|
Bulletin Board
Apostolic CHAT
| |
An Icon of The Trinity
"The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the
trinity. Neither the word "trinity" itself, nor such language as "one in
three," "three in one," one "essence" or "substance" or
three "persons," is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the
language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek
philosophy" [Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr., Christian Doctrine, p 92].
"It is necessary that we recall the reader's attention to the profound
differences between this fully developed Christianity of Nicaea and the teachings of Jesus
of Nazareth. .The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were prophetic teaching of the new
type that began with the Hebrew Prophets. It was not priestly; it had no consecrated
temple and no altar. It had no rites and ceremonies. Its sacrifice was "a broken and
a contrite heart." Its only organization was an organization of Preachers, and its
chief function was the sermon. But the full fledged Christianity of the fourth century,
though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, was mainly a
priestly religion of a type already familiar to the world for thousands of years. The
center of its elaborate ritual was an altar, and the essential act of worship the
sacrifice, by a consecrated priest, of the mass" [H. G. Wells, Outline of History,
1920 Edition, pp. 522, 523].
"The idea of stamping out all controversy and division, stamping out of
all thought, by imposing one dogmatic creed upon all believers, is an altogether
autocratic idea." "A second great autocrat who presently contributed to the
stamping upon Catholic Christianity of a distinctly authoritative character was Theodosius
I. (Theodosius the Great (379-395). He forbade the unorthodox [non-Nicaeans] to hold
meetings, and handed over all Churches to the Trinitarians" H. G. Wells, Outline of
History, 1920 Edition, pp. 523, 524.
An Icon of The Trinity
The Eastern Orthodox Greek Church
The Eastern Orthodox Greek Church
By Bishop Gary Reckart
Orthodox--from Greek orthodoxos; ortho=right, doxos=opinion; right in opinion or doctrine;
holding the Christian faith as formulated by the Councils and embodied in various creeds. 1
The Orthodox Church is composed of several bodies, usually national
Churches, nearly all of which recognize the primacy or headship of the Patriarch of
Constantinople. 2
Constantine divided his empire into dioceses and the Eastern and Western
Churches adopted a similar division. 3
The Patriarchate of Constantinople or New Rome. The ancient Patriarchate of
Constantinople included the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, and Eastern
Illyricum-i.e. roughly speaking, the greater part of Asia Minor, European Turkey, and
Greece, with as small portion of Austria. 4
- The Patriarchate of Alexandria. Consisting of Egypt and its dependencies. 5
- The Patriarchate of Antioch. The jurisdiction of this see once included Syria, Cilicia,
and all of Mesopotamia. 6
4. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Jurisdiction is over Israel or what is
known as Palestine.
The Eastern Orthodox Church claims that it is the true
Catholic Church and that the Church of Rome broke away from it. It claims that the Church
of Rome altered the Nicene Creed by adding the words "and the son," in
the clause dealing with the Filioque or procession of the Spirit from the Father.
The Eastern Church claims this alteration was done without the sanction of an Oecumenical
Council and without consulting with the Eastern Church. 8
The Eastern Church denies that it was a
split off of the Roman Catholic Church as claimed by Rome and most Protestants. What is
often deemed a split in 1054, was when Pope Leo XI issued an excommunication to Michael
Cerularius and the whole of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Churches. 9 This was not a break in unity, but a break in fellowship. There
had never been a formal union between the Greek and the Roman Churches, except in the
joint acceptance of the matters of the first seven Councils.
The Greek Church has always claimed that it was the true Orthodox Church,
giving as evidence their strict acceptance and adherence to the decrees of the first seven
Councils. They also offer as proof that the first seven councils were largely of the Asia
Churches and less of the Western under Rome.
By Orthodox, the Greek Churches mean they subscribe to the original opinions
or decrees of the first seven Councils. 10
It is the dogma of the Greek Church that the Holy Spirit guides the Church of God
assembled in an Oecumenical Council and that He keeps it from error. 11
Athanasius, in his letter to the
bishops of Africa, exclaimed: "What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea
endureth for ever." 12
Gregory the Great said: "I venerate the four first Oecumenical Councils
equally with the four Gospels." 13
The First seven Councils are:
1.) Nicaea 325 AD, The trinity, The Lord's Passover, Baptism.
2.) Constantinople 381 AD, The divinity of the Holy Ghost and
formalizing the full trinity.
3.) Ephesus 431 AD, Nestorianism, Mary made the mother of God.
4.) Chalcedon 451 AD, The two natures in Christ confirmed.
5.) Constantinople 553 AD, The errors of Origen.
6.) Constantinople 680 AD, The human and divine wills in Christ.
7.) Nicaea 787 AD, Acceptance of veneration of icons and images.
Other Councils that are rejected:
8.) Constantinople 869 AD, Over the Schism of Photius.
9.) Lateran 1123 AD, Crusade and lay investiture
1 0.) Lateran II 3 9 AD, Doctrines of Arnold of Brescia
11.) Lateran 1179 AD, Doctrines of the Albigensians and Waldensians
12.) Lateran 1215 AD, New confessions of faith.
13.) Lyons 1245 AD, Crusade and deposition of Frederick II
14.) Lyons 1274 AD, Reunion of the Eastern Orthodox, papal election
15.) Vienne 131 1 AD, Knights Templars and Fraticelli practices
16.) Constance 1414 AD, The doctrines of Hus and Wycliff
17.) Basel 1431 AD, Reunion with East, reform
18.) Lateran 1512 AD, Crusade, Sanction of 1438
19.) Trent 1545 AD, Doctrinal definitions and reform
20.) Vatican 1869 AD, Modern errors, papal infallibility
What The Greek Church Claims As Its Orthodoxy
Nicaea 325 AD: Called by Constantine: The first decree
adopted by the Greek Orthodox Church was the adoption of the Plato Greek philosophy of the
"one essence and nature" of the gods, applied to the relationship of the Father
to the Son. Now exactly what was the Greek trinity that Plato believed was of one essence
and nature?
Plato Gnostic Philosophy From Babylon
_______________________________________________________________________
God #1
God #2
God #3
Unknown Father
Nous/Logos/Derniurge World Soul
Plato Pantheism is the theory that the universe and all
that is therein is to be taken as a whole as God; The doctrine that there is no God but
the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; The worship of
gods of different creeds, cults, or people on an equal basis indifferently [polytheism].14 Hence everything is God and constansubstanial with
God.
The Plato philosophy was centered around triads of powers that all came into
existence at the same time. He traveled both to Babylon and to Jerusalem, and conferred
with the most eminent religious leaders. His philosophy concerning God was colored by
these travels. His ideology of the co-eternal, co-existent, and co-equal nature in the
world soul, is the basis of the trinity doctrine adopted at Nicaea.
This Plato doctrine was borrowed by the Emperor Constantine and at the urging
of Athanasius of Egypt, and other Platonizing Fathers he then applied it to the
relationship of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is the Jewish-Greek philosophy
that gave birth to the doctrine of the trinity at Nicaea. 15
The Cabalist Jewish Connection
What is missed by the majority of researchers of
the trinity doctrine, is the educational and Jewish influence upon Athanasius. Athanasius
was from Alexandria, a learning center heavily populated by Jews who had Hellenized, and
who had adopted a Babylonian Gnostic re-interpretation of the Old Testament. It is well
recognized that the Jews played a major role in fertilizing the world with their own brand
of Greek Gnosticism, that included a secret belief in a trinity of Kether [first elohim,
Hokhmab [second elohim] 16, and Binah [third
elohim]. " That Kabalism is Gnosticist, I have only to quote the most eminent scholar
and Kabalist of the twentieth century. "Behind the whole stands the living
personality of a mystic who, starting with the philosophical and Talmudic education of his
time, lets himself be ever more deeply drawn to the mystical and Gnostic ideas of
the Kabbalah." 17
Jews had settled in Alexandria from the time of Jeremiah. They held high positions in
civic affairs, but mostly as educators. According to David M. Scholer, there were over a
million Jews in Alexandria at the time of Philo. " Philo Judaeaus, is perhaps the
most celebrated Jewish Gnostic-mystic of the Christian era, being a contemporary of Christ
and the Apostles. Ms daughter Bernice, was the wife of Herod Agrippa, who tried the
Apostle Paul. Philo is recognized as the first who "openly" applied
Babylonian and Greek methods of mysticism, in an allegorical re-interpretation of the
Greek. There was nothing of the native Egyptian about him." 20
Athanasius was a Greek philosopher
inside the pre-Nicaea Roman and Greek Churches. He did not accidentally come up with the
Plato theory of godhead as his revelation, he learned it at the university where he
studied and applied it brilliantly to the Scriptures as none before him. His genius and
diplomatic power were assets around the old-heads at Nicaea, most who were unlearned and
some we might think as liberals [so lose they don't believe fat meat is greasy]. How could
a thirty two year old unknown archdeacon, come to such political strength behind closed
doors, to cause 316 of 318 old gray haired Bishops to fall for his Greek re-interpretation
of monotheism [the Monarchy]? Could it be that Greek philosophy had already nearly
deceived the Bishops that attended, through the writings of Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
et al? It must be said that the Monotheistic beliefs of the early Apostles and Christians,
was firmly that there was one God and one person in the Godhead. This can be
verified by the following Scriptures, along with the fact that the word
"trinity" is not in the Bible.
MAL 2: 10
10a: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created
us?
NM 12:32
32: And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the
truth: for there is one God, and there is none other but he.
ROM 3:30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the
circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
EPH 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.
1 TI 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus.
JAM 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well:
the devils also believe, and tremble [the devil does not believe in three gods, he ought
to know, he was there].
I TI 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God
was manifest in the flesh [as Jesus Christ], justified in the Spirit [to still be
God], seen of angels [in heaven], preached unto the Gentiles [when on earth], believed on
in the world [as God by Christians], received up into glory [back to his throne].
The Greek Orthodox denys that these Scriptures prove there
is one God the Father. That God is one person and that God robe himself in flesh as Jesus
Christ and walk among men. And that we are to believe upon Jesus that he is the Almighty
God; and that he went back to heaven-, from whence he will return in the last day for his
people as GOD. That he is the great God and Saviour, both at the same time,
who will come back from heaven, we have only to quote one verse of Scripture:
TIT 2:13
13: Looking for that blessed hope [the rapture], and the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Is not then the trinity doctrine, the fruit of the
Nico-Latin seed, that grew in the fertile soil of Greek gnosticism, that tried to
infiltrate the Church at Pergamos? Is not the acceptance of the trinity doctrine a
proof that Greek Orthodoxy is a proof of Helienized Christian Gnosticism, and not the true
Orthodox Apostolic Church at all? If the trinity doctrine was such a fact, why did it take
295 years before it become an established Church doctrine, in 325 AD at Nicaea?
I would urge Christian and Apostolic researchers not to minimize the
Jewish-Greek-Gnostic influence, Athanasius wielded at Nicaea, and the fact that he learned
the trinity doctrine from the two sources of Hellenized Judaism [Cabalism], and Plato
philosophy. Those researching the trinity usually fail to make discovery of the bridge and
route of the trinity doctrine from Babylon to Jerusalem to Greece to Alexandria and then
to Nicaea. The genealogy is very clear to those who research the background life of
Athanasius back to Philo.
Nicaea, Where Truth Was Decreed Illegal
And Where Greek and Roman Orthodoxy Were Born
[The first international conclave of the Nico-Laitans]
This first part of the Council of Nicaea session was a
trinitarian dispute. Arius and the Arians believed the trinity was co-equal and
co-existent, but not co-eternal. They believed that there was a time the Son was not and
when he was begotten. They could not accept that the Son was the unbegotten begotten. They
believed there was a time the Father begot the Son and this was after the Father's own
beginning. The Athanasius and Plato trinitarians believed the Son was co-etemal with the
Father from all eternity. The issue was, when did the trinity begin, not whether there was
a trinity.
The Plato trinitarians held that to teach that the Son was begotten in
eternity after the Father, was to teach the "Son was a created being and there would
be two gods." One having no beginning, the other having a beginning in time; and
therefore, of the same nature as the heathen gods. Since like them he is a creature."
21 It is plain that the sarcasm by which
Athanasius places the heathen and God in the same role of idol making, exposes his anger
affecting his intelligence. It is a fact of history, that Athanasius wrote the bulk of his
hatred against Arias and the Monarchians, while he was hiding out with Anthony and
Pachomius, founders of the "monk movement" and first builders of Gnostic
monasteries. 22
Constantine 272 AD-336AD
Nicaean Bishops Take the Bait, Like a Blind Dog in a Butcher's Shop
Many have asked what Constantine stood to gain by his
assembling the Bishops at Nicaea. He certainly was not a "Christian." He
rejected even the trinity baptism until the year of his death in 336 AD. While the Bishops
thought he was a champion of Christianity that God had raised up, Constantine had an
ulterior motive. He had the bright idea that peace and security within his empire was tied
directly to religious tolerance and unity. Ns view of history was that religion was the
root cause of social unrest, wars, and revolutions.
His genius worked well by using the oppressed Christians to win his war
against Maxentius. With the war won, he would now secure his empire with a plan to
unite all religious beliefs into one philosophical system, until all in one way or
another understood their chief God to be the same God of other religions. This plan is
revealed in a letter sent to Bishop Alexander of Egypt and to Arius, over their dispute
concerning the trinity. This letter was preserved by Eusebius, I shall quote only a small
portion of it:
"I had proposed to lead back to a single form the
ideas which all people conceive of the Deity; for I feel
strongly that if I could induce men to unite on that subject,
the conduct of public affairs would be considerably eased " 23
You may imagine his delight when 316 of 318 Bishops at
Nicaea, adopted the trinity system of Plato, to describe the trinity godhead system of the
Christians. The Plato philosophy was the catalyst that would keep his empire secured at
the grass-roots level. By dividing up his empire into diocese, and placing Bishops over
these regions, he could secure the enforcement of his decrees through the Church. This was
State and Church united to control the people through the Church. Later, the Catholics saw
the effectiveness of this scheme and when opportunity offered, controlled the State so
that the Church could rule the people through government. This brought on the Dark Ages,
and mass killing of tens of thousands who would not accept either the Greek Catholic
Church or the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these who were slaughtered were Apostolics,
who are identified by various names, but held to Acts 2:38, One God, and the Lord's
Passover on the 14th of Nisan.
Up to the time of Nicaea, there had been no official union of Christianity
and paganism, concerning God and any philosophical similarities between the religions.
Now, with the trinity dispute, Constantine saw his opportunity and was happy to oblige
Bishop Alexander and Athanasius, to adopt Plato's "divine unity" concept of
pantheism, as the re-interpretation of the Godhead.
Grinning like a Cheshire cat, it was decreed by Constantine, after private meetings
with officials of the Eusebius and Athanasius groups, that the Father and the Son were
Homoousios. That is, of one essence or nature, like the Plato trinity, and thus, that the
Father and the Son were "Spirit" and "God" from all eternity, in the
same sense as Greek pantheism was alleged by Plato to be the revelation of "one
essence and nature" of all things. The term "begotten" was interpreted to
mean "proceed from" in the sense of emanation of the Father's Word
[Logos], Thought, Reason, or Intelligence. 24 That
is, the Son was of the Father and proceeded from the head of the Father's own
person, not made by the Father of materials or substance apart from his own being. The
Greeks had a myth that Zeus had eaten his wife Metis and that Athena was birthed of the
head Metis from his head.25 Here we can see the
concept of Platonism and the idea of gods emanating from the heads’ of god. Also of
importance, is to notice that the idea of birthing a god from a god was well accepted and
embedded in Greek culture. So when the Trinitarian theory came that God the Father birthed
a Son out of his head [logos, thought, reason, intelligence, lordship, God of God, light
of light], there was centuries of this belief already embedded in the Greek mind. It was
an easy switch to apply the Zeus, Metis, Athena, myth to the unbegotten begotten Son and
the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the head of the Father. Greek Orthodoxy is then seen to be
in part, the pagan orthodoxy of Zeus Christianized. Praxeas and other Oneness Monarchians
rejected this pagan intrusion upon the revelation of God in Christ. Apostolics well reject
it today as foreign to Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.
Here are two examples that try to explain the birthing from the Father of the
Son.
1. The Father is the spring, and the Son is the river that flows from
the paternal source.
2. The sun is the Father and the beam that sends forth the light is the Son. 26 In each of these, there is no agreement that they are
the same in essence and nature, thus poor examples to explain how the Father and the Son
are the same, God of God; light of light. The analogies would of necessity produce a
spring from a spring, and a sun from a sun, if they are to be a picture of the equal
essence and nature of the three persons of the godhead, as described in the Nicene Creed:
"God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not
made, being of the same substance with the Father. 27
"The Son of God, according to Scripture, comes from an
intellectual region [the head of the Father]: he is the Word or utterance of God." 28
From the same book we find: "During the first two
centuries Trinitarian errors were not yet fully developed, but they were weighty,
so a very simple formula of faith was enough." 29
The second decree of Nicaea adopted by the Greek
Orthodox Churches concerned the celebration of the Lord's annual Memorial on the Jewish
Passover. Because the New Testament Church celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan they were
called Ouartodecimans by their antagonist. The Eastern Churches held a Synod in Smyrna
under Polycarp and chose to continue the practice of the Lord's Passover according to the
custom of Saint John and the other Apostles with whom Polycarp said he celebrated the
Feast. Polycarp issued a letter to Bishop Anicetus of Rome, that the Eastern Churches
would not change from the ancient and primitive practice of the Church. This controversy
continued when Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and the Eastern Churches were admonished by
Bishop Victor of Rome. The Polycrates were instructed to either cease the annual practice
of the Lord's Passover or be excommunicated and anathematized.
The famous letter of Polycrates to Bishop Victor demonstrates the refusal to
surrender ancient practice and custom to the authority of Rome. The Council of Nicaea
determined against these ancient champions of the Faith, and decreed that the Lord's
Passover should not be kept at the same time the "wicked people [Jews]" 30 held their Passover [this
was anti-Semitism for an unjust reason]. It is no secret that Jew-hating, was
the reason behind the prohibition. No other reason is given for the ban of the Lord's
Passover on the Jewish Passover except the issue of Jewish hatred. The Nicaea Council
decreed that the Lord's Passover should be moved from its correct day and celebrated on
Easter Sunday morning, when a Mass would be celebrated for the resurrection.
The third decree adopted by the Greek Orthodox Church was concerning
baptism. There were numerous methods or modes then practiced. Some baptized by immersion,
some by pouring, some by sprinkling. Some baptized three times forward, repeating at each
dipping the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Some were baptized backward with the same
formula. Some were baptized once forward while repeating all three titles. Some were
baptized once backward while repeating all three titles. Some were baptized by pouring of
water upon the scalp while repeating the three titles. Some were baptized by sprinkling
three times, once each for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
These were all trinity baptisms and the divisions among the trinitarians own
ranks. While all these modes were practiced, the issues of Baptism at Nicaea concerned
whether or not the baptisms performed by heretics once by immersion in the name of Jesus
Christ, or in any of the above trinitarian modes were valid. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage
had already opposed accepting baptisms performed by heretics, both if they were in the
name of Jesus Christ or done the three-fold dipping and in the three-fold titles.
Augustine and Tertullian also opposed the validity of these baptisms by alleged heretics.
However, later, Tertullian himself joined the Montanist and repudiated his belief that the
Montanist must be re-baptized. Behind these remonstrances concerning baptism, was the real
anger against the ancient practice of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, as
practiced by the twelve Apostles beginning in Acts 2:38. Cyprian and other Nico-Latins
rejected this ancient baptism as being heretical and contrary to the three-fold dipping
and titles as practiced by those who followed the Nico-Latin trinitarian formula. Pope
Stephen, refused to be intimidated by Cyprian and accepted that the Acts 2:38 baptism was
the only valid formula for water baptism. 31 This
controversy continued to Nicaea.
It was at Nicaea that the Acts 2:38 formula of the twelve Apostles was
abolished and the titles as found in Matthew 28:19 were decreed as the mode of the
trinity-baptism. This was acceptable according to Bernard Piault, because the doctrine of
the trinity begins with Matthew 28:19. 32 It was afterward taught that baptism
should be done in the trinity titles by quoting "upon the authority of Jesus
Christ," 33 thus incorporating a semblance of Acts 2:38 into the
trinity baptism without denying its ancient use [the Church of Christ adopted this
Catholic explanation and doctrine]. With this theory of reinterpretation, the argument
could be made that the trinity baptism into the titles was the ancient rite of the Church,
but performed upon the authority of the name of Jesus Christ. It is said thus by many
trinitarians: "Upon the command of Christ to baptize all nations in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I now baptize you [candidates name]
upon the authority of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." 34We know
this is doubly false, because the Apostles never baptized using the titles Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, and second, there were Churches throughout the first three centuries
that baptized according believed that Acts 2:38 fulfilled Matthew 28:19. It
was a common belief that one must obey what was commanded in Matthew 28:19, not repeat
it. 35 That when a convert was
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, they had been baptized into the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. The decree of Nicaea was in effect the abolishment of the Acts 2:38
Apostolic formula and the enforcement of the titles in Matthew 28:19.
It is of extreme importance here to note, that those claiming
"Orthodoxy" go back only to Nicaea for their authority on "Orthodoxy"
[this includes Bible Answerman, Hank Hanagraph, and Family Radio's Harold Camping]. There
is a three hundred year "dark hole" that these do not cross to go back to
Jerusalem and the original Church and its doctrine. What was preached and practiced at
Jerusalem was to be preached and practiced in the entire world [Acts 1:8]. The true
"Orthodox" Church was founded in Jerusalem, not Nicaea, Rome, or
Constantinople. "Orthodoxy" that can not be traced to Jerusalem in matters
of Faith and Practice, is false "Orthodoxy." True Orthodoxy [right opinion or
doctrine] must come from Jesus Christ and the Apostles, not a majority vote at Councils,
or by Imperial or Papal decrees. Jesus prayed that the world may believe upon him through the
Apostles' word, not the words of Councils, Emperors, or Popes [John 17:20].
The issue between Rome and
Constantinople continued to be the doctrine of the
trinity. Rome holds that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and Constantinople holds that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone (as equally
did the Son). The Eastern Orthodox may rightly boast that the Holy Ghost was added to
complete the trinity at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
The Eastern Orthodox Church once held that the Father had two begotten
unbegotten persons that proceed from him. They are eternally begotten and therefore
with the Father from all eternity. The doctrine of the "Pneu-matomachians," was
that, in the doctrine of the trinity, God had two eternal begotten Sons. The
Pneumatomachians [those who fight against the Spirit], were called such by the Latins.
This was also called the "Macedonian Heresy", from Macedonius,
Patriarch of the Greek Church in Constantinople, 36
who professed this doctrine. The idea that the Father must have two sons if both the
Son and the Holy Spirit proceeded from him. This was no doubt borrowed from the argument
Praxeas used against the trinitarians.
Praxeas was the most celebrated Black Bishop of all Church history,
who stood for the Oneness of God. Praxeas accused the Nico-Latin trinitarians of
teaching that there were two brothers in the trinity. "Besides, they [Macedonian
Eastern Orthodox] pointed out, if the Holy Spirit was God, if he
came from the Father as the Word did, then there would be two sons, and hense two brothers in the trinity."
37 Such a Praxeas hypothesis if the trinity was
true, was obviously unacceptable to the Nico-Latins, but they were unable to deal with the
obvious conclusion of their trinity doctrine. To counter this Praxeas poking stick, the
Latins assigned God the Holy Spirit, to the third position of rank, separated from
the Father by the Son.
Praxeas drove the trinitarians nuts [their running to
Greek mythology and philosophy proves it], and their only recourse was to begin teaching
that God the Holy Spirit proceeded not from the Father alone but also from the Son.
In this manner they hoped the riddle Praxeas exposed of two brothers in the
trinity would go away. The Eastern Orthodox Greeks were not so easily intimidated and
admitted by dogma, that indeed God the Father did have two sons. Appolinarius was a
champion of this doctrine. At issue here, is how many begotten sons does God the Father
have? The trinitarians have a count of three. Two eternal sons, namely God the Son and God
the Holy Ghost, and the human Son of Mary called Jesus. Two questions this writer would
propose, which he is sure Praxaes also presented is: "if there is only one begotten
Son as found in the Scriptures, does this mean the Holy Ghost, "he the Spirit of
Truth," is the Father? If the eternal unbegotten and uncreated Son is not the
begotten Son created of Mary, then are there not three begotten Sons of God ... # 1, God
the Son, #2, God the Holy Ghost, and #3, the Son Jesus created in Mary's womb? At the
Council in 381 AD, Appolinarianism, (as the doctrine of two brothers in the trinity was
called) was condemned. However, the doctrine persisted sub-theologically in the Greek
Church, influencing the doctrine of the Filioque controversy with Rome to this very
day. Trinitarians are reluctant to discuss the two-brother doctrine. But if the trinity
doctrine is true, then it is true. One validates the other and one invalidates the other.
Constantinople
A Rival Religious Papacy
The City of Constantinople was originally named Byzantine,
and is now called Istanbul. It is a fact of history that when Constantine defeated
Maxentius, he did give the Church of Rome the Lateran Palace as its official residence and
built a number of Churches there. He did grant to the Pope of Rome temporal authority
equal to the emperor.
Although the "Donation" letter as concocted in the ninth century,
was a fraud, the issues were of old commonly understood to be true. Because there is no
mention of the "Donation" this would negate its veracity. The fact of the Roman
Church at the Lateran Palace existed is evidence of some agreement with Constantine, no
evidence to the contrary exist. Constantine moved the Imperial throne from pagan Rome to
Byzantine and renamed it Constantinople for his namesake. 38
It is a well-documented fact of history, that Constantinople was called the "new
Rome," 39 but only as to the Imperial palace
not that it was the seat of true Catholicism.
With Constantinople the new seat of the Roman Empire, it was only a matter of
political power for the Bishop of Byzantine to come into prominence, since the Bishop of
Rome was at a great distance, much to his disadvantage. The Church at Byzantine was not of
any importance as might be reflected in the history of the Synods of the first three
centuries. In the case of the Quartodecimans , the Synod [150 AD] was held in Smyrna by
Polycarp who was recognized as the Bishop of the Eastern Churches. In the case of
Polycrates and the Quartodecimans , the Synod was held at Ephesus [195 AD]. Nothing would
indicate that Byzantine was any more than a small Church that was established much later
than the Asia Churches. In fact, other than the Councils, it is not even mentioned in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers at all. No notable men came from there and no men of that city played
a principal role at Nicaea. The rise to noticeability and power came during the fourth
century. It was after Nicaea that Byzantine, later Constantinople, comes into focus as a
religo-political power that had wrestled the Eastern Churches into a paganism,
confederacy, after the divisions into dioceses gave it broad Imperial authority. The unity
of the Eastern Churches was no doubt solidified as a result of the Nicaean Decree of
Constantine: 1.) Abolishing the Quartodeciman practice of the Lord's Passover on the 14th
of Nisan; 2.) The enforcement of the doctrine of the trinity at the point of
excommunication and imprisonment 3.) Abolishment of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
according to Acts 2:38.
The truth that Constantine recognized only the supremacy of the Roman Bishop,
is evidence that it is not true, that Constantinople at the Nicaean Council was a separate
but equal power of the Church. The conflict between Constantinople and Rome lasted between
400-1054 AD and was finally ended with a perpetual breaking of fellowship, all to he blame
of the "Filioque' doctrine, and which group was the true Holy Catholic
Church.
The fact remains that the New Testament Church bears no likeness at all with
either the Roman or the Constantinople Churches. These groups are offshoots of the
Nico-Latin trinity Gnostic heresy, which was rising to power in the Asia Churches. These
are mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 15. According to Irenaeus, the Gnostics [of which the
Nico-Laitans were an off-shoot], started the practice of making images of the saints and
Christ: some of which were painted and made of different kinds of materials. He reports
that they "crowned these images". 40
The Eastern Orthodox cannot defend the fact that this Nico-Laitan Gnostic practice, is
the source of their iconology today. It can not be traced to the Apostolic Church
in Israel during the first century at all! The Christian Jews would have been repulsed at
the idea of making an image of God, even in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Old and New Testaments specifically teach against idolatry and making
images like unto man [Romans 1:23]. On Mars hill in Acts 17:25, Paul pointedly informs the
pagans who had erected an image [altar] to an unknown god, that the true God is not
worshiped after the objects of man's invention and imagination. 41 Yet after
the deaths of the Apostles and Saints, the Nico-Laitan Gnostics, and then the Eastern and
Western Churches, set up icons and idols of saints and the "holy family," and
begin to worship them with men's hands contrary to the instruction of the Apostle Paul. In
the final apostasy, many will worship the image set up by antichrist, having been desensitized
to the horror of such a practice, by centuries of such worship and veneration. Worship
of this alleged "holy and sublime image" would not be considered a sin to
millions already deceived to worship images. Is not Revelation 13:14 a continued warning
not to worship any images at all? The Eastern Church now rejects idols but accepts icons
or pictures that may be worshiped. In my travels, I have seen plenty of Eastern Orthodox
Church members with idols anyway. The crucifix itself is an idol. It is one thing to have
reverence for the Cross, but to worship and pray to it, is idolatry.
In the Scriptures, pictures or icons were forbidden to be worshiped. God
commanded the Israelites to destroy all pictures [icons], in the land of Canaan, when they
began the conquest [Num 33:52]. Jews knew perfectly well that images and pictures [icons],
of God, even by those who had seen a theophany of God: and pictures [icons] of Prophets
and Kings, were not to be erected or set up for veneration or worship. If the law was a
"schoolmaster" [Gal. 3:2425], to lead us to righteousness in Christ, idolatry in
any form of an idol or icon is prohibited.
A Religion of Works for Salvation
The Eastern Orthodox religion is a religion of works for
salvation. By works we mean human effort not found in the New Testament and which
are not directed to obedience to Acts 2:38 for a plan of salvation. The Apostles taught
that faith and grace came through obedience to the Gospel [Rom. 16:26]. The Eastern Church
teaches that faith and grace comes through the seven sacraments of the Church. 42 There is no plan of salvation. They also teach
that unless a person believes in the trinity they can not be saved. 43 This is not found anywhere in the New Testament. They
teach that everyone must abide by the decrees of the first seven Councils of the Church or
they cannot be saved. They teach that there is an intermediatory place [refuse
to call it purgatory], where the works of relatives and friends can relieve the sufferings
and sins of the dead. 44 This is not found in the
New Testament. They believe in infant baptism and this is not found in the New
Testament. They believe in the wearing of pontifical garments and robes. This is
not a New Testament practice. They believe in the holiness of the bones and relics of
saints. This is not found in the New Testament. They infuse these relics in the altars of
their Churches. This is not found in the New Testament. They worship the crucifix as
an idol. This is not found in the New Testament. They believe in the Substantiation or
changing of the Bread and Wine into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. This is not
taught in the New Testament. What is taught, is that the elements of Communion are taken
symbolically, as were the elements of the Old Passover which it was to replace. They
believe in confession of sins to a priest. This is not in the Bible. They believe in
penances imposed by the Priest to remove sin that may have been imposed by God or the
Church. This is not in the Bible. They believe in monks for their Bishops. Celibate
Bishops are false and not found in the Bible [I Tim. 3:2]. They believe in the union of
Church and State. They are intolerable to Protestant Churches and Missionary
work among their people. They do not believe people should have Bibles and form
their own views and opinion of Scripture. They believe in censorship of views and
use the word heretic liberally for effect. They celebrate the mystery Mass, which
is not a New Testament practice at all. They burn incense and candies, which are nowhere
mentioned in the New Testament as a practice of the Church.
Peter E. Gillquist, former regional director of Campus Crusades For Christ,
in his book, "Becoming Orthodox, A Journey To The Ancient Christian Faith," has
now recanted the basic protests of Protestantism. He has agreed in fact if not in
principal that Protestants are all heretics. He has cut off from salvation all
those who refuse to become practicing members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches [Greek,
Serbian, Ukrainian, Russian, et al]; who do not accept works for salvation or follow the
legislations of the first seven Councils. He has adopted tradition as being equal in
authority with Scripture. He has rejected the Gospel as preached by the Apostles, to
defend that "Christianity" that begins with Nicaea. He rejects the independent,
autonomous, Churches of the New Testament era, for multi-tiered hierarchies, built
around diocese, started by Constantine in 325 AD, and NOT found in the New
Testament. He has replaced the offices of the Five-Fold Ministry of Apostles, Prophets,
Evangelist, Pastors and Teachers, with political offices that are often awarded,
bought, and issued, based upon insider favoritism. He has replaced worship with ritual and
Christian truth for tradition. He has renounced his Evangelical
"salvation," claiming it could not save him, and by adopting the works and
traditions of the Eastern Greek Church, he now claims orthodoxy as his salvation.
What Rev. Gillquist and others now returning to Greek Orthodoxy have done, is
stop 300 years short of finding the true New Testament Church. They have accepted as
genuine, a religious system that has no foundation, if the decrees of the first seven
Councils are taken from them. He has nothing in the New Testament upon which to base his
claim of salvation or Church, once his Creeds are gone. His salvation should not be in the
decrees of the seven Councils, but in Jesus Christ through the Apostolic Doctrine, first
preached by the Apostles.
Things Greek Orthodoxy Must Admit
1.) That it does not resemble at all the original Jewish Apostolic Church
founded in Jerusalem, nor any of the Churches found in the whole of
the New Testament.
2.) That the decrees of the first seven Councils are the basis of the
Eastern Orthodox Church, not the New Testament Church in the book of Acts who never heard
of them.
3.) That prior to the seven Councils, the true Apostolic Churches were
guided only by the Apostles' Doctrine found in the New Testament, not by traditions-
created by non-apostles
4.) That the true Orthodoxy is the Apostles' Doctrine that began in Jerusalem
and not Rome, Nicaea, or Byzantine.
5.) That the original Plan of salvation as preached by the twelve
Apostles, beginning at Jerusalem, is found in Acts 2:38; Repentance, baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the
evidence of Acts 2:4
Because of schisms within Christianity, beginning
with the Judiazers, the Gnostics, the Nico-Latins, and
others, the revised and new structure of many Churches was accomplished by Synods,
Councils, and decrees molded by philosophy and tending to Gnostic liberalism. They
did not follow the New Testament pattern of love for Truth, rigor for inward and outward
holiness, and denial of the lust of the flesh.
Both the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches became recognized political
forces in the world, because they kept themselves in the center of doctrinal disputes on
religious issues. Rather than be content to police their own membership, they sought to
control the entire world along with Christianity, with the power of Emperors and alleged
authority as the vicars of Christ.
The Curse of Nicaea
Upon Constantine and His House
When one plays with God's Covenant, his house, and his
wife, and his children, it usually comes back to his or her own. Constantine has sowed and
he must also reap. He had impregnated Christianity with paganism and a false throne-line
of authority, without an apostolic right to do so. Now he must learn the lesson in his own
house of subterfuge, deceit, back room-politics, what secret corruption is like, and its
effects upon a precious Covenant, purity, and faithfulness to a King.
"Constantine's first wife was named Minervina. She bore him one
son named Crispus. He then married Fausta who bore him three sons and three
daughters." 45
In 326 AD, one year after Nicaea, he put to death his son Crispus. Soon
thereafter, he had Fausta put to death. It was reported by Zosimus, a Greek historian,
that Crispus had made love to Fausta his stepmother, who to cover her adultery, accused
him to the Emperor. It was thought that Fausta devised this scheme to remove Crispus from
the throne line, that it might fall to her sons. What ever the scheme, Constantine was
able to see through it and had her put to death. 46
Constantine died eleven years after
Nicaea, in 336 AD at the age of 64. Just prior to his death, it is reported he removed his
purple robes and put on a white one and was baptized at last into the trinity. Politics
polluted his house with back-room adultery and was broken asunder. Behind the plot was the
struggle for possession of the imperial throne. A wife was willing to prostitute herself
to secure her objectives. His covenant of love was destroyed. He went to his grave in the
eternal hurt of his soul, fitting a King who tried to prostitute the Church of Jesus
Christ [God's Wife], with the devil, and tried to bind her children with mental chains to
paganism, that has now lasted almost seventeen centuries.
Today, few "Christians" are Apostolic. Most are trinitarian, as the
result of Constantine's plot to coalesce the philosophical views of the Greeks and
Nico-Laitans with Apostolic doctrine. Apostolics however, are not the least bit
discouraged, although our ancestors have suffered all sorts of persecution and even death
for rejecting Nicaea and contending for the Orthodox Apostles' doctrine. We are still here
and we are still trying to give trinitarians the history of the trinity. We hopes there is
one more honest soul who will see the light, and journey upon the Jerusalem road, back to
the true fountain of biblical Orthodoxy, of the Apostolic Church in the book of Acts.
Additional Trinity Notes
It is interesting in the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Catholicism, Vol. 20, What Is The Trinity, Bernard Piault makes the following comment:
"It is a good thing to examine the revelation that God made to
the Jewish people in the Old Testament We shall not find in it a lesson on
the Trinity-there is none."
Even Tertullian disagreed with part of the growing
trinitarian doctrine after he coined the word "trinas." For this, the Roman and
Eastern Churches have never forgiven him, although they claim his Montanist
theology on the trinity godhead now as their very own doctrine. It is indeed amusing to
read of them anathematizing Montanist and then adopting his trinitarian views through the
pen of Tertullian. Tertullian, when he went among the Montanist did so because he could
not agree with the flux of the trinitarians. In his disputes with Praxeas, Tertullian
accepted part of the view of Praxeas that the Word was God, not one third of God. In his
modifications of Praxaes, Tertullian would not deny that there is an eternal
"Word," only that he would not call him "Son" until he had appeared
among men in the flesh. God could be called "Father" only from that time
forward. 47 This was a direct
contradiction to the idea of an eternal God the Father who had become such, by begetting
an eternal begotten God the Son before Bethlehem.
Praxaes taught Tertullian that the Word was God the Father from John 1: 1.
JOHN 1: 1
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
Here is how Praxeas must have presented it. God in this
verse is God the Father. This is confessed by all trinitarians. By adding the words
"the Father" after the word God, the truth was obvious. Here it is:
JOHN1: 1
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the
Father, and the Word was God the Father.
Praxeas taught Tertullian that the Father could only be
called the Father in relationship to the Sonship that began in Bethlehem.
Tertullian did accept that the Sonship did not begin until Bethlehem. 48 Said Greek and Roman scholars defending the trinity:
"He may be forgiven the lines he wrote to Hermogenes, in which he seemed to
deny the eternity of the Son. 49 To our own
disadvantage, we can not know all of the arguments of Praxeas because the Catholic Church
conveniently destroyed all the documents of the Apostolic Monarchians. Nor do we know the
exact time periods of Tertullian's writings. If these could be placed in chronological
order, it might be evident that Tertullian altered his trinitarian views, swayed by
Praxeas, the great Oneness Bishop, whose alleged conversion to Trinitarianism, was
interpolated into Tertullian's writings, to dissuade Monarchians from their Faith.
Patripassianism
[Denied By The Eastern Orthodox Greek Church]
It is confessed by Apostolics that the Apostles believed
that God was in Christ [2Cor 5:19]. That is, that it was the Father in Christ [John 14: 1
0]. The Apostles believed Jesus to be God Almighty, the Father, manifested in the flesh [I
Tim 3:16, Rev. 1:81. In the Revelation of Saint John, Jesus was Alpha and Omega, the
Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last, the Lord God [God in the Greek, omitted
in the KJV], 50 and the Almighty, made him the Father of Genesis 17:1 [Almighty
God]; Isaiah 44:6 [first and Last]; Isaiah 46:1 0 [End from the Beginning].
The Apostles did not believe in an eternal Son in a human Son [there
is not one verse of Scripture that claims this], for this would mean there were three
begotten sons, two uncreated heavenly and unbegotten, and one earthly created and
begotten. The question would arise, who died upon the Cross, the first eternal Son or the
third begotten Son of Mary? Was it the eternal Son who departed and abandon the human Son
on the Cross? Who was the Spirit in Christ that departed while he was upon the Cross: "MY
GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?"
Up to this point upon the Cross, no one would deny that whatever Deity
was incarnate, suffered along with humanity. The trinitarians say it was the eternal
unbegotten God the Son who suffered with the human begotten son. The Monarchians [Oneness]
say it was God the Father in the Word (Word made flesh], Jesus, that suffered with
humanity upon the Cross.
The Apostles understood Sonship to be the manifestation of the Word,
incarnate by the Lord of Glory, the Father, not that of an eternal Son in a human
son. When one understands that the Word was God and this Word was made flesh, then it is
easy to understand that the Word and God are the same person in a different mode or
manifestation. We may be called Modalist or Sabellians because of the continued bigotry
and persecution of the trinitarians, but we suffer these gnostic-rooted hate terms gladly.
It is made clear that God has at sundry times appeared to mankind in a human
body and a human form. The body he was manifest in was not a person other than himself.
These bodies of manifestation called theophanies, were of a dual nature, God and man. God
can take on human form and not step out of his deity, or consider the body another God
person. It is the dual nature of God and man in Christ, that confuses people to think of
two persons and two possible Gods. The Apostles understood the departing deity from
humanity on the Cross was God. He was the Father, who after sharing the rejection of the
Jews as their God, the cruel suffering as their God, and agony of the Cross as their God,
surrendered his fleshly tabernacle up to die for the sins of man. Because Apostolics
believed that the Father in Christ suffered through the entire trial and crucifixion, we
are accused of being Patripassian [the Father was crucified]. The truth is, we
believed the Father was crucified by the Jews and did suffer, and that his body of flesh,
the Son, was the vehicle through which he did suffer. Even in the trinity, if the Father
and the Son are inseparable and in a unity of oneness, the Son could not have suffered
without the Father also suffering. So we are not ashamed to accept the taunt of
Patripassian, the trinitarians being condemned of their own accusations against us.
Had it not been for a promise made to David that God the Father would take
upon him his seed and sit upon his throne [Acts 2:30], God could have provided another
incarnation and sacrifice for sins that would not have confused his deity to some, or the
Oneness of his person. It is only when Mary brings forth the body of his tabernacle, that
we want to humanly ascribe a separate personage to the humanity that God took upon
himself, to visit and redeem his people.
ISA 44:6
6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of
hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there
is no God.
ISA 59:20
20: And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them
that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
If Jesus is the LORD, the King of
Israel, the Redeemer, the First, the Last, then
he is God the Father in human form. If Jesus is not, when will God the
Father as the Redeemer come and save us and turn transgression from Jacob?
For when the Redeemer comes, he will be the LORD, God the Father, the King
of Israel, the First, the Last, and he
shall come to Zion. The question is, what makes the difference if Jesus was God the Father
manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem, or if he is God the Father manifested in the flesh
at another time? In both events, he will still be God the Father, the LORD,
the Redeemer, come in the flesh! Nothing is gained by denying that
Jesus is God the Father manifested in the flesh [the Son], as recorded in the Gospels, and
then teach this same doctrine relative to another time period [Kingdom Age].
Apostolics do deny that it was an eternal Son who suffered through the
human Son, who then abandons the human Son to die alone on Calvary. This would mean the
eternal Son did not die at all. What the trinitarians deny us concerning the Father, they
use to their theory concerning an eternal Son. They steal the doctrine of the Apostolics
to apply to their theory of the eternal Son. Did the Father suffer? Did the eternal Son
suffer? Who was it on the Cross who suffered? With the dual nature of Christ, did only
half of him suffer? It was very clear to the Apostle Paul that Deity suffered, when he
said concerning the Jews:
1 CO 2:8
8: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known
it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
The Lord of Glory mentioned by Paul is the King of Glory as
mentioned by David:
PSA 24:7
7: Lift up your head, 0 ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting
doors; and the King of glory shall come in.
PSA 24:8
8: Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and
mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
One may see then, that the gates here are those into Jerusalem and the
doors are those into the Temple. The invitation was a prophecy to the Jews to stand ready
at all occasions because the King would come. This King is the Lord. The Lord would come
to his Temple. This was Jesus Christ as God the Father manifested in the flesh [I Tim.
3:16]:
MAL 3:1
1: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before
me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith the
LORD of hosts.
The Lord came as he predicted, riding on an ass and the foul of an ass:
ZEC 9:9
9: Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion; shout, 0 daughter of
Jerusalem: behold thy King cometh unto thee: he is just,
and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the
foal of an ass.
JOH 12:14
14: And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is
written,
JOH 12:15
15: Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an
ass's colt.
The LORD of the Old Testament was God the Father. The LORD as God the
Father was to come as a KING riding upon an ass. The KING as the manifestation of GOD THE
FATHER would ride into Jerusalem upon a colt the foal of an ass. This was fulfilled
according to Apostle John by The LORD JESUS CIMST. This proves that Jesus Christ is God
the Father, the LORD, and the KING. What I Have written, I Have written [Pilate to the
Jews]: "JESUS KING OF THE JEWS."
When Jesus said, I and my Father are one, he was referring to the
incarnation of the Father in him. If it was an eternal Son within him, he would have said,
the eternal Son and I are one! If fact, Jesus never did say that it was the eternal
Son in him doing the work. He confessed as to his humanity that it was the Father in
him:
JOH 14: 1 0
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and
the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself.- but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth he works.
The real clincher here is the prophecy that the Jews would recognize
Messiah as God come in the flesh:
ISA 25:9
9: And it shall be said in that day Lo, this is our God,-we have
wailed for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him,
we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
If he is the God prophesied about in the Old Testament the
second time he comes, he is the Old Testament God the Father, the first time he came and
dwelt in the flesh [the Son]. This is further proved by the name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is "God with us." The Jews stoned Jesus because he had made
himself God [John 10:33].
The doctrine of trinity which is the basis of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is
not found anywhere in the Bible. The word trinity is not in the Bible. The Apostles did
not teach it as a revelation. The trinity of Christianity is copied from pagan philosophy
and Gnosticism. This is confessed by all who have studied Church history and recognize the
Plato-connection to the Nicaea adoption. All the pagan religions had a trinity of
gods. The first Commandment, to have no other God, was in contrast and in opposition to
the trinity doctrines in Moses' day. God prohibited the trinity doctrine from ever
becoming a Jewish or Christian belief by the First Commandment.
Trinitarians all claim that the trinity was a development and
revelation that is not in the Scriptures, but manipulated out of Scripture, they believe
hints or could lead a person to believe, there are three separate person in a tri-unity of
three separate Gods. The Nicene decree "God from God." Shows they believe each
person to be a separate God, or how else can there be such a statement as "God from
God?"
Trinitarianism is tritheism, three gods! They are forbidden to say this
because it smacks of paganism. But they will still confess that the three persons are God
from God, separate and distinct, and are in unity with one another, and talk things over
before the other acts. This is not Orthodoxy, this is Mount Olympus, this is the tower of
Babel and Babylonianism. This is pure paganism.
The real expose here is the many references in Church history of the impact
of neo-Plato theology upon the trinity doctrine and its final interpretation. Trinitarian
Churches are the strongholds of that ancient apostasy. When confronted openly as in this
Primer, the trinitarians will resort to the decrees and creeds of the Catholic Church, to
show how the Gnostic philosophers refuted the Monarchians, the Modalist, Praxeas, and
Sabellius. Gullible Protestants are intimidated to accept the arguments of the Catholic
Church as if their mere existence is some evidence of final authority.
Gnosticism
There are many forms of Gnosticism. In its basic concept,
it is a mystical system that attempts to explain Bible events based upon hidden or secret
knowledge. Gnosticism can be traced to Babylon where it was first used by Nimrod and
Semiramas to created a false religion based upon a re-interpretation of God, the creation,
angels, the devil, man, woman, and the fall. This re-interpretation has secret knowledge
allegedly hidden in symbols, words, icons, idols, and rituals. There is a public esoteric
religion and hidden there is an oral esoteric religion containing secret knowledge
(Freemasonry etc.]. Gnosticism is the hidden [dark] side or the esoteric side of
reinterpretation of that which the general public is seldom informed or made to know.
Philosophy is a form of Gnosticism, as it is a system of reinterpretation
that attempts to rationalize the Spiritual with natural logic or reason. Philosophy forms
the basis of reason for the new spiritualism that is based in Gnosticism. Together,
philosophy and Gnosticism unite to form religions, based upon human engineering, as social
customs determined by morals and Spirituality mesh. This system is void of Divine
revelation in the Scriptures and the Spirit of God. In Gnosticism [trinitarianism], logic
and reason is the source of revelation. In Gnosticism everything is subject to man's
approval and acceptance, whereas, in Divine revelation, everything is subject to faith in
that which is already revealed through the Scriptures and final. Gnosticism then is a
false spiritual system that substitutes for the true Spiritual order of Faith in that
which is already revealed in Scripture.
In the true Spiritual, God declares through the Prophets and the Scriptures
that he is one God, He needs no philosophers to testify otherwise. Gnosticism through
logic and reason creates mysticism, and attempts to explain God, his being, his substance,
his essence, and his works. This re-interpretation divides God according to the rules of
philosophy and reason, into different aspects. This being accomplished, Gnosticism then
proceeds to re-define God in human terms whether or not it conflicts with Divine
revelation. If God says he is one God, the Gnostics will prove through logic and reason
that God is not a being, but a nature, an essence. In this new re-defined ideology, there
can be multiple personages with one nature and one essence. This re-interpreted is to mean
that when God says he is one God, he is not saying there are no other spirit beings, only
that there is no other nature or essence.
This philosophical and Gnostic thimble rigging, is a form of deception the
likes of which is the height of stupidity. It may receive the Nobel prize in mentalogy and
foolism, but it receives no praise from God or those who love God.
Gnosticism swept into the world at Babylon and it has infiltrated every
attempt of God to reach mankind with the truth. The word Gnosticism in its root means
"knowledge." But this knowledge is false, half-truth, twisted, warped, sensual,
devilish, and full of evil. It perverts the right ways of God. It turns men and women's
hearts from receiving the Truth. It brings division among Brethren; It destroys faith; And
it turns men from God and eternal life. Is it any wonder that God would say: My ways are
not your ways, and my thoughts [knowledge], are not your thoughts [knowledge]?"
Gnosticism came among Christians and attempted to teach that the Unknown
Father is so unknown that he does not even exist. "The EnSof is 'nothing' and,
if, as the Old Testament has it, He created things in his own image, He would create
nothing." 51 This nothing emanated a ray of light and knowledge [Gnosis],
an eternal Christ was formed. Another ray of light was emanated and Sophia [philosophy],
wisdom was formed. After mankind was created, the eternal Christ descended upon the human
Jesus at his baptism and he becomes the Gnostic Christ. 52
There are now two natures in Jesus, one human and one Gnostic divine. It is the eternal
Gnostic Christ in Jesus who performs miracles and antagonizes the Jews about their
religious practices and taunts the Pharisees and Sadducees. When Jesus was crucified, the
eternal Gnostic Christ departs and looks back at the human Jesus. The Jews thought they
have crucified the real Christ but he had escaped. They have instead crucified the human
Jesus upon the Cross. The eternal Gnostic Christ goes back to heaven to the throne of his
Father and Sophia [philosophy], or the Holy Spirit comes to mankind to be the comforter in
absentia. 53
One may not easily see the trinity
here. The story now told in Christendom about Jesus being inhabited by the eternal
begotten Son, the Gnostic rendition above shows how Christianity has swallowed hook, line,
and sinker, the re-interpretation of Scripture from a polluted and profane fountain, with
it fountain head at Babylon. Until many take a brief view of Gnosticism, they may
never understand the depths of iniquity, hidden within the labyrinth of mental detours in
the trinity doctrine. Paul, addressing the Gnostics and philosophers in Romans 1: 18-28
said:
ROM 1:28
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge
[gnosticism], God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient.
Gnostic and trinitarianism leads to a reprobate mind that
often causes many to reject Acts 2:38 and the Apostles Doctrine. Some Apostolics marry
into trinitarianism and then turn against the truth to please their spouse and new
in-laws. How much greater can a reprobate mind expose itself, than to accept Gnosticism
and philosophy above the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles? The evidence of a
person deceived by false knowledge called Gnosticism, is when they choose to stay in a
trinitarian Church after the Truth has been revealed. Paul reports that God will
eventually give them a reprobate mind. The only safety and security of believers is to
reject philosophy, science falsely so called, trinitarianism, and believe only the
Apostles' doctrine in the book of Acts, the true Orthodoxy of Christ and his Church.
Quotes Worthy Of Notice
"The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the
trinity. Neither the word "trinity" itself, nor such language as "one in
three," "three in one," one "essence" or "substance" or
three "persons," is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the
language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek
philosophy" [Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr., Christian Doctrine, p 92.]
"There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a
trinity" [H. G. Wells, Outline of History, 1920 Edition, p 499].
"The word trinity is not found in the Bible" [The Illustrated
Bible Dictionary].
"The origin of the Trinity is entirely pagan' [The Paganism In Our
Christianity, by Arthur Weigall].
The doctrine of the Trinity is considered beyond the grasp of human
reasoning" [The Encyclopedia Americana].
"The trinity is a mystery." In the strict sense, "which
could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly
intelligible" [Theological Dictionary, by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler].
The trinity "is not directly and immediately the Word of God"
[New Catholic Encyclopedia].
"The doctrine of the holy trinity is not taught in the Old
Testament" [New Catholic Encyclopedia].
"Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to
be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves" [A Dictionary of
Religious Knowledge].
"We are not saying that there are three gods, and still one God.
We say there are three persons in one nature. Hence, we cannot even begin to know what we
are talking about" [One God, by Theodore M. Hesburgh].
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the divine
persons are denoted together. The word tri'as (for trinity) is first found in Theophilus
of Antioch about 180 AD Shortly afterwards [195-235 AD] it appears in the Latin form of trinitas
in Tertullian" [The Catholic Encyclopedia].
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not
contain the doctrine of the trinity" [The Encyclopedia of Religion].
"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary
implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." "There is no
evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the
Godhead." "Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or
veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the
sacred writers." "The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated
doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal
divine persons." "Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct
subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead" [The Triune God, by Edmund
Fortman, Jesuit].
"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an
explicit doctrine of the trinity" [The Encyclopedia of Religion].
"Neither the word trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the
New Testament" [The New Encyclopedia Britannica],
"As Far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it
an actual doctrine of the trinity" [A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by
Bernhard Lohse].
"The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the
trinity" [The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology].
"Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in
the New Testament does the word trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the
Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord" [The Paganism in Our
Christianity, by Arthur Weigall].
"To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently
never known. They say nothing about it" [Origin and Evolution of Religion, by
Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins].
"At first the Christian Faith was not trinitarian." "It
was not so in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and
of the early Christian writings" [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics].
"The formulation 'one god in three persons' was not solidly
established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of
faith, prior to the end of the 4th century." "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there
had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" [New
Catholic Encyclopedia].
"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 engrafted on
Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." [The Church of the First
Three Centuries].
"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" [A Statement of Reasons, by Andrew Norton].
True Orthodoxy
1.) Return to Jerusalem and adopt the doctrine of salvation first preached by
Jesus Christ at John 3:3, 3:5; and by the Apostle Peter, confirmed by the other eleven
Apostles at [Acts 2:14, 3841].
2.) Reject all Councils or any group of Ministers who do not continue in the Faith and
Practices found in the Apostles' doctrine as recorded in the book of Acts.
3.) Do not place tradition equal with Scripture. Tradition that is not founded in New
Testament Scripture is to be regarded as manmade, and not binding for Faith and Practice
or for salvation.
4.) Baptize only in the Apostolic formula of- "in the name of Jesus Christ,"
with the intent and revelation that this sacred name is that of the titles, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost.
5.) Return to the doctrine of One God as revealed in the Old Testament, and that Jesus
Christ is the God of the Old Testament incarnate ... i.e. our Great God and
Saviour, Jesus Christ.
6.) Return to the ancient "annual' practice of celebrating the Lord's
Passover on the first full moon after the spring equinox as used by the Jews to establish
Passover. Reject all pagan holidays.
7. One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism. This baptism is Acts 2:38: "as the one
Lord is in reference to the Spirit of God who saves us; the one Faith is the Gospel
through which we believed unto salvation; and the one Baptism is that which washes away
our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ [the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood]."
8.) Attend and support an Apostolic Church that believes in full Bible
salvation and contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.
9.) Share your faith and your testimony with others and convert them to
the orthodox Apostolic New Testament Church founded in Jerusalem.
10.) Looking for the appearing of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ [Jude 1:3], let us purify ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,
perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord [2Cor. 7: 1
I COR 3:11
11: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.
EPH 2:20
20: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
COL 1:23
3: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved
away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every
creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
I TI 4:16
16: Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
2TI 2:2
2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the
same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
When the trinitarian doctrine is identified as the
Nico-Laitan gnosticism, that had infiltrated the Church in Pergamos, at Revelation 2:6,
15; trinitarians resort to one response. That is, to call those who do not accept their
false doctrine of Greek philosophy as being heretics. This demonstrates their bigotry and
hatred against the true Apostles' Doctrine in the New Testament, and against those today
who believe there is only one God, ...neither divided in his person or his Godhead. The
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God.
After the manner some call Heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers.
|
