Friday, June 29, 2012

Jehovah is able to keep us



First, it must be clarified that Jehovah is able to keep His children safe.  To imply anything less would demean Jehovah.  This doctrine is called eternal security, which is not to be confused with unconditional eternal security.

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. John 10:27-29.  

Not surprisingly, Mr. Thiessen uses John 10:27-29 to prove unconditional eternal security.  He does this by quoting Mr. Strombeck, God makes two kinds of promises to His children: conditional and unconditional.  But He always makes it clear whether or not they are conditional or unconditional.  When conditional, He uses the word "if" or its equivalent; but when His statement is unconditional, He leaves out the "if".  This is therefore an unconditional statement.   Were we to accept that quotation as a statement of fact, without debate, we would still be required to ask: what about the other promises, (which we will study latter) which are based on the word, if or its equivalent.  By his own argument, those other promises, which Mr. Thiessen, seemingly, purposefully ignores, would prove him wrong!

Furthermore, Mr. Thiessen and Mr. Wuest, who both believe in unconditional eternal security, say about John 10:27-29 that the verbs used are in the present tense (continuing action).  Wuest translates it like this, The sheep which are mine are in the habit of listening to my voice.  Their point being that people who are born again continually keep on following Christ, and if people do not continually follow Christ they never were born again.  However, their logic turns against them.  The very fact that Christ calls them His sheep means that they are born again.  Christ’s promise of being kept is based on the present tense act of following Him.  Wuest thereby disproves the validity of his own argument of unconditional eternal security.  The promise of being kept is to those “sheep” who continually keep on following, even by Theissen’s and Wuest’s own arguments. Therefore, if one does not follow anymore, one has fallen away, thereby proving that falling away is possible..

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  Rom, 8:12-13 

Paul again points out that he is writing to his brothers in Christ but he reminds them that if they will live (keep on living, so as to show they have turned their back on Christ), according to the flesh they will die.  By this he means a spiritual death, because it is a given that everyone, carnal or spiritual, will die a physical death, and he would not have bothered writing these words if he would have been writing about a physical death.

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if (since) children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. Romans 8:16-17  

The word if should be read as since.  However, either way, this is a conditional promise.  According to Wuest’s translation, we are God’s children…provided that we are suffering with Him in order that we also may be glorified together.  Paul says that the people he is writing to are Christians, yet, he says, they must take this threat of eternal death seriously.  He says to Christians, that if you will not suffer you will not be glorified.  Or. in other words, eternal security is conditional!

Romans 8:29-30  For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:16-17  

Mr. Thiessen uses these verses to prove the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.  However, Mr.  Smith  refutes  his  argument.   In  the  context  of  Romans 8, the subject of apostasy is not in view.  A text like Ro 8:30 is not addressing the unconditional security of the believer but the certainty of our glorification with Christ, despite how difficult our present circumstances might seem.

Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. Romans 11:22-23  

       One cannot be cut off from that of which one is not a member, and Paul writes that whether or not one is cut off is based on provided you continue.  Eternal security is conditional!

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39.  

These verses are over-used as proof of unconditional eternal security.  However, it is to be noted, that in the list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God, Paul does not mention a Christian's own will or desire. Throughout the teachings of the church it is emphasized and re-emphasized, that God will not force a person to do anything against his will.  How is it than, that in this one area, there is such a notable exception to the overwhelming doctrine of freewill?

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  1 Cor. 15:1-2  

       Paul states three positives about the Corinthian Christians.  First, he calls them brethren.  By this, Paul means fellow Christians.  Second, he says, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received.  They have received the Word of God as Paul preached it.  Thirdly, he says, by which (word) also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you.  These things are in place, they are Christians and still Paul lays it on the line by saying, if you hold fast.  Seemingly, this leaves no room for the theory of unconditional eternal security but in spite of that, Wycliffe says, Believed in vain does not indicate loss of salvation as a possibility.  The apostle means…that a faith that does not persevere is not true saving faith.   Paul, however, said that they were saved.  Why do some say that the apostle does not mean what he said?

You are being saved (as Wuest has it)  and Thiessen and Wuest have already said it is in the continuing tense.  It is not, you have been saved.  It says that the continuing salvation pertains only if you hold firmly.  The people He is writing to already believe, Paul said so by calling them brethren, still he is concerned that they might believe in vain.

you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him - provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel. Col. 1:21-23 
       
   Paul said he has now reconciled you.  That is, they have received the new life.  He did not write: you fooled some people and caused them to think that you had accepted Christ, but actually, you never did.  This, however, is the flavour of the argument that is usually used by those who insist on unconditional eternal security.  Christ will present those who continue in the faith holy and blameless before the Father.

For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day. Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. 2 Tim. 1:12-14 

Verse 12 is often used as a proof text for unconditional eternal security; this however, is erroneous Bible teaching.  In the context, the argument for unconditional eternal security takes a real beating.  Notice that the following two verses each start with a warning.  Verse 13, Hold fast the pattern of sound words and verse 14, That good thing which was committed to you, keepIf falling from grace were not possible, warnings like this would be redundant.  What Paul is saying is that God is capable of guarding that which he (Paul) had committed to Him, but that He will not force people against their wishes, just like He did not force people at their initial repentance.  This is an argument for conditional eternal security but not for unconditional eternal security.

The next post will continue with more Bible verses to prove that the doctrine of unconditional eternal security is not found in the Bible.




Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Rise of the Belief in the Trinity

In chronological order, Mark wrote the first of the Gospels.  Nowhere in the Gospel of Mark does he claim that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  Later Gospels incorporated that thought into their writings.  Furthermore, it is noted that in his Gospel, Mark writes nothing about Christ’s resurrection.  In his mind, was Mark just writing the history of a man?  He certainly does not seem to have been writing about "a God" who is equal with the Father!

The Church, as a group, did not accept that Christ was God until about 300 years after Christ’s death.  At a council meeting in 325 AD, the Church leaders made it official that the church believed that Christ also was God.  It was in 381 AD that the church finally, officially stated that God consisted of three persons.
 
Perhaps it is no wonder that the theory was accepted as quickly and as widely as it was because Athanasius, a leader in the church at that time, would try to destroy those people who did not agree with his heretical, theological trinitarian views.  About Athanasius, Wikipedia writes, there were allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder.  He also was accused of threatening to interfere with the supply of grains from Egypt.  If this accusation is true, his reason for doing that, probably would have been to starve those Christians in Europe who did not yet agree with his theology concerning the trinity. 

By the year 381 AD, the African Christian church had already imported so many doctrines from the African pagan culture that it was an insignificant thing for them to add another teaching to their already “non-Christian” set of beliefs.  Therefore, accepting the doctrine of the Trinity would have seemed like a small step.
Even under the threat of persecution or death, there were some who followed Arius who insisted that God is not a trinity.  He taught that Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself.  Based on the teaching of the New Testament it seems obvious that Arius and his followers were on the right path and the church took a wrong turn way back in the fourth century.  Sir Isaac Newton expressed that same thought in these words, Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ.

About Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, at the end of the fourth century, we find this interesting bit of history.  Before the meeting of the council, he had intervened on behalf of Arius, and had remonstrated with Alexander ... for deposing him (Arius).  By the more vehement enemies of Arianism he (Eusebius) was regarded with great distrust.  When the creed of Caesarea had been modified ...  (to include the words stating that the Son was) “of the substance of the Father,” “begotten not made” ...  Eusebius hesitated whether he should subscribe it. He did not like the new terms; ... But after a day’s consideration he signed with the rest, and in a letter to the people of Caesarea he explained that, “though he would resist to the last any vital change in the traditional creed of his Church, he had nevertheless subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious.   So the creed which changed Christ from being the “Son of God” to being equal with God, happened, in part, because one leader in the church did not have the backbone to stand up for what he believed to be right!

1 John 5:7, as it is in the KJV, is almost sure proof of the validity of the doctrine of the trinity; For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.   But, newer, more accurate, translations have taken all the vitality for that argument out of that verse.  The new translations are much condensed and they say nothing about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. There is nothing there about three being one.  Note: The Living Bible - So we have these three witnesses.
                            The New Living Translation - So we have these three witnesses.
                            The New Revised Standard Version - There are three that testify.
                            The Jerusalem Bible - So that there are three witnesses.

Then, in verse 8, John tells us what the three witnesses are, and they are NOT the Father, the Son and the Spirit; They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood.

About 1 John 5:7 the Wycliffe Commentary.  writes, The text of this verse should read,Because there are three that bear record’.  The remainder of this verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the Trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era.

About verse 7 Jerome Smith writes, “...if it was admitted as the Word of God, all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents could scarcely avoid the inference (that there is a Trinity) naturally deducible from it. Contemporary scholarship, however, fails to support this reading in any form, suggesting it was added to a late Greek manuscript made for the purpose to influence Erasmus to include it in his Greek text, for Erasmus had promised he would include the text if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.  It seems as if such a Greek text did not exist to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, so someone put those words into a Greek manuscript.  Erasmus, not willing to break his promise, had to include the following words into his translation, in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.   

It has also been alleged that at the time Jerome was translating the Greek Bible into the Latin Douay version, the debate over the Trinity was in full swing, so Jerome thought he would bring the debate to an end, once and for all, by adding to the Bible the words, in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.  It is interesting to note that the Douay-Rheims translation does include the words And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one, but in the commentary of this section they completely neglect to say anything about this verse.  It seems as if they knew that those (implanted) words did not belong in the Bible.

Before Jerome’s translation verse 7 simply said, “So there are three that testify”.  He added words to the Holy Scriptures just to foster his (the church’s) theology.  Yet, we (Protestants) still insist that the Bible is inerrant and that these verses prove the doctrine of the trinity.  The founder of the Jesuit community was dead right in stating the Roman Catholic position on doctrinal issues, when he wrote, if [the church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.  It seems that the Protestants have taken the same view about the doctrine of the trinity.  Even though the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity, we are told that it is what we need to believe, and we feel like heretics if we do dare change our stance.  When the reformers left the Roman Church, they should have left the doctrine of the trinity, with other erroneous doctrines that they did leave, on the Roman garbage heap!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

The Trinity - 3

     One last post to prove, from the Bible, that the theory of the Trinity is not founded on Scripture, but on what theologians want us to believe.  Is it possible that they do not want to change their doctrine now because if they do they would need to admit that they were wrong for the last 1600 years?


Great is the mystery of godliness.  God was manifested in the flesh. 1 Tim. 3:16  This is among the trinitarians favorite verses to prove the doctrine of the trinity.  However, before we, who hold the opposing argument, admit defeat, we must point out that in the Greek translation it does not say, God was manifested in the flesh, it says, great is the mystery of the piety who was manifested in the flesh.  For the word mystery, use the word, unveiling or revelation.  When we stop to look at Christ’s life we agree that it is a great revelation that a person living in human flesh could live a life of such piety.  In the Greek text this verse does not say that Christ was God; it says that Christ lived a life of piety and the revealing of that piety was great.

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.  1 Tim. 1:17  Here is a good example of how easily, and how grossly wrong, theology can turn, if the writer insists on inserting his own theology into a verse of scripture.  The late Dr. McGee wrote, Paul simply couldn’t go any further without sounding out this tremendous doxology. Who is “the King eternal”? He is the Lord Jesus Christ. And who is the Lord Jesus? He is “the only wise God.” Don’t tell me that Paul did not teach that the Lord Jesus was God. Paul considered Him to be God manifest in the flesh, and here he gives this wonderful testimony to that. 

 If Mr. McGee had not been so insistent on seeing evidence of the trinity, even where it is not to be found, he would have seen the obvious.  This verse of scripture does not even mention Jesus Christ.  It is a phrase of praise to God the Father.   Anyone reading McGee’s opinion, without thinking too much about it, will accept it as proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.  This kind of brainwashing is what has happened throughout the ages of the church and now people accept, as fact, a doctrine which the Bible does not even hint at.

Matthew Henry, about 350 years ago, in his Bible commentary, clarifying this verse, says nothing about the trinity.  He attributes all praise to God, the Father, where it belongs.   Looking at the difference in emphases that these two teachers place on the trinity, indicates that the doctrine of the trinity has grown stronger even within the last three and a half centuries. 
Lavoisier explains how a teaching like the trinity can get started and how it grows.   He wrote, suppositions handed down from one age to another acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as fundamental truths.

It should be emphasized that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is, in its entirety, highly Hebraic.  In spite of the fact that portions of the New Testament was communicated in Greek, the background is thoroughly Hebrew.  The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew.   It is impossible to believe that Hebrew men, with a background in the Hebrew religion, would unanimously have put forward a doctrine such as the trinity!  It is impossible to imagine Saint Paul, a Pharisee, preaching that God was actually three persons.  Preposterous!

Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Titus 2:13.  Noting the Greek translation again, we see that this verse does not say that our great God will be appearing.  It writes, expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.   It says that the glory of our great God will be appearing; and who is the glory of God except for Jesus Christ, the spotless Lamb of God?  It is Christ that will be appearing to take His bride home.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Phil. 1:3  Here, Paul again makes a distinction between the Father and the Son.  Our peace comes from Jehovah and from His Son, and the two are not the same, or Paul would not have mentioned them separately!
But to the Son He says: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. Heb. 1:8   Here it sounds as if Jehovah Himself is saying that Jesus, His Son, is God. The New World Translation has an interesting variation of this verse.  They write, But with reference to the Son: God is your throne.  In this translation, that verse does not say that Christ is God but rather that God is Christ’s throne.  Many people would reject that meaning because it is from the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, Westcott and Moffet are accepted, by Evangelical Christians, as trustworthy Bible translators; this is what they say about this verse, it should read, “God is thy throne for-ever and ever”.  In the Greek text it reads like this, But with regard to the Son: the throne of Thee, God is. 

To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:
Jude 1:1. The division between the two is clear.  We are sanctified by the Father but we are not preserved by Christ but rather in Christ by the Father.  The doctrine of the Trinity must be rejected by all honest Bible students!

  Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ.  Rev. 1:4-5.  The separation of the Father and the Son in these two verses again indicates that Christ is not equal to the Father.

To Him (Jesus) who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and made us kings and priests to His God and Father. Rev. 1:5-6   The point hardly needs to be made; God is also the God of Jesus, how then is it possible to claim equality between Christ and His Father?

Christ says, I have not found your works perfect before your God. Rev. 3:2.  Christ did not claim divinity here (or anywhere else); He rightly attributed divinity to God, His Father.

Here we end this segment of our study of the (so called) trinity.   It is time that church members think again about this very important doctrine.  There are many other portions of Scripture I could have quoted to verify my position, but I feel as if I have spent enough of your time in this already.   In my next post I will write a little bit about the rise of the theory of the Trinity in the early church.

Friday, June 8, 2012

The Trinity - 2

In the last post we looked at a few verses from the Gospels that clearly showed us the insanity of accepting the theory of the Trinity.  Now we will move forward and look at some verses from the book of Acts and a few of Paul's writings.  By the way, the book of Acts is the oldest recorded history of the church.


Jesus … was a man commanded to you by God by the miracles…that God worked through him.  Acts  2:22.  In this verse the first thing we notice is that Jesus was a man who was recommended by God.  Here some would say, of course, He was a man and also God.  The question then is, if Jesus is God, why did He not work his own miracles?  The Bible tells us that God worked the miracles through Christ.  Christ did not work His own miracles! 

This man, “you killed him but God raised Him.  Acts 2:23.  Christ needed God’s help to raise him from the dead; that being true, we see that Christ is not the omnipotent Son that the church says He is, He needed God's help. 

It might be mentioned here, as a sideline, for those who do not believe that the dead can be raised. Since Jehovah is the originator of life (He designed human life), would He not also have a backup plan to undo death, whenever He wanted to, in the event that it might happen?  It just seems so obvious that He would have "written" that possibility into the program.

To quote Peter again, How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.  Acts 10:38  If Jehovah anointed Jesus, Jesus cannot be in the position of being equal with the Heavenly Father.  Since Jehovah anointed Jesus with the holy spirit, it surely must be agreed that there was a time when Jesus was not anointed with the Holy spirit and therefore He is not a person of the Trinity.   A person can be by himself but he cannot be with himself, and yet these words tell us that God was with Christ, therefore Christ is not God.
  For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn (highest in rank) among many brethren. Rom. 8:29.  Jehovah knew beforehand and He predestined us to become like His Son, so that Christ could be ranked the highest among his brothers.  Christ is ranked the first with us, He is the head of our type of being, but He is not ranked in the same category as his Father.  Obviously, He is not equal to His Father as the Church leaders have been telling us that He is.


But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,  ... and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11:3   If Jehovah is the head of Christ how can anyone, that knows the Bible, believe that Christ and Jehovah are equal.  The doctrine of the Trinity is just so absurd!

  Paul continues, Now when all things are made subject to Him (Jehovah), then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him (Jehovah) who put all things under Him (Christ), that God may be all in all.  1 Cor. 15:28  Surely the equality of the Father and the Son are forever dismissed in this one verse alone.

Paul insists on a difference between the Father and the Son.  He said we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17.  Jehovah does not inherit anything, because all things are His, but we are joint inheritors with Christ, therefore this verse tells us that Christ is not God. 
Paul continues, That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom. Eph. 1:17  Jehovah is also the God of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so we see that Christ is not equal with the Father.

Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant (slave), and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name. Phil. 2:6-9  In the Greek text, the word used for Christ’s life is subsisting.  The word subsisting in no way implies equality with the father.  In fact, it is a negative word that implies poverty,  just getting by.  Is this a picture of our God?
Notice, also, that being in the form of God means having a likeness to the nature of God.  Certainly, the Son of God would have the nature of His father.   This, however, does not necessitate equality between the two.

Again, notice, The Contemporary English Bible has translated verse six like this, Christ was truly God.  But he did not try to remain equal with God.  Then, as a footnote they wrote that the word, remain could also be translated become.  If this translation is possible there is no strength in the argument for a Trinity in this verse.  If we accept the word become, this verse would read like this, He did not try to become equal with God.   From that translation we must understand that Christ never was, nor is, equal with Jehovah!

For these same words the NIV has written (Christ) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.   This certainly does not say that Christ was God, it does say that Christ did not grasp for the position of equality with God.  As we recall, that was a sin that Satan was guilty of.

If Jehovah gave His Son a name which is above every other name, that tells us simply that there was a time when Christ did not have that name of superiority, and so there is no claim for the Trinity.

This post has become quite long, but that is because there is so much in the New Testament that tells us that Christ is not equal with the Father, it is hard to stop finding proofs.  

Sunday, June 3, 2012

The Trinity -1

Of all the doctrines, which I believe theologians have wrong, this one bothers me the most.  It is so blatantly un-Biblical, and yet preachers can spend whole sermons defending it by using Bible verses that do not even touch on the subject.


To say that God died on the cross is just as absurd as saying that Mary is the Mother of God.  Neither of these two statements can be true.  If Mary was the mother of God than God would not have existed before Mary gave birth to Him.  Similarly, if God died on the cross, according to the teaching of the bulk of Evangelical Christianity, the universe would have smashed into nothingness because God (according to the Church’s teachings) would not have been alive to maintain the universe, which He is credited with upholding. 

Admittedly, Saint Paul wrote before the doctrine of the Trinity ever became an issue, but in 1 Tim. 1:7 he wrote, They understand neither the arguments they are using nor the opinions they are upholding.  Here Paul makes it sound as if he is talking about those who teach the doctrine of the Trinity without any Biblical validation.

Mr. Thiessen is the author of the book of Theology I refer to often.  He writes, it is sufficient to say that the Scriptures … prove His (Christ’s) equality with the Father.  However, he mitigates his statement referring to equality between Father and Son by writing, The Father’s communion of life to Him (Christ) is an eternal process.   Surely, he can see the weakness in his argument; if one consistently imparts life to the other than they cannot be equal. 

 There are a lot of Bible verses that substantiate my claim, lets look at some of them:


Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. Mat. 19:17.  Christ, here, denies His divinity; He says there is no one that is good except Jehovah, and Christ also says that He is not included in the one that “is good”.

Jesus said, you will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it was prepared by My Father.  Mat. 21:23.  Christ is admitting His Father's superiority over Him.

Christ told us that the Father knows something that he, the Son, did not know; But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. Mat. 24:36.  With a statement like this, in our minds, how can we claim equality for the two?

Christ said, I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father has appointed unto me. Luke 22:29.  If the two were equal there would not be a greater one to appoint a kingdom to the lesser one?  In Christ’s statement where does one find even a hint of equality?

Christ said, I am going to the Father, for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28.  If there was no other statement in the Bible about Christ being equal to the Father, that one verse alone should forever settle the argument against the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Father and the Son being equal!

If Christ, while He lived on earth, knew everything, how is it that in the Garden of the Olive Press (Gethsemane) he prayed, if it is possible let this cup pass me by.  Mat. 26:39 TJB   Christ did not know whether or not it was possible, but if it were at all possible, he prayed, that He would not need to die on the cross.  In this verse again it seems so obvious that the Father and the Son are not equal; but the doctrine of the trinity demands that the two are equal.

Well, there is a lot more where that came from.  So far we have barely skimmed the surface of the Gospels.  Then we come to Acts, Paul's letters, Hebrews, etc.   The weight against the doctrine of the trinity is so very overwhelming in the Bible, and yet, preachers tell us that the doctrine of the trinity is Biblical. 



Friday, June 1, 2012

Introduction to The Trinity

Wikipedia defines The Trinity as being "three persons in one Godhead"; the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal,  The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.

In the next number of posts I will prove that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity and that the Roman church devised that idolitrist doctrine back in the fourth century.  Wikipedia lists eleven non-trinitarian bodies which are included in the list of Christian churches.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states, To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine, namely: the Trinity.  ... the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity.

The fact that the Trinitarian view was so vehemently opposed, till about the fourth century of the church's existence, is not at all surprising because there is nothing in the New Testament that allows for that teaching.   It does seem strange that people who insist that we must look to the Bible for spiritual truths, still somehow endorse that false teaching, based on what they think they find in the Bible.


The theory of a Trinity is illogical.  For example: just because my daughter has traits which I also have and a similar personality does not mean that she is me, nor does it mean that she is equal to me.  Yet that is similar to the claim that Trinitarians make about Christ who is the Son of God.  Of course, it is admitted that a doctrine about Jehovah cannot be discarded just because it is illogical.  He is simply beyond our logical capacity.


Christian Trinitarian beliefs are similar to Hinduism.  Trinitarians say that God is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The names of India’s gods are Vishnu, (the Supreme being), Brahma, (the creator) who is born to Vishnu, and Kalkin (who is yet to appear).    Most Christians reject the view that God the Father is supreme over Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  

Starting with my next post, I plan to do a series of posts, showing from the Bible, that Christ Himself taught that His Father was superior to Him, and the writers of the New Testament agreed with Christ's viewpoint!

In the course of time we will also look at some of the disagreements about the doctrine of the Trinity in the early church.