The Doctrine of Christ

Introduction   "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9, RSV) "The doctrine of Christ" was clear in John’s time. He was unwilling to receive any contrary thinking. John held uncompromisingly to this doctrine, saying, "If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work" (2 John 10, 11, RSV). In this treatise, we will discuss the false teaching John was addressing. Suffice it to say here, it did not include a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity concept was foreign to the early Church and did not emerge until the third and fourth centuries. Through time this "doctrine of Christ" has developed into a theology meaning something different from that which was held by John and the entire early Church. The Christian Church started out exclusively Jewish and, as such, had a singular God. "The Lord our God is one Lord" is the basic concept of the Jewish faith (Deut. 6:4). This was universally accepted and stressed by Jewish authorities from ancient times. They understood the Old Testament Scriptures to portray God as truly singular in being, and they consistently rejected any other characterization. With one voice, Jehovah was believed to be the only all-powerful, unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-existing One—the one true God. There is little doubt the Christian religion started out with this original concept of God. The Church of England, in the Book of Common Prayer, presents the Apostles’ Creed as a Unitarian Creed, which it affirms was the belief of the Church during the first two centuries. This Unitarian Creed is still quoted in many churches today. (We should distinguish between the Unitarian Creed, which presents God as a single being, and the Unitarian Church, which believes Jesus is not the son of God but only the son of Joseph and Mary.) In the fourth century, under Constantine (A.D. 325), the Nicene, or Semi-Trinitarian concept, was forged making Jesus and God one in substance. Then in the fifth century, the Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, came along, adding the holy Spirit, to complete the Trinity doctrine. Though called the Athanasian Creed, it is now generally admitted to have been composed by some other person. It is noteworthy that the word Trinity nowhere appears in the Bible. More importantly, the early Church debates of the Apostolic Era were centered on keeping newly converted Gentiles from being brought under the Jewish law. There were no ongoing debates on whether Jesus and God were two persons in one. Yet since the early Christian Church was mostly Jewish, any deviation from the "Lord our God is one Lord" foundation would have taken enormous discussion and debate. The formulators of the Athanasian Creed well knew they had to meet the singular requirement: "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). How could they make three persons into one? Some of the best minds forged this explanation—"There are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible." It was an explanation that did not explain. With such incantation of words, they presented their case and, apparently, prevailed. They claimed the One God was three persons, yet only One God. No wonder they said it was "incomprehensible." There was subtlety here. God himself, in one sense, is incomprehensible, in that He is above and beyond our grandest conceptions. (In another way, He is not incomprehensible, because we are created in His image with the ability to reason and think in the same mode, though vastly inferior to the divine.) Many people will grant that in one sense God is "incomprehensible," and therefore, by association, they propose that the doctrine about God is "incomprehensible." They shift the "incomprehensible" from the person of God to a doctrine made by men about God. Yet, "the doctrine of Christ" was clear and comprehensible in John’s time. Jesus Presented Himself  to Israel Covertly Jesus did not go about declaring he was the "Christ" or the "Anointed One." He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus inquired, "Who do men say that the son of man is" (Matt. 16:13-20)? The answers were: Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Nothing very dramatic, was it? Nobody guessed he was the "Christ"—much less God. No!—not even His disciples. Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter’s answer pleased our Lord—"You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God." That was correct. Only by the aid of the holy Spirit was Peter able to speak thus. But notice what the holy Spirit did not suggest: It did not imply Jesus was God—not even the vaguest hint of it. The holy Spirit owed us the truth, and it gave us the truth. "You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God." They were then charged, "Tell no one." If denied from presenting Jesus as the Christ, would they present Jesus as God? Did the holy Spirit tell Peter a half-truth about the Christ? The "doctrine of Christ" is: Jesus is the "Anointed" One. The Jews knew only priests, kings and some prophets were anointed, and it was strictly forbidden to make or use the special "holy anointing oil" improperly (Ex. 30:31-33). Jesus was not a Levite and, therefore, could not be of the Levitical Priesthood. He was, however, of David’s line and could be anointed "King." Before his death, Jesus rode into Jerusalem saying, "Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you" (Matt. 21:5-16). In Jesus’ last encounter with the Pharisees, he asked: "What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he?" They knew Christ (Messiah, the Anointed) was spoken of as the Son of David and that David looked for a son he would call Lord. They answered: "The son of David." Jesus said, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord" (Matt. 22:42, 43, RSV)? We ask: Did David believe he would father a son who would be God himself? Would he father God? Certainly not! David, through the Spirit, was showing that the Messiah of promise would be born of David’s royal line and, by faithfully laying down his life as the ransom price, would be raised as Lord of both the living and the dead. (See Rom. 14:9.) This would be the Father’s reward for His son Christ Jesus, to enable him to carry out his great future work as Judge and Mediator in the Millennial Kingdom. If the doctrine of Christ meant Jesus was God, the holy Spirit failed to make this known. The title "Anointed" is never applied to God. That would be a sacrilege. The greater always anoints the lesser. God is above all. He anoints, but is not anointed—nor can He be. We repeat: God is never called anointed! Never ever! It would be a grave impropriety to do so. We Have Found the Messiah  (The Anointed) Andrew found his brother Simon and said, "We have found the Messiah [Christ, the Anointed]" (John 1:41). That is what they were looking for—the Anointed One of God—certainly not God. When they met Jesus, he did not tell them to take off their shoes because they were standing on holy ground, as Moses was instructed to do (Ex. 3:5). Jesus simply said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas [Peter] (John 1:42)." We find no instance where they fell at Jesus’ feet worshiping him, nor of Jesus looking for such worship. As a matter of fact, we are told "Even his brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5, RSV). They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and certainly they did not believe he was the God of Moses. Could they be God’s brothers? Surely not! (See Heb. 2:11, 12.) Jaroslav Pelikan’s Observation Jaroslav Pelikan, sterling Professor of History at Yale University, who is called "The Doctrine Doctor," is quoted saying: "You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you. . . . To circumvent St. Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naive."1 The renowned Doctor of Doctrine is telling us the Trinity cannot be found by open study of the New Testament. He is admitting that it is not a doctrine of clear Biblical statement. Rather, the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, not of statement. That is why the Trinity has such troubled acceptance. We could add to Dr. Pelikan’s statement and say that if you placed 10,000 people in rooms with New Testaments, they would not find the Trinity. We also have not found it. The churches have had consistent trouble with unbelief in the Trinity. We quote Larry Poston, writing for Christianity Today, who looked into why the average age of Christian conversion was 16 years old whereas the average age of Muslim conversion was 31. His explanation in part was: "The Muslim is not asked to give credence to allegedly ‘irrational’ concepts such as the Trinity, the Incarnation. . . . If one does consider it essential that concepts such as the Trinity be explained before conversion, are the common presentations of these teachings adequate?"2 Can you have a rational explanation of an "irrational" concept? Mr. Poston cannot be a rational believer in the Trinity, and there are more like him. Such members within the church find themselves put upon to accept something that is inherently not understandable. The Athanasian Creed tried to present the Trinity not as "three incomprehensibles" but "one incomprehensible." As much as Mr. Poston would like to see a more adequate explanation of the Trinity, it is unlikely that anyone will come up with a clear explanation of it. The early Christian Church converts were mostly adult men and women. Mr. Poston must believe the modern church attracts members in their teens because mature minds are less inclined to accept irrational tenets. We must not conclude that everyone who professes belief in the Trinity teaching is necessarily a wholehearted believer. Some are silent doubting Thomases or, even worse, it is mandatory they confess the Trinity in order to be a member of a church denomination or that they put down theologically programmed answers to become degreed ministers. Forced belief was the stock and trade of religious oppression, but it has proved ineffective in making true believers out of people. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." For Those Who Have Doubts  About the Trinity The purpose of this writing is not for those who have no doubts about the Trinity. That is their fixed belief. Nothing we could say would penetrate their patriotic zeal for the Trinity. However, if you are one with gnawing doubts about it, and wish to satisfy your reason and heart, then this message may be very helpful. You may be glad to know early Christians did not believe in the Trinity, so you have lots of company. Also, there are increasing numbers in the churches today who sincerely doubt it, including some of the scholars as well. Mr. Poston is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this subject. Quoting another source: "A fruitful cause of error in ancient and also modern times is owing to an attempt to explain or illustrate this [Trinity] doctrine, forgetting that it is a mystery to be received on faith, which cannot, from its own nature, be rendered intelligible to man’s intellect."3 We may also here quote H. M. S. Richards, in a Voice of Prophecy Radio Broadcast, who similarly said, "[Trinity] is basic in our faith. . . . None of us can understand it. It’s a divine mystery, but gloriously true."4 No wonder children are prepared to believe it more readily than adults. Three Classes of Trinitarians The tendency is to group all Trinitarians into one group. Such is not the case. Actually, there are three groups in the Christian world professing belief in the Trinity. (1) The Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe in Apostolic succession. They believe the Word of God is being developed on an ongoing basis through a continuous chain of apostles from our Lord’s time until now. Hence, they are not embarrassed to accept the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed even though contradictory. They do not need a strong Biblical basis for their beliefs because they can accept a council of bishops’ or a pope’s statements as a basis for belief. They believe God invests his truth in an ongoing body of apostles to define and clarify the faith. Hence they accept the fact that the early Church had a Unitarian God concept which evolved into the Trinity. They believe the Trinity just developed over time as the outgrowth of continued apostolic revealment. (2) Then there is the Protestant Modernist and those who believe in Contemporary Religion. Their belief is that man makes known his understanding of God on an ongoing basis. In each time and place, men have presented their concepts of God. They hold that the Bible was created by men who presented their opinions about God in their time and place, and men have a right to continue presenting their growing conceptions of God and truth. Such do not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God but merely an attempt to define God in ancient times. Hence they do not waste too much effort trying to harmonize it or understand it. They feel man must continue writing his own Bible as he progresses. In this camp the range of belief is incredibly diverse, and the real question with many of these is not if they believe in the Trinity, but do they, in fact, believe in God. However, in that they do not openly oppose the Trinity or the Bible, but are quite permissive of both, they are acceptable in the Christian community. (3) The last group are the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant. To this we agree. This group is uncomfortable with the fact that the Nicene Creed was created in the fourth century and the Athanasian Creed in the fifth century. That is an embarrassment to them because they feel the Bible is their sole basis of belief. Hence, having accepted the Athanasian Creed, they become revisionists of history and try to rewrite it so they can teach the early Christian Church believed it. They also comb through the Bible looking for some support of Trinitarianism. Some of their assertions make the Catholics, the Modernists and Contemporary religionists a bit uncomfortable. As badly matched as these three groups are, they are amazingly tolerant of each other in this regard. Two Witnesses In John 8:13-18 (RSV) the Pharisees were having a little skirmish with Jesus. They said, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true." Here you are, just a plain ordinary person, going about making claims. Why should anyone believe you? After all, we are learned and taught in rabbinical schools, and why should we be concerned with your testimony? Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have come and whither I am going. You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true. . . . In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." If they wanted two witnesses, Jesus gave them two witnesses—God and himself. We might ask, why didn’t he give them three witnesses, as provided for in Deut. 19:15, by adding the holy Spirit? Evidently because the holy Spirit was not a person. God and Jesus together make two, no more, no less: 1 + 1 = 2. That is pure math as taught by Jesus. "They Have Taken Away My Lord" Remember Mary, standing at the empty tomb. As she stood there weeping, two angels asked her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:13, RSV). Now, she was not looking for her deceased God. God does not and cannot die. She was looking for her Master or Teacher, or at least for his remains. Her only mistake was to look for the living Jesus among the dead after he was resurrected. We might say the same. The Trinitarians have taken away the living Lord and we do not know what they have done with him. If he is the God of Moses, then what has happened to our Lord Jesus? We would not have an elder brother. How could the Absolute God say, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren" (Heb. 2:11, 12, RSV)? Only Jesus could speak of us as his brethren, and only he is privileged to thus proclaim the Father’s name to us. God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as "our Father." Our resurrected Lord Jesus is not "ashamed to call us brethren." God has given us the "Spirit of Sonship"—that makes Him "our Father." God is not our "brother." The Trinity concept has taken away our Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they have done with him. We cannot find him in this doctrine. God’s voice in two Gospels said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matt. 3:17; Mark 9:7). If Jesus is a Son and we are sons of God, then we are brethren. Why have they taken away our brother? What have they done with him? Will a "Holy Quaternity"  Replace the "Holy Trinity?" In 431, the Council of Ephesus issued the dogma that Mary was to be honored as Theotokos, the God-bearer or Mother of God. The Nicene, or semi-trinitarian creed, was formed in 325. A century later they declared Mary officially to be the Mother of God. Once Jesus was declared to be God, it is only logical to conclude Mary to be God’s mother. If that be so, then King David was a great, great grandfather of God. Commenting on Mary’s elevated position of worship, Kenneth L. Woodward in a Newsweek article wrote: "In place of the Holy Trinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of Holy Quartet, with Mary playing the multiple roles of daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit."5 Dr. R. C. Wetzel says in his evaluation of the Council of Nicaea called by Constantine in 325: "The Trinity was established as: God the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Messiah their Son."6 Strange that Mary should be replaced by the holy Spirit and now resurface again with a view of being part of a "Holy Quarternity." Today, Mary is again on the minds of many Catholics. The Pope receives an average 100,000 requests a month requesting that he exercise the power of papal infallibility to proclaim that Mary is "Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God." If the present pope yields to religion by polls and consensus, rather than by Scriptures, perhaps he will make such a proclamation. However, Catholic theologians wish this whole idea would just go away. It is Scripturally indefensible. In 1 Timothy 2:5 we are told: "There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." That says it all. If the Pope makes Mary a "Co-Redemptrix" they will be equally hard pressed to defend it Scripturally. Protestants know the Bible does not say that Mary is the mother of God, yet if they teach Jesus was God then Mary must be God’s mother. They are uncomfortable with this. The best answer they have is that the Bible does not say Mary was God’s mother. But then, the Bible does not say there is a Trinity. Note the insightful quote from Newsweek Magazine: "Prof. Marguerite Shuster of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., analyzed more than 3,000 sermons. . . . Out of this huge sample, only 20 sermons focused on the Trinity itself. The sermons, Shuster says, reveal considerable confusion in the preachers’ understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Many preachers, she finds, confuse the work of the Holy Spirit with that of Jesus. Others collapse the Trinity into one God who operates in different modes—an ancient Christian heresy. Still others preach as if Christians worshiped three gods, not one—a heresy that the stringently monotheistic Muslims have always accused Christianity of teaching. As particularly egregious examples, Shuster cites such sermon titles as ‘You Need Three Gods in One’ and ‘God Speaks Through Many Voices.’ In one sermon, Billy Graham himself confesses that while he believes in the Trinity, ‘Don’t ask me to explain it. I can’t.’"7 If the trinity teaching is so important, why is it that so many preachers can’t seem to get it right? If the preachers seemed to be confused, what about the congregations? What if the Pope adds Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix?" How will this affect Protestants? This is fallout from the trinity theology. Can anything so complicated and incomprehensible be true? Endnotes Introduction 1. Christianity Today, Mark A. Noll, "The Doctrine Doctor," Sep. 10, 1990, p. 26. 2. Ibid., Larry Poston, "The Adult Gospel," Aug. 20, 1990, p. 24. 3. Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 765. 4. The Voice of Prophecy radio broadcast, H. M. S. Richards, speaker, Los Angeles, Dec. 20, 1958.

 

Let Us Reason Together Chapter 1   "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isa. 1:18, KJV) John 1:1 is the rallying point of Trinitarians. But in defense of the Bible Students’ non-Trinitarian reading of this verse, we quote from The Bible Translator, a periodical sent to Trinitarian scholars: "If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. . . . The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."1 Please note their observation that, as a word-for-word translation, "it cannot be faulted." As a matter of fact, in Acts 12:22 (Herod’s voice is a god’s voice) and Acts 28:6 (Paul is called a god), the translators supplied the article "a" to the word theos in both instances. They just happen to think this would be contrary to John’s thought in John 1:1. That is a very subjective conclusion. John 1:1, 2 reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [ton, the] God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with [ton, the] God." A word-for-word Greek rendering of John 1:1, 2 is: "In [a] beginning [arche] was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and [a] God was the Word. This was in [a] beginning with the God." Trinitarians tried to level the field by leaving out the article (ton) "the." In the King James, as in many other translations, all references to God are equal to the English reader. You do not get the contrast between the emphasized God spoken of twice and the unemphasized God referring to the Logos. Yet consider how later in this chapter (John 1:18), in the same context, a clear distinction is drawn between these Gods apart from mere grammatical emphasis: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (New American Standard Bible, Marshall Interlinear, etc.) Clearly, there is a "begotten God" and a begetter "God." Hence, John 1:1 must be understood in a manner that harmonizes with this verse. To be convincing, the Trinitarian must prove that "God" in John 1:1 has supreme signification in all three of its uses. We quote from an orthodox Trinitarian, Dr. G. C. Knapp: "It (the appellation Logos, here translated Word), signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage the principal proof does not lie in the word Logos (‘revealer of God’), nor even in the word theos (‘God’), which, in a larger sense, is often applied to kings and earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the Logos."2 Using such reasoning, is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme God from this passage? Does the passage in fact say that the Logos God has parity with the God? Without parity, he cannot be the God, nor can he be one-third God. What beginning is John talking about? God has no beginning or end, for He is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psa. 90:2). So what "beginning" is the Logos identified with? Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer: "The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [arche] of the creation of the [ton] God." Some say that the word "beginning" (arche) is rendered "principality(ties), magistrates, at the first, first estate, corners," etc. and that this gives Rev. 3:14 a different meaning. Whether our Lord was the beginning, first, or principal "creation of God," how would that change his being a created being before all others? In the King James, the Apostle John’s use of the word arche is consistently translated "beginning." In the Appendix we submit every usage of arche in the New Testament by John and other New Testament writers as listed in The Englishman’s Concordance. Please note its uses and how "beginning" is an appropriate translation. It is only because translators have seen the threat this poses to the Trinity that they have labored to change the intent of that word in this verse. But, let us assume that the Trinitarians are correct on John 1:1. Let us presume the Logos was Jehovah (or Yahweh God). What is John then telling? If John believed the Logos was the God of Moses, why would John say the "Logos was with God, and the Logos was God"? What God was the Logos with? Why place a mark on eternity and say that was the beginning and the Logos was there? If he really wanted to prove the Logos was God, he should have said, "See this mark. It is the beginning. Now, the Logos was here before that beginning as the God, for He was the God." To place the Logos at the mark called beginning and not before the "beginning" weakens their whole position. The following texts delineate this truth—that God always existed and that a beginning in time is associated only with the Logos: God "from everlasting to everlasting." Ps. 90:2 Christ Jesus "in the beginning was the Word . . ." John 1:1 "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work." Prov. 8:22, RSV Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary – the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity? To call God "Christ" gives them a name but not a Christ [an Anointed One]! We ask again, "What have you done with Christ?" Where is he? You cannot have three absolute Gods and one absolute God. The moment you do, you must redefine absolute. The moment you define God as Christ, you replace Christ. God can never be less than God! Why Must the Savior be a God-Man? The Trinity concept insists that Jesus had to be a God-man to be the Savior. If he was a mere man, they say, how could he take upon him the sin of the whole world? It sounds good to make such extravagant claims about Jesus. Generally, we cannot pay sufficient homage to our Savior for his great sacrifice, so why not go all out in our claims for him? To some extent that is how the Trinity was started, countering claims that Jesus was just a mere man. As the defense of our Savior was made, so the claims for him grew and became exaggerated – from being a perfect man and Son of God, until at last the ultimate claim was made that he was in fact God. Then followed the super patriotism and the cry "To the fire" with those who dare claim Jesus someone less than God. History records John Calvin burned (roasted) Michael Servetus at the stake for not believing the Trinity. As they lit the flames, Michael Servetus cried out, "Oh thou Son of the eternal God have pity on me." One observer said, We might have had pity on him if he had said, "Oh Eternal Son of God." Why is church history so lacking in mercy and kindness and so mean? "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). If only God’s people had served their God as well as they had their Church organizations, how much kinder Church history would be. In a Church bent on world conquest, there is little love or kindness to be found. Our country was born to provide refuge from religious persecution. Jesus Christ the "Ransom for All" We read in 1 Tim. 2:5, 6: "The man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." What is the ransom? The Greek word for ransom is antilutron – defined by Dr. Young as "a corresponding price."3 One perfect man was a substitutionary sacrifice for the perfect man Adam, who forfeited his life along with the human race in him. However, the Church fathers lost sight of the true meaning of the ransom. When this happened, there was no holding back the ground swell of extravagant claims about Christ. Anything less than calling Jesus God was considered demeaning. For the sake of argument, let us go along with this exalted claim that Christ is God—a claim neither he nor Scripture makes. Let us accept their claim that he was God and, therefore, God died for us. May we ask, How could an immortal God die? Did the Absolute God die? The creed maintains Christ was "very man." Hence, to call God "Christ" gives them a name, but not a Christ. It was the "very man" Christ who died. No matter how they define it, they have only a "very man" who died. How, then, did "very God" die? God is immortal, death-proof. God could not die; only some flesh form could die. Despite the semantics, they come away with only a perfect "human sacrifice." That is exactly what we believe and claim. Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, says, "Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God."4 He also disallows that Jesus could be begotten from eternity, saying: "To say that he [Christ] was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father."5 In other words, it was only the human flesh of Christ that died. Hence, they do not have an infinite sacrifice, because it was the inferior Son who died. So where, oh where, is the infinite sacrifice of God? Unless the complete Trinity died on the cross, Trinitarians have but a very man for their savior. While Trinitarians insist Jesus was wholly God and wholly man, their burden is to prove this and also to show that both God and man died on the cross. The Bible does not say this. Theologians have labored long and hard to compensate for what is not clearly stated in the Word. Did Jesus ever say he would give his flesh and deity for man as a ransom? No. He said, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). Then could he take his flesh body back after giving it? What would have become of his ransom if taken back after it had been given? Dr. Adam Clark renders Psalm 8:5: "Thou has made him little less than God." He refers to this verse in Heb. 2:7, and applies it to Jesus, saying, "For a short while, he was made lower than the angels, that he might be capable of suffering death."6 If Dr. Clark’s assertion were true, Jesus was less than God or lower than the angels. How could he be "less than God" and still be Absolute God? This presents a problem in logic. A Mighty and Infinite Sacrifice  With Small Results Let us allow that Christ’s sacrifice was infinite as claimed. We are allowing this without a Scriptural basis, for nowhere does the Bible say Jesus’ sacrifice was infinite. It does not say he suffered more than all mankind. It does not even say he suffered more than any man. Even Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of his "visage" and "form" being marred "more than any man," does not fulfill the infinite suffering assertion. It is not wise to say more than the Scriptures say. We are allowing such reasoning only to see where it leads. Now, allowing for the most extravagant sacrifice for sin, we ask, How come so few are saved? How come, when salvation has been reduced to just making a "confession for Christ," the vast majority of mankind are not accepting Christ? The churches, for some 1500 years, have entreated the world. They have carried on bloody wars, imposed the "holy(?) inquisition," employed the powers of the state, threatening damnation and eternal fire on those slow to respond — torturing, killing, maiming — all in vain. The vast majority of the world is not Christian in any sense of the word, and the part called Christian is suspect of being mostly a field of "tares" (Matt. 13:24-30). Would God provide such a powerful salvation, requiring only the faintest acceptance, and still somehow fail to save the vast majority of those purchased? Even when telling people that Christ has purchased their ticket to heaven and all they have to do is accept it, still the world at large is unsaved. How come this mighty salvation fails? More than two-thirds of the world are without Christ. And the part that accepts Christ might have a goodly number of "tares" among them, who are the planting of the Wicked One. How could something so overpowering be so ineffective? With such an overwhelming salvation, how is it that most people are lost? The claim that Jesus had to be God to pay for every man’s sins, who, according to their theology, is to be tortured forever and ever if unsaved, means that Jesus would have endured the fires of theological hell for every man, woman and child that eternity would inflict upon them—a very sadistic concept. They claim he had to be God to do this. This whole claim is totally unscriptural. The Bible says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). Again we read: "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). This shedding of blood requires the death of the victim, not merely suffering. If people could atone for their sins by suffering, then the Hindu and Eastern religions, wherein people afflict themselves, laying on spikes, putting hooks in their flesh and staring at the sun until blind, would certainly commend themselves to God by buying remission for their sins. Even the pre-reformation Christian theology with its flagellations should not then have been discarded. The world already endures such great suffering because of sin. As we look out into the world, our hearts ache for humanity. How they need the hope of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on earth, when all men will be lifted up and blessed as God pours out His "spirit upon all flesh" (Joel 2:28). All of this will be possible by Christ’s death on the cross. Let us see how. Our Claim! Our understanding of Scripture is that Jesus died as a perfect man providing a "corresponding price" for father Adam. He died a substitutionary death for Adam. All who are in Adam, therefore, will be ransomed, released from the condemnation of death. It stands to reason that if Adam did not possess everlasting life (and he didn’t because he died), then Christ’s ransom sacrifice can restore to Adam and all men only what he lost before he sinned. Adam had an opportunity to live everlastingly if he obeyed God, but failing in this, he died. Christ’s ransom sacrifice can only bring Adam, and all in him, another opportunity to attain everlasting life. Two classes, the Church and the world, will be privileged to benefit from Christ’s death. During the Gospel Age, the True Church receives justification to life and, upon "overcoming," will receive a heavenly reward. The world will be released from Adamic condemnation during the Millennium. Christ will be their Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). How can he mediate between God and man if he is God? A Mediator must always be a third party! When the world is nurtured back to human perfection and their reconciliation with God shall have been accomplished, they will then be delivered to God, the Father. When Christ’s mediation is completed, then shall "The King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34). The Mediator’s work shall have been accomplished. See 1 Cor. 15:24-28. Mankind, which had been driven from Eden, will return to an Edenic Paradise on earth. We have all that is required—the perfect man Christ Jesus as our Savior and tremendous results from two salvations—the Church now, and the world of mankind in Christ’s kingdom here on earth. Therefore all men will be benefited from Christ’s sacrifice. That is as it should be. And in the final picture, the Divine Christ will be subject to the Father, with all "overcomers" of both the Gospel Age and the Millennium received back into favor with God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Then God will be all in all. What could be sweeter? "Are You the Christ?" In Jesus’ illegal trial at night, while Peter was still there, they asked Jesus –"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am" (Mark 14:61, 62). If Jesus was truly the Absolute God, didn’t Jesus owe them that information? The reason Jesus was crucified was because he was the "Christ, the Son of the Blessed." If Jesus proclaimed himself to be Absolute God, they would have had a perfect right to put him to death according to their understanding of the Mosaic Law: "You shall have no other Gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). Oddly, they crucified Jesus for claiming to be the "Son of God," exactly what he admitted being, while they themselves claimed, "We have one Father, even God" (John 8:41). If the disciples believed Jesus was God, they would not have believed his death. How could they if they held any concept of his being God? God is eternal! Their immediate problem after his death was accepting the truth that God raised Jesus from the dead—Thomas being the last to believe. Later, they became witnesses to his resurrection, saying to the Jews, "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead" (Acts 3:14, 15). "Christ who is above all,  God for ever blessed! Amen." —The Jerusalem Bible The above quoted subhead is from Romans 9:5. Several interesting commentaries on this verse may be found in the literature. A Catholic Dictionary states: "We have the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament]."7 But establishing Christ’s divinity is not the same as establishing the Trinity. The King James reads, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." No one would argue Jesus is not "God blessed." To argue that this statement makes him God the Father is pressuring this verse to say something more than it does. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology comments on this verse: "Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature, for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul."8 A Catholic Dictionary comments: "There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’"9 The Revised Standard Version so renders it—"God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." Hence, we see, there are rational thinkers who try to prevent the spread of hasty and unwarranted conclusions. Some Trinitarians are in constant and labored activity reading Trinity into verses so eagerly that it is needful for their fellow theologians to try to temper some of their excesses. There is another strange fact of Trinitarian behavior. They seldom inform the laity of the host of criticisms and corrective evaluations from within the walls of religious academia. They vent most of their anger and frustration upon those who openly and honestly confess not believing the Trinity based on personal Bible study. They endeavor to malign these by calling them improper names or even failing to recognize such as Christians. In Acts 11:26 we are told the disciples of Jesus were "called Christians first in Antioch." If this be so, how could they be called Christians who knew nothing of the theological Trinity which did not become defined until the fifth century? How is it that those who believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit are not recognized as Christians today if they say they do not believe the "incomprehensible" Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and stigmatize those who differ still exists latently in the hearts of some. Insecurity can surely lead to unchristian behavior. Endnotes  Chapter I 1. The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977. 2. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity, W. B. Beach and Y. Hickey, quoting G. C. Knapp, pp. 60, 61. 3. Young’s Concordance, "Ransom," #3, p. 794. 4. Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 1:35, p. 360. 5. Ibid., p. 361. 6. Ibid., on Heb. 2:7, p. 696. 7. A Catholic Dictionary, on Rom. 9:5, p. 809. 8. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, on Rom. 9:5, p. 80. 9. A Catholic Dictionary, ibid.

 

The Trinity Emerges Gradually Chapter 2   "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3, 4, NIV) After the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the unitarian concept of God was a statement of belief without threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and "incomprehensible" as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity concepts. Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of belief, it then threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with perishing "everlastingly."  When Jesus rendered his final report to his Father, it only required three words—"It is finished" (John 19:30). Nothing more needed to be said. Notice, however, when the one-talented, unfaithful servant rendered his report, it required 43 words, and he was just as much a failure after his explanation (Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian Creed required only 115 words to make itself known; the Nicene Creed required 230 (twice as many words to make God and Christ one); and the Athanasian Creed required 702 words to explain the "incomprehensible" Trinity. If the number of words used proved the case, the latter is clearly the winner. But it is not by much speaking that we shall be heard.  The Illustrated Bible Dictionary states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the fourth century. . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine."1 That is partially correct. Theology indeed is responsible for constructing the doctrine. But we firmly believe that the "elements" of Scripture alluded to here were never intended to provide a framework for such a dogma. The following is found in The Book of Common Prayer on Three Creeds of the Church of England: The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed  Being the Creed of the first two Christian centuries. "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: "And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: "I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed: Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ] having been affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 381, except the words [and the son], which were afterwards introduced into it." "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible. "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets]. "And I believe one catholic and apostolic church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen." The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the fourth century, but now generally allowed not to have been composed until the fifth century, by some other person. "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. "And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. "Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen." "The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."—Article VIII. of the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common Prayer.  [In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as follows: "The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture."]2 Dual Natures Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian Church. Paul said, "Greeks seek wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:22, RSV). To counter this, Paul said, "I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy was kept out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church fathers strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom of Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves. When the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors, what better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy interwoven with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern philosophies were pervasive, and when someone like Constantine listened to the controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong pagan influence was certain to have an effect. Constantine had ostensibly converted to Christianity, and he intended to use the new religion to solidify the empire. Earlier he had raised a symbol of Christ seen in a vision ("P" fixed in the center of an "X"—the first two letters of "Christ" [CRISTOS] in the Greek) as a new imperial standard and used it to gain victory in a key battle against pagan forces. He believed he had heard a voice from heaven saying, "In this sign conquer."3 If the symbol (also called a "Christogram") actually represented two gods, he might have thought it all the better. If Christ were really both man and God, flesh and spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophy and the pagan trinity models. It would make the new religion all the more attractive to the masses. The Nicaean Council Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read: "The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings—that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God—as an ‘insignificant’ theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ." The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today’s Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor’s favor."4 Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth, particularly in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the period of his absence and return, saying, "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Church had lost its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus of the Church, he also continued to function in all the pagan ceremonies, as paganism had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would not pass away overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a melting pot of paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.  Wrong conclusions are easily reached about the Nicaean Council. It is easy to conjure up images of a united group of bishops with only two in dissent, endorsing wholeheartedly the Athanasian proposition uniting the Father and Son into two parts of one deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We quote the following: "They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely competent to establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their attitude of compromise a positive expression. . . . True, at Nicaea this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians; yet this result was due, not to internal conviction, but partly to indifference, partly to the pressure of the imperial will—a fact which is mainly demonstrated by the subsequent history of the Arian conflicts. For if the Nicaean synod had arrived at its final decision by the conscientious agreement of all non-Arians, then the confession of faith there formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonism of the Arians, but must necessarily have been championed by all else. This, however, was not the case; in fact, the creed was assailed by those very bodies which had composed the laissez-faire centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the conclusion that, in this point the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the council. . . . For it was the proclamation of the Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led the Church to force herself, by an arduous path of theological work, into compliance with those principles, enunciated at Nicaea, to which, in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine assent."5 This tells us, in effect, the body of bishops who voted for this Creed were not unanimously believers in it. Hence, the vote testified to weakness of character and the human tendency to get on the bandwagon for the sake of expediency. What else would make one vote for something not truly believed and which would later be assailed by them? When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following: "A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, ‘for the ministers of God’ . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality."6 We cannot help but contrast this event with the occasion when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and their glory and then said, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me" (Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devil had more success with these bishops than he did with our Lord. Yes, Constantine now had most of the bishops in his pocket, and from there we see the church merged with the kingdoms of this world, trying to make believe that this was the kingdom of God. Pagan Models of Trinity The Trinity concept presented by Athanasius was essentially borrowed from other ancient religions. John Newton (Origin of Triads and Trinities) writes: "With the first glimpse of a distinct religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them grouping their gods in triads." He then proceeds to trace the strong Trinitarian beliefs which were common in ancient India, Egypt, and Babylon as examples. Regarding ancient India he states: "The threefold manifestations of the One Supreme Being as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva was thus sung of by Kalidasa (55 B.C.): "‘In these three persons the One God is shown, Each first in place, each last, not one alone. Of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, each may be  First, second, third among the Blessed Three.’" In speaking of ancient Egypt, Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows: "‘The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.’" Newton continues: "And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, such as ‘Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.’ These are all understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . . The simplicity and symmetry of the old sun Trinities were utterly lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. . . . The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The Gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its origin."7 What a revelation—that portions of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were plagiarized from pagan sources—word for word and exact phrases, lifted right off the papyri and inscriptions of ancient Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chill among those subscribing to these creeds?  Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."8 Gibbon is an historian’s historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations. Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine."9 The fact that the Trinity did not originate with the Apostles should be of grave concern to all Christians. The Church of England freely admits the Unitarian Creed was believed in the first two centuries. In view of all these facts, we cannot help but wonder why anyone would feel secure in accepting the doctrinal developments of the fourth and fifth centuries and forsake the pristine teachings of our Lord and the Apostles. In Matthew 13:24, 25 we read: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men [the Apostles] slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." How can one leave the Apostolic Era to find truth without risking being contaminated and choked by "tares"? The "tares" sowed were the work of the enemy. The "tares" that sprouted and grew were results of false teachings that begat "tare" Christians. Hence, all Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of the risks involved in leaving the Apostolic Era of doctrinal purity and of coming under the influence of the "tare" seeds of error spread by the Adversary. Endnotes Chapter 2 1. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, R. A. Finlayson, "Trinity," Vol. 3, pp. 1597-8. 2. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian Theology, James Forest, p. 9. 3. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, Gayle Visalli, editor, p. 209. 4. Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11. 5. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Nicaea, Council of," Vol. 5, p. 410. 6. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27. 7. Origin of Triads and Trinities, John Newton, pp. 20-21, 25-27. 8. History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface. 9. Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421.