THE TRINTY



THE TRINTY

Thank you for your recent letter and the copies of your Church paper. I would like to respond to your attack against us and be strong yet as cordial as I can under the circumstances. Your rebuttal of the Scriptures and our advertisement in the Lakeland ledger however merits my response.

As you well know, the history of the trinity doctrine from Babylon to other parts of the world and finally reaching Nicaea through Plato and the Gnostics, is well documented. If you are absent of this information I suggest you do another study of the history of that error. Here are some quotes you can consider that may help you if you are in a mind to be helped and not just wanting to defend a Catholic doctrine because it is the foundation of the Churches of Christ:

The Trinity Experts Speak

“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 A.D. Shortly afterwards [195-235 A.D.] 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 ingrafted 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 Andrews Norton]

“Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.” [The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology]

In view of the foregoing how could an intelligent man who loves God be so gullible to accept a pagan philosophy as a doctrine of Christ or the Apostles?

Obviously, you will not confess that the Churches of Christ are really Catholic Churches. Yet the Churches of Christ subscribe to the doctrines that were formulated and adopted at the Catholic Councils. When it is said that the Catholic faith is the trinity and those who deny the trinity cannot be saved, then the Churches of Christ are forced to the arguments to defend water baptism into what is believed to be a confirmation of the trinity by repeating Matthew 28:19. This text, instead of being used to teach the truth of the ONE name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, is used to support the Catholic dogma of the trinity adopted from Plato-paganism in 325 AD.

It would follow then, that to defend the Churches of Christ position of the trinity being the focus of Matthew 28:19 and not as Jesus instructed, is heresy. You know that the doctrine of the trinity is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures as a doctrine. It had to be formulated by using a verse here or there that “seemed” to indicate a trinity. What the Catholics and the trinitarians have lied about and denied, is that baptism was to be into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would only be fitting then, that if a person is baptized into the burial of Christ, that is to say symbolically be place in the tomb when immersed in water, that they would take upon them the name of the person buried in that tomb (Romans 6).

As to the proper mode or formula of water baptism: You have made serious blunders. First, to place in the minds of people that Matthew 28:19 was the original command of Jesus from which Apostle Peter had launched his message on the day of Pentecost about water baptism, is false. As you well know, the text and authority from which the Apostle Peter preached Acts 2:38 is found in Luke 24:47-49:

LUK 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

LUK 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

LUK 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Apostle Peter did not have an instant inspiration when he spoke Acts 2:38. He was repeating what Jesus had instructed him. Water baptism was for the remission of sins and is where the blood of Christ is applied for that remission. Believers were baptized to obtain remission of their sins. Without baptism they have no remission. This was to be preached first in Jerusalem and then EXACTLY the same to all NATIONS. New Testament salvation requires faith in the name of Jesus Christ. Without faith in this name there is no salvation (Acts 4:12). There is no such doctrine that the word “Father” is a name and faith in this word brings salvation. There is no such doctrine that the words “Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit” is a name and faith in these words brings salvation. In the New Testament there is no salvation in any Old Testament name or title of God. Salvation is by and through the name of Jesus Christ (John 3:18).

Second: You made a big-to-do about our baptism denying the trinity because we did not baptize into the names of all the “persons” of the trinity by using “only” the name of Jesus Christ. Then you made this statement: “To act in the name of one is to act in the name of all.” Of course you did not say that to use the name of one was to use the name of all. The twist you place upon this Catholic construction was the “authority of doctrine” which the Churches of Christ borrowed right from their mother in Rome. What you presented to your members as a doctrine of the Churches of Christ, actually came from Rome.

Third, when you said that “Baptism must be understood by all to be done by the authority (doctrine)” you made yourself a Catholic and all who believe you. If the trinity doctrine is Catholic and you teach this doctrine, then you are Catholic. Your whole argument to refute the Scriptures is Catholic and for the obvious reason to deny first that the trinity is a pagan invention that began in Babylon and second, that the name of Jesus alone is not sufficient for New Testament salvation. This forces the “authority” doctrine you promote. Yet, in answer to our advertisement, you did not and could not produce one Scripture where what you say over a candidate was ever done in the New Testament. You did not produce one Scripture that the Apostles understood Matthew 28:19 as you teach and baptized converts using the words: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

When Paul said he thanked God he baptized none of them save for a few, to avoid being accused of baptizing in the name of Paul, he was not referring to “authority” here, but the actual use of his name invoked over a candidate. And to remind you here, that invoking the Name of Jesus Christ or even the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has been a contention since the Gnostics came among the Churches bringing their pagan and Babylonian heresies. The first arguments over these differences of opinion came much later after the deaths of the Apostles. The “authority doctrine” did not surface until they wanted to destroy the ancient baptism of the Apostles in the singular name of Jesus Christ.

The very philosophy Paul refuted and rejected (Platoism) was adopted at Nicaea. The idea of “one nature” in the plurality of the gods is a central doctrine of the Churches of Christ in teaching and defending the trinity doctrine of the Catholic Church. If the trinity doctrine was rejected, there would be no other doctrinal ground to reject Acts 2:38 and use of the name of Jesus Christ invoking it over a candidate. What stands between you and truth is the Catholic Church and mother’s pagan trinity doctrine.

What I have always found a contradiction to your claims that nothing need be said over a candidate, that the act is by the authority of Christ, is that you and other Church of Christ ministers still invoke the words: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as to baptize a person into the trinity and through a back door into the Roman Catholic Church. Yet in all this, Matthew 28:19 does not contain remission of sins to have the blood applied for atonement. You deceive followers to believe they are being saved and then you make them Catholics according to the Nicene Creed.

I do not want to bore you with endless examples of where your Catholic doctrine of “authority” is revealed as a heresy. I want to give you a sampling of Scriptures where the actual use of the name of Jesus Christ is implied. If we read into all these the authority doctrine of the Catholic Church, then the Scriptures have been refuted by Rome and her daughters. I renounce this attitude. A least, you could make the statement that “In the name of” refers to use and invoking the name so designated. But to take up the banner of Rome and her heresies I find utterly detestable and to make a covenant with death. Since the Churches of Christ will not change, and doubtless you will be swayed to reject the Plato-pagan trinity adopted at Nicaea as a heresy, we will never come to a truce in the battle of Truth.

While we are many doctrines apart, the trinity being only one of them, if you can take yourself from that Gnostic heresy, you might come a little more toward the true Apostolic faith of the early Church in matters of faith and practice.

1.) MAT 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

>”In thy name” here does it mean by the “authority of Christ” on use of the name?

2.) MAT 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

>”In his name” does this mean Gentile will trust in the “authority” of Christ or is actual name?

3.) MAT 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

>”Come in my name” does this mean “come by authority” or come using the real name Jesus Christ?

4.) MAR 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

>”do a miracle in my name” does this mean by his authority or invoking the name as a means of obtaining a miracle (what about Acts 19:13 “call over”)?

5.) MAR 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

>”In my name” does this mean by his authority or use of the name?

6.) MAR 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

>Does “in my name” mean by the authority of Christ or invoking the use of the name? If by authority of doctrine, why is it that the Churches of Christ deny there is any power in the “authority” doctrine to fulfill the events of this text? If the Churches of Christ are the true Church they are under an obligation to show the world by producing the acts of this text through the authority doctrine.

7.) LUK 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

>”In his name” does this mean by the authority of or use by invoking it. Can any man preach only by authority and never mention or invoke the name of Jesus Christ at all? If the authority doctrine is true, then no one ever need to know the name of Jesus Christ, only that a crucified Jew sent disciples out with authority to preach and baptize those who did not want to be lost. And if using the trinity formula, they need not ever disclose the name of the person who sent them or who died for them because it would have no effect on their faith or their salvation.

8.) JOH 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

>”believed in the name” does this imply authority of or believing in the actual name? And if the name of Jesus Christ is the focus and not authority, then the knowing of the name of Christ and its use both in prayer and in baptism is essential to faith in the person of Christ. How does one claim faith in the person of Christ and then deny his name as being unnecessary for faith and use in salvation?

9.) JOH 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

>”by name” does this mean by the authority of or does the Shepherd invoke a name for each sheep as he calls them? How then can one be saved calling upon the authority of Christ and not his name?

10.) JOH 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

>”glorify thy name” does this mean glorify authority or did the Son bear the name of Deity in the name of Jesus Christ (Jehovah Messiah Saves)?

11.) JOH 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

>”Ask in my name” does this mean was ask by the authority of Christ without invoking the actual name, or does it mean we invoke the actual name of Jesus Christ in our prayers?

12.) JOH 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

>Ask any thing in my name” does this mean by his authority or invoking his name? And if you ever teach or sermonize that invoking the name of Jesus Christ has merit or power for any reason, your whole argument explodes as a heresy and proof of defending mother in Rome.

13.) JOH 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

>”Send in my name” send by the authority of Christ, or send through the name of Jesus Christ. Can one receive the Holy Ghost without any knowledge of the name of Jesus Christ at all (whether you believe in speaking in tongues or not)? Does not Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38 follow the receiving and knowledge of the name of Jesus Christ?

14.) JOH 16:24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

>Asked nothing in my name” does this mean they asked nothing by his authority, or they had not asked invoking the actual name?

16.) ACT 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

>”By the name of Jesus Christ” did Peter here mean that the crippled man received a miracle because he exercised authority given him by Christ or by invoking the name of Jesus Christ? In the actual event Peter said “such as I have give I thee, in the name of Jesus Christ rise up and walk. Did he actually not invoke the name of Jesus Christ at all, but just said: “Such as I have I give thee rise and walk.” Having done this by authority and not invoking the name? Why take the name of Jesus Christ out of Scripture like this just to continue the trinity heresy of Papal Rome?

17.) ACT 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

>”Not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus” did these rulers mean not to speak and teach by the authority of Jesus or the fact they were invoking the name of Jesus Christ for deliverance and salvation?

18.) ACT 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

>”Teach in this name” does this mean by the authority of Christ or did the rulers mean the actual use and invoking the name?

19.) ACT 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

>”The name of Jesus Christ” does it mean Phillip taught them the authority of Christ and not his name or does it mean Phillip taught them the importance of the name and its essential use in salvation and that is why they submitted to Baptism and as reported in the name of the Lord Jesus, not by the authority of, because Phillip had never been given that authority by Christ or the Apostles.

21.) ACT 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

>”Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” how come there is absolutely no mention at all of being baptized into the trinity or into the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost throughout the entire New Testament?

In conclusion, our Church takes great pride in the fact that we are not trinitarian and do not subscribe to the Plato-pagan doctrine adopted at Nicaea. We take great pride in knowing that we represent first century Christianity. And would it not be because of your refusal to deny the trinity and you do deny the gifts within the Church, you would be one of us. Because if the gifts were in the Church throughout its mission and completion, and if Christ was God the Father manifested in the flesh, then you would be one of us. All that stands between you and Truth is the Catholic Church and Protestant heresies to deny that the Church is the same from beginning to end since it is the Body of Christ. How then can that Body be alive and full of God at its beginning but after Catholicism and the dark ages it is only a shell having no Spirit of Christ within it or the miracle power of his person operating until the age is over?

Thank you for your letter. I hope this gives you some idea why we will continue to oppose the errors of Papal Rome. I am amused that you would defend her and yet not produce one verse of Scripture to refute what we advertised. You did not because you could not. All you could print was more Augustinian Roman riddles. If Truth leads us from men, we are of all men blessed because it will bear us to the throne of God.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download