is that what you want me to say? I thought I said
it. But that does not demand that every reference to “God” in the
Scriptures is to the Father. You may know that God is commonly referred
to throughout the Bible with a plural.
Signed XXXXX
Well, that was the last thing that he said. We have passed many more
emails on the post on this subject but he has not since joined in the
discussion. I am waiting at the moment for him to call a halt to the
discussions because it has been going on a long time.
I have a little ‘group’ of local email friends (including our local
minister) who I send bit and pieces of interesting things to, so out of
interest I sent them my little questionnaire about that statement in the
27 fundamentals. Only one person answered. That was the wife of the
elder of my church. It was probably his opinion as well. They said
exactly the same as the minister on the forum, that being that God was
actually a collection of beings.
Last year (every day for a month), I helped run a local radio station
here in Bristol inasmuch as I participated in a two hour discussion
every morning on certain Biblical topics. On the last day we discussed
the Second Coming. As it was left to me each day to lay out the
discussion, I chose to do it through showing that Jesus came the first
time in accordance to Bible prophecy. To cut the story short, I first
established that the Messiah to come was human (Abraham’s seed) and then
established that He was divine (Psalm 2:7 etc). I then made the remark
that it was wonderful that God sent His Son into the world to die etc.
To my remark (and remember that this is ‘on air’), the minister said
that the term ‘Son’ was “only an expression that we used and that He was
only called the Son because of what happened at Bethlehem. I came back
at him ‘on air’ to say that the Bible said that He was the pre-existent
Son of God. That was the end of that conversation.
I am, more and more each day, getting a clearer picture of the problem
and how to deal with it. I was told by our ex elder recently that we
cannot understand so we should not delve into it etc.
I find that the majority of people are not really interested. They do
not seem to place any importance on what I have said. Their attitude
seems to be “what difference does it make?” That I find is the most
difficult thing to get over.
I have produced a Microsoft Word.doc that I make available to everyone
with over 200 quotes from EGW on the Godhead but the number of people
who request it is quite small really. I recently advertised it on the
forum and now have about 12 people who are asking for the documents with
my findings.
Philadelphia Fellowship and New Radio Program
For the next 12 weeks brother Colin Gyles will host a half an hour
radio programme every Sunday morning at 6:00 A.M. on KLAS 89. His
co-host for some of these programs will be brother Joseph Smikle. The
title of the programme is, “Behold Your God.” You are encouraged to tune
in to this programme each Sunday morning and your prayers on behalf of
this venture will be greatly appreciated.
The acquisition of the time slot for this broadcast followed quickly
on the heels of the recent efforts of the Kingston (Jamaica) believers
to engage in more efficient organization of their fellowship. Among the
recent steps taken by these believers is the decision to refer to
themselves as the PHILADELPHIA FELLOWSHIP. They have also moved from
their former meeting place at Hope Gardens and are now in a more stable
and comfortable setting at the Priory School (on Hope Road just in front
of Andrews Memorial Hospital). Please join them in worship any Sabbath
you are in the vicinity.
More on Philadelphia vs. Laodicea
Our article entitled “Philadelphia or Laodicea” (February 2002 Open
Face) has stirred up quite a bit of interest with some of the comments
being negative and some positive. A dear friend in Australia wrote the
following letter. We have reprinted most of it with some slight editing.
We appreciate the comments and for the most part are in agreement with
them. However, this perspective presents some questions and we have
asked these questions at the end of the article. We are aware of the
fact that in the area of prophetic interpretation and in so many other
areas, we have much more to learn and much to unlearn.
Dear David,
First of all, I want to say that your article is excellent as
always, and I am 100 percent with you relating to the belief that the
SDA Church believes itself to be Laodicea. Twenty years ago, this was a
big subject in Australia, and there was even a group of Adventists,
separate from the church, who called themselves ‘Philadelphians’.
In an article I wrote on the subject, I spoke of the Church’s
position as a TITLE, rather than a CONDITION, and quite obviously the
Scripture teaches it to be a condition. Once in Sabbath School, a
Pentecostal visitor listened for some time to people referring to
themselves as the Laodicean Church, until finally she said, ‘If you know
you are Laodicean, why don’t you repent?’ Of course, it fell on deaf
ears, as the majority believed it to be a title, not a condition.
So in this aspect, there is complete harmony with you David.
The only part where I would say I differ from you is that I believe it
will be the Lord who will designate who is a Philadelphian at the final
sealing and latter rain. Perhaps you also believe this, but it did not
seem to come across in your article.
If we claim to be Philadelphians now, there is no rebuke for us. I
believe we still need rebuke. We need to realise that we are still
afflicted with the disease of Laodicea. It is subtle. After all, we have
had it a long time. Our hearts must be rebuked, for God wants us to cry
out continually that we are poor, miserable, blind and naked, and that
we know the disease of being rich and increased with goods, is still
lurking somewhere in our hearts. If we understand our true condition, we
will keep seeing Christ’s wonderful wares of faith, love, righteousness
and the Spirit of God, as something we desire with all our hearts. They
are not only once sought, but to be requested more and more, until
finally Christ will pronounce us healed of the disease. If this is not
how we see ourselves, are we not then truly blind and stricken with the
fullness of the disease? My concern is that if I claim to be a
Philadelphian now, my true condition will never be seen, and as you
know, unless we come to realise our terrible state, we can never be
healed.
In 1893 Brother A.T. Jones presented the following to the delegates at the General Conference:
“When Jesus tells you and me we are blind, the thing for us to do is to
say, “Lord, we are blind.” He told those folks they were blind and they
were blind, but they said it was not so. It was so. If they had
confessed their blindness they would have seen God in that man’s healing
from his blindness. Well, then, brethren, the thing for us to do is to
come square up to that Laodicean message and say that every word He says
is so. When He says you and I are wretched, tell Him, “It is so, I am
wretched; miserable; it is so, I am miserable; poor, it is so; I am
poor, a perfect beggar, I shall never be anything else in the world;
blind, I am blind, and shall never be anything else; naked, that is so;
and I do not know it; that is so, too. I do not know it at all, as I
ought to know it.” And then I will say to him every day and every hour,
“Lord, that is all so. But, oh, instead of my wretchedness, give me
thine own satisfaction. Instead of my misery, give me thine own comfort.
Instead of my poverty, supply all thine own riches. Instead of my
blindness, be thou my sight. Instead of my nakedness, oh, do thou clothe
me with thine own righteousness. And what I know not, Lord, teach thou
me.” [Congregation: “Amen.”]” General Conference Bulletin. 1893 p167.
If we say we are not Laodicean, then the following text applies,
“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now
you say, We see. Therefore your sin remaineth.” John 9:41.
Brother Jones also refers to this text. He continues,
“The difficulty about our not being able to repent is that we have not
confessed that what the Lord has told us is the truth. When I know that I
am wretched then I know that I need something that will satisfy me. And
I know that nothing but the Lord can give that, and I depend upon
nothing but Him to give it. And if I have not Him, why it is only
wretchedness. Any moment that I have not Him it is only wretchedness,
and any moment that I have not His comfort it is only misery. Any moment
that I have not absolute dependence upon His unsearchable riches — the
unsearchable riches of Christ—I am utterly poor, a complete beggar. And
every moment that I do not see and confess that I am blind and have Him
as my sight, I am in sin. He says so. Therefore your sin remaineth. And
every moment that I do not see my nakedness and depend only and
absolutely upon Him and His righteousness to clothe me, why so certainly
I am ruined, utterly ruined, and every moment that I begin to say, “Now
I know so much,” no, I do not know that at all. Well, then, the thing
that I am to do is to say, “Lord, I do not know it. I depend upon thee
to teach me everything, even to teach me that I am wretched and
miserable and poor and blind and naked and that I need all these things.
And when I tell Him all that He will give all I need. He will do it.
That is our situation.” Ibid p167.
There is no problem identifying the members of the church as being
Laodicean; the problem lies in seeing ourselves as such. But praise God,
His messengers of 1888 had the truth. Let us learn the lesson, for it
is this message we must give to the world.
It is quite paradoxical, because if I say I am not a Laodicean, the
words may give me away, because in actual fact I am saying, ‘I am rich
and increased with goods.’ The real Laodicean does not know his
condition, so obviously he will say he isn’t sick. But if I recognise my
wretched condition, it is clear that I am being healed of my illness
and receiving Christ’s wonderful gifts. It doesn’t mean I am fully
healed, nor does it mean I am as bad as those who deny they have the
deadly disease, and yet we are all as miserable, poor, blind, and naked
as each other!
What is a Christian who is being healed of the Laodicean illness?
According to Revelation 3:21, the one who will sit with Christ in His
throne is an “overcomer”, one who overcame as Christ overcame. It seems
to me that the remnant will simply be overcomers needing Christ’s faith,
love, righteousness and Spirit. These are precious gifts, aren’t they?
“The Laodicean message has been sounding. Take this message in all its
phases and sound it forth to the people wherever Providence opens the
way. Justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ are the
themes to be presented to a perishing world” Letter 24, 1892. BC Vol 7.
p964.
When giving the message of the loud cry, we won’t be seen as a people
who need no rebuke ourselves, but humbly acknowledging our great need.
It may well be at that time that Jesus will regard us as Philadelphians,
but our own cry will be, ‘Lord – your gold, raiment and eye salve, for I
am undone’.
David, I hope this is a blessing to you, and if you share it, that it will be for your readers as well.
God’s blessing upon you.
Some questions suggested by this letter:
Jesus’ counsel to Laodiceans is to repent and buy of Him gold tried in the fire, eyesalve and white raiment.
1. What is repentance and how long does it take to repent?
2. As long as Laodiceans are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and
naked they cannot have repented. Why then don’t we, (as the Pentecostal
lady suggested) simply repent?
3. If Laodiceans heed the counsel of Christ and “buy” of Him white
raiment, eyesalve and gold tried in the fire will they still be
wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked?
4. If Laodiceans repent, will they still think that they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked?
5. If we repent, may we then say that we are no longer in the Laodicean condition? Can a Christian know that he has repented?
6. If Laodiceans come to see their true condition, can they still be
said to be “blind” (one of the identifying marks of Laodiceans)?
7. If I put my whole trust in Christ instead of self, can I then still honestly say that I am in the Laodicean condition?
I believe a genuine Christian will always recognize his inherent
worthlessness and unworthiness, but isn’t it also true that a true child
of God will know the true state of his relationship with Christ? The
great problem with Laodicea is that she does not know this.
Open Face is published bi-monthly and is sent free to all who desire to receive it.
David Clayton: Editor and Publisher
P. O. Box 23 Knockpatrick
Manchester, Jamaica W.I.
Phone: (876) 904-7392
email: david@restorationministry.com
