Courtesy of Independent Conservative.
Archive for the ‘religious discrimination’ Category
The Sad Truth About Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley And The 200 Year Old Mormon Plot To Take Over America’s Government
Posted by Job on January 29, 2008
My note: This devotional was written by pastor and televangelist Bill Keller of Live Prayer. I had decided to stop posting Bill Keller’s devotionals that dealt with Mormonism for a time for reasons that I will not get into. But after seeing Glenn Beck exploit the death of Hinckley as an opportunity to promote his religion on CNN last night, I am making a one time exception to my policy. Please note: Keller is right when he says that there is no difference between Mormonism and Islam. So why is the religious right so much more tolerant of one than the other? You know that if Mitt Romney were Muslim, he’d have the same “he is part of a global Muslim conspiracy to take over our government” theories as are circulating about Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I will tell you the reason: race. Mormonism was founded by whites and in America is an overwhelmingly white religion, so they are not only tolerated by the religious right, but are fully embraced by them. Meanwhile, Islam is an Arab religion. That is why the same religious right hypocrites that went nuts over Keith Ellison merely being elected to Congress are actually praying for Mitt Romney to save them from Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain (not that I support any of them either by the way). The way these conservatives, especially Roman Catholics, are claiming that Mitt Romney is the victim of oh so much bigotry after decades of using racism and segregation against BLACKS to build their own party would be hilarious if it wasn’t so evil. (By the way, check out this Roman Catholic pro – segregation site that claims that God never intended for Christianity to spread outside the white race … surprise surprise they like Romney.) It was as if they were saying “Hey evangelicals, Romney is one of us where it really counts, so vote your race, it is more important than your religion!” That is why the same folks on the right who continuously demand that blacks bear the discrimination that we face while picking and grinning about it start braying like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP whenever Romney’s religion is discussed in any terms other than “oh we can trust Romney to save America because he is a devoted Mormon who believes in Jesus with a beautiful wife and five sons.” Well, again, anyone who doubts that Romney would use the White House to promote his faith not only in America but also overseas (the people that they falsely claim are the cursed seed of Ham and for that reason held them in second class status until 1978 – a fact which conservatives love I bet – apparently are a major mission field for them!) should view Glenn Beck’s performance below.
An evil tool of satan masquerading as a Godly grandfather is buring in hell
for all eternity! Gordon B. Hinckley, the leader of the satanic Mormon cult
is dead at 97. Hinckley saw this cult grow from 9 million members to over
13 million members worldwide during his 12-year reign as its leader. While
Hinckley is already being memorialized as a “great man of God,” the fact is
his life has been an instrument in the hands of satan to help lead the souls
of men to hell by following the false theology of the Mormon cult.
Many people, even Christians will rail against me for being so unkind, but
this only illustrates the problem we have. Even Believers don’t take the
eternal souls of men serious enough. As I state often, this is a battle for
souls. Satan is not playing games and is serious about taking as many souls
into the lake of fire with him as he can. I am saddened at how many
Christians either don’t understand, or don’t want to think about the FACT
that those who die without Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, will pass from
this life into eternal punishment!
I know some people are outraged that I would be “so mean” to call Mormonism
a satanic cult. I receive emails all the time talking about the great works
they do. First, I have no doubt that most Mormons are fine people, good
people, and do great works. But being a good person and doing good works
does NOT get you into Heaven. Only faith in Jesus Christ, the Jesus of the
Bible, will get you into Heaven. The Mormon cult spends tens of millions of
dollars each year in public relations to portray themselves as “just another
DO NOT LET THEIR ADS FOOL YOU. They are no more a Christian church than your
local mosque is!
The lie of Mormonism that I expose is not a new problem. Paul, himself, had
to deal with the issue of “cults”-those who perverted the Gospel-almost from
the very beginning. He spoke of it often in his writings, as in today’s
anchor verses in his letter to the church at Galatia. This is nothing new.
Here are just a few of the theological issues that makes the satanic Mormon
cult totally inconsistent with Biblical Christianity and why a Mormon is no
more a Christian than a Muslim is. The god of the Mormon cult is NOT the God
of the Bible. Their “god” is named Elohim and was once a man like you and I
who came from another planet. Mormon theology teaches that men can
eventually become a god and have their own planet. When a Mormon talks about
“god,” he is talking about this fictitious god of Mormonism and NOT the God
of the Bible!
This holds true for Jesus. The jesus of Mormon theology is not God incarnate
as the Bible teaches. The Mormon jesus was not supernaturally conceived by
the Holy Ghost, but the natural offspring of their “god” Elohim who had sex
with Mary, meaning he is a created being no different than you and I.
Mormons also teach that their jesus had several wives and children, again,
in compete contradiction to what the Bible teaches. The jesus of the Mormon
cult is also the spirit brother of Lucifer and will return not to the Mt. Of
Olives as the Bible teaches, but to Independence, Missouri to set up his
When a Mormon talks about “jesus,” he is NOT talking about the true Jesus of
the Bible! What Jesus you put your faith in is so critical, since this is
why anyone who puts their faith in the imaginary jesus of Joseph Smith and
the satanic Mormon cult will die in their sins and their souls burn forever
in the flames of hell!
What about the Bible and true Christian churches? Mormons love to use the
Bible and quote from the Bible to support their deception that they are
Christians. The trademark of all cults and false religions, even those who
use the Bible, is that it is NOT their final authority. In the Mormon cult,
their authority does not come from the Bible which they view as incomplete
and not reliable, but the writings of Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl
of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. These are the writings that
form the false theology of this cult.
Mormons believe that non-Mormons are “abominations.” While they don’t have
the guts the Muslims do to publicly call a non-Muslim an infidel who should
be put to death, a Mormon views a Biblical Christian as part of a “false
religion” and void of all authority.
Like in all cults, the average member hasn’t got a clue what their cult
really believes. You only get to know everything after you have proven
yourself to be a loyal and worthy member of the cult. That is true in the
Mormon cult as well. Most Mormons go to their “church,” sing many of the
same hymns they sing at the Baptist church down the road, give their tithe,
read a few passages out of the Bible, hear a message about being a “good
person,” and go home.
It is only when you get to become a “temple Mormon” that you really learn
all of the deep, dark, beliefs of Mormonism. The Mormon temple rituals are
actually little more than the temple rituals Smith copied from another cult,
Freemasonry! Smith who was involved in the Masonic cult, simply copied and
incorporated their chants, handshakes, and ceremonies when he started the
Mormon cult. These are the same chants, handshakes, and ceremonies Romney
participated in when he took his oath to the Mormon cult above anything
else, INCLUDING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION!
The average person has no idea that the ultimate goal of the Mormon cult is
to establish a theocracy here in the United States. Joseph Smith, the cult’s
founder actually ran for the Presidency. So did Mitt Romney’s father. This
cult has the very real goal of establishing the “Kingdom of God,” which
means advancing the physical and earthly organization of the multi-billion
dollar Mormon cult.
There is a special room in the Mormon Temple located in Washington, DC that
has been prepared and in place for over 30 years, which will be the seat of
power for the Mormon-led government which will supplant our current
government. This was the vision Smith laid out less than 200 years ago, and
Mitt Romney and those in the hierarchy and leadership of the Mormon cult see
this as the time for that vision to become fulfilled!
I love you and care about you so much. Gordon B. Hinckley was NOT a great
“man of God,” but simply a tool of satan who used his life to lead millions
to the false teachings of the Mormon cult, meaning those poor souls died in
their sins and are in hell for all eternity along with all who reject the
Jesus of the Bible. He did not become a “god” upon his death as Mormons
believe. He didn’t get his own planet full of women waiting to have sex with
him. The moment he died, Hinckley stood before God and because he rejected
Jesus and died in his sins, was immediately cast into hell for all eternity!
I have done my best in a limited amount of time to give you a brief overview
of the false and satanic beliefs of the Mormon cult. I have just barely
scratched the surface, but just in what I have shared with you today, NOBODY
in their right mind could ever believe that a Mormon is a Christian. When
you study Mormon theology and understand the wild beliefs of Smith and this
cult, you need faith greater than I will ever hope to have to believe what
they do. There is no logic to it and there is absolutely nothing they
believe that has any basis in realty or can be proven.
Listen, God gave us free will, and men who live in rebellion to God since
the very beginning have dreamed up the wildest and most ridiculous religions,
and sadly people who were spiritually void chose to believe their lies and
will be lost for all eternity because of it. The danger of Mormonism is that
they are deceptive (just look at their name, the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints) and will lie without conscience just like the father of
lies, satan (John 8:44), to get people to join their cult.
I pray today for those 13 million souls alive today who are following the
lies of this cult, to turn from those lies before they take their last
breath and are lost for all eternity. There is only one Truth, and that is
found in the book God wrote, the Bible. There is only one way to be saved,
and that is through a personal relationship by faith with the Jesus of the
Bible. May those lost in the lies of the Mormon cult denounce those lies
and turn to God’s Word alone and faith in Jesus and be saved so they don’t
end up burning in hell like Gordon B. Hinckley!!!
In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller firstname.lastname@example.org
***ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY? The fact is you will die one day. At that moment, you will either spend eternity with the Lord or be cast into everlasting darkness forever separated from God your creator. To know for certain you will be forever with Jesus, go to:
***I am excited to let you know that the Liveprayer Daily Devotional is now
available via AUDIO each day. Simply go to http://www.liveprayer.com/Audio.cfm
Also, you can now listen to the Daily Devotional by phone by calling 1-727-342-5673
Posted in abomination, apostasy, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, blasphemy, catholic, christian right, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, civil rights, conservatism, conservative Christian, cult, devotional, ecumenism, election, emergent church, evangelical christian, evangelism, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, freemasonry, globalism, GOP, government, hate speech, heresy, Islam, masonry, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, Muslim, occult, political correctness, politics, religion, religious discrimination, religious right | Tagged: council of conservative citizens, council of conservative citizens of saint louis, countenance blog, elohim, glenn beck, gordon hinckley, Joseph Smith, live prayer, mosque, Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, segregation, slavery | 53 Comments »
Posted by Job on September 12, 2007
Note this very common argument used by a Jehovah’s Witness user delt01 on Youtube where I found this video to defend his false beliefs is the same that I get from ONENESS PENTECOSTALS (and Mormons) all the time:
“The divinity of Christ, and whether it’s the archangel who was born as Jesus, is just beyond human understanding. Arguing about it is pointless, and just leads to conflicts and fighting. I seriously doubt you will be cast off from God for lacking the ability to understand, much less burn in a hell of fire and suffering for all eternity. There. Everyone happy?”
Posted in Christianity, evangelism, false religion, jehovah's witness, Jehovah's witnesses, multiculturalism, religious discrimination, religious right, spiritual deliverance techniques, thou shalt not murder, watchtower tract | 4 Comments »
Posted by Job on September 12, 2007
Posted by Job on August 3, 2007
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have completely changed the Bible with their New World Translation. They are desperate to show that Jesus is not God. There is a long list of Scriptures that prove that Jesus is one with God, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done their best to edit those out of their bible. The following list works even with their bible.
|Name||Applied to Jehovah||Applied to Jesus|
Alpha and Omega
Lord of Lords
First and Last
Revelation 1:17-18, 22:13
2 Timothy 4:8
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have some other problems as well. In trying to demote Jesus to being lower than God, they say He’s a lesser god, but a god nonetheless (their version of John 1:1 says, “the Word was a god”). In this, they become polytheists, which I’m sure they don’t want to be, and it’s completely contradictory to even their bible.
They also say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. There are zero verses that would indicate this, and there are only a handful of verses that refer to Michael. They’ve been knocking on my door about once a month for the last few months, and I asked the last pair of ladies for their reason for believing that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They quoted Jude 9, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” I just told them that that verse doesn’t even say anything about Jesus.
Since then, I’ve learned that that verse not only doesn’t indicate anything about Jesus being Michael the archangel, but it in fact proves that Jesus is not Michael. Michael called on the Lord to rebuke the devil, but Jesus never hesitated to rebuke the devil or demons Himself (Matthew 4:10, Matthew 17:18, Luke 4:41, etc.).
I think once you’ve got them thinking, this is a good time to go through a few of the Ten Commandments (Galatians 3:24), and conclude by saying that if they don’t have a proper understanding of who Jesus is, they won’t be saved (John 8:24). Any way you look at it, Jehovah’s Witnesses are terribly deceived, and all you can do is make an attempt to correct their understanding. Hopefully it will make them think, and they’ll get saved someday.
Posted by Job on August 3, 2007
I know that they deny the Holy Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. This fellow suggests that they have even more in common with the other main pseudo – Christian cult the Mormons in that they are polytheists (though truthfully Mormons are henotheists rather than true polytheists … and in praying to Virgin Mary and the saints, does that make Catholics polytheists?). From Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Polytheism on billphillips.wordpress.com: “I questioned whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists in a previous post, and the more I’ve thought about it, the more pivotal I believe that question is. Their version of Isaiah 9:6 is pretty much the same as any accepted translation. It says that Jesus is a mighty God; I believe they will acknowledge that Jesus is a mighty God, but not God Almighty. They believe that Jehovah is God Almighty, and Jesus is a different, but nevertheless mighty God. So, apparently, they believe in two gods, making them polytheists.
There are a lot of verses that say there is only one God, so they have a huge problem here right? I believe that as they go door to door, they are often asked about John 1:1. Their standard reply (I’ve personally heard JWs say this more than once) to the objection of inserting an “a” into the verse is that a lot of translations say, “The word is a god.” (I’ve looked through about 20 different translations, some of which may or may not be any good, and I’ve never seen it translated that way.) But if there is only one God, the mistranslation seems to be a side issue. If they believed there’s only one God, even their translation of John 1:1 would be good enough to show that Jesus is that God.
The next time I get a chance to talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, I’m going to ask him or her about their polytheism. It seems like a fairly simple way to shake the person’s understanding and confidence in their religion and begin to open their eyes to the truth.”
Posted by Job on May 13, 2007
Now Amos 3:3 says “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Now please note below how Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Messianic Jews, and Oneness Pentecostals all use the same lies, and they all call true Bible – believing Christians apostates. (Incidentally, Muslims claim much the same.) Since they all agree on the same points and use the same exact terminology and historical/theological distortions and outright scriptural omissions, are they all correct? Or have they all been seduced by the same lying demons? It would be one thing if Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Jews, and Oneness Pentecostals all had similar religions, practices, and beliefs. But they do not. Their religions, practices, and beliefs ALL WILDLY DIVERGE. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT THEY ALL USE THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO DENY TRINITY AND USE THE SAME LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT. See below. So, you heretics, all of you rejoice that you have joined together in opposition to God’s Tri – Unity. Compliment each other on how you all are right. Join together, and respect each other’s beliefs, and be comforted in the fact that despite all of your differences, at least you all share THAT in common. There is no reason to push each other away! Come together. Sit at the same table! Break bread together, drink wine (or grape juice as it were) while you hash out your disagreements. Do not be “harsh” (as you accuse me) or “judgmental” (as you accuse me). Only God can judge, right? Well let me tell you something, all you people living in agreement of apostasy, God WILL judge, and the result of that will be your burning in the lake of fire forever. And it is my duty to warn you, and this is part of that process. Now I invite all of you to participate in this discussion, but in doing so please give a long hard thought about how you Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and unitarian “Christians” all manage to be in such agreement on so many things, and the implications of that fact.
This is the Mormon claim that the Tri – Unity of God is a lie given by Mormon VB in a comment: “A few hundred years after Christ’s departure and the death of his apostles there was a great division among the various churches and their leaders that had developed since and many Pagan traditions had snuck in to some of the various church’s beliefs. There were six years of disputation and frequent appeals to the emperor, but finally the leaders of the various groups came together at the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. to try to come to a unity on the topic of various issues, the understanding of the nature of God among them. Various theories were put out there for review for the people to dissect and argue their points with great zeal and eventually settled on the Trinity idea. Kind of reminds me of the Senate and how they come to an agreement on an issue…you know, put in this idea and take out that idea, take a vote on it and if it doesn’t fly go after it again. There was no spiritual revelation to come to this conclusion. Just contentious rantings and then settling for this theory first, which isn’t the Trinity one as it stands today: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, carnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was made of nothing (he was created), or who say that He is of another hypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the Son of God is created, that he is mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic church anathematezes.” Then more rantings, shameful conflicts, clashes and arguments came about and this one was settled on as one of the symbols of the orthodox Christian faith: “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, Son and 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 incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate and one incomprhensible. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” Well that’s about as clear as mud. It is obvious they weren’t reading the apostle’s writings and applying them to their conclusion. The simple doctrine of the Christian Godhead, set forth in the New Testament is corrupted by the meaningless jargon of these creeds, and their explanations. Later there was another change made by the Church of England that says “that there is but one living and true God everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness.” So what part of the Trinity idea do you ascribe to or do you have your own theory? The Trinity believers are definitely stuck on the three = “one” idea and taking it literally. Mark in the New Testament says that after Jesus’ ascension that Jesus “…was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” Mark 16:19. If the Father and Jesus are one individual (excuse me, spirit in your view), how can they be seen separately when they are together? Then we learn about what the Prophet Stephen saw and experienced in Act 7:55: “But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” It is clear here that all three of them (God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost) are very separate from each other. They each have their individuality but share a common goal and do different things to accomplish the goal. The short description of their purposes are: The Holy Ghost’s job is to testify of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Christ’s job is to glorify his father by doing all his father asks of him and the Father’s job is to be the Father of us all. When Jesus tells the people that he would like it if “…they (the people) may be one, as we (he and the Father) are” in John 17:11, does that mean that all the believers will literally become part of the Trinity? The Trinity would then need to be called the “Infinity” if that were the case. No, he was talking about one in purpose, just as he and his father are one in purpose.”
Here is Oneness Pentecostal Sue:
“It is encouraging that more people are being made aware of the theology regarding the nature of the Godhead: Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad. Some serious research into oneness theology versus trinitarian history would serve well. To deny the very essence of God by splitting Him up into three separate but distinct persons has been the nature of many false belief systems beginning in Babylon (Father, Mother & Child), Egypt (Osiris, Isis & Horus)and other Eastern religions that today have a Trinity, Hinduism (Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu) which is represented by a statue of God with three heads. Buddhism also has the doctrine of trikaya; the worship of a three-headed statue of Buddha. Is this three-headed “Christianity” any different? It’s the same polytheistic tri-God worship with different faces. Greek philosophers offered us the worship of the Archaic Triad when it was found necessary to reduce the number of their gods to three being Jupiter, Mars & Quirinus during the Roman Empire. This was later replaced by the Capitoline triad being Jupiter, Juno & Minerva. Plato was the developer of the Timaeus theory teaching that the number 3 was near diagrammatical perfections and based on this theroy furthered the concept. It was only natural in establishing Roman Catholicism that the intermarriage of polytheistic triune serving heathens would find it necessary to create a tritheistic godhead to serve as they became nominal Christians. The apostles understood that Jesus was God come in flesh (Isaiah 9:6 “….the mighty God, the everlasting Father…”) and to worship a second person in place of, or in addition to, God was to openly disregard the first commandment and the Shema.”
Unitarian Jew (who call Yeshua HaMashiach Messiah but not God) Baruch:
“Your message does not work! You know why? Because your form of writing is violent, harsh and impatient and very much not the way to tell your own beliefs to others. You judge people! The people who have a hard time to believe Yeshua was really HaShem have a point! There are lots of passages in the New Testament that tell He is not G-d. The thing is we have to believe He is the Mashiach and only Savior and that G-d is the One BEHIND Him, the One that works THROUGH Him. This means He’s not G-d in your way, He was a MAN (the NT tells this everywhere!)! There’s ONE G-d and ONE Lord and Mediator, the MAN Yeshua HaMashiach! The Trinity or Tri-Unity is from the Church and can’t be found in the NT nor Tanach. Thing is if you don’t believe that it was G-d working and speaking through the man Yeshua, there’s a problem! If you tell Yeshua was G-d, you have to admit that the Roman Church was right: there do exist G-dmurder and a Mother of G-d, G-d died on the Cross, G-d cried out to Himself ‘My G-d My G-d why have your forsaken me?’. This is blasphemy! G-d cannot die because He is a Living G-d, Eternally! His Son Yeshua died and resurrected by the Power of HaShem three days later! He was that Righteous that gave His Life for the World! Listen brother, I totally believe the Gospel and I trust the LORD Jesus Christ, Yeshua HaMashiach that He died and rose for ME and all people. There are however some texts you are citing that are not in my Bible nor in the Greek texts. For exampe 1 John 5:7 is made up later. Don’t you know that G-d told He is ONE (ECHAD)? That’s what the people have to accept rather than putting Him into boxes. People should know better. Believing that G-d is One and leaving mysteries over to Him is a better way than forcing people to believe in ‘the dogma of Trinity’. Didn’t He tell Moses to tell the people that ‘I will be that I will be’ send Him? Yes He did. This so clearly tells us not to put G-d into our own dogmatic boxes. Jesus also proclaimed the Shema (Hear O Israel, the LORD our G-d is ONE) as the first and foremost commandment. He talked about ‘My G-d and your G-d, my Father and your Father’, ‘The Father is more than I am’, ‘Why are you saying I’m good? For there’s only One that’s Good.’, etc.
I am totally aware that we need to accept the Gospel as ‘children’, but that does not mean that we do not have to study the Word. It’s not just about being guided by the Spirit of the LORD G-d alone. It’s always a combination of the Spirit and DEEDS/ACTION. Faith without works is dead according to Jacob. Did you know that everywhere where Yeshua and Paul and the others are talking about the WORD of the LORD G-d, they mean the Torah (and Prophets and Writings)? Read it, in Hebrew and find out more truths. You are actually telling me to believe your way, because if I believe like I do I will go to hell. That’s the christian way of evangelizing! I’m sorry, but you bother me with this a lot. As I started my posting I do REALLY 1000% believe that Jesus is my only Way and Savior (actually G-d is, through the man Jesus!), but some views need to be altered after such a long time in which christianity has been here, stating to be the only and superior religion!
May the LORD G-d Bless You Richly and you Grant the SHALOM of Mashiach Yeshua”
Now THIS is from the Jehovah’s Witness website:
“AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead. Constantine’s Role at Nicaea FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended. Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.” What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” ‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’ —The Encyclopedia Americana Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? Further Development AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.” The Athanasian Creed Norwegian Triad Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit), c. 13th century C.E. THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.” Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.” So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” Apostasy Foretold THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things. “The Triad of the Great Gods” Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French “Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology” notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.” Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4. Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB. Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6. What Influenced It Triune Hindu godhead India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E. THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.” French Triune godhead France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. (1) Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.” In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “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.” Italian Triune godhead Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. (2) A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity Platonism PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature. German Triune godhead Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E.The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.” The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.” The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.” In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.” Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7. Hindu Trinity The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay. Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It? WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.”
Posted in Apologetics, apostasy, blasphemy, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, full gospel baptist, GOP, heresy, innocent blood, jehovah's witness, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, marriage, Mormon, religious discrimination, Republican, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, spiritual deliverance techniques, syncretism, thou shalt not murder, unitarian, watchtower tract | 212 Comments »
Posted by Job on May 11, 2007
I must ask: have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? If not, follow this link: The Three Step Salvation Plan
Update: with their denying Matthew 28: 19 (http://bible.cc/matthew/28-19.htm) see who Oneness Pentecostals are walking in agreement with and how here: Why Do Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, And Oneness Pentecostals Agree? Also, see what they will never understand What Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, and Oneness Pentecostals Don’t Understand Also, TBN Says The Oneness Pentecostal Jesus Only Cult Was Founded In 1913
This is a continuation of the prior essay in this series. What I have here is another great link that puts the anti – Trinitarian heretics into context with other heresies. It offers still more proof that there is no reason to follow after people who choose to stray from the true gospel, and if you continue to follow after them just because they are on TV, or because you grew up in some church or denomination, or because you like their preaching, you will ultimately take on their false beliefs. Again, heed James 4:4, Psalm 1:1, and Amos 3:3, and come out of her my people lest you partake in their plagues (Revelation 18:4)!
HISTORY OF CHRISTOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE EARLY CHURCH
The church is no stranger to false and distorted representations of the Christian faith. It started from the time of the apostles and has not let up to the present. History has a funny way of repeating itself. The old saying what crawls in one generation walks in the next, is a accurate description of error birthed and growing mature. Its also been said, error dies a slow death and must be killed. As we take a peek at just a small section of the timeline in the growth of the church, we find there is nothing new under the sun. What we have today is no different than before. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.Gnosticism – promoters of this view were Simon Magus, Marcion, Saturninus, Cerinthus and Basilides. The dating of its origin is uncertain but it was the most ancient, predating Christ. This comes from the word gnosis meaning to know.This was a philosophical system built on Greek philosophy that taught matter was evil and the Spirit was good. They taught docetism which promoted a clear separation between the material and spiritual world. Christian Gnostics said Since matter was evil God could not really incarnate in a human body, he only appeared in human form and only appeared to suffer, it was an illusion. It was stated when Jesus walked on the sand you could know by seeing his footprints that were left. In this Jesus could be a pure spiritual being in a evil world and not be contaminated by it. Gnostic teaching is traced by historians to Simon Magus a magician in Samaria. He is said to have written the Gnostic work entitled The Great Revelation in which Simon is the Messiah, not Jesus. Menander was one of Simon’s disciples . He preached that those who followed him would not die, and that instead of Jesus being crucified it was Simon Magus.Cerinthus in the late 100’s taught the Gnostic teaching of the existence of Aeons and emanations from the eternal God. In their philosophical system they had a structure of emanations in time which began from God the supreme self existing Spirit . Since matter was evil God could not have created the world directly. The gap between the spiritual world and the physical world was bridged by a series of emanations from the supreme God down through epochs of time. Emanating from him through them he limited his own infinite being manifesting in each one of them one of his divine attributes. Then this divine Spirit called AEon united himself to the material body of Jesus.That Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Christ came upon him at his baptism upon the body of Jesus for a short time and left him at the crucifixion, (like the Ebonite’s) so only a man was crucified. (similar to what Oneness Pentecostals believe today and what the New Age teaches).Salvation- came by knowledge and experience. those who did not have this knowledge were associated with ignorance (esoteric truth) They received direct revelation from the Spirit which was more important than the word.They used allegorical interpretations, spiritualizing literal meanings. Other promoters were Basilides and Saturninus in the early 2nd cent.,Marcion, Valentinus, and Tatian who was formerly orthodox fell into this view later on in his life.Iraneaus who took the time to research and read their writings and spoke with them became their greatest opponent debating them. He wrote “These men falsify the oracles of God and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.”( Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1 ) Dynamic Monarchianism- (Socianism) Theodotus of Byzantine of Rome 190 A.D. was the source of this theological heresy, Paul of Samosata became the promoter holding to a more advanced system. Theodotus (also known as Artemon) claimed this was the true apostolic teaching. Hippolytus challenged Artemon‘s teaching, putting it in the category of Hellenistic logic. This teaching was condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268.He taught Jesus was a mere man begotten of the virgin Mary by the H.Spirit. He became the Christ at his baptism and was adopted by the father after his death (adoptionism). He believed “the Logos (wisdom) was an impersonal quality of God that came together and indwelt the man Christ Jesus, but remained in essence distinct.” He also promoted the teaching that “the Holy Spirit was not a distant personal entity but simply a manifestation of the grace of the Father.”(Elwells Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.727).There were two forms of Monarchianism which had some similarities but were distinct enough to be opposed to each other. A natural analogy would be “one person acting three different roles in the same drama. Water-ice-vapor”. (Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine 23.H.Wayne House) While we would define this as three at the same time in one substance, a modalist views it as becoming each, one at a time .The Modalists denied the personal distinctions of the Son and H.Spirit in contrast to the Father. There was a genuine attempt to defend Monotheism against tritheism, but a overreaction none the less. “The term was first used by Tertullian in describing those who wanted to protect the Monarchy (of the one God) from improper thoughts about the economy (of the three :Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Tertullian showed they divided the three into modes.The Modalists denied the personal distinctiveness of the Son and H.Spirit in contrast to the Father.Paul of Samosata who was the bishop of Antioch stated, “Consubstantial with the Father, but was not a distinct person in the Godhead. He could be identified with God, because He existed in him just as human reason exists in man. He was merely an impersonal power, present in all men, but particularly operative in the man Jesus. By penetrating the humanity of Jesus progressively, as it did no other man, this divine power gradually deified it. And because the man Jesus was thus deified, He is worthy of divine honor, though he cannot be regarded as God in the strict sense of the word” (the Moody Handbook of theology p.419 Paul Enns)..“Apparently he sought to stress the humanity of Jesus. He held that in God are the logos and wisdom, but the logos is not a distinct being and is what reason is in man. The wisdom dwelt in the prophets, but was uniquely in Christ as in a temple”. (K.Latourette The history of Christianity p.144) He taught Jesus was a mere man begotten of the virgin Mary by the H.Spirit. He became the Christ at his baptism and was adopted by the Father after his death (adoptionism). He believed “the Logos” (wisdom) was an impersonal quality of God that came together and indwelt the man Christ Jesus, but remained in essence distinct.” He also promoted the teaching that …”the Holy Spirit was not a distant personal entity but simply a manifestation of the grace of the father.”(Elwells Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.727).In this belief system God was the originator of the universe, the Son was a finite man in which the life of God the anointing was uniquely manifested. He was not deity but his humanity was deified. The unity of God was oneness in nature and person, that the Son and Spirit shared in the Fathers essence as impersonal attributes not as persons.There were two basic forms of Monarchianism which had some similarities but were distinct enough to be opposed to each other. A natural analogy would be “one person acting three different roles in the same drama. Water-ice-vapor”. (Charts of Christain Theology and Doctrine p.23 H.Wayne House)This teaching is traced by historians to Simon Magus a magician in Samaria (Acts of the Apostles 8:9) who professed conversion. He was denounced by Peter for trying to buy the H.Spirit (called the sin of simony today).Simon is attributed to be the very first to propose this idea. He stated that there was only one person in the Godhead, and that he was that person. claiming to be the father in Samaria, the Son in Judea, the H.Spirit in the rest of the nations ( John Gill, sermons and tracts vol.3 pg.513).Iranaeus wrote of Simon Magus who became known as the first advocate of Modalism in the apostolic period. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1 pg.347-348) So we trace this concept to a Gnostic.Sabellianism (Modalism, patripassionism) Sabellius, Praxeus, Noetus, Epigonus said the one God reveals himself in three modes of being. Although Dynamic modalism said that the deity was limited to the father alone Modalistic Monarchianism deified the Son also. Saying the unity of god is ultra-simplex. That the one essence could be interchangeable as the Father, Son , Spirit. they were all different names for the one person who is God. So the Son was the Father himself in a different mode.Noetus and Praxeus are attributed to saying the Father became his own Son, although historically it can be traced to Sabellius. And so the Modalism became connected to what was called Patripassionism- meaning the Father suffered. In this view they said it was the father who suffered on the cross. So it was the father who became incarnate through the virgin birth and suffered and died. Praxeus attempted to reconcile this unity of persons by making a distinction of Christ who is the Father and the Son who was only his humanity. By doing this it was the Father who co-suffered with the human Jesus. Whatever happened to the son also happened to the father since they were numerically one.In the 3rd century Sabellius in Rome made this into a more sophisticated system ironing out the kinks.He claimed “the existence of a divine monad (which he named the huiopater) which by a process of expansion projected itself successively in revelation as the Father, Son, H.Spirit.( Elwells Evangelical dictionary of theology p.727) So each appeared in different periods of time, instead of existing simultaneously. The Father was the creator and law giver, the Son was the redeemer and the H.Spirit was the giver of grace and the regenerator.” To further validate this Epiphanius writes “Their doctrine is, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same being, in the sense that three names are attached to the one substance. A close analogy may be found in the body, soul and spirit of man. The body as it were the Father: the soul as the Son ; while the Spirit is to the Godhead as his spirit is to a man. Or take the sun: it is one substance, but it has three manifestations, light , heat and the orb itself. The heat…( is analogous to) the Spirit; the light to the Son; while the Father himself is represented as the actual substance. The Son was at one time emitted, like a ray of light; he accomplished in the world all that pertained to the dispensation of the Gospel and man’s salvation, and was taken back into heaven , as a ray is emitted by the sun and then withdrawn again into the sun.”(Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis 375 AD. Adv. hareses Ixii.1) So the trinity was not distinct persons but three offices and actions, he is revealed in three ways. (roles, today known as modes by the Oneness Pentecostals) This became more popular than the first view of dynamic Modalism. (See links below.)Introduction to the Oneness Movement Oneness Theology The Word One Mt.28 Baptism The Word Persons God Does not change Are Tongues and Baptism Necessary ? Proofs of the Trinity Preexistence of the Son Who died on the Cross ? The Trinity in the Resurrection The Grace of God Jn.1:1 The Son being Sent History of Heresies The Right Hand of God Today I have Begotten Thee From the mouth of Two or three Witnesses Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians Unite Modern beginnings of Oneness The Early Church on Oneness Who was manifested in the flesh? These are excerpts from the book Who is Jesus ? Answering Oneness Pentecostals attacks on the Trinity. spiral book by Mike Oppenheimer of Let Us Reason ministries Wahiawa HI 96786
Posted in abomination, Apologetics, apostasy, blasphemy, CAIR, catholic, christian broadcasting, eschatology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, full gospel baptist, George Bush, GOP, heresy, innocent blood, jehovah's witness, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, legalism, marriage, modalism, Mormon, oneness pentecostal, political correctness, post abortion syndrome, religious discrimination, Republican, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, sexual exploitation, somalia, spiritual deliverance techniques, syncretism, thou shalt not murder, Tim LaHaye, trinity broadcasting network, unitarian, watchtower tract | 52 Comments »
Posted by Job on May 11, 2007
I must ask: have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? If not, follow this link The Three Step Salvation Plan
Update: with their denying Matthew 28: 19 (http://bible.cc/matthew/28-19.htm) see who Oneness Pentecostals are walking in agreement with and how here: Why Do Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, And Oneness Pentecostals Agree? Also, see what they will never understand What Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, and Oneness Pentecostals Don’t Understand Also see TBN Says The Oneness Pentecostal Jesus Only Cult Was Founded In 1913
This link shows exactly how long this heresy has been going on. So, why are you following and defending these rebels against the faith? Of course, some of you are going to certainly use this information to deny Luke 3:22 and claim that the early church was unitarian, but hey this exercise is for the sake of people who are after the Truth so that they might be converted by it. You folks with hardened hearts who either will not acknowledge the truth, and those of you who refuse to heed James 4:4, Psalm 1:1, and Amos 3:3 and will not separate yourselves from those who reject Truth, well you will not be able to say that you were not warned. Also you Oneness heretics, another name for your cult is sabellianism. Please realize that this anti – Christ demon has been trying to infect the church since the beginning, and its most recent “manifestation” was R. E. M cAlister and John G. Schaepe claiming that people should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only, that ‘The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used in Christian baptism.” Of course these guys were demon – possessed, with the evidence being that their words were in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ in scripture, see Matthew 28:19. (Interesting enough, it was ROMAN CATHOLICS who began the practice of only baptizing in the Name of Jesus Christ and violating Matthew 28:19). Now don’t you go claiming that the pagan Romans changed that verse, because it is in the King James Version, and most of you Oneness Pentecostals claim that the King James Version is the only true version, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons.
Modalism and Church History
Technically termed: modalistic monarchianism 1 The first main proponent of modalism (that we know of) was Noetus of Smyrna (c. A.D. 190; cf. Hippolytus Against the Heresy of One Noetus 7, in ANF, vol. 5). Additionally, two noted leaders of the movement included Praxeas (cf. Tertullian Against Praxeas, in ANF, vol. 3), and a Libyan priest named Sabellius, who came to Rome toward the end of Zephyrinus’s reign (A.D. 198-217; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 121). Hence, modalism was also called Sabellianism. Most of what we know of Sabellius is contained in the polemic writings of church Fathers. Sabellius was rightly condemned as a heretic (c. A.D. 220) by the Roman bishop, Callistus. And subsequently, Sabellius and his teachings were condemned by bishop Dionysius (c. A.D. in 263).2
As seen, historically, there were two forms of monarchianism: modalistic 3 and the less popular form, dynamic. Dynamic monarchianism, also called (more appropriately) adoptionism, held to the idea that God merely “adopted” Jesus as His Son (at His baptism), after which He worked miracles without becoming divine. However, some later adoptionists did teach that He became deity (in some sense) at His baptism. Accordingly, the early Christian church quickly condemned dynamic monarchianism and the ones propagating it (e.g., Theodotus of Byzantine [c. A.D. 190; cf. Hippolytus “The Heresy of Theodotus,” in The Refutation of All Heresies 7.23, in ANF, vol. 5]; Paul of Samosata [c. A.D. 268; cf. Eusebius History of the Church, 7.27]). Because of this radical denial of the full deity of Christ, dynamic monarchianism never really gained popularity and eventually fizzled out. Regardless of theological variations, both systems, dynamic and modalistic, bred the same end-result: unitarianism.
As noted above, modalistic monarchianism was also called Sabellianism. Sabellius’ arguments for modalism were much more sophisticated and convincing than that of his predecessors. By way of implication, some would accuse the early modalists of teaching that the Father suffered and died on the cross. For this reason, early modalism was also known called patripassianism, meaning in Latin, “father to suffer.” Hence, Tertullian (c. A.D. 213) says of Praxeas:
He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ (Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in ANF, vol. 3.).
In addition, early modalism (esp. Sabellius) held to what is known as successive modalism. That is, the modes were said to have been successive: starting with the mode of the Father for creation, then the Son for the task of redemption, and after, the Holy Spirit for regeneration. Patristic authority Philip Schaff explains:
Sabellius embraces the Holy Spirit in his speculation, and reaches a trinity, not a simultaneous trinity of essence, however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is, that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the world’s development in three different forms and periods of revelation and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy (not in the creation also, which in his view precedes the trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration. The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification. . . . (Philip Schaff, “The Development of Catholic Theology in Conflict with Heresy,” 12.152, in History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 3rd ed. [1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958]; emphasis added).
Nevertheless, contrary to Sabellius and successive modalism is modern modalism. Today most, not all (e.g., The Way International) Oneness teachers believe that God can project all of His manifestations or modes simultaneously. For instance, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:13-17), we observe all three Persons of the Trinity involved in this occasion. Still, no matter how plain and natural the text is, Oneness teachers roll over and say, ‘God is omnipresent, hence, He can exist simultaneously.’
However, if simultaneous modalism were true, why do we find verse after verse that clearly denotes distinction between the three Persons (e.g., Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1; 6:37-40; 2 Cor. 13:14)? Notwithstanding the name of their unitarian deity, whether the “Father” as in early modalism or “Jesus” as in modern Oneness, one point is firmly agreed among all Oneness believers: God is unipersonal and has not revealed Himself in three distinct coequal coeternal coexistent Persons or Selves.
To reiterate, the modalistic God exists as a unipersonal deity (i.e., one Person). And this deity wears different masks in time according to his role. In other words, the unipersonal, unitarian deity of modalism was Father in creation; Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration. So according to modalism, there are not three distinct Persons in the Godhead, but rather one Person (named Jesus) that plays different roles.
Modalism rejects that nature of God the Father, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. The God of modalism is an invisible monad that only temporally appears to be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when in fact according to the modalist, there is really only one single Person behind the masks.
Early modalism taught that the one Person behind the masks was the Father contrary to modern modalism, which teaches that the one Person behind the masks of Father Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus. Thus, Jesus is the “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit.”
Modalism: Apostolic Doctrine?
Oneness teachers assert that modalism was the teaching of the apostles from the start. However as demonstrated, in my other articles on Oneness theology, this assertion is clearly antithetical to what the apostles taught.
Question: If modalism was the doctrine the apostles, then why was it condemned
universally by early church Fathers and at ecclesiastical councils?
Example: Theodotus (the first known dynamic monarchianist;) was excommunicated by Victor the bishop of Rome in around A.D. 190. Noetus of Smyrna (the first known modalist) was condemned by Hippolytus (cf. nn. 2 and 22 above) and by the presbyters in Smyrna (cf. Eusebius History of the Church, 7.27). Praxeas was marked as a heretic by Tertullian. Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Third Council of Antioch (A.D. 268; cf. n. 3 above). Dionysius bishop of Alexandria (c. A.D. 261) vehemently condemned Sabellius and his unipersonal theology (cf. Athanasius De Sententia Dionysii, ed. Philip Schaff, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], vol. 4, 2nd series [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953]). Dionysius bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 262) condemned Sabellius and wrote a brilliant polemic against him and his theology (cf. Dionysius of Rome Against the Sabellians, in ANF, vol. 7). Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260) speaks out against Sabellius’ unipersonal idea of God explaining that
some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person]. . . . (Gregory Thaumaturgus A Sectional Confession of Faith 7, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).
“We neither separate the Holy Trinity like some,” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 348) asserts, “nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it]” (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 16.4, in NPNF, vol. 7, 2nd series). Since modalism views God as unipersonal, Basil the Great (c. A.D. 375) says that “Sabellianism is Judaism imported into the preaching of the Gospel under the guise of Christianity. . . .” (Basil the Great “To the notables of Neocaesarea,” in Letter 210, in NPNF; vol. 8, 2nd series). The early church, to be sure, envisaged God as Tri-Personal. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) differentiates between the Father and “God the Word, the only-begotten Son”:
Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever. . . . (Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians 6, in ANF, vol. 1; emphasis added).
Hence, the church Fathers saw modalism (and all forms of monarchianism) as a non-Christian doctrine that rejected Christ. Moreover, every important Christian council and creed throughout church history was implicitly or explicitly Trinitarian—not Oneness.
Attestation of early church Fathers give us enormous insight as to what the early church practiced and believed. It is not that their statements were theopneustos (i.e., God-breathed) nor did they think that they had apostolic authority. Example, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 105) writes: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles.”4
However, on essential doctrines they held to the common rule of faith of the church. Many were martyred for the very doctrines that certainly not the premier attraction for the church today. The point is, the early church took seriously the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ. We should not be surprised then, we read how they refuted and fought valiantly against the men who attacked the very essence of God by misrepresenting Him.
Modalism denies the nature of God by asserting that God is a unipersonal monad. Modalism denies the deity of the Person Jesus Christ by asserting that Jesus’ life had a beginning–-hence, the Person of the Son was not eternal; thus “another” Jesus (cf. 2: Cor. 12:4ff). It also denies that the Person of the Father by asserting that Jesus IS the Father Himself (“another” Father). And it denies the Person of the Holy Spirit by asserting that He is merely a temporary manifestation of the unitarian deity named Jesus.5 So, of course this doctrine, that denies the very nature of God, was aggressively resisted as a “doctrine of demons” (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1) by the church Fathers.
The citations below are but a few of the abundance of references of early church Fathers speaking out against the modalistic heresy:
Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160):
Those persons who declare that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.6
Hippolytus (c. A.D. 205):
If, again, Noetus alleges Christ’s own words when he said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one, but are one.” For the word “are” is not said of one person. Rather, it refers to two persons, but one power. Christ has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples: “The glory which you gave me I have given them that they mat be one.7
There has appeared one Noetus by name; by birth, a native of Smyrna. This person introduce a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus8
Tertullian (c. A.D. 213):
Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit- not into a unipersonal God9
“The devil has rivaled and resisted the truth in various ways…. Praxes maintains that there is only one Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world. He says this in order that out of this unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, and indeed was Himself Jesus Christ10
“The devil is himself a liar from the beginning, and so is whomever he instigates in his own way, such as Praxes. For Praxes was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical depravity11
This heresy supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking tat one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person12
Novatian (c. A.D. 235):
Why do they shrink from being associated with the boldness of Sabellius, who says that Christ is the Father?13
Because it is so very clear that Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be God, many heretics—moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity –exaggerate His honors above measure. And they have dared to declare or to think that He is not the Son, but the God the Father Himself14
Defending the Trinity, Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-worker; c. A.D. 260) speaks of the unipersonal God of Sabellius:
But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons-namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature. . . . (Gregory Thaumaturgus A Sectional Confession of Faith 7, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).
Dionysius of Rome (c. A.D. 265):
Sabellius . . . blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa. 15
In a letter to Dionysius of Rome Dionysius of Alexandria expresses precisely his views on the Trinity (which was solidly orthodox) and shows that he did not in any way separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity:
Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not flora Himself, but from the Father. . . . Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. . . . But both are, and always are. . . Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father. . . .
I have also proved the falsehood of the charge which they [the Sabellians] bring against me-to wit, that I do not maintain that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have never either found or read this word [i.e., homoousios] in the sacred Scriptures, yet other reasonings, which I immediately subjoined, are in no wise discrepant from this view, because I brought forward as an illustration human offspring, which assuredly is of the same kind as the begetter; and I said that parents are absolutely distinguished from their children by the fact alone that they themselves are not their children, or that it would assuredly be a matter of necessity that there would neither be parents nor children. . . .
But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other?. . .
Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity. . . .
In the beginning was the Word. But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “wherein He delighted Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth” Life is begotten of life in the same way as the river has flowed forth from the spring, and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light. . . . If, from the fact that there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or no, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. . . . For on this account after the Unity there is also the most divine Trinity. . . .
In accordance with all these things, the: form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Dionysius Epistle to the Bishop of Rome 4, “Extant Fragments,” in The Works of Dionysius, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).
Methodius (c. A.D. 290):
They have gone astray with regard to one of thee three Persons of the Trinity. For example, some say, like Sabellius, that the Almighty Person of the Father Himself suffered16
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 348), in his Catechetical Lectures, refers to the Trinitarian baptismal formula. After which explains that the Trinity is not three separate Gods (against Marcion) nor is the Trinity divided or confusion worked into it (against Sabellius):
For the Only-begotten Son of God said plainly to the Apostles, Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Our hope is in Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three Gods; let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son, we preach One God. . . . We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some; nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it] (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 16.4, in NPNF; vol. 7, 2nd series; emphasis added).
Of course, these above are only but a few of the overwhelming abundance of clear statements of church Fathers speaking out against the heresy of modalism; a doctrine that denied Christ as eternal God in the flesh. The early church did not quietly sit back supinely while heresy was being pervaded. They saw modalism as a heresy that attacked the very essence of God Himself.
We also find that modalism was universally condemned at various church councils:
At the second Council of Smyrna, Noetus was excommunicated as a heretic.
Sabellius was excommunicated by Bishop Callistus and his teachings were condemned at a council at Rome under bishop Dionysius in . A.D. 262 (go here to read Dionysius’ letter Against the Sabellians)
Bishop Damascus condemned Sabellius and his teachings in c. A.D. 380.
The Council of Constantinople safeguarded the doctrine of the Trinity and condemned modalism sharply in A.D. 381.
Taking a strong stance for Trinitarianism, in 1916 at the Assemblies of God General Council held in St. Louis, 156 AG ministers were expelled for holding to Oneness teaching. Whence modern Oneness movements begin.
Today more that ever, Christian leaders must stand up against heresy. Why keep silent? We should not be afraid of what people think, only about what God thinks. Modalism attacks Jesus Christ.
They say they glorify Him but how can they when modalism teaches that Jesus Christ is NOT eternal, His life started in Bethlehem.
They say, they glorify Him but so do the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses! Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him.
To be sure, modalism is another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concern as to the beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ; as he gives this warning:.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (John 2:2)
5, Early modalism taught that the “Father” was the name of the unitarian deity, whereas modern modalism teaches it is “Jesus.” Either way the doctrinal out come is the same: God does not exist in three distinct, coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. The modalistic God is a monad.
Father God in the Name of Jesus Christ, please raise up your mighty hand against all those who are perverting the gospel for gain and with false doctrines. May those who do so out of ignorance, please show them the error of their ways, and those who deceive on purpose please pull Your people away from them. We know, Father, that Your Will must be done, that all things must be fulfilled, and people have to decide which they love foremost, You or themselves. I am merely asking, Father, that the eyes of the deceived be opened and that they choose to seek after and fight for Your righteousness. Amen.
Posted in abomination, Apologetics, apostasy, blasphemy, CAIR, catholic, christian broadcasting, eschatology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, full gospel baptist, George Bush, GOP, heresy, innocent blood, jehovah's witness, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, legalism, marriage, modalism, Mormon, oneness pentecostal, political correctness, post abortion syndrome, religious discrimination, Republican, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, sexual exploitation, somalia, spiritual deliverance techniques, syncretism, thou shalt not murder, Tim LaHaye, trinity broadcasting network, unitarian, watchtower tract | 101 Comments »
Posted by Job on April 18, 2007
Click on this link to take the quiz. Perhaps you will be better equipped to contend against Oneness “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, Mormons, Muslims, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses by doing so.
Posted in Bible, christian broadcasting, Christian hypocrisy, global warming evangelical christian, Islam, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, modalism, Mormon, Muslim, nepal, oneness pentecostal, religious discrimination, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, steps to salvation, thou shalt not murder, trinity broadcasting network, watchtower tract, Y'shua Hamashiach | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Job on April 17, 2007
See this link, which explains the error of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others who use it to deny God’s Tri – Unity. I will have more commentary myself on it later.
Posted by Job on April 15, 2007
Dr. Pyuwarmer flipped the chart closed, took off his reading glasses, and let out a long sigh. “John, there is a procedure that can save your life. I’d like you to consider it.
John Skeptich rubbed his temples and looked up. “Well, is it an invasive procedure?”
“Well, that’s hard to answer, John. Yes and no.”
“You call that an answer, doc?” John’s frustration was beginning to show. “Either it is or it isn’t.”
“Well, it’s kind of both. I’m sorry, but it’s hard to describe. It’s a very advanced procedure, and I don’t really understand it fully myself. However, I think you should have it done.”
“Do you have any literature that can explain it?”
“Well, yes, but it’s not very clearly spelled out. You kind of have to read between the lines. It’s all in there though.”
John could no longer hide his frustration. He stood up, grabbed his coat, and fixed Dr. Pyuwarmer with a hard look. “Look doctor. You’re asking me to submit to a procedure you don’t understand and can’t explain. With all due respect, I’ll take my chances!” With that, John swept out the door, slamming it so hard that Dr. Pyuwarmer’s medical school diploma fell from the wall.
Complicating the issue are various misconceptions about the Trinity within Christianity as well as from without. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons disregard the Trinity, believing that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct gods, with the Father being a greater God than the other two. Jehovah’s Witnesses especially emphasize the subordination of the Godhead, believing Jesus to be Michael the Archangel – a created being, and a lesser “god” than Jehovah. Mormon doctrine is polytheistic (worship of multiple gods), though some Mormons will stress that their belief is henotheistic (belief in multiple gods, but worship of only one). Mohammad’s misunderstanding of the Trinity was apparently affected by the hyperdulia veneration of Mary seen in the Eastern and Roman Catholic churches, as the Qur’an accuses Christians of believing the Trinity to be composed of God the Father, Jesus, and Mary. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity can pose a stumbling block for some people. A Jehovah’s Witness sent us an email that included the following (the English is poor, but you’ll see the point): “And when I can not find in any Bible that I read that there is a 3 headed god that will resurrect anyone on this earth, both now or ever. If this 3 headed god is your belief? I have never read about such a god in any Christian Bible that I have ever read!” As I told this man, we agree that the Bible does not teach of a three-headed god. That sounds more akin to the hydra of Greek mythology. Yet this illustrates the extent of the misunderstandings. Even Christian churches have been victimized by erroneous doctrines such as modalism, particularly Oneness theology.
We may never fully understand the nature of God until we get into heaven. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal. Our finite created minds are unable to fully grasp these characteristics of God. However, it is possible to have a basic understanding of the triune nature of God, and to be able to defend this doctrine with the Word of God. In this article, we’ll assess the Scriptural evidence and put the pieces together until they form a full picture. A triune God will be the only possible verdict based on an objective analysis of the Scriptural evidence.
The doctrine of the Trinity can be summed up as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In order to prove this doctrine we must prove the following:
There is only one God
The Father is God
Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.
Each point above is very important, and we will clearly illustrate each. Heresy arises when these distinctions are blurred. For instance, modalism (also known as Oneness theology) would agree with items one through four, but item five is where modalism fails. However, as James White said in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, “For some reason many feel that there is a hierarchy of ‘error’ when it comes to the Trinity…. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth, and two-thirds of the truth is not a valid substitute, no matter which one-third of His truth we choose to reject.”
There is a treasure trove of Scriptures to support each of the points we’ll be studying. To keep this article at a reasonable length, where there are several relevant verses, I’ll limit the full verse quotation to two verses (in NIV, unless stated otherwise), and give the Scripture references for the rest.
1. There is only one God:
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are known as the big three monotheistic religions. You won’t find many arguments among Muslims, Jews, and Christians that there is more than one God, except perhaps among some aberrant sects. Nevertheless, let us establish this Scripturally before we move on to areas where disagreements will arise.
A. There is only one God:
“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.” – Deuteronomy 4:35
“This is what the LORD says- Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” – Isaiah 44:6
Other Old Testament Verses: Deut. 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9.
“How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?” – John 5:44
“…since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” Romans 3:30
Other New Testament Verses: Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25.
B. There is only one true God:
“But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath.” – Jeremiah 10:10
“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” – 1 John 5:20.
Other verses: 2 Chron. 15:3; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9.
C. All other so-called “gods” are false gods.
“For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” – Psalm 96:5
“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.” – 1 Corinthians 8:4
Other verses: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 10:19-20.
The verses above are clear evidence that there is only one God. This is known as monotheism. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are known as the three great monotheistic religions. However, Islam and Judaism will fall off as we continue our support of the Trinity.
2. There is a plurality to God.
The Hebrew word for God is el in its singular form. The most common form used for God is elohim, which is plural in form. How can there be plural form used for only one God? Some suggest that the answer is found in the three persons of the Trinity. Others contend that the plural construct denotes a fullness of deity as opposed to plurality. I submit that both interpretations are correct. I’m getting ahead of myself now though. Rather than look at all the verses that use the plural elohim, let’s look at other verses that point to a plurality within the one God.
“Let us make man in our image” – Genesis 1:26, emphasis added.
“God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us…’” – Genesis 3:22, emphasis added.
Some would say that God could be speaking to the angels in these verses, but that’s simply not correct. God was speaking to co-creator(s) in these verses (“Let us make man…”). Who could be a co-creator? Not the angels. The answer is found later in this article.
3. The Father is God.
This isn’t really an item that is in question. While God the Father is only known as the Father in the New Testament, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and pseudo-Christian cults understand that the Father in the New Testament is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, though some disagree with the characterization of “Father”. However, it is important to establish that the Father of the New Testament is the true God referred to in the Old Testament, known often as Yahweh, or “Jehovah”.
A. The Father is God.
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,” – 2 Corinthians 1:3
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” – Ephesians 1:3
Other verses: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Peter 1:3; (Note: Some verses seem to indicate that Jesus is not God at first glance. These will be explained later).
B. The God of the Old Testament is known as Yahweh/Jehovah (“The LORD”).
“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other…. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.” – Deuteronomy 4:35, 39.
“Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.” – Psalm 100:3
Other verses: Gen. 9:26; 24; Exo. 3:14-18; 4:5; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25.
From the verses above, it is clear that Yahweh/Jehovah in the Old Testament is the one God. It is also clear that the Father in the New Testament is that one God. Now, let’s look at whether Jesus Christ is God. Remember, there is only one God. There is also a mysterious plurality to this one God. We have established that the Father is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. We now explore the plurality in the one true God.
4. Jesus is God.
There is a great deal of Scriptural evidence that Jesus Christ is God. The evidence is comprised not only of specific statements, but also in prophecy fulfillment and his attributes. Let’s first look at some of explicit Scriptural evidence. In this section, we won’t limit ourselves to only giving the text of two verses.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” – John 1:1
“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28
I want to pause just a moment to discuss the verses above. The Greek word for God is theos. In John 1:1, we read that the Word (Jesus) was with theos and was indeed theos. Jesus was (and is) God! This is a very powerful statement! The word theos is used not only in John 1:1, but also in verse 18 and in John 20:28. Theos is used in the New Testament in reference to Jehovah/Yahweh God. Theos is also used in reference to Jesus. We’re beginning to see the plurality found within the one God.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” – Revelation 4:11 (the words of the 24 elders to Jesus).
“…Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” – Acts 20:28
Once again, in the verses above Jesus is referred to as theos. In Acts 20:28, we know that Jesus shed His blood for the church, and as one person of the triune God, this action is the action of God. Now let’s look at some common compound references to Jesus:
“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” – Titus 2:13
“…To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” – 2 Peter 1:1
In the passages above, both “God” and “Savior” are used in reference to Jesus Christ. There is no division of the clause. Scholar Robert Reymond writes, “The two nouns [‘God’ and ‘Savior’] both stand under the regimen of the single definitive article preceding ‘God,’ indicating…that they are to be construed corporately, not separately, or that they have a single referent.” In other words, attempts to divide this clause into a reference to God and a separate reference to Jesus as Savior flies against the Greek grammatical construct. These verses provide additional powerful and clear evidence that Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh God. Let’s now turn our attention to more verses that reveal Jesus to be Jehovah/Yahweh.
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – Romans 10:9,13. Note: Paul reveals Jesus to be the same “Lord” referred to in Joel 2:32, which he quotes. In Joel 2:32, “LORD” is Jehovah/Yahweh.
“…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” – Philippians 2:10-11. Note: “Lord” = Jehovah/Yahweh.
“…now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.” – 1 Peter 2:3. This verse is taken almost identically from Psalms 34:8, where “Lord” is Jehovah/Yahweh. From the verses that follow verse 3, it is clear this is a reference to Jesus.
Another way we know that Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh comes from the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. Zechariah 12:10 says, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” This verse is part of an oracle given by Jehovah/Yahweh. This passage starts off in verse 1, “This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares…” Jehovah/Yahweh prophesies that He will be pierced. It is widely accepted among scholarly circles that this was fulfilled in the crucifixion and spearing of Jesus Christ. This is confirmed in Revelation 1:7 wherein we read concerning Jesus, “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.” This is important enough to go over again. In Zechariah 12:10, Jehovah/Yahweh prophesies that He (Jehovah/Yahweh) will be pierced, and people will mourn for Him. Jesus Christ is pierced through his hands and feet at his crucifixion, and pierced through the side with a spear while on the cross. Revelation 1:7 confirms this fulfillment of prophecy. Conclusion? Jesus Christ is Jehovah/Yahweh!
Another evidence that Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh comes from His role as Savior. Isaiah 43:11 says, “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” Yet Jesus is referred to many times in the New Testament as our Savior (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Phi. 3:20; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1,11; 2:20; 3:2,18; 1 John 4:14).
Jesus caused no small uproar among the Jews of the day because He accepted praise and worship – blasphemous if He were not God! As we have seen, only God is the savior of men. Matthew 21:1-11 describes Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He came riding in on a donkey, in fulfillment of an Old Testament messianic prophecy (Zec. 9:9). As Jesus rode in, we find the crowds that surrounded him shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna in the highest!” Webster’s 1913 dictionary defined Hosanna as “A Hebrew exclamation of praise to the Lord.” The word is derived from a Hebrew word that meant “Save us,” in a prayer directed to God. This shows that the crowd viewed Jesus as God and Savior. It is important to note that Jesus did not rebuke the crowd for this praise. In verse 15, we find that the chief priests and Pharisees were outraged and indignant at this (because, as we said, this would be blasphemy for a mere man). Children had followed Jesus in to the temple are and were still shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” In verse 16, they asked Jesus if He could hear what the children were saying. No doubt they were shocked that he would not have straightened out the blasphemy of these little urchins. But Jesus did not rebuke the children. Instead, He answered, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise’?” Additionally, in John 9:35-39 we read the following exchange:
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
36“Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”
37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”
38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. [emphasis added]
39Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.“
Jesus accepted worship. This is not adoration of a mere prophet, but praise and worship due only to God. Jesus was either God or He was crazy, and there is ample evidence against the latter and in support of the former. Further evidence comes from the fact that Jesus has many of the attributes of God:
Creator (John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14)
Unchanging (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8)
Eternal (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2)
Omniscient (John 16:30)
Omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11)
It is clear from the Scriptural evidence above that Jesus is God. He is the LORD (Jehovah/Yahweh) of the Old Testament, and therefore is the one true elohim or theos. He shares this role as God with the Father. As we are about to see, He also shares this role with the Holy Spirit.
5. The Holy Spirit is God
Less Scripture is dedicated to the Holy Spirit, but there is enough to conclude that He too is God. In Acts 5:3-4, we see the Holy Spirit being equated with God:
“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’” [emphasis added]
Paul clearly and explicitly equated the Holy Spirit with God:
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18
Additional evidence of the deity of the Holy Spirit comes from the shared attributes of the deity. The Holy Spirit is:
Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10-11)
Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
Savior (Rom. 8:1-27)
In addition to the attributes above, we find the Holy Spirit was involved in creation (Gen. 1:2; Psa. 104:30), the incarnation (Matt. 1:18,20; Luke 1:35), and the resurrection (Rom. 1:4; 8:11). This is ample evidence to show that the Holy Spirit is God. We have now proven Scripturally that there is only one God. We have also proven that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can each lay claim to being God. However, one can believe in all this, and still subscribe to the erroneous belief of modalism.
Modalists believe that there is only one God, but believe God to be comprised of one Person who simply manifests Himself at different times through Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. In other words, modalists believe that God is one in substance as well as essence – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons. As we shall see, modalism fails because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed three distinct persons.
6. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.
A. Jesus is not the Father: First, let’s turn our attention to Matthew 28:19, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The grammatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to Trinitarian doctrine. First, each person of the Trinity is identified individually with use of the definite article preceding each (the Father…the Son…the Holy Spirit). The use of the definite article for each person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, this verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form “the name of”. What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share that name. Other verses identify the Father and the Son as two separate persons (John 3:17, 35; 5:22-23, 31-32; 8:16-18; 11:41-42; 12:28; 14:31; 17:1-26; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24-28; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 4:4; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 4:10; 2 John 3).
B. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit: The first evidence of this is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph – Matthew 28:19 identifies the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, using definite articles preceding each. Next, Jesus tells us that He would send the Holy Spirit (“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” – John 15:26). This verse is revealing in that each person of the Trinity is mentioned as separate individual persons. Key elements in this verse include 1) Jesus will send the Holy Spirit, 2) from the Father, 3) the Holy Spirit will go out from the Father, 4) and will testify about Jesus. Another verse that identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit separately is John 16:7, “But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” Here we have two important elements: 1) Jesus will go away, and 2) send the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus arose and ascended in his physical human body, the Spirit He sends is not Jesus Himself. Another important verse is John 14:16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (emphasis added). Once again, the elements are here to show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus said He would ask the Father. If Jesus were simply a manifestation of the Father, then He would be asking Himself, which sounds neurotic rather than orthodox. The verse also refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Counselor” separate from Jesus.
C. The Father is not the Holy Spirit: Once again, the first bit of evidence is given in Matthew 28:19 as discussed before. John 14:16, and 15:26 also remain as evidence that the Father and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. As we delved into each verse in the preceding paragraph, we won’t do so again. We also find Paul describing in Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. If the Holy Spirit were the same person as the Father, he would not need to intercede with himself.
Now let’s address another Scripture that makes it clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different persons. Luke 3:21-22 covers the baptism of Jesus Christ, “When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’” Each person is described separately here. First, note that Jesus was praying. If Oneness theology were correct, Jesus would be praying to Himself. Once again, that smacks of neurosis. Instead, Jesus was praying to the Father. As He did, the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in a physical manifestation like a dove. The voice of the Father was then heard from Heaven, speaking to the Son. This highlights that each person of the Trinity is unique and separate.
It is clear from a reading of the Bible that there is only one God, known in the Old Testament as Yahweh/Jehovah. It is clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God (Yahweh). It is also clear, in contrast to Oneness theology (Unitarian modalism), that each person is separate and distinct from the other. One God in three persons – the Biblical Trinity.
Ontology is important in understanding the Trinity. Ontology is the study of “being.” As James White said, “It is vitally important that we recognize the difference between the words Being and Person…. Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who he or she is…. when speaking of the Trinity, we speak of one what (the Being of God) and three whos (the three divine Persons). Most cultic rejections of the Trinity focus on blurring the distinction.”
Are you still having a difficult time comprehending the triune nature of God? That’s understandable. The laws to which we are bound define our comprehension. God’s nature transcends these laws. If we could fully comprehend God’s nature, he would cease to be Almighty God. He would be lesser than He truly is. I am a devotee of analogies. One analogy I like to use with regards to the Trinity is my computer. My computer consists of input devices (mouse and keyboard), output devices (monitor, printer, speakers), and the central processing unit. These different components form my one computer. This analogy fails to capture the full complexity of the substance of God, but it can help someone to grasp the basic relationship.
It is true, as so many Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witness are inclined to point out, that there is no concise, clear teaching of the Trinity in the New Testament or Old Testament. However, by such reasoning, there is also no clear teaching regarding smoking or illicit drug use. Yet by examining Scripture in its greater context, it is clear that our body is the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19) and Paul urges us to purify ourselves from things which contaminate the body (2 Cor. 7:1). Similarly, by examining the sum of Scripture in immediate and greater context, it is clear that God is triune. He is one God, eternally existent in three divine persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We must be able to defend this biblical doctrine if we are to effectively contend for the truth of the gospel.
[Author’s note: In the coming weeks, we will post a follow-up article to examine and refute the most common objections raised against the Trinity by various cults, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon Church.]
3. The Hebrew name for God is YHWH – four consonants only. Because of a nearly superstitious fear of taking the Lord’s name in vain, the Jews avoided using this name, and often used the name Adonai. Eventually, the vowels from Adonai were included in YHWH to form Yahowah. Today, this name is often spelled in English, Yahweh. As a human contrivance, Yahowah mutated to Jehovah in some manuscripts. Yahweh and Jehovah are considered synonymous, and mean “The LORD.” The Hebrew word for “God” is el or elohim.
4. In these verses, and the ones that follow, “LORD” is Yahweh/Jehovah, and “God” is elohim. It is important to note that el is singular, but elohim is plural. Since the Bible is clear that there is only one el, the plurality of elohim can present a conundrum. This problem is resolved by the doctrine of the Trinity – three divine Persons in one God. One should also note that the New World Translation (The Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) and the ASV leave out “LORD” and simply include “Jehovah”.
5. Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), p. 276.
6. White, Loving the Trinity
Posted in adultery, Apologetics, christian broadcasting, Christianity, global warming evangelical christian, Iraq, Islam, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, Judaism, Mormon, Muslim, oneness pentecostal, religious discrimination, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, steps to salvation, thou shalt not murder, watchtower tract, Y'shua Hamashiach | 1 Comment »