(Baptism in
Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
DEDICATION (3)
INTRODUCTION (20)
CHAPTER 1 THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC
PENTECOSTALS (22)
Praxeas’
History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Noetus’
History and One God Doctrine
Cleomenes
Godhead Doctrine
Catholic
Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine
Catholic
Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine
Earlier
Modalist Monarchians Believed Christ, as the Father,
Had
A Soul and Spiritual Glorified Body in the Old Testament
Sabellius’
Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Commodian’s
Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Marcellus’
Godhead Doctrine
Photinus’ One God Doctrine
CHAPTER 2 THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND
THREE GODS:
THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE (35)
Noted Trinitarian Bible
Scholars Confess That the Trinitarian Doctrine Is Obscure
in Its Present Form, and
Cannot Be Found in the Old Or New Testaments
107
AD Ignatius’ Doctrine, 150 AD, Justin Martyr’s Doctrine, 160 AD Titian’s
Doctrine, 170 AD Theophilus’ Doctrine, 180 AD Irenaeus’ Doctrine, 200 AD Tertullian’s Doctrine, 215 AD, Origen’s Doctrine, 250
AD, Dionysius’ Doctrine, 300 AD, Lactanius Doctrine, 312 AD Alexander’s
Doctrine
The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
3000
BC Zoroaster’s Teaching, Hermes’ Teaching,
the Sibyls’ Teaching,
387
BC Plato’s Teaching, 57 AD Philo’s Teaching
The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead (310 AD)
The
Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene Creed (325 AD)
The
Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 AD)
CHAPTER 3 THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY (57)
Comparing the Trinity of
Pagans With the Trinity of Catholicism
A Summary of the History
and Development of the Trinity of the Babylonian Religion
What Does the
Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon
When and Where
Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin
Who Started
the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion
What Kind of
Religion Was Mystery Babylon
How Did the
Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod,
Change into A
Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God
The Babylonian
Mystery Religion Spreads Throughout The World
The
Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized Before the End of the
Fourth Century
CHAPTER 4 HISTORY REVEALS THAT GOD’S APOSTOLIC
PENTECOSTAL CHURCES
WERE IN THE VAST MAJORITY FROM 33-399 AD (70)
Catholic
Cardinal Newman’s Confession
Protestant
Doctor James Hastings’ Confession
107
AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius’ Confession
150
AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyr’s Confession
180
AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus’ Confession
200
AD, Catholic Priest Tertullian’s Confession
225
AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus’ Confession
Protestant
Doctors M'Clintock and Strong’s Confession
Protestant
Professor Adolf Harnack’s Confession
The
International Standard Bible Encylopaedia Confession
CHALPTER 5 HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE OF
GOD’S
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY (76)
CHAPTER 6 THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN
FORMULA FOR BAPTISM (119)
The Pagan Origin of Trine
Immersion and the Use of the Triune Titles of God
in the Formula for Baptism
255
AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula for Baptism by Takings
the Name
of
the Lord Jesus Christ Out of Their Second Immersion, and Replacing It with the
Title Son
BIBLIOGRAPHY (130)
ENDNOTES (136)
Copyright May 30,
1996 by Harry A. Peyton under the title of “The Doctrines Of Christ.”
A Note from the Author: Since Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, gives His Salvation and His
Word to all freely (Rev 22:17, Mt 10:7-8), this book, and all other books,
written by Harry A. Peyton are given without charge, and can be accessed
through the Internet at the following address: http://www.DoctrinesOfChrist.com.
Therefore, fell free to copy it in digital or written form, and share it with
others. Since this book is copyrighted, the author forbids any alteration of
its contents, and the reproduction of it in any form for Marketing Purposes.
This book may be placed on anyone’s web page, as long as my website address is
attached to it.
The author believes that the Word
of God is infallible in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE it was written in, and all
translations of the Bible regardless of how good they may be are NOT. Since the
author has implicit faith in the infallibility of the Word of God, the
author has formed his beliefs firmly on the truth of the Bible. This author
uses the ancient ANTIOCHIAN LITERAL-HISTORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING THE
BIBLE, which was used by early Christian Prophets and Apostles of the Bible.
I definitely believe that the
ancient Alexandrian Allegorical Method of spiritualizing scripture, which was
made popular by the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (13 BC – 50 AD)
and later used by the Ante-Nicene Catholic Priests, especially Origen and his
student Clement of Alexandria (200 AD), is an abomination to our Lord.
Therefore, all scriptures will be interpreted in a literal exegetical fashion,
unless the language used and the context demands a spiritual interpretation.
All CAPITALIZATION and ITALICIZATION in QUOTES used in this book is always MINE. All Biblical quotes used in this book will be in dark red, and from the New King James version of the Bible, unless another version is stated as the reference. The vast majority of all translations of the Bible, as well as Hebrew and Greek Lexical definitions and grammar, will come from BibleWorks computer software program version 7.0. The author in most places will quote verses from the Bible instead of commenting on a verse and giving a reference; for He believes that the written Word of God’s has greater power to inspire and enlighten a heart to understand and act upon truth, than the elegant oratory or writings of any man.
If this book has been a blessing to my
beloved readers, and they would like to send an offering to the author, feel
free to do so. If anyone wishes to send any biblical or historical materials to
the author, my address is: 148 Little Creek Hills Rd.: Alto, NM 88312: Phone #
575-336-2800: Email address: DoctrineOfChrist@Hotmail.com.
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to all
the courageous men, women and children of the present and past centuries, who
loved the Lord Jesus Christ and believed His Truths. I would especially like to
acknowledge those who suffered social scorn, loss of income, loss of property,
imprisonment, torture and martyrdom for their faith in Christ’s New Birth
message and their monotheistic belief in Jesus’ Supreme Deity.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever” (Heb 13:8).
“In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not
know Him…. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth” (Jn 1:1, 10, 14).
Napoleon Bonaparte speaking of
the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the conquering power of His
Cross said: I know men; the life and death of Jesus Christ was not
that of a man. If the death of Socrates was that of a sage, the death of Jesus
Christ was that of God. The gospel of Jesus Christ is no mere book but a
living creature with vigor, a power that conquers all that
opposes it. Alexander, Charlemagne, and myself have founded great empires, but
upon what did the creation of our genius depend, upon force: but, this man
Jesus Christ has founded His empire upon love, and to this day millions would
die for Him.
[1]
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different
teachings or diversity of beliefs in the religious world pertaining to the
doctrine of godhead? Have you ever wondered how one God can be three separate
persons or beings? If so, let me assure you, that you are not alone. There have
been a host of others throughout all ages that have asked the same questions.
There has been in the history of the church basically five teachings on the
godhead.
The Modalist Monarchian
Doctrine: This is oldest teaching
known in church history. It declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are
titles by which the one God has revealed Himself to His children. They proclaim
that Jesus is the Father incarnated in a human body. They believe in one and
only one person in the godhead and that is Christ. This teaching started with
the apostles in 33 AD and it can be found
throughout church history.
The Doctrine of the Semi-Arians
or the Belief in Two-Unequal-gods:
The second teaching on the godhead to arise, according to church history, was
what history calls the “Semi-Arian” belief. I call it the belief in two-unequal-gods. This was the
teaching of a group that broke from the monotheism of the Modalist Monarchians
some time after 70 AD. These apostates
called themselves Catholics. The majority of them taught that the Father and
Son were two separate and distinct gods, beings or persons in the godhead. They
did not teach an equality of persons.
They taught that the Father created another god or
being or person before the world began, which He called the Son. This meant
that they considered Jesus to be “homoiousios” or “of
like substance” with the Father,
which made Him a lesser God than the Father since He did not share in the
Father’s substance. They also believed that the Holy Ghost was an impersonal
spirit and another name for Christ.
The Arian Doctrine or the
Denial of Jesus’ Deity:
This was the third teaching on the godhead to arise. It started in 310 AD with a Catholic Presbyter in Egypt by the
name of Arius. In a few years Arius had a large following that challenged the godhead
doctrine of their fellow Catholic ministers. This teaching stated that the
Father was the one and only God, and Jesus was not God in any sense, but was
the highest or greatest angel in God's creation.
According to Professor Philip Schaff in work
entitled History of the Christian Church: The Arians made the Holy [Spirit] the first creature of the Son, and as subordinate to the Son as the Son to
the Father. The Arian trinity was therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal,
but arising in time and in descending grades, consisting of the uncreated God
and two created demi-gods. The Semi-Arians here, as elsewhere, approached the
orthodox doctrine, but rejected the consubstantiality, and asserted the
creation of the Spirit. [2]
The Doctrine of the Binitarians
or the Belief in Two-Equal-gods:
The fourth teaching on the godhead was a belief in two-equal-gods or persons.
This doctrine started in 325 AD.
The Catholic Church started this doctrine in an effort to combat the Arian
doctrine of the godhead. They put their doctrine into a written form and called
it the Nicene Creed. They said that Jesus was “homoousios”
or “of the same substance” with the Father, thus making Him an equal God with
the Father, since He now shared in the Father’s own substance. Therefore, they
change their godhead doctrine and traded in their forefather’s belief in
two-unequal-gods for a belief in two-equal-gods. This Creed speaks of the Holy
Ghost, but does not tell us what they believed about the Holy Ghost.
Catholic Bishops as a whole at this time did not
believe that the Holy Ghost was a separate person in the godhead. In fact most
of them did not know what to believe about the Holy Ghost. The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely
informs us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicea believed about the Holy Ghost.
Under the heading of the Trinity, the
Catholic Church made a good and honest confession about the development of
their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated: In the last analysis, the 2nd century
theological achievement was limited…. A Trinitarian solution was still
in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a
measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve
of Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was
still far from settled. It was the problem of plurality within the single,
undivided godhead. [3]
Even as late as 375 AD, most Catholics Bishops still did not believe the Holy Spirit was a
person or even God. Gregory the Catholic Bishop of Nazianzus, who later became
a Pope, said: Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence
[meaning not a person], others a creature [meaning an angel or a created spirit
being], others God himself, and others know not which way to decide. [4]
The Doctrine of the Trinity or
the Belief in Three-Equal-gods:
The fifth teaching to arise on the godhead was the Trinitarian doctrine. In 381 AD Catholic Bishops dreamed up yet another creed,
which they called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was the same
as the Nicene Creed but it made the Holy Ghost a person in the godhead. But it
did not spell out his relationship to the Father and Son. Therefore, they
change their godhead doctrine again; they traded in their belief in
two-equal-gods for a belief in three-equal-gods. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
were now three separate and distinct persons (Greek - hypostases) or beings.
In 382 AD, Catholic
Pope Damascus called a Roman Council in which he perfected their belief in
three-equal-gods. This council defined the Trinitarian doctrine as three
persons who were equal in power, glory, knowledge, and all other attributes of
God. At last Lucifer finally had his Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the
godhead in his Roman Catholic Church.
CHAPTER 1
THE GODHEAD
BELIEF OF ANCIENT
ONENESS
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS
This history is a sketch or an outline of this
subject, and it is no way intended to be a complete history. It is designed to give
my readers a basic understanding of the great history of Jesus’ name baptism
and the godhead in Christ. The true history
of the one God, Jesus’ Name Pentecostal Church has been destroyed. All the
writings of her great Apologists have been burned, and if any survived, they
are probably hid in a room in the Vatican Library that could withstand an
atomic blast.
The only history we have of
Christ’s Bride is the one that was written by the Catholic Nicolaitan priests
who hated her. Therefore, it is hard to tell to what extent Catholicism twisted
their teachings. It is impossible to present a history of God’s people without
giving a history of both their belief in Jesus’ Name Baptism, the Supreme Deity
of Christ and Speaking in Tongues, because Catholic and Protestant histories
distinguishes them from all other religions by these doctrines.
The greatest tragedy of history
is not only the loss writings of God’s inspired preachers, but also the assumption
of historians that Catholicism was the original Church instead of a church
setup by apostates somewhere after 70 AD. Even though historians know right well, that the writings of
these early apostates and some of their disciples have been corrupted or
altered, they still proclaim her as the original church. Why? Because the only
history they have to base theirs opinions on is Catholic history. It is not
hard to pervert history when you destroy the writings of all your competition.
It is obvious from the writings
of the fathers of Catholicism that many books were written against them by the
Apologists of the God’s Apostolic Church, and the writers of various
denominations. Professor Charles Guignebert, in his book The Early History
of Christianity, confirmed this when he said: these people had written a great deal against
her [Catholicism], or concerning her; this literature has almost entirely
disappeared and the little that remains is only enough to show us how great
would be the service it might render. Because it has no alternative but to use
(a) polemical or exegetical writing mainly, badly emended by
accounts reputed to be historical,
but written long after the events and at a time when they were scarcely
understood.... It is right and necessary that we should not forget that fact. For example, to try to exact
from the collection of [Catholic] Christian documents alone an exact idea of the early times of the
Church was to give way to a tantalizing delusion; whether the fact was realized
or not, the undertaking [of it by historians] was inspired by prejudgments of the faith.... They
endeavored to preserve its old standing as an originality, and this desire was fed from more than one root in the
theological postulate of revelation. [5]
Therefore anyone who reads and
study the writings of the Catholic Ante, Nicene, and Post Nicene Fathers should
keep in mind the following facts, which Professor Guignebert and other Church
historians have boldly proclaimed: First, we know from the writings of the
apostles and disciples that false doctrines existed in their day, which later
developed into a denominational systems known as Gnosticism and Catholicism.
This is why Paul told the Bishops in the Church of Ephesus: “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-29), and Jude admonished the Church in his day they should: “earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). The documents known as The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the Didache, that were masquerade as the writings and teaching of the apostles are denounced by the majority of textual scholars as fabrications that Catholic priests of the second or third century invented.
Second, Nicene and Post Nicene priests had a tendency to alter
manuscripts that were written by their Ante Nicene predecessors in the
ministry. They did this by either adding to or takings out certain lines that
either confirmed or denied a certain doctrine; and because of their hatred of
the denominations that opposed them, they had a tendency to misrepresent or
twist the teaching of their antagonist, as Dr. Guignebert so competently
pointed out. Third, because of the denominational biases of some of the
reformation leaders and modern day church historians, there was a tendency to
misinterpret the writings and beliefs of these ancient Catholic priests, in
order that, their denomination may have a historical foundation for some of
their beliefs.
Before I begin my history of
God’s Modalist Monarchian preachers, it would be to my readers’ advantage for
me to define their one God doctrine, as well as the two-god doctrine believed
by the early writers of Catholicism; for the Ante Nicene Catholic priests were
not Trinitarians but believed in two-unequal-gods, the Nicene priests were
Binitarians or taught two-equal-gods, while the Post Nicene priests were
Trinitarians or believed in three-equal-gods. This way my readers can receive a
better understanding of the history they are about to read.
Modalist Monarchianism may be
defined as a first century belief that God is one person as well as one being,
who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The ancient preachers of oneness were anti-Trinitarians,
who believed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were titles, offices, modes of
revelation, or characters as in a play, that the one person of God has revealed
Himself to His Children. As the Father, the one God revealed Himself as the
Creator of man and the cosmos. As the Son of God, the Father revealed Himself
as the Savior of all mankind by becoming a man, and as a man died for their
sins. As the Holy Spirit, the Father revealed Himself as the Regenerator of
man, by comes in and dwelling in him for the purpose of redeeming, empowering
and transforming him into Christ’s likeness.
Even though ancient oneness
preachers proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was Father manifested in the
flesh, they all did not hold the same Christology views. They all believed that
the Logos pre-existed as the Father and was not a being separated from Father,
but was His visible form or body. They also believed that it was the Christ
that became Jesus or the Son of God at Bethlehem, and the Holy Spirit was another
name for the Logos. The early Oneness believers held two different Christology
views on the Logos’ incarnation. One group of oneness preachers believed that
God’s entire Spirit and body substance was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other
group of preachers, such as Sabellius, believed that the only the visible portion or body of God
the Father’s own substance became incarnated. I understand this to mean that
God the Father’s Holy Spirit Nature stayed in heaven while His Spiritual Body
Nature became incarnated and His Soul Nature dwelt in it.
The early Catholics began their
apostasy from the true believers over the godhead and ministerial order in the
local church. Since they were few in number, they organized and became known as
the Roman Catholic Church. These early apostate believed in two separate and
distinct persons in the godhead. They believed that God the Father created,
begot, or generated before time began a second god called the Logos. They
taught that this Word was a pre-existing Son of God who became Jesus at
Bethlehem. They also believed that the Holy Spirit was another name for the
Logos.
Basically the one major
difference between the earlier Oneness and the Catholic believers is their belief
concerning the identity of the Logos. Now this is a very important point that
my beloved readers should keep in mind. Who is the Logos? Is He the same person
as the Father, or is He someone different from the Father? Is He the Father the
one and only God, or is He a second god different from the Father. Is He
someone less than God or is He equal to the Father? Is He an eternal being or
is He a created being? If He is God, did He retain His deity when He was born
of Mary as a man?
The entire godhead dispute was
basically over these issues until 381 AD, when the Catholic Church officially adopted the
concept of the Trinity of Babylon. The Catholic Church in all their creeds did
not teach a Trinity of three separate persons in the godhead before this time.
If it was not for the pride of the apostates Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of
Rome, and the early Catholic apologists, and their love of Greek Philosophy,
especially the writings of Plato and the corrupt Jewish writings of Philo,
their doctrine of two-gods, which later developed into a doctrine of three
gods, would have never came into being. In fact, their doctrine of two gods
really originated in Zoroastrianism. Let us examine three historical references
that verify these points.
The
Ancient Oneness Godhead Doctrine: The Catholic Encyclopedia gave a fair
explanation of the origin and differences of belief between the Modalist
Monarchians and the early Catholics. It revealed that the Jesus’ Name
Monarchians: made
the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects or modes of existence of the Father,
thus emphatically identifying Christ with [the Father] the one God.... They spoke of the Father as
Spirit and the Son as flesh. [6]
The
Ancient Catholic Godhead Doctrine: This same encyclopedia went on to reveal that the
Jesus’ Name Modalist were against the Catholic adoption of Plato and Philo
doctrine of two gods, in others words: the learned philosophizing of the Christology of
Catholicism. This godhead doctrine: to the simplicity of the [Catholic] faithful looked too much like a
mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The Monarchians emphatically declared that
God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus Christ is God, wholly and
perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to
see why the theologians like Tertullian and Hippolytus opposed them for their
protest was precisely against the Platonism
which these theologians had inherited from Justin and the Apologists.
The Alexandrians alone insisted
rightly on the generation of the Son from all eternity; but thus the Unity of
God was even less manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly
teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending the doctrine
of the Logos at the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity,
the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the unity of the godhead split into two or even three, and to make Jesus Christ
something less than the supreme God
the Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the
Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian. [7]
Dr. James Hastings in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, speaking about this controversy
declared: Modalist Monarchianism was powerfully supported by the critico-historical
school of exegesis which grew up at Antioch in opposition to the speculative,
allegorizing school of Alexandria. He went on to say that on one side of this great battle
was: Monarchianism,
the Antiochene historical-critical
school of interpretation, and rationalism, which opposed Catholicism, with its… allegorical interpretation, and its
metaphysic of deity. [8]
The International Standard
Bible Encylopaedia speaking of the formulation of the doctrine of the
Trinity gave this summation: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of
slow attainment. The influence of
inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in
the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In
the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected
Christian thought into subordinationist
channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon
the Son as a prolation of Deity
reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and
space; meanwhile, to a great extent,
the Spirit was neglected altogether
(Trinity, sec 22).
Praxeas,
A One God, Jesus’ Name Man of God: Quintus Septimius Florens, better known as Tertullian,
embraced Catholicism when he was about 30 years old. When he was 40, he
embraced some of the heresies of Montanus, and became one of their chief
preachers. Around AD 200,
he wrote a work entitled Against Praxeas, who was a holy Jesus’ Name
Preacher of that day. Tertullian, who lived in Carthage, which is in northern
Africa, revealed that Praxeas came to Rome during the time that Victor was
Bishop (AD
189-199).
According to History of Dogma
by professor Adolph Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in Rome
when Eleutherus was Bishop (AD 175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack says: If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and
that is probable from Eusebius H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and
Callistus. [9]
We do not know who among God’s people converted Pope Eleutherus and Victor to
the truth concerning the supreme deity in Christ Jesus, but we do know that
Zephyrinus and Callistus were converted by Cleomenes, who was a disciple of
Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus.
Tertullian said Praxeas came to
Rome after he had suffered imprisonment for his unwavering faith in the
almighty God in Christ Jesus. Praxeas, like the great apostles Peter and Paul,
suffered much for the Gospel sake. The angry Tertullian tried to belittle
Praxeas suffering by called it: the annoyance of a prison, and no doubt slandered him in
an attempt to discredit him. Tertullian, the Montanist, was angry with Praxeas
because he had Eleutherus brand Montanus as a heretic. [10]
Some historians, like Harnack,
believed Montanus was a Modalist Monarchian in his godhead belief. But, I find
this hard to believe since Tertullian definitely had a two god or person
belief, and not only that, but according to John Blunt, in his work entitled Dictionary
of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought,
Montanus used the Catholic formula for baptism. He wrote: Montanus himself had retained
the Catholic form. For this we have the evidence of Athanasius... (cont. Arian.
Or. ii, 43). He is writing of baptism, and the ‘names’ are the names of the
Persons of the Holy Trinity. [11]
Montanus was excommunicated for heresy. Some historians say that ‘Montanus claimed to be the voice
of the Holy Ghost,’ while others say ‘he claimed to be the embodiment of the Spirit.’
Even if Montanus had a “one God belief” from the beginning, these accusations against him, if they are true, are enough to brand him as a
heretic.
Tertullian could have been angry
with Praxeas for another reason. It is a historical fact that a great number of
the Montanist were converted to the truth and became Modalist Monarchians,
especially in Africa. In fact the main body of Apostolic Montanist broke away
from Montanus and Tertullian’s two-god group somewhere around c. 190. The Catholic Encyclopedia
confirmed this when it stated: A number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists. It also went on to confess that Tertullian may have twisted the teachings of Praxeas, and
Hippolytus may have done the same
with Noetus. It declared: It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and
Hippolytus to have misrepresented the
opinions of their opponents. [12]
Tertullian and Hippolytus were both Bishops, and no Nicolaitan-Balaamite pastor
enjoys losing their people, who are their bread and butter. Also, these men did
not like it very much when the great mass of Christians in their day called
them heretics.
For Eleutherus, the Bishop of
Rome, to condemn Montanus, he must have had a lot of faith and confidence in
Praxeas as a man of God. So, it is obvious, Eleutherus had to be a Jesus’ Name
Preacher. Tertullian really does not say why Praxeas had Montanus condemned as
a heretic. Callistus excommunicate Sabellius supposedly for some heresy, so why
should it be thought strange for Eleutherus to excommunicate Montanus for some
heresy. My readers should bear in mind that Sabellius was a convert of
Callistus. They both were Modalist Monarchians in their godhead belief. So, it
would appear that it was not because of Sabellius’ godhead belief that he was
excommunicated. Callistus no doubt was probably fearful and jealous of
Sabellius for he was very popular with the people as a teacher.
Many Earlier Modalist
Monarchians, Such as Praxeas, Believed that Christ or the Father Had A Body in
the Old Testament: According to Tertullian, in 200 AD, oneness preachers must have
believed that Christ or the Logos, as God the Father, must have dwelt in a bodily form in the Old Testament,
even though they believed God is a Spirit Being, or Tertullian following
argument would make no sense! Tertullian speaking of Christ preexistence as “the form of God”
(Phil 2:6)
declared: In
what form of God? Of course he [Paul] means in some
form of God. For who [among the Jesus’ Name Preachers] will deny that God is a body,
although God is a Spirit? For Spirit has a bodily
substance of its own kind, in its
own form.... But you will not allow
Him to be really a [different] substantive being by having a [separate body or] substance of His own; in such
a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a [separate] person, and so be able as being
constituted second to God the Father,
to make two, the Father and the Son, God the Word. [13]
Tertullian
went on to say: Since
they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the
Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of….
They make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion…. For as
in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, ‘I am God,
and beside me there is no God;’ so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the
Lord’s answer to Philip, ‘I and my Father are one;’ and, ‘He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.’ [14]
Therefore these early heroes of
faith must have believed that Christ, as God the Father in the Old Testament,
must have had some kind of body! Most of God’s people in the earlier ages did not allowed God’s
substance to be divided. How can anyone divide God’s Spirit Nature from His
Soul or Human Nature and make two separate and distinct persons is beyond me? I
will speak more of God’s Spirit and Soul Nature later. According to Tertullian,
Praxeas must not have believed God to be an omnipresent Spirit Being in His
true essence or substance. Omnipresence is one of God’s many attributes but it
is not His personal essence. He also implied that the Jesus’ Name Preachers
believed that God the Father’s essence or substance was contained in a personal
body.
Praxeas’
One God Doctrine: Tertullian mocked Praxeas because he and his forefathers believed the
entire godhead dwells in one person. He said they taught: They distinguish two,
Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus;
and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus
they, while contending that the Father
and the Son are one and the same [person]…. Such a monarchy as this they learnt….
The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest,
whom they make the Father…. See, say they, it was announced by the angel:
“Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God.” Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be
the flesh that is the Son of God. [15]
Tertullian went on to say: Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in
Christ — namely, the divine and the human — it plainly follows that the Divine Nature is immortal, and that which is Human
is mortal, it is manifest in what
sense he [Praxeas] declares ‘Christ died’ — even in the sense in which
He was flesh and Man and the Son of Man, NOT as being the Spirit and the Word…. [These Oneness Pentecostals declared,] we do not maintain that He died after the Divine
Nature, but only after the Human. [16]
All theologians and historians, who claimed oneness
preachers’ taught that God died at Calvary, should repent of that lie. Surely
this passage was not hidden from their view. Even though Jesus Christ is God
the Father in the flesh, it was not the Divine nature that died, but it was His
human nature only that was subject to pain, death, and other human frailties.
God cannot die! Man cannot kill God! I have
asked Trinitarian preachers who declare lie this question: “Do you believe that Jesus
Christ is God, or is He nothing more than a mere man?” Every Protestant preacher I
have asked this question to has responded by saying: “Jesus is God.” I then declared to them: “You must either preach our
position, or you must teach that God died on Calvary’s cross, and God laid dead
in a tomb for three days before He came back to life again, also that mortal
man had the power to kill God.”
Noetus, A
True Man of God: Hippolytus wrote a work entitled The Refutation Of All Heresies
around 225
AD. This man
was a heretical Catholic bishop, whose church was in a suburb of Rome. He was a
contemporary of Tertullian and an older contemporary of Cyprian, and like them,
he belonged to the North African or Western School of Doctrine. Hippolytus
wrote against Noetus and his disciples. Noetus was from Smyrna. My beloved readers may recall what our Lord
said about the true believers who lived in the Smyrna Church Period; He said: “I
know the blasphemy of them [the Catholic apologists], which say they are Jews
[children of God], and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan” (Rev
2:8-11, also see Mt 7:15-23). Noetus, unlike Hippolytus, was a true man of God.
Noetus’
One God Doctrine: Hippolytus went on to say: Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same [person], no one is ignorant. For he
makes his statement thus: `When indeed then, the Father had not been born, He
yet was justly styled Father: and when it pleased Him to undergo generation,
having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's.… He is
styled by the name of Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times, [or at different time periods]. He confessed Himself to those
beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who could
comprehend Him of being the Father. [17]
Epigonus, Cleomenes, Zephyrinus,
and Callistus were all men of God. Hippolytus wrote not only against Noetus but
also against Zephyrinus, who was a Bishops of Rome from c. 199-210, and Callistus, who was a
Bishop of Rome from c. 210-222. Hippolytus was furious because the people of Rome branded him as a
heretic and did not want him as one of their Bishops, so he set himself up as a
rival Bishop or as some historians prefer an anti-Pope. Therefore, he lied and
slandered the character of Noetus and all of the real Bishops of Rome.
Hippolytus informed us that
Catholic Bishops or Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus were disciples of Cleomenes,
who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus. According to
Harnack, Epigonus was in Rome during the time Zephyrinus was Bishop, or shortly
before. [18]
Hippolytus says that Cleomenes started a Theology
School in Rome. He wrote: the school of these [so-called] heretics during the succession
of such Bishops continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact
that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. [19]
Harnack declared: Cleomenes and his party maintain
that ‘He who was nailed to the cross, who committed His Spirit to Himself, who
died and did not die, who raised Himself on the third day and rested in the
grave, who was pierced with the lance and fastened with nails, was the God and
Father of all.
[20]
With the information I have at this moment, it is hard for me to determine how
many of the Bishops of Rome before the Council of Nicene really believed and
preached the truth. It is obvious from these statements that Zephyrinus and
Callistus must have had a One God, Jesus’ Name belief.
Hippolytus continued: Callistus attempted to confirm
this heresy.... Now Callistus brought forward Zephyrinus himself and induced
him publicly to avow the following sentiments: ‘I know that there is one God,
Jesus Christ; nor except Him do I know any other. [21] Zephyrinus also boldly declared: For the Father, who is in the
Son, deified the flesh, after He had assumed it, and united it with Himself,
and established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son are called one
God, and that henceforth it is impossible
that this single person can be
divided into two. [22]
According to Hippolytus,
Callistus publicly reproached him and his very small band of rebels by saying: Ye are Ditheists, which is a belief in two gods.
Callistus then expounded the truth to the real Christians of Rome. Hippolytus
stated: Bishop Callistus
alleges that ‘the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself is the Father; and
though denominated by different titles, yet that in reality he is one
indivisible Spirit.’ And he maintains that ‘the Father is NOT one person and
the Son another, but that they are one
and the same.... For that which is
seen, which is man,’ he considers ‘to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was
contained in the Son, to be the Father.’ For says Callistus, ‘I will NOT
profess belief in two gods, Father
and Son, but in one; for the Father
subsisted in the Son Himself…. So that Father and Son must be styled one God,
and that this person being one, CANNOT
be two persons. [23]
Let my readers take note that
these zealous Modalistic Monarchians accused Hippolytus’ Catholic group of
believing in two separate persons or gods in the godhead. They did not accuse
them of being Trinitarians, which is the belief in three separate and supreme
persons or gods. The early Catholic apostates and their deceive followers, as I
have said before, did not believe the Holy Ghost to be a person.
Harnack stated that Cleomenes
remained the head of the Oneness Theological School of Rome until c. 215, when Sabellius succeeded him.
Even though all oneness preachers believed in God’s form or body in the Old
Testament, they held two different ideas concerning the Logos’ incarnation. One
group of oneness preachers believed that God’s entire Spirit and bodily
substance was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other group preachers, such as the
Sabellians, believed that the only the visible
portion or the humanity of God
the Father’s own substance became incarnated. Harnack speaking about Sabellius’
godhead belief says: The one being was always called by Sabellius uiopatwr [son-father], an expression which was
certainly chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to
suppose that two beings were in question. [24]
Alexander (315 AD) declared that Sabellius taught
that the Logos had a corporeal pre-existence. Alexander believed that the Logos
as the Son of God was begotten before time began. Speaking of the Logos’
pre-existence, Alexander wrote, we believe: in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son of God; not begotten of things which are not, but of Him who is the Father;
not in a CORPOREAL MANNER [i.e. tangible body] by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but in
a certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner. [25]
Blunt speaking of Sabellius
says, according to Hilary: In place of the Unity of Three distinct Persons we have
the entire coalescence of what are distinguished only in name, not in substance
(Hilary de Trinity. vii. 5).... The only Divine Sonship allowed by Sabellius’ doctrine being then that
which took place in time at the Incarnation, there was also
at that time, a division of the
Union.... If Hilary be a competent witness, that Sabellius did assert a separation of the ‘Protensio,’ which reaching ‘usque ad Virginem,’ took
the name of Son. This last step was taken to avoid the charge of
Patripassianism... by asserting that only a portion
of the Divine Nature became
incarnate.... Epiphanius... adds that this conception was likening the Father
to the body, the Son to the SOUL, the Holy Ghost to the spirit.” [26]
Socrates Scholasticus in his
history spoke of the Creed of Sirmium, which was published in 352 AD in the Presence of the Emperor Constantius. In it the Catholic Church
described some of the Godhead teaching of God’s Jesus’ Name People of that day
by pronouncing a large number of anathema on them. The Creed stated: “If any one shall dare to assert that the
Unbegotten, or a part of him, was born of Mary, let him be
anathema. If any one should say that the Son was of Mary according to foreknowledge
[i.e. existed in prophesy only as God becoming a human being], and NOT that he
was with God, begotten of the Father before the ages… let him be anathema… If
any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be God and man, shall imply the unbegotten
God himself, let him be anathema…. If any one says that it was not the Son
that was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of
him, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was NOT the Son that as man
wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him,
let him be anathema…. If any one should say that the Father, Son, and Holy?
Spirit are one person, let him be anathema. If any one, speaking of the Holy
Spirit, the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be
anathema.”[27]
It is very obvious that
Catholicism was very unhappy with God’s people. The portion of the Father’s own
Nature that became born of Mary was His Glorified Spiritual Body, and His Soul
dwelt in it. Catholicism has always pronounced curses on God’s people in every
century. They have always been afraid that God’s people once again would prevail over all of Christendom. The Catholic
Encyclopedia stated: In the fourth
century the Arians and Semiarians professed to be much afraid of it [Sabellianism], and the alliance of Pope Julius and Athanasius... gave
some color to accusations against the Nicene formulas as opening the way to
Sabellianism.
This same encyclopedia also gave us some insights into Sabellius beliefs. It
says: Saint
Athanasius tells us that he said ‘the Father is the Son and the Son is the
Father, one in hypostasis but two in name. [28]
Commodian was another great man
of God. He was a Bishop in a church in Africa around c. 250. According to Harvard professor
Harry A. Wolfson, in his work entitled The Philosophy Of
The Church Fathers, Commodian taught in
verse
91 of his Carmen
Apologeticum: the Father went into the Son, at Bethlehem. This revealed that the Father was the God
who was in the Lord Jesus Christ. He also added: Commodian speaking for himself,
says almost in the words quoted above [i.e. God is only one person] as representing the views of
Praxeas and Noetus. [29]
Professor Schaff wrote: Commodian was a Patripassian in
Christology and a Chiliast in eschatology. Schaff also gave a brief description of
Commodian’s book. He says: it discusses in 47 sections the doctrine of God, of man,
and of the Redeemer (verses 89-275); the meaning of the names of the Son and
Father in the economy of salvation (276-573); the obstacles to the progress of
Christianity (574-611); it warns Jews and Gentiles to forsake their religion
(612-783); and gives a description of the last things (784-1053). [30]
It is a shame that no one has translated this great work into English. I have a
copy of it, which is written in Latin, in my library.
The writers of The Catholic
Encyclopedia classified Commodian’s godhead beliefs with that of Praxeas
and Noetus. It stated: in the west they [the Modalist Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are
called Sabellians. It went on to declare: Sabellius or at least his followers may have
considerably amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to
be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism
of his own, which was carried much further by his disciple [Photinus].
Priscillian was an extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian. [31]
Blunt speaking of the fourth
century Sabellianism stated: Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and his
followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism; for this [so-called] heresy Marcellus was condemned
by several Arian Councils, particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336.
Socrates states... that he held the Son
of God to have His beginning from His
birth of the Virgin and the kingdom of God not to be without an end (H.E. ii.
33).... Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that there was but one person in the Divine Nature. [32]
Marcellus despised the Catholic doctrine of two gods or persons in the godhead.
He boldly proclaimed that the Father became the Son and Holy Ghost in time, and
at the end of time, these offices will ceased and He will only be know as the
Father. This was basically the doctrine of Sabellius. Edward Gibbon, in his
book entitled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, declared:
Athanasius defended
above twenty years the Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when al last he
was compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to mention
with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his respectable friend. [33]
Blunt speaking of Photinus, who
was a disciple of Marcellus, and those who followed him said: Theodoret says that Photinus
differs from Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an
Antitrinitarian Monarchian, and that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost
and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of
the Divine Substance, which he called
the Word, descended upon and acted
through the man Jesus Christ; that on account of this association of the Word
with the human nature Jesus was called the Son of God, and even God Himself;
that the Holy Ghost was not a distinct Person, but a celestial virtue
proceeding from the Deity (Epiph. Haer. Lxxi.; Hilary de Trin. vii. 3,7, viii.
40; Socr. H. E. i. 18, 19, 30; Sozom. iv. 6). These tenets are sufficiently
stated in the article Samosatenes, and other articles regarding the various
Monarchian sects.
Blunt went on to say: Marius asserts that Photinus
held the Divine element that acted in our Lord’s Person to be ‘substantivum or
ousiwdes.’ Now Photinus denied the personality, and consequently the Sonship of
the Word, but allowed its eternity as existing in the one undistinguished God.
We are therefore thrown back upon the tenet described in Sabellians as the
division of the Union, namely, that the ‘Deus protensus,’ not being a distinct
Person, is separable from the Godhead, or that a certain portion of the Divine Substance added to the human nature
formed Jesus Christ the Son of God. [34]
If my beloved readers desire to read a Biblical exegesis on the godhead, I
would suggest my book “The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed.
CHAPTER 2
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND
THREE GODS:
THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE
God’s people in the Old
Testament went into apostasy several times. They keep going into Lucifer's Mystery
Babylonian Religion, or in other words, Lucifer’s Babylonian Trinity. This
trinity consisted of: Baal, Ashtaroth, and Tammuz. Baal represented god the
father, the sun god; Ashtaroth represented the mother god or the mother of the
gods, the moon goddess; Tammuz represented the son of god or god the son, who
was also known as the sun god.
The Bible stated: “They forsook the LORD, and
served Baal and Ashtaroth” (Jug 2:13). God told Ezekiel: “You will see greater abominations that they [the House of Israel] are doing.’ So He brought me to the door of the north
gate of the LORD’s house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping
for Tammuz” (Eze 8:13-14). God told Jeremiah: “The
children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough,
to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other
gods, that they may provoke Me to anger” (Jer 7:18).
God’s people did not do
this one time, but throughout their history. Israel forsook the LORD and
worshipped and served the Babylonian Trinity. Here are just two examples: The
prophet Samuel speaking to the house of Israel said: “Then Samuel spoke to all the house of
Israel, saying, ‘If you return to the LORD with all your hearts, then put
away the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and prepare
your hearts for the LORD, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you from the
hand of the Philistines. So the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and served the LORD only” (1Sa 7:3-4).
Years later, the people of Israel went into Baal worship again. They
cried unto the LORD and said: “We have sinned,
because we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and Ashtoreths; but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we
will serve You” (1Sa 12:10).
Doctor Hastings under the heading of the Trinity
stated: The Old Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity.... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine
of the Trinity in anything like its
developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannie theology.
Hastings continued: The story of
the Trinity in ecclesiastical history
is the story of the transition from
the Trinity of experience, in which
God is self - revealed as the Father or Creator and Legislator, the Son or
Redeemer, and the Spirit or Sanctifier, to
the Trinity of dogma.… To say that
there are three separate personalities
in the Godhead would be polytheism. [35]
In The Encyclopedia of Religion, which is
composed by many Trinitarian scholars, we read: Exegetes and theologians
today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.... Further, exegetes
and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.... Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical
Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary [meaning based on one’s preferences, notions, or whims]; while it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural
evidence alone. [36]
The Encyclopedia Britannica speaking of the Trinity stated: In general we may say that the Trinity takes on four
differing aspects in the Christian church: in its more common and easily
apprehended form as three gods, in
its ecclesiastical form as a mystery
which is above reason to be accepted
by faith.... To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God which is emphasized in the
Scriptures. [37]
Trinitarian doctors John M’Clintock and James Strong,
in their Cyclopedia of Biblical
Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature declared: Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost make one God, the scripture
teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of
its being explained to us. [38]
What these scholars are saying is that the Babylonian Trinity is a mystery.
Now, have you not heard other Trinitarian Preachers say the very same thing?
German professor Harnack says: The doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the
Church [meaning Roman Catholic and
Protestant Churches], is not contained in the New Testament. He continued by saying:
At first the Christian faith was not
Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference [meaning in the beginning, or as it first existed]. It was not so in the apostolic and sub‑apostolic
ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so
even in the age of the [Catholic] Christian apologists. [39]
What Dr. Harnack is saying is this, Catholic apostates of the apostolic and sub‑apostolic
ages, along with their deceived converts, did not believed in a Trinity of
three persons in the Godhead. None of these heretics considered the Holy Spirit
to be a separate person in any sense of the word; also none of these Catholic
Priests considered the Son equal to the Father in origin, power, and other
attributes.
After that, Father Newman made a very shocking
confession. Let us hear this Priest’s confession and see if He makes a good and
true confession, before we grant him absolution. He said: all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the
Trinity is not brought out in form upon the surface of Scriptures. As I have
said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture
proof are mere peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if all Protestants were to agree to put out
of sight their respective peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly, and
adequately, in Scripture. For take that single instance, which I referred to in
a former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as
a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity [for] it
is not brought out in form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in
Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of the Athanasian Creed are
distinctly set down in Scripture? [41]
The answer to Newman’s question is very few.
Newman continued his confession and reproach of
Protestants by saying: He who
admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties,
whether in itself or in its proof ‑ who submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular doctrine ‑
has a right to be told those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession. [42]
Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters
of Catholicism by saying: not
Scripture, but history [meaning the
tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests]
is our informant in Christian doctrine. All Protestants who
consider the Bible as the one standard of faith, meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the
Bible and not tradition, let no
one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called
an orthodox Protestant, …[if] he will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not
that of the Apostolic Succession…. [For] this is an impossible position: it is shutting one
eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both. [43]
What confessor Newman is saying
is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the Catholic version of
the Babylonian Trinity by faith, that is without any real scriptural proof,
they then have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all
other Catholic doctrines, which are also not taught in the Bible, as Newman
openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people may or
may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true
confession, for which God’s people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him
absolution.
Just as God’s people in the Old Testament went into to
apostasy, some of God’s people in New Testament times also went into apostasy.
It started with a group of so-called theologians known in history as the
Ante-Nicene Fathers or the Catholic Fathers. Most of these men were students of
Greek Philosophy. The churches these apostates started became known as the
Roman Catholic Church. The following brief history of how the Babylonian
Trinity came into apostate Roman Catholic Christianity, for the first four
hundred years, should give my beloved readers, some idea of the magnitude of
the subject of the Godhead.
Somewhere after 70 AD, Ignatius, one of the bishops
of Antioch, and other apostate bishops of other cities, apostatized from God’s
Apostolic Pentecostal Church, and came together and formed the Catholic Church.
The apostle John spoke of it this way: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as
you have heard that the Antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the
last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have
continued with us; but they went out that
they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us” (1Jn 2:18-19). It was Ignatius who invented
the Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine, along with its Monarchial Bishop Doctrine,
which God and His Church hated (Rev 2:6, 15).
Professor Harnack in his book The
Mission and Expansion of Christianity spoke of the apostasy of Ignatius and
other Bishops of that ilk when he declared: As early as the second century the [Catholic] Church had conquered the
people.... By the opening of the third
century [200
AD], no
layman ventured any longer to call ecclesiastics, ‘brethren.’ The layman is a
layman because he has not been set apart from the people by ordination…. After
the close of the second century [the Monarchical] bishops were the teachers,
high priest, and judges of the church. Ignatius already had compared their
position [as
bishop or pastor] in the individual church to that of God in the church collective. [46]
Harnack speaking of the enormity
of their apostasy from God says: The most momentous result was the gradual assimilation
of the entire [Catholic] Christian worship to the nature
of the ancient mysteries. By the third
century [200
AD] it could
already rival the most imposing cultus in all paganism, with its solemn and
exact ritual, its priest, its sacrifices, and its holy ceremonies. [47]
If my readers would like to read a history of the Nicolaitan doctrine, I would
suggest my book A Prophetic History of God’s Apostolic Pentecostal Church or The Heresy of the Nicolaitans.
One of the greatest problems, God’s Churches had
during the first four hundred years, was with Satan’s Churches blaspheming God;
they did this by christianizing pagan doctrines and then calling themselves
Christians or Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I stated before, when these
apostates first began, they did not believe in a Trinity of three separate
persons, but believed that there were only two-persons in the godhead. They
believed that the Father was the supreme God being uncreated or unbegotten, and
the Son was a lesser or inferior God because He was begotten by the Father.
They believed the Father created Him from a “homoiousios” or a “like substance” to God the Father’s own personal substance. Where did
the godhead teaching of these apostates originate? History reveals that these
Catholic Ante Nicene Priests received they pagan godhead from Philo, who
received it from Plato, who received it from the Sibyls, who received it from
the Zoroastrian doctrine that was taught in the Babylonian Religion.
Who were the early Catholic Fathers who started the
Catholic Church and what did they teach about the godhead? According to history
this godhead doctrine started with Ignatius
(c.
70) and
Clement of Rome (c. 70),
who were among the first apostates to teach this pagan heresy, and they were
the ones who formed the Catholic Nicolaitan Church in the first century. The
main Catholic Nicolaitan heretics of the second and third centuries, who taught
this godhead doctrine were: Justin Martyr (c. 150), Clemens of Alexandria (c. 200), Tertullian (c. 200), Hippolytus (c. 225), Origen (c. 215), and Cyprian (c. 250). All of these heretics loved
the writings of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and the allegoric
method of interpreting the scriptures that was used by Philo.
My beloved readers should bear
in mind, that none of the early fathers of Catholicism or their heretical
disciples, who are called apologist, believed in a Trinity of three separate
and equal persons in the godhead. In fact, the Trinity they believed in was
composed of two persons or gods each having a separate body and existence from
the other, and one impersonal spirit which had no body, which represented the
power of Christ, or as some prefer, the Logos’ other self.
The International Standard Bible
Encylopaedia gave a fair summation of the godhead doctrine of the early Catholic
Priests. Under the heading of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity we
read: In the
nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment…. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and
neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the
Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced
to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. [48]
Dr. Harnack included the
Catholic apologists’ godhead doctrine in his list of the pagan teachings of the
Ante Nicene Fathers. He stated: It is not Judaeo-Christianity that lies behind the
Christianity and doctrines of the [Catholic] apologist, but Greek philosophy - Platonic metaphysics,
Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics - the
Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, ...particularly in that of Philo. [49]
Wolfson boldly declared the
above truths when he stated that Ignatius, and all the other apostate Catholic
fathers, who started Catholicism did not: believe in a preexistent Trinity.... Before His [Jesus’] birth there were only two
preexistent beings, God and the Holy Spirit, the latter identified with the
preexistent Christ, and, if the term Logos is used, it is identified with the
Holy Spirit. He
continued by saying: like “Philo, the [Catholic] Fathers attributed to the Logos... two stages of
existence prior to the creation of the world, which according to Philo was the
internal and external Logos that was also called by the title of the Holy
Spirit. [50]
107 AD, Ignatius’ Doctrine of
Two-Unequal-gods: Ignatius of
Antioch was the father of all Catholic Nicolaitans. If there was someone before
him who taught him these damnable doctrines we have no written record of it.
According to history, He was the first to write down his beliefs on the godhead
and the Nicolaitan doctrine of the ministry. Because of different opinions of
scholars concerning which are the true writings of Ignatius, i.e. the short
version, the long version, or the Syriac version, I will quote from all three
versions for his godhead teachings can be found in all of them. I personal
believe the longer version is the one he wrote.
Ignatius in his epistles emphatically proclaimed, many
times, that God the Father is uncreated and the highest God or the only true
God. He also declared that the Logos or Christ was created by the Father before
the universe was spoken into existence and is a lower or lesser god. He definitely
spoke of the Logos as a separate being or person from the Father and called Him
the begotten God. In his Epistle to the
Ephesians he says: Our
Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of
all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. He continued by saying that the Son of God was
begotten: before time began, but
who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.
Ignatius encourage the Ephesians to keep the faith of:
God the Father, and of Jesus
Christ His only-begotten Son, and ‘the first-born of every creature. [51]
Here Ignatius applied the Biblical term: “the first-born” to the
Logos’ being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time. Ignatius
ended his letter to the Ephesians with these words: Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have
obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. [52]
Ignatius indisputably proclaimed that the Holy Ghost was Jesus. He obviously
did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius
reaffirmed his belief in two-unequal gods by saying: He [the
Logos or Christ] being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God
the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever. [53] In this passage
Ignatius connects the Logos with the Son, and proclaimed that the Son is not an
eternal being. In the Syriac Version of Ignatius’ epistles, we find his
so-called refutation of errors. In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he
writes against the godhead teachings of God’s Apostolic Pentecostal Church by
saying: Jesus Himself is not God
over all, and the Father, but His Son…. Wherefore it is one [Person]
who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person]
to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things,
becomes subject [to the former].
Because Ignatius and other Catholic bishops demoted
Jesus to a second rate position in the godhead, he had to write to this church
to admonish them to think of Jesus as God. He says: How could such a one [Jesus] be
a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather
God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For ‘in the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ And in another place, ‘The
Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before
the world did He found Me, and before
all the hills did He beget Me. [54] Let my
beloved readers take note, Ignatius uses the above passages of scriptures to
verify His teaching that Christ was a begotten God, and He was also the Holy
Spirit. From this time on, all Catholic Priest will use Ignatius teachings on
the godhead in their writings, and some will even put their own religious twist
to it, but all will claim that the Father and Son are two separate beings or
gods.
150 AD, Justin Martyr’s
Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Justinus,
who is better known as Justin Martyr, was the first to defend in writing the
two-god system of Philo and Ignatius. Justin was without a doubt the real
theologian of this two-god system. Justin, like his masters before him,
definitely taught that the Father was the unbegotten and the highest God, while
the Logos or Christ was a begotten and lower or lesser god, and the Holy Spirit
was another name for the Logos. Dr. Paine in his book A Critical History of
the Evolution of Trinitarianism revealed: Justin Martyr refers to Platonic and stoic authorities
for his Logos ideas. He was himself a Platonist before he became a Christian,
and he never laid aside his philosopher’s cloak. [55]
Justin and all the other early Catholic heretics could
not understand the Logos concept of the John 1:1 and Rev 19:13.
The reason for their ignorance was they all interpreted it by the works of
Plato, especially his work entitled “Timaeus,” Philo’s two-god system, and the pagan concept of a
lower separate god called the Son that dwelt with the Father. As a result they
were blinded to the truth that God changed a portion of His eternal Holy Spirit
Nature into a Human Soul and Glorified Spirit Body Natures, and dwelt in it.
Dr. Wolfson speaking of Justin’s godhead doctrine, as He wrote against God’s
Oneness people wrote: Justin
Martyr already describes the Logos as one whom ‘God begot from Himself.... Justin Martyr maintained that the Logos is
distinct from the Father ‘in number’ and not ‘in name only. [56]
Justin in his First Apology called the Logos: the first-begotten of all creation. He then stated that the Holy Spirit is the Logos. He
says: It is wrong, therefore, to
understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who
is also the first-born of God. [57]
Justin, like Ignatius, connected the term “first-born” with the
generation of the Son before time began. In Justin’s Second Apology we
read: But to the Father of all,
who is unbegotten, there is no name given…. But these words, Father, and God,
and Creator, and Lord, and master, are not names, but appellations derived from
His good deeds and functions. And His son, who along is properly called Son,
the Word, who also was with him and was begotten
before the works, when at first
He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ…. For next to God,
we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God. [58]
No one can read the writing of the early Catholics and believe they taught the
eternal sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is part of teachings of the
Trinitarian doctrine.
Justin in his Dialogue with
Trypho a Jew clearly defined his heresy of two-unequal-gods. He says: I shall give you another
testimony, my friends,’ said I, ‘from the Scriptures, that God begat before all
creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself…. He was begotten of the Father by an act of will…. The Word of Wisdom, who
is Himself this God begotten of the
Father…. But this Offspring, which
was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the
creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon
has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning
before all His creatures and as Offspring by God.
Justin then quoted Proverbs, the
eight chapter, to prove that the Logos was begotten by the Father. He says: And it is written in the book of
Wisdom… ‘The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the
beginning, before He formed the earth…. He begets me before all the hills.’
When I repeated these words, I added: ‘You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow
attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by
the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically
distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. I have discussed briefly
in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the
Father, by His power and will, but NOT by abscission, as if the ESSENCE of the Father were DIVIDED; as all other
things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were
divided. [59] It is a pity that this blind apologist understood
these scriptures through the eyes of Plato and Philo. For instead of seeing the
Logos as the embodiment of God or the Father’s visible Self with a human nature
as Paul taught (Col 2:8-9; 1:15), he saw Him as a person existing outside of or next
to God.
160 AD, Tatian’s Doctrine of
Two-Unequal-gods: Tatian was a disciple of
Justin Martyr. He, like his master, also believed that the Logos had a
beginning, and the Holy Spirit was just another name for the Logos. He wrote: For the Lord of the universe, who is
Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in
existence, was alone…. The Logos
Himself also, who was IN Him, subsists.
And by His simple will, the Logos
springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten
work of the Father. Him [the Logos]
we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission.… The Logos coming forth from the Logos-power of the
Father, and He has not divested the Logos-power of Him [the Father]
who begot Him.... For the heavenly Logos, a Spirit emanating from the
Father and [is] a Logos from the Logos-power [of the Father], in imitation of the Father who begot
Him, made man an image of immortality. [60] No
eternal Trinity can be found here.
170 AD, Theophilus’ Doctrine of
Two-Unequal-gods: Theophilus
taught same godhead doctrine as all the others. He wrote: God, then having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot
Him,, emitting Him along with His own
Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were
created by Him, and by Him He made all things.... He [the Logos]
then being the Spirit of God, and
governing principle, and Wisdom, and
power of the Highest, came down upon the prophets and through them spake. [61]
Here Theophilus clearly revealed that the Holy Spirit is the Logos, and Wisdom
is another title of the Logos. Many of the early Catholic Priests declared
Wisdom was a title of the Logos, who was the Holy Spirit.
Theophilus also declared: The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained,
and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest…. The Word, that always
exists, residing within the heart of
God. For before anything came into being He [God the Father] had Him as a
counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when
God wished to make all that He determined on,
He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not
Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having
begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason…. The Word, then,
being God, and being naturally produced
from God, whenever
the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He,
coming, is
both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. [62]
According to this Catholic Priest,
God the Father is omnipresent and has no form, but Christ who was begotten by
the Father has form and a dwelling place.
Other Catholic Priest, such as Tertullian, will use
Theophilus’ godhead teaching, and also claim God the Father emitted His Son
from His own bowels, by speaking Him
into existence. No one can accuse Theophilus of being a Trinitarian, even
though he is the first Catholic to
use the word Trinity. Theophilus, being an allegorist like His Catholic
predecessors in the ministry, in his teaching on the sun and moon compares the
godhead to them; he says: In like
manner also the three days which were
before the luminaries,
are types of the Trinity: of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom. [63]
Let my beloved readers take note, Theophilus used the personal pronoun His to show that the Word of God and the Wisdom of
God belong to God the Father.
180 AD, Irenaeus’ Doctrine of
Two-Unequal-gods: Irenaeus, like his fellow Catholic bishops, taught
that the Logos was a being, whom the Father begot before time began. Irenaeus
declared: If
any one, therefore, says to us, ‘How then was the Son produced by the
Father?’ We reply to him, that no man understands that production or generation…
but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. [64]
He also declared: John relates His
original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus
declaring, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ [65]
From the Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus
we read: Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the
fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood…. He also
ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal
King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God who was begotten
before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe. [66]
Irenaeus applied the title the only begotten God to the Son of God, i.e. the
Logos, because He was begotten by the Fathter before time began. He stated: His Word, as He Himself
willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s
brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: ‘The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom
of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’ [67]
Irenaeus called Christ the Holy Spirit of the Father.
He wrote: For He
[Jesus] is indeed Savior, as being
the Son and Word of God, but salutary [i.e.
producing a beneficial effect] since (He is the) Spirit
for he says: ‘The Spirit of our countenance Christ the Lord.’ But
(for) salvation as being flesh: for ‘the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us. [68]
He also declared: He [Jesus], who is the perfect bread
of the Father, offered Himself to us.... He did this when He appeared as a
man…. [We
who]
become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, may be able also to
contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father…. Those upon
whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food
of Life (Eternal). [69]
It is very obvious from the above quotes that Irenaeus believed the Son of God
was not an eternal being but a created being; and the Holy Ghost is another
name for the Logos. Therefore, he was not a Trinitarian, even thou he speaks in
mysterious tones in certain passages.
200 AD,
Tertullian’s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: It is in Tertullian that Trinitarians make their
boast. They probably surmise, surely someone who writes against Oneness
Pentecostals, uses the word Trinity in his writings, and speaks of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit must be a Trinitarian. Not so! According to Dr. Schaff: Tertullian
cannot escape the charge of subordinationism. He bluntly calls the Father the whole Divine Substance, and the Son a
part of it. [70]
Tertullian, like his predecessors in the ministry, believed that God in His Spirit Essence was omnipresent. He declared: We know, however, that God is in the bottomless depths,
and exists everywhere; but then it is
by power and authority. We are also sure that the Son, being indivisible from Him, is everywhere with Him. Nevertheless, in the Economy or Dispensation itself, the Father
willed that the Son should be regarded as on earth, and Himself in heaven. [71]
Tertullian’s godhead teaching is
definitely not the Trinitarian doctrine of Catholicism or Protestantism.
Tertullian declared: For before all things God was alone — being in Himself
and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone,
because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He
alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and
Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness)
which the Greeks call lo>gov, by which term
we also designate Word or
Discourse…. For although
God had not yet sent out His Word,
He still had Him within Himself, both
in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and
arranged within Himself everything
which He was afterwards about to utter
through His Word. Now, whilst He was
thus planning and arranging with His own Reason,
He was actually causing that to become
Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse….
I
may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that
even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which
He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. This power and disposition of the
Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Sofi>a, Wisdom; for what can
be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God?
Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the CHARACTER of a Second Person: ‘At
the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, with a
view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were
settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;’ that is to
say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence….
Now,
as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and
forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in
conjunction with His Wisdom’s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all
things might be made through Him…. through whom they had been planned and
disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and
intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should
also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and
substances….
Then, therefore,
does the Word also Himself
assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal
utterance, when God says, ‘Let there be light.’
This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds
forth from God… begotten to carry all into effect….
Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He
became His first begotten Son,
because begotten before all things;
and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, made a way
peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart — even as the
Father Himself testifies: ‘My heart,’
says He, ‘hath emitted my most excellent Word.’
[72]
As my beloved readers can
perceived by now, Tertullian, like all the Catholic Priests before him, did not
teach the Eternal Son of God doctrine of Trinitarians, but a Begotten Son of
God. I might also add, if the Word was the conscious mind of God the Father as
Tertullian declared, then the Father must have lost His mind when He made the
Word a separate person from Himself!
Tertullian
concluded by saying: Whatever therefore was the substance of
the Word that I designate a
Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the
Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father…. For the FATHER
is the ENTIRE SUBSTANCE, but the SON is a derivation and PORTION of the whole….
Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and
Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? [73]
What Philo, Tertullian, and all the other Catholic
Anti Nicene Priests did not understand is that God did not bring forth a
separate person or being from His own Loins before time began, but as some
Rabbis declared a Spiritual or Heavenly Man or Humanity. Rabbis taught this
truth this way: Should one ask: Is it not written, ‘Ye saw
no manner of similitude?’ The answer would be: Truly we did
behold Him under a certain similitude, for is it not written, ‘and the similitude of the LORD should he [Moses] behold’ [Num 12:18].... Even that ‘similitude’ was a likeness
of the HOLY ONE, blessed be He.... For in the beginning... when He
created the FORM of SUPERNAL MAN… to be known
according to the style ‘YHWH’ in order that He might be known by His
attributes and perceived in each attributes separately. [74]
This humanity
being God the Father had in its essence a Soul and Glorified Spiritual Body, which
was God’s the Father’s Visible Self, Form (Phi 2:6), or Image (Heb 1:3; Col 1:15). In other word, the Father being an Invisible Spirit
Being, and Omniscient, knew before the creation began that men whom He loved
and created would fall into sin and need redemption, therefore He CLOTHED
Himself with a Spiritual Humanity (His Visible, Tangible Self that sat on the
One Throne in Heaven), which at Bethlehem took on flesh, blood, and bones and
became known as the Son of God, who was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world” (Rev
13:8; also 1Pe 1:18-20).
According to Justin Martyr, the orthodox JEWS
of his day, that is 150 AD, believed and taught
that God the Father had a Divine Human Nature in the Old Testament. In the
Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew, Justin mocks Trypho by saying: “Just as
YOUR TEACHERS suppose, fancying that the FATHER of all, the UNBEGOTTEN GOD, has
HANDS and FEET, and FINGERS, and a SOUL, like a composite being; and they
for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared
to Abraham and to Jacob.” [75]
There are over thirty scriptures in the OT that speak of God the Father’s Soul
in the present verb tense. (See my
book The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed, which is given away
on my website: DoctrinesOfChrist.com).
Justin mocks the Jews, just as all Ante Nicene Priests
have done, because they all believed that the Son appeared to Abraham, a
separate being, person, or God from the Father. There is NOT one scripture
in the OT that uses the term or title “Son” or “Son of God” in reference to the
existence of Christ or Logos or God’s Spiritual Humanity, but there are at
lease three scriptures that speak of God’s Son in prophecy, as one who will
be born one day in time (Psa 2:6-12; Isa 7:14; 9:6). Why can we not find one scripture that reveals the
term Son of God was used by Christ in the OT? Because according to God’s
prophetic Word, God reserved this title to refer to the Physical Humanity that
God the Father would take on through the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem one day.
Tertullian after declaring that God the
Father is the Entire Essence of God then contradicts himself by saying: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of
the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent [i.e. united] Persons, who are yet distinct One from
Another. These THREE are, ONE ESSENCE, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of Substance not singularity of number. [76]
In the above two declarations,
Tertullian becomes trapped by his own deceitful tongue. Since he declared that
God the Father is the Entire Substance of God, the only way the Son or the
Paraclete can be God is by being part of the Father, i.e. they must be the
Father! Therefore, Tertullian’s three persons or Trinity is not real persons.
In fact, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, which gives a history of a word declared the word ‘person’ in the second and third centuries meant an: “actor’s mask, character in
a play’, later [i.e. 4th century] ‘human being.”
Tertullian taught
the Spirit was Christ: The Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express
myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word…. The Spirit is the
substance of the Word, and the Word is the operation of the Spirit,
and the Two are One (and the same)…. We declare, however, that
the Son… is God and the Word and Spirit of God. [77]
Now, where can anyone find the eternal
Sonship doctrine, or that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Logos
in any of these passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian doctrine.
Now, where can anyone find the eternal sonship doctrine or that the Holy Spirit
is a separate person from the Logos in any of these passages? Tertullian did
not teach the Trinitarian doctrine.
215 AD, Origen’s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Dr. Schaff speaking of Origen
wrote: he distinguishes
the essence of the Son from that of the Father; speaks of a DIFFERENCE of
SUBSTANCE; and makes the Son decidedly INFERIOR to the Father. [78]
Dr. Harnack says one of the names Origen gave to the Son was: the second God. [79]
Origen speaking of the origin of the
Son of God wrote: We have to first ascertain what the only begotten Son of God is, seeing
He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views
of individuals. He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: ‘The Lord created me - the beginning of His ways and among
His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages.
In another place Origen revealed
that Wisdom or the Holy Spirit was not a separate being from Christ but was
Christ. He wrote, “Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything
impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we
understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something
which makes men wise.… It is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son
of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing.... The first-born, however, is
not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.”
Origen speaking of the Father
being superior to the Son declared, “But it is monstrous and
unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son,
and in the substance of the same, to any man.” [80]
Origen definitely did not believe that the Father and Son were equal in power
or authority or in their godhood. He taught that the Son was inferior to the
Father in these and other areas.
250 AD, Dionysius’ Doctrine of Two-unequal- gods: Dionysius of Rome also believed
that the Logos had a beginning. He says, “There certainly was not
a time when God was not the Father. Neither, indeed, as though He had not
brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget
the Son, but because the Son has existence not
from Himself, but from the Father.... For as I do not think that the Word was a
thing made, so I do not say that God was its maker, but its Father…. The
ungenerated God is the hypostasis the life and foundation of all things in the
universe.” [81]
Dionysius refused to say that
the Son or the Logos was created or made by the Father, but was begotten only.
What he called begotten, all of his forefathers called created, made or
generated. What ever term fit your fancy, it all meant the same thing according
to these Catholics: the Son of God had a beginning before time began.
300 AD, Lactanius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: A Catholic Nicolaitan-Balaamite
by the name of Lactanius, who was a disciple of Arnobius, definitely cannot be
classified as a Trinitarian, for to him the Father was the only true God and
the Son was the Holy Spirit whom the Father created. He wrote that the Father “commenced
this excellent work of the world, [when He first] begat
a pure and incorruptible Spirit, who He called His Son. And although He had
afterward created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels,
this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He [the
Father] considered worthy of being called by the divine name....” [82]
312 AD, Alexander’s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Alexander of Alexandria
followed the Alexandrian school and taught the Logos was created a being. He
wrote, “We ought to preserve His [God
the Father’s] proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the
cause of His being, but to the Son must be allotted His fitting honour, in
assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation
from the Father.… But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property
of being unbegotten.” [83] He then went on to say that the Father is
greater than the Son.
From all the above quotes, my
readers should be able to see that all these Nicolaitan Catholics priests
believed in two not three persons in the godhead; they all taught that the
Father was uncreated, and that the Son of God was a separate being from the
Father and was created before time began.
3000 BC, Zoroaster’s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: The two-god doctrine was not
all that new in the Greek, Roman, and all other pagan societies of their day.
Professor Levi Paine in his book entitled, The Ethnic Trinities, gave us
some insights to the origin of this godhead doctrine. Paine speaking of the
“earliest stages of Zoroastrian Trinitarian evolution,” wrote, “Mithra, or
Mitra” is a “creature of Ormuzd, ‘the created light,’ that is, a sun god. As
such he is ‘a servant and organ’ of Ormuzd, mediating between Him and man.” [84]
Hermes’ Teaching on
Two-Unequal-gods: Around 300 AD
Lactanius, who believed in the doctrine of two-unequal-gods, wrote some of its
history in his writings. He said this godhead teaching could be found in
“Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls.” He went on to describe Hermes
as an ancient pagan god who served as a herald and messenger of the other gods,
who was called Mercury by the Romans; Hermes was also the god of science,
eloquence, cunning, the protector of boundaries and commerce, and the guide of
departed souls to Hades.
Let’s hear what Lactanius says
Hermes taught. He says, “Hermes, in the book which is entitled The Perfect
Word, made use of these words: ‘The lord and creator of all things, whom we
have thought to call god, since He made the second god visible and sensible.... He hallowed him,
and altogether loved him as his own Son.” Hermes could be a name for Nimrod,
who started Zoroastrianism.
The Ancient Sibyls’ Teaching on Two-Unequal-gods: Lactanius also quotes from the
Sibylline Books that were composed by women who were considered by the Babylonians,
and Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks as prophetesses. There were about ten Sibyls
that are known in history. Lactanius says, “The Erythraean Sibyl, in the
beginning of her poem, which she commenced with the supreme god, proclaims the
son of god as the leader and commander of all, in these verses: ‘The nourisher
and creator of all things [God the Father], who placed the sweet breath in all,
and made god the leader of all.’ Speaking of the Son of God at the end of this
poem she says: ‘But whom god gave for faithful men to honour.’ And another
Sibyl enjoins that He ought to be known: ‘Know him as your god, who is the son
of god.” [85]
387 BC, Plato’s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Paine declared that Plato’s
World Soul was “not an eternal
divine being, but a created mediating being whom God made to be the connecting
link between things, or, in more philosophical language idea and phenomena.” [86]
Justin Martyr in his First Apology speaking of Plato’s “discussion concerning the Son of God in
the Timoeus,” quotes Plato as saying, “the power [or second god] next to the first god was placed crosswise in the universe….’
For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was
placed crosswise in the universe.” [87]
57 AD, Philo’s
Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods:
Philo was a Jew who was born in Alexander, Egypt in 27 BC, and died somewhere
around 57 AD. He was an apostate Jewish Rabbi and commentator, who interpreted
the Old Testament Scriptures by the use of the Greek philosophical allegorical
method. He took Plato teaching of a dual god or two-unequal-gods, and tried to
bring it into Judaism.
Elgin Moyer, in his book
entitled Who Was Who In Church History, revealed Philo’s role in the
development of the Catholic doctrine of a greater and lesser god. He says that
Philo was a, “Jewish Hellenistic philosopher.... As a philosopher sought to
reconcile Greek philosophy and the Old Testament by means of allegorical
interpretation.... Philo’s method of allegorical interpretation had much
influence on the allegorical method of interpretation followed by the
[Catholic] Alexandrian Church Fathers, especially Clement and Origen.” [88]
The Logos of Philo was not the
Father, but was a separate being or person from the Father; the Father being
the supreme god, and the Logos a lower or inferior god.
In his godhead teachings, he taught that the Father
was so holy that He could not come into contact with the world personally, so
He created a second god called the Logos who could. Philo taught that the Logos was not the Father, but was a separate
being or person from the Father; the Father being the highest or greatest god,
and the Logos an inferior or lesser god, which mediated between God and man.
According to The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Philo explained his doctrine of
two-unequal-personal-gods this way, “The internal
Logos is the firstborn, the second god, the mediator, the ransom, the image of god.... The external Logos abides in man, is
the prophet, shepherd, ambassador, artist, elder, interpreter, the shadow of
god.... The Logos mediates between god and the world, but partakes of the
divine nature only.” [89]
Philo’s external Logos or Holy
Spirit was the impersonal Spirit of the internal Logos. Because of this
teaching, the early Catholic Fathers taught that the Holy Spirit was another
name for Christ. Philo, as well as these Catholics, did not teach a trinity.
The internal Logos was a real being or person, who existed outside of God’s being; therefore
He was no abstract figure.
Dr Wolfson confirmed the above truths by stating, “We
have shown that Philo’s view, like that of Justin Martyr, maintained that the
antemundane [or before creation the] Logos had two stages of existence and
that, while during its first stage [the external Logos] it existed only as a
power in God, during the second stage [internal Logos] it existed as a real being outside of God.” [90]
Paine gave us some insights to
the origin of Philo’s godhead doctrine. He says, “On the whole, it may be said
that Philo is the historical founder of the Logos theology. He placed the Logos
as the great principle of divine mediation in the forefront of his
philosophical system.” He went on to say that Philo received his Logos idea
from Plato. He said Plato did not call his mediator Logos but the World Soul. [91]
It is obvious from the above
historical references that Plato, Philo and many of the earlier Greek
Philosophers took the ancient doctrines of Mystery Babylonian and put their own
religious twist to them. From the time the priests of Babylon left their
religious temple called the Tower of Babel, and were scattered throughout the
earth, they and their descendants have been placing their own religious twist
to the teachings of Babylon, in all the pagan religions they started. The Word
of God clearly revealed that Mystery Babylon is the mother of all false
religious systems. Rev 17:1-6. Between the Zoroastrians, Hermes, the Sibyls,
Plato, and Philo, it is not hard to perceive were all of the early Catholics
Fathers received their inspiration and revelation of the godhead.
Guignebert speaking of
Catholicism absorption of pagan doctrines, ceremonies and rituals says, “In the
third century it [the Nicolaitan-Babylonian Church] could meet and overcome the
entire pagan syncretism, because it had itself become a syncretism in which all
the fertile ideas and the essential rites of pagan religiousness were blended.
It combined and harmonized them in a way that enabled it to stand alone, facing
all the inchoate beliefs and practices of its adversaries without appearing
their inferior on any vital point. This extensive work of absorption, which
helps us to understand, that a moment came when [Catholic] Christianity was
able to arouse favorable attention to itself on the part of the manifold
sympathies active in the Greco-Roman world.” [92]
The religion Constantine chose
would have to be flexible enough to bend to his will whenever he so desired;
one that would allow him to maintain his position as the High Priest or the
Supreme Head. The entire world had witness the noble suffering of God’s people
and through it became attracted to Church. The Roman Emperors discovered that
no amount of threats could get the majority of God’s people to compromise their
convictions. Even though Constantine knew that the one God, Jesus’ Name
Churches were in the vast majority, he also knew that he would never be able to
control them. In chapter three I will prove from history that God’s Apostolic
Pentecostal Churches were in the majority for the first 400 years.
When Constantine looked at
Catholicism, he saw a religion that he knew he could control. He knew that its
entire history was one of compromise; one that had already adopted most of the
teachings of paganism; one who compromised with the state during the Roman
persecutions; yes one who had the potential of becoming a universal religion.
It already went under the name of Christianity, and with a little persuasion
from him he could get the masses of pagans to join it. Constantine could see in
this Church of Satan, everything his heart desire; he could see all of his
dreams being fulfilled.
In The Cambridge Medieval
History,
we can read of Constantine dream for Catholicism. It says, “The [Catholic]
Church was not quite what Constantine wanted it to be. He was not more
attracted to it by its [so-called] lofty monotheism than by the imposing unity,
which promised new life to the weary State. For six hundred years the world had
been in quest of a universal religion.... If the Church was divided against
itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could hardly be
divided against itself without being also divided against the Empire.” [93]
Guignebert speaking of
Catholicism’s political compromise with the state during Roman persecutions
says, Nicolaitan “Christians no longer expected the end of the world form one
day to the next; they conformed to current customs and even to current
prejudice. Christians joined the army and served in the administration and the
ecclesiastical authorities made no objection. [Catholic] Christian ethics and
Christian resignation to the world’s continuance had reaffirmed allegiance to
all social regulations. Above all a community of believers, united, disciplined
and directed by leaders whom they obeyed [as gods], presented to the State a
cheering spectacle of order, the product of a well administered government,
which already shows signs of developing a political consciousness.... It was
time for both State and [Nicolaitan] Christianity to think of a compromise.” [94]
By now my readers should be able
to understand why Constantine chose Catholicism to be his bride. Now, why did
the Catholic Church want this marriage? According to The Cambridge Medieval
History Constantine choose Catholicism to be his bride in 313 AD when he gave the Edict of Milan. It revealed
that, “he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church - not
those of the sects [meaning God’s Apostolic Church] - from the decurionate and
other burdens, he gave them only the privileges already enjoyed by some of the
heathen priests and teachers. But the relief was great enough to cause an
ungodly rush for holy Orders” into Balaamite Christianity. [95] Money and power has always been the prime
motivating factor behind all that Catholicism has done throughout the
centuries.
325 AD, The Nicene Creed: At
the Nicene Council Constantine, and the Ante Nicene Catholic Priests, declared
that Jesus was begotten by the Father before
time began, and He was “homoousios” or was begotten
out “of the same substance” as the Father, thus making Him an equal God with
the Father, since He now shared in the Father’s own substance. Therefore these
Catholic Priests change the godhead doctrine of their forefathers, who believed
in two-unequal-gods, for a belief in two-equal-gods.
Catholic Bishop and church
historian Socrates, who attended this council, recorded the Creed as stating,
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son
of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that
is of the [same] substance of the Father; God
of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten
not made, consubstantial [of the same
substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made…. (We believe) also in
the Holy Spirit.”
Socrates mentions Eusebius of
Caesarea, who was also a Catholic Bishop and church historian, as attending
this Council; he says Eusebius wrote a letter to his church and explained the
creed. Eusebius speaking of the Son being begotten by the Father before time
began wrote, “On the same grounds
we admitted also the expression ‘begotten, not
made’: ‘for… he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a
substance far excelling any creature; which substance
the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the
Father by such a mode of generation as cannot
be explained nor even conceived by any creature….’ That he is consubstantial [of
the same substance] with the Father… who begat
him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.” [96]
Let my beloved readers take
note, Constantine and these Catholic priests confessed that Christ was not eternal but was begotten
by the Father before time began. Therefore all Trinitarians who claim that the
Nicene Creed teaches that the Son of God is eternal and had no beginning are
liars! Also all Trinitarians who profess that this creed teaches that the Holy
Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son are also liars, for this
creed does not say what they believe about the Holy Ghost!
Emperor Constantine Invented the Consubstantial or
Homoousios Doctrine: At the Nicene Council, the
heretical Roman Catholics were divided into two camps: The Athanasian Catholic
group, which defended the doctrine of two-equal-gods; and the Arian Catholic
group, which denied the deity of Christ. Now, one should ask himself or herself,
how did these so‑called Bible scholars, who attended the Council of
Nicaea, come up with their doctrine of the godhead? Was it by fervent prayer
and fasting, or by diligent study of God's Holy Word? No! They did not need to
do any of that, because they had an apostle there to declare to them what they
should believe and teach. Who was this apostle? Was it the Apostle Paul or
Peter reincarnated? No! It was the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine.
Socrates in his history revealed
that Constantine is the one who declared that the Father and Son were
consubstantial or have the same substance, which is called God. In a sense,
Constantine was acting as their first Pope. Let’s look at the history of this
meeting. Socrates stated, Constantine, “convoked a General Council, summoning
all the [Catholic] bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea…. The emperor
arrived... and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his
place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be
seated.” [97]
From the very beginning of
Constantine’s Council, He was letting these Bishops know that he was their High
Priest. He was the one who called them together, and he was going to be the one
who was going to settle their religious dispute over the godhead. Edward
Gibbon, in his classic work entitled The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, spoke about this
office. He wrote, “The Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors
themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected
with civil government.... Constantine and his successors... continued to
exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical order; and the
sixteenth book of the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of titles,
the authority which they assumed in the government of the Catholic Church.” [98]
Socrates revealed that the
Emperor Constantine in his final speech to these Catholic priests incited “all
to unanimity. At length he succeeded in bringing them into similarity of judgment
and conformity of opinion
on all controversial points.... Exhorting,
[with the influence and power of an Emperor Pope], all present to give their
assent and subscribe to these very articles; thus agreeing in a unanimous
profession of them, with the insertion,
however, of that single word ‘homoousios’ consubstantial, an expression which the Emperor himself explained.”
Let my readers take note that Constantine, who was acting as their apostle and
theologian, inserted the word “consubstantial” or the Greek word “homoousios”
into the Catholic Nicene Creed.
How did Pope Constantine define
this word? Socrates says the Emperor defined it “as not
indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist
from the Father either by division or abscission…. For said he [the Emperor], a
nature which is immaterial
and incorporeal cannot
possible be subject to any corporeal affection;
hence our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such were the philosophical views
of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on
account of the word homoousios drew up this formula of faith.”
Anyone with any common sense
would ask himself or herself, why after many years of bickering among these
Catholic Bishops, would the Arian Catholics now agree with the two god
Catholics? Also, why would the two god Catholics agree to Constantine’s
homoousios or consubstantial doctrine that they or their forefathers never
believed? One might say, well Constantine was a great theologian. But the truth
was, as the Emperor he was their Pagan High Priestly Pope, who interpreted and
make all doctrines pertaining to religion!
Socrates went on “the meaning of
these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias of
the essence or substance simple implied that the Son is of the [same substance,
which is called God, as the] Father indeed, but does not subsist as part of the
Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the
Son is of the Father, but is not a part of His [personal] substance.”
Socrates continued,
“Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by Him, but is of a
substance the Divine oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of
generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.’ Thus
also the declaration that ‘the Son is consubstantial with the Father’ having
been discussed, it was agreed that this must not
be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any
way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of
substance, not by abscission, not by any change of the Father’s substance and
power, since the underived nature [or substance] of the Father is inconsistent
with all these things.” [99]
According to Constantine’s
Creed, the Father, at some point in eternity past, begot or generated the Son
from a substance that must be called God. The Father begot the Son not from His
portion of God’s substance but from a different portion of God’s substance, or
in other words, they both had a different portion of the substance called God.
This implies God divided Himself into two separate beings or persons, which can
only mean neither one is wholly God, but only a part or half of God.
Since Constantine and these
Catholic priests declared that the Father begot or generated the Son from a
different portion of God’s substance than His own, where did the Father get
this other portion? One would have to conclude that before the Son was
begotten, there were two beings, one called God and the other called the
Father, and the Father had half of a substance called God.
Now, if the Son received God’s
portion of the divine substance, than you have two beings that share a portion
of a substance that is called God. This can only mean that each one is a half
of God, since they both had equal portions of God’s substance. For example, if
you cut an apple into two equal portions, each portion is considered as a half
of an apple. No one with any intelligence would call a half of an apple the
whole apple, even though it has all the characteristics, properties, and nature
of the whole apple. Unless they, like Constantine, profess the godhead is a
mystery.
How can two different and
separate divine beings or persons be one God? Also if there are two beings
called God, then why did they declare that the “one God [was] the Father
Almighty?” Therefore, when Catholic and Protestant theologians declare their
allegiance to Pope Constantine’s Nicene Creed and profess that it teaches three,
not two, persons in the godhead, who are equal in knowledge and power, they are
not telling the truth.
According to Hastings,
“Constantine and his successors, and above all, the Emperor Justinian (527‑565
AD) saw themselves in their Roman capacity as the legitimate heirs of the
ancient pagan Caesars, but at the same time in their Christian capacity as equals to the apostles.... Contemporary historians
tell us that it was the Emperor Constantine, who came up with the formula one
in being (homoousios) with the Father, which resolved at the Council of Nicene
in 325 [AD], the dispute over the metaphysical relation between Christ and
God.” [100]
Now the Emperor Constantine, who
was acting as their first Pope, knew that neither party believed that the Holy
Ghost was a person, so he favored the theology of the “two-equal-gods,”
probably because it was closer to his and all the other pagans belief in
“three-equal-gods” or the Babylonian Trinity. Therefore he decided that
Athanasius and his group were correct in their theology and the Arians were
heretics. I am sure Constantine must have thought to himself, surely pagan
worshippers will never believe in one person in godhead, so for the time being
I settle for a belief in two-equal-gods, and bring them into a belief in
three-equal-gods later.
Is it not strange that Constantine, and no one else in
any other age, has ever tried to explain or even try to describe what is this
‘essence’ called God? If one thinks the Trinitarian doctrine is a mystery, let
them try to find any writing, by anyone, explaining the essence of God. All
they will ever find is this indescribable something that fills the universe.
Where did Constantine get his teaching that the Son was “homoousios or consubstantial” with the Father?
Let’s not forget that Constantine and all the emperors before him were the High
Priests, who were over all pagan religions with their two or three persons in
the godhead doctrine.
As a pagan High Priest,
Constantine was well aquatinted with Satan’s Babylonian Trinity doctrine, which
came into existence after Nimrod’s death shortly after the flood of Noah. This
demonic doctrine stated that, god the Father, god the Son, and the Mother of
the gods made up one united god. For these three separate and distinct persons
or beings all shared in the one substance called god. Under this and the
Catholic Trinity doctrine, if there were a million persons in the godhead, they
could all be god if they all shared in this mysterious substance called god.
Now according to the Nicene
Creed, “(We believe) also in the Holy Spirit.” Well what did they believe about
the Holy Ghost? Whatever they believed about the Holy Spirit, they did not
believe he was a third person in a Babylonian Trinity. History reveals that the
vast majority of Catholic Bishops
at this time did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a separate person in the
godhead. In fact most of them did not know what to believe about the Holy
Ghost.
The New Catholic
Encyclopedia definitely informs us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicaea
believed about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of the Trinity, the Catholic Church made a good and honest confession
about the development of their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated, “In the last
analysis, the 2nd century theological achievement was limited…. A Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the
Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve of Nicene 1, the
Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was still far from
settled. It was the problem of plurality within the single, undivided godhead.”
[101]
Schaff speaking about the Holy
Spirit said, “Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy, an uncertainty still for a time prevailed, respecting
the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the [Holy]
Spirit to be an impersonal power or attributes of God; others, at farthest, would not go
beyond the expressions of the Scriptures.” Even as late as 375 AD, in the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, most
Catholics Bishops did not believe the Holy Spirit to be a personal being.
Gregory wrote, “Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, other s a creature
[meaning an angel or a created spirit being], others God himself, and others
know not which way to decide.” [102]
381 AD, The
Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed: It was not until
the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, in 381 AD,
that the Catholic Church as a whole might have
adapted the doctrine of the Trinity; it is hard to tell, for their doctrine of
the Holy Spirit is not very explicit. Therefore no one can say with any
certainty that they did! The only thing this creed says, which is different
from the Nicene Creed is this, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the
giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored together with
the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets.”
In 382
AD, Pope Damascus called a Council in Rome in which the Catholic Church
drew up a clear Babylonian Trinitarian godhead creed; there cannot be any doubt
that this creed definitely declared that the godhead is composed of
three-equal-gods or persons. It also connected the formula of baptism with the
godhead for salvation. It stated, “Therefore this is the salvation of
Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and being baptized in the Trinity.”
This is the first Church Council
in which the Catholic Church clearly defined the Holy Spirit as a person
instead of an impersonal Spirit. These pagan Babylonian Nicolaitan Bishops
declared, “(1) We pronounce anathema against those who do not proclaim with
complete freedom that He the Holy Spirit is of one power and substance with the
Father and the Son.... (10) If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that
the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic....
(16) If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the
Father, and, like the Son, is of the divine substance and is true God: he is
heretic.”
The Council of Rome continued by
saying, “(17) If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all
things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic....
(18) If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or was created by the
Son: he is a heretic.... (20) If anyone denies that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit have one divinity, authority, majesty, power, one glory, dominion, one
kingdom, and one will and truth: he is a heretic.... (21) If anyone denies that
the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons,
equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are
omnipotent, judge all things, give life to all things, make all things, and
conserve all things: he is a heretic. ” [103]
Lucifer’s Babylonian Catholic
Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see by now, the Bishops of the
Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind their new Babylonian
Trinitarian doctrine of three separate persons, instead of two-equal-gods or
persons in the godhead. Catholic Bishop Jerome (390 AD) confirmed this
Council’s decision when he said, “it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the
confession of faith in the Trinity, do you believe in the Holy Church.” [104]
The origin of the Catholic
Babylonian Trinity has been known by many readers of history for centuries. In
a book entitled The Works Of John Adams, Adams mentions a letter he
wrote on June 28, 1813 to Thomas Jefferson. In it he wrote, Professors
“Priestley and Lindsey have both denounced as
idolaters and blasphemers all the Trinitarians
and even the Arians.... Priestly barely mentions Timaeus; but it does not
appear that he had read him. Why has he not given us an account of him and his
book? He was before Plato, and gave him the idea of his Timaeus, and much of
his philosophy.... I wonder that Priestly has overlooked this, because it is
the same philosophy with Plato’s, and would have shown that the Pythagorean, as
well as the Platonic philosophers, probably concurred in the fabrication of the
Christian Trinity.”
On July 16, 1814, Adams wrote
another letter to Jefferson in which he said, “If the Christian religion, as I
understand it, or as you understand it, should maintain its ground, as I
believe it will, yet Platonic, Pythagoric, Hindoo,
and Cabalistical Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for
fifteen hundred years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must
finally die, yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for
centuries before he expires.” [105]
The Word of God speaking about some of the
people that lived after the flood of Noah declared, “Although they knew
God [referring
to His godhead], they did not glorify Him as
God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and
birds and four-footed animals and creeping things…. Who exchanged the truth of
God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature [ktisis] rather than the
Creator” (Rom 1:21‑23, 25). Dr. James Strong in his work entitled Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible defines the Greek word “ktisis” to mean “creation.” [106]
It is obvious from these scriptures that the godhead
was not a mystery to these people, but as many religious people of today they
did not like this truth. Since the Bible plainly stated that these people knew
the truth about the godhead and changed it to nature worship or Pantheism, what
was the truth they knew? Who were these people that perverted this truth?
The truth concerning the godhead, the soul of man and
the soul’s future destiny, was totally perverted at the Tower of Babel. It was
at this Tower where the first false religion began, which was created by
Nimrod. This Nimrod was the son of Cush, who was a son of Ham, who was a son of
Noah (Gen 10:1‑8). This Nimrod became so perverted that he married his
own mother.
In his rebellion against God, Nimrod started through
Satan's tutoring a priesthood that practiced witchcraft, magic, astrology, the
worship of Lucifer as Baal the sun god and Lucifer's demons as various planets,
stars and constellations, or in other words nature worship, which consisted of
Pantheism, Animism and Polytheism. He also taught the Zoroastrian doctrine of
god. The good god to them was Lucifer, whom they claimed created all the good
things in life; and the evil god to them was the LORD, whom they declare
created all the evil things.
It was under Lucifer or the Serpent's instructions
that the doctrines of Immortality, Reincarnation, and the Perfection of the
Soul in this life began to be taught as the way to enter back into paradise and
godhood. Of course, the soul had to be purified in the fires of Hades after
each reincarnation, so it can enter into life perfect or without sin. These are
just a few of Nimrod's crimes against God and man.
If my readers desire to read a comprehensive
historical exegesis of Nimrod’s doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the
torment and purification of the soul in Hades, and the eternal torment of all
souls who do not become perfected after a cycle of a thousand reincarnations,
as well as a Biblical exegesis against these doctrines of hell, I recommend my
book, What Is Lost Man’s Destiny? (Immediate Annihilation,
Eternal Torment, Torment For A Time And Then Universal Salvation, Or Torment
For A Time And Then Annihilation).
Semiramis after Nimrod's death had him defied. Nimrod
then became Baal the sun god or god the father (1Ki 18:21‑40). Nimrod
became the first defied man in history. She also had herself deified as
Ashtoreth (Hebrew) or Astarte (Greek), the Queen of Heaven or the mother of god
and the gods (Jer 44:17‑25). Semiramis thus became the first deified
woman in history. She also had Tammuz, her illegitimate son defied, whom she
claimed was Nimrod’s soul reincarnated or god the son (Eze 8:14).
It is at this point, the Babylonian Trinity of three
separate persons or beings in the godhead came into existence, and Lucifer's
doctrines of Immortality, Transmigration, and Perfection of the Soul that was
taught by Nimrod was confirmed. These doctrines became know as the Babylonian
Mysteries, and thus Secrete Societies were born.
Thus Satan knowing the true doctrines of Christ, which
should come into the world, imitated and perverted them with his Mystery
Religion. In time Semiramis’ Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead
became more important than Nimrod’s Zoroastrian doctrine of the godhead in the
Babylonian Mysteries, because this father, son and mother were suppose to be
the first humans to become deified, which gave their followers hope of
returning back to paradise and also becoming deified. In other words, the
Babylonian Trinity was connected to the doctrine of man’s deification. Now that
I have given a brief synopsis of how the Babylonian Mysteries began, let's see
if I can authenticate the truthfulness of these statements by sound historical
documentation.
John speaking about this false religious system says,
"Upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery
Babylon, the great mother of harlots and abominations of the earth"
(Jn 17:5). Since the Bible called this
religious system Mystery Babylon, or the Babylonian Mysteries, what does the
word “mystery” mean? The word mystery
is the Greek word “musterion” which means “a secret i.e. through the idea of
silence impose by initiation into a religious rite.” [107]
Since this is an occult mystery, lets see what the
occult authorities have to say about it. The Encyclopedia Of Occultism And
Parapsychology, under the heading of “Mysteries,” says it was “A term for
what is secret or concealed in a religious context.... The mysteries were
secret cults, to which only certain initiated people were admitted after a
period of preliminary preparation.... But the mysteries appear to have circled
around the semi‑dramatic representation or mystery‑play of the life
of a deity." [108]
Let my readers take note, the religious doctrines of the Mysteries centered
around Semiramis’ Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead.
In the book entitled Secret Societies And
Subversive Movements by Nesta Webster, under the sub‑title "The
Mysteries" we read, "Now from the earliest times groups of initiates
or wise men have existed, claiming to be in possession of esoteric doctrines
known as the Mysteries, incapable of apprehension by the vulgar, and relating
to the origin and end of man, the life of the soul after death, and the nature
of god or the gods.… The Initiates believe that the sacred mysteries should not
be revealed to the profane but should remain exclusively in their own keeping."
[109]
Professor W. L. Bryan, in his work entitled The
Republic Of Plato, made these statements about mystery religions before and
after Plato time, "Passages in the Greek poets seem to indicate that the
mysteries were intended to encourage belief in a future life, and in reward or
punishment there, as merited by the life on earth. Certain of the rites were
supposed to be a means of purification from sin, and reconciliation with the
gods."
Bryan went on to quote Plato as saying, "And they
[the gods] produce a host of books written by Musaeus and Orpheus, who are
children of the Moon [symbolism for Semiramis as Ashtoreth]…. They perform
their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that
expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices.… [These religious
doctrines] they call mysteries… redeem us from the pains of hell." [110]
All the major doctrines of the mysteries of all the
heathen nations had their beginnings at the Towel of Babel. The Encyclopedia
Of Occultism And Parapsychology commenting on the Rev. G. Oliver's book
entitled, The History Of Initiation
(1829 AD), has this to say about the subject. The Reverend Oliver
affirmed that the rites of the science, which is now received under the name of
Freemasonry, were “practiced by man at the building of Babel…. At the
dispersion [it] spread with every settlement.” [111]
Hislop gave a very clear, accurate and extremely well
documented historical account of the secret mysteries of the Babylonian
Religion. He made a very striking comparison between the doctrines of the
ancient Babylonian Religion and the Roman Catholic Religion of today. Speaking
of the origin of the mysteries, Hislop stated, “All who paid the least
attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of
the place which the Mysteries occupied in these countries, and that, whatever
circumstantial diversities there might be, in all essential respects these
Mysteries in the different countries were the same. Now, as the language of
Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source
from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most
learned historians, on mere historical grounds, have led to the same
conclusion.” [112]
Now that it has been established when and where the
mysteries began, who exactly can be credited with starting this religious
system? According to history, it all started with Nimrod. Many historians seem
to believe Nimrod was a black man, because all statues of him picture him as
such. The Bible reveals that Nimrod was a son of Cush, who was a son of Ham,
who was a son of Noah, (Gen 10:1-8). Nimrod was the first: king, tyrant,
warmonger, idolater, and the first to set up Nature Worship or the Babylonian
Religion after the flood of Noah. Nimrod hated God because He struck down his
father with a lighting bolt for his apostasy.
Nimrod’s history can be found in a work entitled the “Recognition of
Clement,” which some believe was written by Clement of Rome in 100 AD. It
revealed that it was “Ham, [who] unhappily discovered the magical act, and handed down the
instruction of it to one of his sons [i.e. Cush], who was called Mesraim, from whom the race of the Egyptians and Babylonians and Persians
are descended. Him the nations who then existed called Zoroaster, admiring him as the first author of the magic art, [or in other words, Cush or Zoroaster
wrote many books on magic]….”
“He therefore, being much and frequently
intent upon the stars, and wishing to be esteemed a god among
them, began to draw forth, as it were, certain sparks from the stars [or lighting from the sky], and to show them to men, in order that the rude
and ignorant might be astonished, as with a miracle; and desiring to increase
this estimation of him, he attempted these things again and again, until he was
set on fire, and consumed by the demon himself, whom he accosted [or approached] with too great an importunity” or with
too many request and demands. He therefore was struck by lighting.
“But the foolish men, who were then,
[erected]… a sepulcher to his [Cush’s] honor, they went so far as to adore him
as a friend of God, and one who
had been removed to heaven in a chariot of lightning, and to worship him as if
he were a living star. Hence also, his name was
called Zoroaster
after his death, that is, a living star….” Nimrod, no doubt, capitalized on their worship of his
father, and therefore started his own religion called Nature Worship.
“The magic art having been handed down to
him [Nimrod, the son of Cush] as
by a flash, whom the Greeks also called Ninus, and from whom the city of
Nineveh took its name. Thus, therefore, diverse and erratic superstitions took
their beginning from the magic art. For, because it was difficult to draw away
the human race from the love of God, and attach them to deaf and lifeless
images, the magicians made use of higher efforts, that men might be turned to
erratic worship, by signs among the stars, and motions brought down as it were
from heaven, and by the will of God. And those who had been first deceived,
collecting the ashes of Zoroaster [Cush], who, as we have said, was burned up
by the indignation of the demon, to whom he had been
too troublesome, brought them to the Persians, that they might be preserved by
them with perpetual watching, as divine fire fallen from heaven, and might be worshipped as a heavenly god.” [113]
John MacCulloch, in his book entitled The Mythology Of
All Races said, "Nimrod, the mighty hunter before Yaw, and son of
Cush, is clearly Gilgamesh of Babylonian mythology; and Nimrod, founder of
cities in Sumer, and latterly builder of Nineveh and Calah in Assyria, is
surely Nimurta, the god of the spring Sun." [114]
The prophet Micah called Assyria "the land of
Nimrod" (Mica 5:6). Hislop speaking about Nimrod as king Ninus, who built
Nineveh, (Gen 10:10-11), said that the ancient history of Justin claimed Ninus
subdued “his neighbors, when, by an accession of forces, being still further
strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and every new victory paved
the way for another, he subdued all the peoples of the east." [115]
Nimrod thus became known in history not only as the first idolater, king,
tyrant, and warmonger but also the first type of the Antichrist.
Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, who wrote his
history of the Jewish race about 93 AD, said it
was "Nimrod who excited them [the people] to such an affront and contempt
of God.... He also gradually changed the government
into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning
men from the fear of God but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his
power.... Now the multitude was ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and
esteem it apiece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower.... The
place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon.” [116]
This tower was the first religious temple built to worship Nature as god.
In The Jewish Encyclopedia we read,
"Nimrod is the prototype of a rebellious people, his name being
interpreted as `he who made all the people rebellious against God....' The
tower is called by the rabbis `the house of Nimrod,' and is considered as a
house of idolatry.... The punishment visited on the builders of the tower, did
not cause Nimrod to change his conduct, he remained an idolater....[117]
The religion that Nimrod first set up was a Luciferian
Religion. It was an open worship of Lucifer under the name of Baal the sun god.
To Nimrod the sun probably represented his father Cush. Hislop revealed, "Serpent-worship was a part of the primeval apostasy
of Nimrod. The fiery nature of the serpent...who when deified, was worshipped
as the grand regenerator of the souls of men.... Thus was the sun, the great
fire‑god, identified with the serpent." [118]
Stephen Jones, in his book entitled The Babylonian Connection, said,
"Those who have studied the occult know that witchcraft traces its origin
to Mystery Babylon and its founder Nimrod." [119]
Ed Mitchell and Jody Scharf, in their book entitled The
Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, says it was Nimrod who "built the great
city of Babylon where all the occult practices originated: astrology, tarot cards,
witchcraft, divination and many others.... Satan creates his masterpiece of
false religion. Idolatry, devil worship and sexual immorality were practiced
openly. And as happens in pagan societies, sexual immorality led to the
sacrifice of babies to Satan,” probably under the name of Baal. [120]
The sacrificing of babies to Lucifer is still taking place today, even here in
America. The only difference is our immoral government calls it abortion.
As my reader can now clearly see, Nimrod in his
rebellion against God, joined forces with the devil. He established Pantheism
and Animism as his religion. He became the first idolater in history after the
flood. He led the people into apostasy against God, and set up pure Baal
worship, with Baal the Sun God or Lucifer as the main deity, and all the
planets and stars or Lucifer's Demons as lesser deities. Hastings speaking
about the ancient Babylonian Religion said, "The earliest religion of
Babylonia was what may be termed a polytheistic Nature-worship, a natural step
forward from a still more primitive shamanism, or the belief that the
government of the world was in the hands of a great number of benevolent and
malevolent gods or spirits, whom it was necessary to placate by magic rites and
spells." [121]
In other words, Nimrod set up nature worship with its
first trinity, Anu representing the heavens or air, Ea representing water, and
Bel representing the earth. Jones revealed, "Nimrod combined Semitic
monotheism with Accadian animism to produce pantheism. He taught that god is
nature itself, and each nature-spirit [even man] is part of god." [122]
Thus creation itself was worshipped as god or the universal soul. This is
exactly what the Bible says happen in Roman 1:18‑32. Nimrod and the
people, who knew the truth about God's Godhead, changed it to nature worship,
thereby worshipping Lucifer and his demons as nature. Nimrod also taught the
doctrine of immortality and reincarnation of the soul. It was only through a
cycle of rebirths, the spirit and soul of man could reach a state of union with
god or nature, and even godhood itself.
Nimrod even taught that there were two gods in the
beginning who created all things; a good god who created all the good things in
world and an evil god who created all the evil things. Later on in history, the
good god was called Ahura Mazda or Ormazd, and the evil god was called Anro
Mainyus or Ahriman. The reader can guess who Nimrod taught was the good god.
You guessed it, Lucifer. Satan through Nimrod took many of God's truths and
perverted them.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
speaking about the ancient Indian Aryans or Persians, stated that "Ahura
Mazda and his assistants promote life, fertility in man, beast and plant,
agriculture, increase; while Anro Mainyus and his creatures cause destruction
and death.… The contest between Ormazd [Ahura Mazda] and Ahriman [Anro
Mainyus], after continuing for 9,000 years, is to be decided in favor of the
former only through his possessing foreknowledge and Ahriman's lacking it
(Bund., I). Both came into existence independently in limitless time." [123]
How Did the
Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod
Change into A
Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God
Because of all the atrocities, especially the
sacrifice of babies that Nimrod had committed, Mitchell and Scharf says
"Nimrod's great uncle, Shem, one of Noah's sons, became so outraged at
this evil that he killed Nimrod and cut him in pieces and sent these throughout
Babylon as a warning to those in cult worship. Nimrod's followers were
shattered, and they were afraid to sin in public for fear the same thing would
happen to them.”
They continued, “Satan changed his plan from open
devil worship to a subtle, hidden way of getting people to worship him. With
Nimrod gone, Satan worked through Semiramis, [who was Nimrod's wife and mother,
as well as the High Priestess in his religion], to unleash the most insidious,
diabolical scheme ever. After Nimrod's death, Semiramis announced that Nimrod was
a god ‑ the sun god, Baal.... Semiramis declared herself a goddess and
called herself queen of heaven, whose symbol was the moon. She set up an
underground religion.... This was the beginning of secret societies." [124]
This was the beginning of not only Secret Societies, but of all mystery
religions.
How did Semiramis manage to deceive the people
concerning Nimrod’s deification? Hislop gives us the answer, he says, "In
life her husband had been honored as a hero; in death she will have him
worshipped as a god, yea as the woman's promise seed, Zero-Ashta, who was
destined to bruise the serpent's head, and in doing so, was to have his own
heel bruised. The patriarchs, and the ancient world in general, were perfectly
acquainted with the grand primeval promise of Eden, and they knew right well
that the bruising of the heal of the promise seed implied his death, and that
the curse could be removed from the world only by the death of the grand
deliverer.… Hence Zero-Ashta, the seed of the woman became Zoroaster, the well‑known
name of the head of the Fire-Worshippers.”
Hislop continued, “The scheme, thus skillfully formed,
took effect. Semiramis gained glory from her dead and deified husband.… The
licentious and dissolute life of Semiramis gave her many children, for whom no
ostensible father on earth would be alleged.… All that was needful was just to
teach that Ninus [Nimrod] had reappeared in the person of a posthumous son, of
a fair complexion, supernaturally borne by his widowed wife after the father
had gone to glory.... It was from her son that she derived all her glory and
claims to deification.… [Semiramis] was worshipped by the Babylonians and other
eastern nations under the name of Rhea, the great goddess mother." [125]
Since Nimrod already taught them the doctrines of the
good and evil creator gods, man becoming god, the immortality and reincarnation
of the soul, all Semiramis had to do was to claim that Nimrod was the first man
to reach godhood. She claimed his Spirit was now united with Lucifer the sun god,
thus making Nimrod Baal. She also claimed that Nimrod in the spirit impregnated
her and produced Tammuz her illegitimate son. This made Tammuz the first living
god man to live among men. She had herself deified as the mother of the gods,
referring to Nimrod and Tammuz, thus forming the first human godhead in history
of three separate and distinct human persons, Nimrod the Father, Tammuz the
Son, and Semiramis the Mother.
In Scripture, Nimrod as a god is known as Baal the sun
god, as in Jud 6:25-32, 1Ki 16:31-32, 2Ki 10:18-28 and Jer 11:13-17. Tammuz is
known as Tammuz as in Eze 8:14. Semiramis is known as Ashtaroth as in Jud 2:13
and 1Sa 7:3-4. The Bible also refers to her as the Queen of Heaven in Jer 7:18
and 44:17-25. These five doctrines not only became a major part of the
Babylonian Mystery Religion, but also all of her daughters, which includes all
Mystery Religions. In the Bible she is known Mystery Babylon, and her daughters
as harlots.
When God destroyed this religious temple or the Tower
Of Babel and divided the people's language, into seventy different languages,
the people scattered throughout the earth starting their own religion, base on
the Babylonian Mysteries, with a few changes such as the names of their gods
and ritualistic rites. All these heathen religions keep and practice the basic
doctrines of Mystery Babylon. Webster claimed that, “in the occult and Masonic
circles, certain ideas were common to all the more important Mysteries, thus
forming a continuous tradition handed down through succeeding groups of
initiates of different ages and countries." [126]
Peter L. Renouf, in his book The Origin And Growth
Of Religion As Illustrated By The Religion Of Ancient Egypt, gives the Egyptian
version of the Babylonian Trinity that Semiramis started. He stated, "What
follows is textually applied to Horus, but it is to Horus considered as Osiris
born again, and as the son of the widowed [virgin] Isis. ‘The gods recognize
the universal Lord.… He judges the world." [127]
There can be no doubt, that Osiris is the defied name that the Egyptians gave
to Nimrod, and Isis to Semiramis, and Horus to Tammuz. Ralph Woodrow reveals in
his book entitled, Babylon Mystery Religion, that the Romans worshipped
Janus the sun‑god in the religion of Mithraism. Janus "was
represented with two faces ‑ one young, the other old, a later version of
Nimrod incarnated in Tammuz." [128]
Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz were called by many
different names in the religions of the world. Here are just a few of the names
they were called in different countries: in the Bible and in ancient Assyria
and Phoenicia they were known as Baal, Ashtoreth and Tammuz. In Rome they were
known as Jupiter, Fortuna and Jupiter the Boy; in Greece as Zeus or Bacchus,
Ceres or Irene and Plutus; in Asia and Asia Minor as Kronos or Saturn, Cybele
or Diana and Deoius; in Egypt as Osiris, Serapis or Isis and Horus.
In India they were known as Eko, Deva or Isi and
Iswara or Trimurtti; in Japan as San, Pao and Fuh; in China as Buddha, Shing
Moo and Tomos; the Hindus worship them as Brahma, Devaki and Krishna; and the
list go on. By now my readers should have a clear picture of what the
Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or being in one god is, and how it
got started. As you can see, the Babylonian Mysteries, such as the good and
evil god, the trinity, the godhood of man, the immortality and transmigration
of the soul became the teachings of Mystery Religions of every country.
My readers by now, should be able to see that Lucifer
must have know some of the doctrines God would bring into Judaism and later
into Christianity, for he started his own counterfeit religion. He changed
YHWH'S plan to reveal His Godhead, as God the Father in creation, as the Son in
redemption, and the Holy Ghost in regeneration, to a perverted belief in one
god in a trinity of three separate persons, which is verbal theological
garbage, to disguise his doctrine of three gods. Lucifer imitated the virgin birth
of Christ by having his harlot High Priestess claim Nimrod's soul entered into
her, and produced a son, who was Nimrod reincarnated.
Lucifer perverted God's promise to His faithful
children of future immortality or Eternal Life, to an immortal pre-existing
soul that all humanity is born in this life with. If the doctrine of
immortality of soul, was not taught and believed by the Babylonians before
Nimrod's death, Semiramis would not have been able to convince them of Nimrod's
suppose deification and later reincarnation.
Before the End of the Fourth Century
Because God had turned the
Nicolaitan-Balaamite Bishops over to a reprobate mind, many of them, if not
all, believed that the Babylonian Mysteries were God's true doctrines in
disguise. As a result, they began to incorporate them into their religious
beliefs. They hoped by doing this, they could win pagans over to their
religion. So, somewhere in the second century, they started Christianizing
pagan beliefs. The following paragraphs name a few of these beliefs.
According to Guignebert, “Toward
the end of Constantine’s reign [337 AD], the union of Church and the State, the
absorption of paganism by Christianity, and its total destruction with the
connivance and, if necessary, the help of the State, could have been foreseen.
This achievement...was accomplished in the course of the four century.” [129]
Arkon Daraul in his book
entitled Secret Societies compared the old pagan religions such as
Mithraism with that of Roman Catholicism, and has this to say, “It is claimed
by those who still believe in its Mysteries and celebrate them, that [Roman
Catholic] Christianity did not so much supplant Mithraism as absorb it.” [130]
Guignebert informs us that “Mithra is a solar deity, and his birth occurs upon
the 25th of December, i.e. the winter solstice.” [131] Jones boldly told the truth and did not try
to water it down. He stated that Roman Catholicism “began to be paganized or,
as some prefer, paganism was Christianized.” [132]
Ronald Holmes in his book Witchcraft
In History revealed some of the pagan doctrines Roman Catholicism adopted
when she joined hands with Religious or Mystery Babylon and her harlot
daughters in marriage. He stated, "The early [Catholic] Christians had
tried to be as flexible as possible in their spreading of the gospel in order
to provide further links for potential converts between Christian and
non-Christian beliefs.” “But what was perhaps the master‑stroke in this
approach,” Holmes says, was “when the [Catholic] Church Fathers declared the
birth day of Christ to be December 25.... By this stratagem Christ was made
identifiable in the minds of many pagans with the particular sun-god [Baal]
they worshipped, and a connection was supplied which serve as a strong bridge
to [pagan Catholic] Christianity." [133]
Let my readers make a deep
mental note of the doctrine of hell which became the master link that united
pagans of all countries with Pagan Roman Catholicism, it was by transforming
the birthday of Baal the sun-god into the birthday of Christ. The Winter
Solstice falls on the 21st day of December, which is the shortest day of the
year. On the 25th of December the days begin to lengthen again, therefore what
you have is a type of the sun dying on the twenty first day and resurrecting or
becoming Born Again New Birth on the 25th.
In a sense, it was Nimrod the
Father, as the sun god Baal, dying on the twenty first day of December and his
soul becoming reborn or reincarnated in Tammuz the Son on the 25th. The
Catholics took Lucifer’s holy day, the 25 of December, which witches and pagans
of all religious societies in every age cherished, and desecrated Christ by
claiming He was born on that day. It is obvious to me that the pagans thought
Jesus Christ was just another name for Baal, because this sun god was called by
many different names in every country.
In Charles Heckethorn’s book The
Secret Societies, we can find some of the other pagan doctrines the
Catholic Church adopted from Mystery Babylon and all of her harlot pagan
daughters. Heckethorn says, “The festival of the 25th of December was
celebrated...to announce the birth-day of the god Sol.... This festival indeed
was kept not only by the Druids, but throughout the ancient world.… The early
[Nicolaitan] Christians judiciously adopted not only the festival days of the
pagans, but the mode of keeping them.”
Heckethorn, commenting about the pagan origin of the
Trinity and other doctrines of Roman Catholicism, compared them to the teaching
of the Druids, which is an ancient Babylonian Witchcraft Priesthood that
originated at the Tower of Babel. He wrote, "The doctrine of the unity and
trinity was inculcated in all the mysteries. In the most ancient religious
creeds we meet with the prototype of the [Roman Catholic and Protestant]
Christian dogma.... The Druids taught the doctrine of one supreme being, a
future state of rewards and punishments, the immortality of the soul, and
metempsychosis [reincarnation].” [134]
Heckethorn went on to revealed that the main two
deities that the Druids worshipped were, "the great father and mother, Hu
and Ceridwen, distinguished by the same characteristics as belonged to Osiris
and Isis [Egyptian deities], Bacchus and Ceres [Grecian deities], or any other
supreme god or goddess." [135]
Remember all the so-called deities of the nations that spoke of a Trinity of a
father, mother and a son represented Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. The Word of
God gives their deified names as Baal, Ashtaroth and Tammuz (Jud 2:13 and Eze
8:14).
Lucifer’s Babylonian Catholic
Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see by now, the Bishops of the
Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind their new Trinity
doctrine of three separate persons instead of two persons in the godhead.
Catholic Bishop Jerome (c. 390) confirmed this Council’s decision when he said,
“it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the
Trinity, do you believe in the Holy Church.” [136]
CHAPTER 4
HISTORY REVEALS THAT GOD’S APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCES
WERE IN THE VAST MAJORITY FROM 33-399 AD
Catholic Cardinal
Newman confessed that God’s Modalist Monarchian Churches were in the vast
majority for the first 400 years. The well known Catholic professor
John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays And Sketches,
presented Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the
doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Mass are
not found in the Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still
believed they were true. He defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but
from the traditions of the early Catholic Fathers. He most definitely believed
that the Bible must be interpreted by their writings, and only by their
writings. He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic
doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity by
faith without any real scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the following
statements:
Newman asked Protestants,
"Where was your Church before Luther?” The obvious and historical answer
is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying, “Take a
large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine
established their [meaning the Roman Catholic] religion. Is there any family
likeness in it to Protestantism?" [137]
The obvious answer is no. He then went on to prove that historically, by
comparing the teachings of the Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene
Fathers.
After that, Father Newman made a
very shocking confession. Let's hear this Priest's confession and see if He
makes a good and true confession before we grant him absolution. He said, “all
parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out
in form upon the surface of Scriptures.”
“As I have said more than once,
to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere
peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if
all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective
peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed
set forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture; for take that
single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently
a peculiarity [for] it is not brought out in form in Scripture. First, the word
Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of the
Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture?" [138]
The answer to Newman’s question is very few.
Newman continued his confession
and reproach of Protestants by saying, "He who admits the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its
proof ‑ who submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture
evidence as regards that particular doctrine ‑ has a right to be told
those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession." [139]
Newman proceeded with his
confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters of Catholicism by saying,
"not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene
Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine….” All Protestants “who
consider the Bible as the one standard of faith,” meaning those who say they
base their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition, “let no one take refuge and
comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox
Protestant…, [if] he will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of
the Apostolic Succession…; [for] this is an impossible position: it is shutting
one eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both." [140]
What confessor Newman is saying
is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the Catholic version of
the Babylonian Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof, they then
have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all other
Catholic doctrines which are also not directly taught in the Bible, as he
openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people may or
may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true
confession, for which God's people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him
absolution. Now, with the above truths in mind, let’s proceed with the history
of God’s True Church.
Newman made his greatest and
boldest confession when he was scolding the Protestants about Luther's protest.
He referred them to the protest that was made by the one God Jesus’ Name
Apostolic Christians, who believed all the godhead, i.e. the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, dwelt totally in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Newman said,
"Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third century protested against
the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.... Noetus was in Asia
Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read...their
doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a
very great extent, and the true faith [Catholicism] was hardly preached in the
churches.” [141]
This is the greatest confession
of truth, I have ever read from any Protestant or Catholic minister. Newman
clearly stated that the Catholic Churches, in the Roman Empire, were in the
vast minority for over three hundred years, and the Modalist Monarchian
Pentecostal Churches were in the majority. The truth is they were in the
majority for almost four hundred years. Now, were did Newman read this about
the true believers? He did not say. I will shortly show that he read this in
the writings of Tertullian and Hippolytus.
Doctor James Hastings declared
that the One God, Jesus’ Name Churches were in every part of the Roman Empire.
According to Hastings, Tertullian sums up his case against the Latin and Greek
Modalist Monarchians by saying, “the Latins take pains to pronounce monarchia,
the Greeks refuse to understand aeconomia... For extolling the monarchia at the
expense of the aeconomia, they contend for the identity of Father, Son, and
Spirit.” [142]
Nicolaitan Catholic Bishop
Ignatius wrote against God’s Apostolic Church: In his Epistle to the
Trallians, he tried to defame God’s people by saying, the Oneness
Pentecostals teach “that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.” [143]
Satan used this apostate to start the Catholic Church.
Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philippians stated: There are not then either three Fathers,
or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one
Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make
disciples of all nations, commanded them to ‘baptize in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost,’ not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three
who
became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor…. For there is but One that became incarnate, and
that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but in reality. [144]
In the Syriac Version of Ignatius’ epistles, we find
his so-called refutation of errors. In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he writes,
Jesus “Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son…. Wherefore it
is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another
[Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other
things, becomes subject [to the former]. [145]
In his Epistle to the Antiochians, he again
writes against God’s Monotheistic, Jesus’ Name Church. He told them to “reject
every Jewish and Gentile error, and neither introduce a multiplicity of gods,
nor yet deny Christ under the pretense of [maintaining] the unity of God.” [146]
Justin Martyr wrote against
God’s Pentecostal Church. In his First Apology he says, “For they who
affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted
with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.”[147]
Irenaeus speaking against God’s Apostolic Church and Gnostics wrote, “But
there are some who say… that Jesus was the Son,
but that Christ was the Father and the Father of Christ.” [148]
Tertullian confessed that
Praxeas and the One God, Jesus’ Name Modalist Monarchians Churches were in the
vast majority in the third and earlier centuries. He wrote, “The older
[so-called] heretics much more before Praxeas,
a pretender of yesterday...[who preaches] this heresy, which supposes itself to
possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in the one only God
in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
are the very selfsame person.... The simple, indeed, I will not call them
unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the
majority of believers, are startled at the
dispensation of the three in one, on the ground that their very rule of faith
withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only God.” [149]
Tertullian continued, “The
numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they [the Apostolic believers]
assume to be a division of the unity.... They are constantly throwing out
against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to
themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the one God.” [150]
Let my readers make a mental note of this truth, Tertullian clearly stated
beyond all argumentation that the One God, Jesus Name people were in existence
long before Praxeas began to preach against him and the heretics of that day.
Tertullian also openly admitted that God’s people constituted the majority of
Christians in his day.
This Catholic Priest confessed
that God’s Apostolic Pentecostal Churches vastly outnumbered the Catholic
Churches in his day. He also confessed that some, if not many, of the Catholic
Churches were converted to the One God, Jesus Name message; he even confessed
that several Bishops or Popes of Rome believed and taught that Christ was the
God the Father manifested in flesh.
Hippolytus declared that
Catholic Bishop Callistus of Rome taught that “there is one Father and God,
namely, the Creator…. In substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity,’
he says, ‘is not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the
Deity;’ therefore this one person, according to Callistus, is divided
nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and
affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is
disposed to maintain, that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is
the Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him…. All
[Catholic] consented to his hypocrisy, we [two-god Catholics] however did not
do so and [they] called us worshippers of two gods.... This Callistus became a
martyr at the period when Fuscianus was Prefect of Rome.” [151]
Let my readers notice, that the
true believers greatly out numbered Hippolytus and his small band of Catholic
followers. Not only this, but this proves that their were in the Roman Empire
two opposing churches, God’s Modalistic Monarchian Church and Satan’s two god
Catholic Church. God’s People did not accuse Catholic Hippolytus of believing
in three gods but two gods.
According to Harnack,
“Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance, succeed in getting their
form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they
taught was viewed as an unknown God.” Their “Logos” doctrine implied that the
Logos was “an inferior divine being, or rather at once inferior and not
inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with tradition as embodied in
worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ.”
He went on to say, “It was only
from the second half of the fourth century [350 AD]
that the West was invaded by the Platonic theology
which Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had cultivated,
to all appearance without any thorough success. Some of its results were
accepted, but the theology itself was not.... Yet there is no mistake, on the
other hand, as we are taught by Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the
Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of
Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to
a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was
simply a question of time when the departure should take place.” [152]
Doctors M'Clintock and Strong
declared there were Oneness Preachers in the first and second century. They
said, Modalist “Monarchianism is generally supposed to have originated about
the end of the second century. It seems to us, however, that this [so-called]
heresy may be traced to the very earliest times of Christianity. Justin Martyr
[c. 150] expressly denounces it, and his notice guides us to its source, for he
finds the heresy to exist both among the [Christian] Jews and [gentile]
Christians. He condemns the [Christian] Jews for thinking that, when God was
said to have appeared to the patriarchs, it was God the Father who appeared.”
“In the Dialogue with Trypho,
he handles the same topic, and extends the charge to the [gentile] Christians.
‘I am aware that there are some [God’s Preachers] who wish to meet this by
saying that the power which appeared from the Father of the universe to Moses,
or Abraham or Jacob... is unseparated and undivided from the Father...' (Cc.
1227, 128).” [153]
Drs. Roberts and Donaldson translated this passage
this way, “I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that
the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham,
or to Jacob… is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say
that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun
in the heavens.”[154]
This is positive proof that Justin is writing against God’s People who taught
the almighty dwells in Christ.
Drs M'Clintock and
Strong also declared that “A resemblance has been noticed between the
tenets of Valentinus and those of Sabellius (Peturius, Dogma Theology, 2, i, 6;
Wormius, History Of Sabellius, ii, 3), and Neander is inclined to think that
Marcion may have adopted some of the Patripassian doctrines in Asia Minor
(Church History, i, 796; Burton, Bampton’s Lectures, note 103).” [155]
Valentinus and Marcion, like the Catholic apologists,
were heretics. Many of earlier heretics adopted some of the teachings of the
God’s true Bride, for example, most of the early heretics, if not all, baptized
in Jesus’ Name until c. 325. The two main opponents against the truth in the
third century were Tertullian and Hippolytus. It is mainly through the writing
of these two Catholic apologists that we know as much as we do about the true
Bride of Christ.
Protestant Professor Harnack
also confessed that God’s Pentecostal Churches were in the vast majority before
the Nicene Council. Harnack says, “The real dangerous opponent of the Logos
Christology in the period between AD 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the
doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ
to be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh.... Hippolytus tells us in
the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the
whole [Catholic] Church, and Tertullian and Origen testified, that in their day
the ‘economic’ trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the
Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion.
Modalism, as we now know from the Philosophumena, was… the official theory in
Rome... The Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude every other... was
embraced by the great majority of all
Christians” before and after the Nicene Council. [156]
The International Standard
Bible Encylopaedia also declared that God’s Apostolic Church was in the
majority in the 3rd And 4th centuries. It stated, “Monarchianism, identified
the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different
aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now
Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into
view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the
doctrine of the church at large…. In the early years of the 4th century, the
Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant
Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….”[157]
CHAPTER 5
HISTORIAL
PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE
OF GOD’S
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY
33-96 AD: This history is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of
the great history of the One God, Jesus Name, Apostolic Pentecostal Church and
the preachers who proclaimed it. The apostles of the Lamb started this Church
on the day of Pentecost. The last apostle to live was John, who wrote the book
of Revelation somewhere around c. 96. In the second and third chapter of this
great prophetic book, our holy Savior reveals that His Church never ceased to
exist in any Church Age. This history is a sketch or an outline of this
subject, and it is no way intended to be a complete history.
According to the Bible, the apostles and disciples of
the Lamb taught and believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is and was the only
person in the godhead, and they all baptized their converts in Jesus’ name and
only in His name in a single immersion, and they also taught that one will
speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives them the words to speak when they are
born of the Spirit. God’s people were always in every century identified by
these three teachings.
John Sherrill, in his book entitled They Speak In
Other Tongues wrote, "tongues continued to play a part in Christian
experience down through the centuries.” [158]
Not only tongues played a key part in God’s Church in every century, but also
baptism in Jesus’ Name and entire godhead dwelling in one person that is Christ
Jesus. I challenge any preacher to show me just one place in the Bible, where
the apostles or any of the disciples, baptized anyone using the words Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. This preacher will give $10,000 to anyone who can. Let’s
remember that no one was baptized in Matthew 28:19.
The Jerusalem Bible, A Catholic Bible,
Declared that the Early Church Baptized in Jesus’ Name: In a footnote on Matthew 28:19 it stated, “It may be
that this formula...is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later
in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing
in the name of Jesus.”
Professor Neander Declared that the
Primitive Church Baptized in Jesus’ Name: In his work The Primitive Church, which appeared in The
Biblical Repository in April of 1834, Neander said, “Baptism, therefore, in
accordance with its characteristic feature, was to be a baptism into Christ,
into the name of Christ: and it can well be, that originally
in the formula of baptism this alone was made
prominent.” [159]
Doctor Hastings Declared that the Early
Church Baptized in Jesus’ Name:
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible revealed that "The primitive
church baptized in or into the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ.... Thus the
spoken formula in the name of Jesus effected the presence of the risen Lord and
gave the baptized into His possession and protection." [160]
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary speaking of baptism in Jesus’
Name stated, “It is clear then that from the first, baptism in the name of
Jesus functioned as the rite of entry or initiation into the new sect [called
Christians].... Most [historians and theologians] would hold that the phrase
‘baptized into Christ’ refers directly to baptism (Rom. 6:3; 1Co. 10:2; 12:13;
Gal. 3:27). A strongly held view here is that ‘into Christ’ is an abbreviation
of ‘in/into the name of Christ.” [161]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia speaking of the formula for
baptism also confirmed this truth when it declared, "Although Matthew
28:19 speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the
Apostles 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 and Paul 1Cor 1:13; 6:11; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3
speaks only of Baptism in the name of Jesus.... After all, the validity of
Baptism ‘in the name of Jesus’ was still accepted in the age of
scholasticism.... An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism cannot be found in the first centuries. The Didache,
for instance merely repeats Mt 28:19.” [162]
100 AD, Catholic
History Revealed That The One God, Jesus Name, Tongue Talking Churches Existed
Before And During The Time Of The Catholic Apostolic Fathers And Apologist: Professor Wolfson of Harvard speaking of this wrote,
“at the beginning of the age of the apologist there appeared in Christianity a
conception of the Trinity [meaning the godhead] which later crystallized into
the [so-called] heresies of Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius.” [163]
Catholic Cardinal Newman revealed
that the one God doctrine existed from the earliest times of Christianity. He
wrote, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third century protested
against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.... Noetus was
in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read...their
doctrine prevailed among the common people, then
and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and the true faith [Catholicism]
was hardly preached in the churches.” [164]
Tertullian confessed that One
God doctrine of the godhead existed much more before Praxeas. He said, “The
older [so-called] heretics much more before
Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday...[who preaches] that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person…. Who always
constitute the majority of believers….” [165]
A Jesus’ Name Baptismal Ceremony in
Rome: In an article entitled “The
Old Time Religion,” Time Magazine referred to a baptismal ceremony that
took place in c. 100 in the city of Rome. It stated, "The deacon raised
his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistery door. Standing
waist‑deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood‑seller. He was
smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. ‘Credis...?’ he asked.
‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the
Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that with Him I
may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let
himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear ‘ I
baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ as the cold water closed over him.”
(Dec.1955, pg 66).
107 AD, Ignatius Wrote Against God’s Apostolic Pentecostal
Church:
In his Epistle to the Trallians he confessed that their were people in
his day that believe and taught “that
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.” [166]
110 AD, The
Early Catholic Writing “Hermas” Preached Baptism in Jesus’ Name: In A History Of Christianity In The Apostolic Age,
Professor Arthur McGiffert declared that the early church baptized in Jesus’
Name. He also mentioned that Matthew 28:19 was never the formula of baptism
used by the primitive church. He wrote, “The Trinitarian formula...which later
became universal in the [Catholic] church, we have no trace in the New
Testament, except in the single passage, Matt 28:19....”
“When and how such a formula arose, we do not know....
It is difficult to suppose that it was employed in the early days...for it
involves a conception of the nature of the rite, which was entirely foreign to
the thought of these primitive Christians…. The early disciples, and Paul as
well, baptized into the name of Christ alone…. Hermas
(Vis. iii. 7, 3) speaks only of baptism into the name of the Lord.” [167]
Hermas in his book entitled The Shepherd wrote
of baptism “in the name of the Lord” and in the “name of the Son of God,” and
“If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you
bear His name.” [168]
Catholic and Secular Encyclopedias
Declared that the Catholic Church Changed the Formula for Baptism: The Encyclopaedia Britannica boldly declared
that "The baptism formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the
words of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church." [169]
The Catholic Encyclopedia also revealed this same truth. [170]
The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the second century, speaks of
baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” [171]
150 AD, Justin
Martyr Wrote Against God’s Oneness Jesus Name People: Justin, who started the first Catholic school of
theology at Rome, in his First Apology
wrote, “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to
have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the
universe has a Son.” [172]
Justin Martyr Invented the Trinitarian
Formula for Baptism, and He Used the Name of Jesus in It: The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
declared, “Baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus [alone] until the
time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used.” [173] The
early church always baptized in Jesus’ Name, and never used these titles in
their formula for baptism. Scribner's
Dictionary Of The Bible confirmed this truth by saying, "The original
form of words was into the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into the
Trinity was a later development." [174]
Hastings in his Dictionary Of The Bible openly
admitted that “The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ'
or 'the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later
development. After the one mention of it, Mt. 28:19, we do not find it again
until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel.”
[175]
Justin was not only the first heretic to change the formula for baptism, but
also was the first to change the mode of baptism. Instead of using the Biblical
mode of one immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he changed it to
three separate immersions.
Justin, who wrote around c. 150, did not use the three
titles of the godhead mention in Matthew 28:19, but one name and two titles.
Justin gives his baptismal formula right after he finished his discourse on
Plato's teachings of "the cross of the second god," who was the
"power next to first god." Justin declared that a convert should be
baptized or immersed one time "in the name of God the Father and Lord of
the universe, and [a second time in the name] of our savior Jesus Christ, and
[a third time in the name] of the Holy Ghost." [176]
This is the first Trinitarian
formula for baptism that can be found in history. Justin’s trine mode and
formula for baptism was adopted and used by the Roman Catholic Churches from
that time on until 325 AD. At the Council of Nicaea, the Catholic Church
changed their formula for baptism to one that used all three titles of the
godhead. The first immersion was done in the title of Father, the second in the
title of Son, and the third in the title of the Holy Ghost. In chapter 6 of
this book, the history of the Catholic Trinitarian formula for baptism is
given.
165-? AD, Praxeas’ A One God Preacher: According to Tertullian,
Praxeas taught that “the Father and the Son are the same... [They] understand
the Son to be the flesh that is man that is Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit
that is God that is Christ.... The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also
called the power of the Highest, whom they make the Father....” [177]
175-189 AD, Eleutherus
A Catholic of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably by Praxeas: According to Prof.
Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in Rome when Eleutherus was Bishop (AD
175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack says, “If this Bishop
was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Euseb. H.E. V. 4, then we have four
Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic
Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus.” [178]
180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Wrote Against God’s Apostolic Church: He wrote, “But there are some who say… that Jesus was the Son, but that
Christ was the Father….” [179]
185-? AD, Noetus
A One God Preacher in Smyrna: Hippolytus declared that “Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are
the same [person], no one is ignorant. For he makes his statement thus: `When
indeed then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father: and
when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself
became His own Son, not another's…. He is styled by the name of Father and Son,
according to the vicissitude of times, [or at different time periods]. He
confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made no secret
to those who could comprehend Him of being the Father.” [180]
189-199 AD, Victor
A Catholic Bishop of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably by Eleutherus: According to professor Harnack bishop Victor believed in the Modalist Monarchian one God
doctrine. [181]
190-? AD, Epigonus A
Disciple of Noetus: Harnack say “Epigonus came to Rome in the time of
Zephyrinus, or shortly before c. 200.” [182]
192-? AD, Cleomenes
A Disciple of Epigonus: Hippolytus stated that Cleomenes started a
Theology school in Rome. He wrote, “the school of these heretics during the
succession of such Bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation from
the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail.” [183]
Harnack declared that Cleomenes remained the head of this school until c. 215,
when Sabellius succeeded him.
192-197 AD, The Start of the
One God, Jesus’ Name Montanists’ Churches: Around this time many of the
people who were called Montanists became one God, Jesus’ Name believers.
Hastings says “By the end of the 2nd century there were two parties of
Montanists who took different sides in the [Modalist] Monarchian controversy.” [184]
The two god Montanists, who did not believe in oneness, split from the main
body. This small group was led by Tertullian. Blunt speaking of this says, “The
author of Praedestinatus infers that the Tertullianists had...separated
themselves from the main body.... Augustine relates that in his time the
remnant of the Tertullianists in Cartage returned to the Catholic Church.” [185]
Some Catholics
Fought Against God’s Pentecostal Churches: The Catholic Encyclopedia also speaking
of this split revealed that the most of the main body of Montanist went with
Aeschines and some with Alogi and others with different ones. It says, “A
number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists.... The Alogi
[Montanist] have sometimes been classed with the [Modalists] Monarchians.” It
also revealed that there were a number of Catholics who wrote against them,
such as, “an anonymous bishop of Asia Minor who composed an influential
three-volume work on the subject c. 192-193, ...Apollonius c. 197 and others.”[186]
Hastings says the Montanists “first attracted
attention [to themselves] by speaking in tongues." [187]
According to Jesse Hurlbut in his history
entitled The Story of the Christian Church, the Montanists "were
Puritans...[whom] believed in the priesthood of all believers.… [They] held to
prophetic gifts as the privilege of disciples." [188]
All Jesus’ Name people strongly
denounced the Catholic Nicolaitan concept of the ministry and other Catholic
doctrines. In fact, Hastings says they “used scathing words about the
[Catholic] ecclesiastical rulers, and stigmatized them as slayers of the
prophets.” Hastings went on to say that Montanists “put forth treatises in
which the arguments of their opponents were answered.... The early Montanists
were prolific writers.” The Apostolic Montanists and all the other Apostolic
Pentecostals Movements were found in many parts of the Roman Empire. Hastings
said Montanists “were found in every part of Asia Minor, in Egypt...and even in
Constantinople, though they were always most numerous in Phrygia.” [189]
199-210 AD, Zephyrinus A
Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness: Zephyrinus
publicly declared that the “Father and Son are called one God, and that
henceforth it is impossible that this single person
can be divided into two.” [190]
200 AD, The One God Montanists
also Had A Theology School in Rome: According to Harnack, Aeschines was the head
teacher of this school. Harnack says, “Among the Montanists at Rome there were,
about AD 200, a Modalistic party and one that taught like Hippolytus; at the
head of the former stood Aeschines, Hippolytus says (Philo. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Noetus.”
[191]
Tertullian Wrote
Against Praxeas and other One God Believers: He wrote they taught that “the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person....” [192]
Tertullian, like Justin and all others of that ilk, definitely connected his
belief in the godhead to trine immersion in water baptism. He taught against
the singular immersion of Praxeas in Name of Jesus. Tertullian says, “Not once,
but thrice, for the several names, into several persons, are we dipped.” [193]
These Catholic heretics hated
God’s people and complained that
Praxeas and other Jesus’ Name Pentecostal Movements, who vastly out numbered them,
called them heretics. Tertullian wrote, “The simple, indeed, I will not call
them unwise and unlearned, who always
constitute the majority of believers, …are
constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three
gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being
worshippers of the one God.” [194]
210-222 AD, Callistus A
Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness: Callistus proclaimed that “the Logos Himself is
the Son, and Himself is the Father; and though denominated by different titles,
yet that in reality he is one indivisible Spirit.” [195]
210-?, Sabellius A One God
Preacher: According to Blunt “The only Divine Sonship
allowed by Sabellian doctrine being then that which took place in time at the
Incarnation.” [196] The Catholic
Encyclopedia stated, “Saint Athanasius tells us that he said ‘the Father is
the Son and the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis, but two in name.” [197]
The writers of the above encyclopedia
also declared, “in the west they [the Modalist Monarchians] were called
Patripassians, whereas in the East they are called Sabellians.” It went on to
say, “Sabellius or at least his followers may have considerably amplified the
original Noetianism.” [198]
215 AD, Catholic
Priest Origen Wrote against God’s Apostolic Pentecostal Churches in His Day: Origen, who was a
teacher in the Alexandrian school, became very upset with those who believed
the godhead dwelt in Christ. According to Harnack, Origen ridiculed God’s
Modalist Preachers and poured out his vile by saying, there are “always people
who ‘deny that the Father and Son are two Hypostases….’ They ‘fuse together the
Father and Son,’ and admit distinctions in God only in ‘conception’ and ‘name,’
and not in ‘number.” [199]
Origen was not writing against an imaginary opponent who did not exist, or one
who merely existed in the past, but against the Jesus’ Name people of his day,
who had the fire of evangelism burning in their souls. I presume he did not
appreciate them rebuking him for his two-god belief.
225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus Wrote against the One God
Jesus Name Tongue Talking Churches: He declared that the one God
people of his day taught that “there is one Father and God, namely, the Creator….
In substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity… is not any being
different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity…. He who was seen in the
flesh and was crucified is the Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in
Him….” [200]
History clearly reveals that the majority of all
Christians in the Roman Empire, for the first four centuries, belonged to the
Tongue Talking Jesus’ Name Pentecostal Churches. Professor Harnack says, “The
real dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology,” meaning the Catholic two god
doctrine, “was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the Deity Himself
incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father
becoming flesh.... Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that...the Modalistic
doctrine which sought to exclude every other...was embraced
by the great majority of all Christians” before
and during his day. [201]
250-?, Commodian A One God
Pentecostal Bishop in Africa: According to Wolfson, Commodian taught in verse 91 of
his Carmen Apologeticum that, “the Father went into the Son [at
Bethlehem] representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus.” [202]
Schaff says, “Commodian was a Patripassian in
Christology and a Chiliast in eschatology.” [203]
250 AD, Catholic Priests
Origen and Clement of Alexandria Wrote Against God’s Apostolic Pentecostal
Churches: The New Catholic Encyclopedia names several
Catholic Bishops who condemned God’s Pentecostal people and the gifts of the
Spirit that were working in them. Two of these Bishops were “Clement of
Alexandria” and “Origen.” [204]
Origen wrote against Celsus; he revealed that the
heathen Celsus described the powerful and anointed preaching of the one God
Jesus’ Name prophets of his day, as if God was speaking through them, and
closing their words with "strange, fanatical and quite unintelligible
words, of which no rational person can fine the meaning." [205] Obviously Celsus knew of these people even
though Origen did not name them.
Origen, Clement of Alexandria and others of his ilk
were terrified of the gifts of the Spirit, because they were afraid that God
would publicly reprove them for their false doctrines. Therefore, they claimed
only heretics speak in tongues. As a result of this kind of teaching, the
Spirit of God departed from the Catholic Churches. So, natural they branded all
Jesus’ Name Pentecostal People as heretics. According to Blunt, Clement said
that the Catholic “Fathers gave it [speaking in tongues] as the mark of the
false prophets that they spoke in an ecstasy.” [206]
Origen declared that the gifts of the Spirit in the
Catholic Churches had just about disappeared. According to Blunt, Origen “notes
that the prophetic power had all but ceased….” The gifts of the Spirit were
still very much alive in God’s Jesus’ Name Churches in Origen’s day. Blunt
says, the Pentecostal “movement could hardly fail to take place at a time when
the miraculous powers and gifts which marked the introduction of the Gospel
were ceasing” in Catholicism. [207]
254 AD, God’s Jesus’ Name
Preachers Converted Many Catholic Bishops to the Truth: Harnack also confessed that the
Jesus’ Name Modalist Monarchians in the Pentapolis, Upper Libya, had “won a
great following even among the [Catholic] Bishops, ‘so that the Son of God was
no longer preached,” in these Catholic Churches. [208]
If my readers wonder what is
meant by the phrase ‘the Son of God was no longer preached in the churches,
permit me to explain. It simply means that these Catholic Bishops no longer
believed the Catholic doctrine that the Father created a separate person or
being from Himself called the Son before time began, but now believed that the
sonship program of God began at Bethlehem, or in other words, they did not
believe in the eternal sonship of Christ.
255-257 AD, Catholic
Pope Stephen Defended Water Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Even
though He Believed in Ignatius’ Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: The Encyclopedia Britannica declared, "In the third century, baptism in the
name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to
Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid." [209]
Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was so
popular during the first four centuries that not only God’s Oneness Churches
baptized that way, but the majority of the Catholic and other heretical
denominations. Historians have done their best to totally ignore the real issue
in this conflict, which is the name of Jesus in the formula for baptism. The
only thing they mention is that it was over the baptism of heretics, whether or
not they should be re-baptized. The following is only a brief synopsis of this
conflict.
Stephen, who was the Catholic Bishop of Rome from c.
255-257, bitterly opposed the African churches headed by Cyprian, who was the
Catholic Bishop of Carthage, because they changed Justin’s Trinitarian formula
of baptism. Cyprian and his African group of rebels are the first to baptize
anyone by invoking all the titles of the godhead, which are Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. Even though they kept trine immersion, Stephen was angry because
they took the name of Jesus out of their Trinitarian formula and replaced it
with the title Son. Stephen realized that remission of sins was in the invoke
name of Jesus in water baptism, therefore to take it out of the formula for
baptism is to make the New Birth unattainable.
In the Ante Nicene Fathers, there is a writing
entitled “A Treatise On Re-baptism,” written somewhere around c. 255, by an
“anonymous writer.” There is no doubt in this author's mind that it was one of
Bishop Stephen's Epistles, which he sent to the Catholic Churches that were
scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Let’s hear what this Roman Bishop has to
say against some of his fellow Catholic bishops: “I observe that it has been
asked among the [Catholic] brethren what course ought specially to be adopted
towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been
baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Pope Stephen continued, “The point is whether,
according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would
suffice, after baptism which they have received outside the [Catholic] Church
indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should
be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and this
imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith;
or whether, a repetition of baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ.” [210]
Pope Stephen went on to say, “The power of the name of
Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism, might afford to him who should be
baptized, no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation as Peter related
in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: ` for there is none other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.' As also the apostle Paul
unfolds, showing that...invocation should be made in the name of Jesus....
Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a
certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others
[meaning other denominations].” [211]
Catholic Priest Cyprian Denounced His
Pope For Defending Jesus’ Name Baptism: Cyprian said, “Why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen
broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from
the baptism of Marcion; moreover of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who
blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted
in the name of Jesus Christ.” [212]
Roman Catholicism Excommunicated African
Catholicism for Taking the Name of Jesus Out of their Trinitarian Baptism
Formula: In c. 255, Cyprian called
a Council at Carthage in which 31 bishops denounced baptism in the name of
Jesus. This is the first council in history, where baptism in the name of Jesus
was formally denounced. After this
Council, Pope Stephen's called a Roman Council, in which he and other Catholic
Bishops excommunicate Cyprian and all those in the African Synod for their
stand on baptism. Schaff says it this way, “He [Stephen] broke off all
intercourse with the African Church, as he had already done with the Asiatic”
Churches [213]
256 AD, God’s Apostolic Churches, Catholic
Churches and All Denominations Baptized in Jesus’ Name: Cyprian wrote to
Jubaian in c. 256, defending the African Catholic Churches’ stand on the
formula for baptism. In it he revealed that Stephen and all the other Catholic
Bishops claimed that those who join their churches from other denominations
"ought not to be baptized because they seem already to have been baptized
in the Name of Jesus Christ....”
“If the Patripassians, the Anthropians, the
Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites, and others, pests
of heretics, and swords and poisons for overthrowing the truth, confess the
same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same church, it can be that
their baptism is one.... How, therefore do some say that a Gentile baptized
without, outside the Church, nay rather, and against the [Catholic] Church,
provided it be in the Name of Jesus Christ, wherever it be and whatever it be,
can obtain the remission of sins." [214]
This is also absolute proof that not only the one God,
Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians, or in this case, the Patripassians baptized in the name of Jesus, but many, if not
all, of the heretics did also. Some of the heretics that Cyprian mentioned were
Pope Stephen and other Catholics Bishops, the Anthropians, the Valentinians,
the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites. This can only mean that name of
the Lord Jesus Christ was the baptismal formula, or used in the formula of most
of the religious denominations of the first, second and third centuries.
Catholic Bishop Firmilian also Denounced
His Pope for Defending Baptism in Jesus’ Name: Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to
Cyprian in c. 256 saying, “If the baptism of heretics can have the regeneration
of the second birth, they who are baptized among them must not be considered
heretics but sons of God, because the second birth which is baptism generates
sons of God.... He [Stephen] says, ‘the Name of Christ accomplishes very much
for the faith and sanctification of baptism, that whoever anywhere has been
baptized in the name of Christ, immediately gains the grace of Christ." [215]
Cyprian’s basic argument against Pope Stephen and the
traditional Catholic formula for baptism in Jesus’ name was basically this: If
the second immersion in the Catholic formula had to be done in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and this is true baptism, then heretics could also receive
the Holy Ghost outside of the Catholic Church simply by denominational Bishops
laying their hands on them and invoking the name of Jesus over them. This would
mean that these people are not heretics but true born-again Christians.
Therefore, Cyprian argued that baptism in Jesus’ name cannot be true
baptism.
Cyprian argument went like this: “If they [meaning
Pope Stephen and the majority of other Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire]
attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized
anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ are judged to be renewed and
sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon
the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?” [216]
Stephen’s argument against Cyprian was basically this:
Even though heretics baptize in the name of Jesus, which is true baptism, they
cannot receive or be born of the Holy Spirit unless a Catholic Bishop lays his
hands on them. An extensive history of this Catholic dispute is given in
chapter six of this book, under the title of, The History Of The Catholic
Trinitarian Formula For Baptism.
260 AD, Many Catholic
Churches in the East Were Converted to One God Jesus’ Name Modalism: In a history book entitled The
Early Christian Church, Professor John Davies gave in interesting account
of Dionysius fight to win these bishops and their people back to the two god
doctrine of Catholicism. Davies says, “Modalism continued to be a powerful
force, and c. 260 Dionysius of Alexandria sought to refute it in a number of
letters in which he emphasized the distinction of Father, Son and Spirit to
such extent that his opponents considered him to be purveying tritheism.” [217]
299 AD, Schaff-Herzog’s
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Declared that Jesus’ Name Baptism Prevailed
through the Centuries: It
says, "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus...which
still occurred even in the second and third centuries." [218]
250-300 AD, Professor Harnack
Declared that Catholic Churches Violently Opposed God’s Apostolic Churches: He says, “The fight against
Monarchianism in the second half of the third century was a violent one, and
even the development of the Logos Christology - of Origen - was directly and
lastingly influenced by this opposition.” [219]
Pagans Opposed Baptism in Jesus’ Name: Not only was Catholicism against God’s People, but
even the heathens were against them. Porphyry, who was a Neo-Platonic
philosopher, wrote fifteen books. Around c. 300, in his book Macarius Magnes
(iv. 19), he wrote against the One God people of his day. He detested the idea
that they believed and preached water baptism in Jesus’ Name was for the
remission of sins. He proclaimed that this doctrine would give men excuse to
live wickedly, and at the end of their life they would get baptized so they
could have their sins remitted.
Harnack quoted Porphyry as saying, “We must feel
amazed and concerned about our souls, if a man thus shamed and polluted is to
stand out clean after a single immersion, if a man whose life is stained by so
much debauchery, by adultery, fornication, drunkenness, theft, sodomy, murder
by poisoning, and many other shameful and detestable vice - if such a creature,
I say, is lightly set free from it all, throwing off the whole guilt as a snake
sheds its old scales, merely because he has been baptized and has invoked the
name of Christ.” [220]
Obviously this pagan believed in a doctrine of works for salvation.
300-399 AD, The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia stated, “There was
still Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century.” [221]
315-325 AD, Many
Catholic Priest Wrote against Oneness Pentecostal Montanists: Blunt reveals that many Catholic writers branded the
Montanists as one God Jesus’ Name people. He says, Socrates (I, 23 - 315 AD),
Sozomenus (ii, 18 - 325 AD)... attribute Sabellianism
to them.”[222]
324 AD, Catholic Councils
Denounced Modalist Monarchian Churches: Blunt revealed that the
“Alexandrian Councils held against Arianism involved determinations against the
conflicting [so-called] heresy of Sabellianism; particularly that of AD 324.” [223]
325 AD, The Catholic Church Denounced Baptism
in Jesus’ Name and Adopted Matthew 28:19 as their Baptismal Formula: Canney’s Encyclopedia Of Religion says, “The
early church always baptized in the name of Jesus until the development of the
Trinity.” [224]
Professor Williston Walker boldly confirmed this truth when he declared in his
book History Of The Christian Church that, “Trinitarianism was replacing
one-God-ism, this appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula, which was
displacing the older Baptism in the name of Christ.” [225]
Thomas Weisser, a One God Jesus’
Name theologian and historian, produced a great work entitled Jesus’ Name
Baptism Through The Centuries. In it he quoted Robert Robinson’s book
entitled Ecclesiastical Researches as saying the following about the
Council of Nice, "All the classes, who did not hold the doctrine of a Trinity
of persons in God, whether called Aretemonites, Paulianists, Arians,
Monarchians, Patripassians, Sabellians, or by any other name, [whom]
administered baptism in the name of Christ,” with a single immersion, “these
were the people whom the council of Nice required to be rebaptized." [226]
My readers can see from this quote that many of the
Catholic Churches had by this time accepted the new Trinitarian formula of
baptism that the African Catholic Churches started. Many of the Catholic Popes
from this time on condemned baptism in Jesus, and demanded all those who came
to the Catholic Church to be baptized in the titles of the Trinity. There were
a few Popes after this time that defended baptism in Jesus’ name. Is it not
strange, what one Pope condemned, another defended? The true believers were
Modalist Monarchians, who were the Patripassians and the Sabellians.
326-? AD, Marcellus the
Catholic Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia Was Converted to Sabellianism: Before Marcellus was converted
to Oneness, he with Athanasius defended the Catholic two-god doctrine at the
Council Of Nice. Gibbon declared Athanasius “defended above twenty years the
Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when at last he was compelled to
withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous
smile the venial errors of his respectable friend.” [227]
327-? AD, Photinus, Who Was A
Disciple of Marcellus, Was A One God Preacher: Blunt speaking of Photinus and
those who followed him said, “Theodoret says that Photinus differs from
Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an Antitrinitarian
Monarchia, and that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary; that a certain
portion of the Divine Substance, which
he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man Jesus Christ; that
on account of this association of the Word with the human nature Jesus was
called the Son of God, and even God Himself; that the Holy Ghost was not a
distinct Person, but a celestial virtue proceeding from the Deity….” [228]
336-368 AD, Catholic Councils
again Denounced God’s Modalist Monarchian Churches: Blunt speaking of the fourth
century Sebellianism says, “Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and his
followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism. For this [so-called]
heresy Marcellus was condemned by several Arian Councils, particularly by that
of Constantinople in AD 336.” Photinians were
also condemned at this council (Sulpic. Sever. ii. 36). [229]
Catholic heretics condemn
Sabellianism many times in the fourth century in their Councils and Creeds.
Socrates revealed that in c. 340, “the Eastern
bishops again assembled a Synod…. [They stated] the holy and Catholic Church
likewise anathematizes... those who say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are the same person.... Such are those
denominated Patripassians among the Romans, and
by us Sabellians.” [230]
One thing can be said of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries, it
freely and abundantly gave away it demonic curses to God’s Churches.
The Councils of Ariminum and
Seleucia were held around c. 341. Both of these
councils condemned Modalist Monarchian preachers. In it we read, “But those who
say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take
the three names of one and the same reality and person, we justly proscribe
from the Church because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to
be limitable withal and passible [meaning capable of feeling or suffering] through
His becoming man: for such are they whom Roman call Patripassians, and we
Sabellians.”
These councils continued with
their Satanic blessings, “We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a
pretense of saying that he is but the mere word of God and unexisting, having
His being in another, - now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental, -
holding that he was not Christ or Son of God or mediator...before ages; but
that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the Virgin....
Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus [Photinus] of Galatian
Ancyra.” [231]
Photinus and his followers were
condemned at the “Semi-Arian Council, the second of Antioch - AD 344 (Socr. ii. 19),” “the Council of Sardica - AD 347... (Sulpic. Sever. ii. 36, Epiph. Haer.
lxxi.),” “a Council at Milan in in the same year,” “a Council at Rome - AD 349... (Hilar. Frag. Hist. ii. 21)” and “the
second Synod of Sirmium - AD 351... (Socr. ii.
29, Sozoin. iv. 6).” [232]
According to Socrates’ church history,
the Catholic Church “assembled a Synod” about “three years” after the last one.
Schaff say the last one was the Council of Sardica. So about c. 350, a creed was published, which Schaff entitled
the “Lengthy Creed.” Socrates revealed that in this creed the Catholic Church
anathematizes all Oneness preachers but especially named Marcellus, Photinus
and all the Galatians of Ancyra. The Creed stated, “The holy and Catholic
Church likewise anathematizes those who say...the same person is Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, or that the Son was not begotten, or that the Father begot not the
Son by his own will or desire” in eternity past. [233]
Socrates also mentioned a Creed
published at Sirmium in c. 351. In it we find
many Satanic curses hurled against God’s Apostolic People of that day. It say,
“If any one should affirm that the Father said not to the Son, ‘Let us make
man,’ but that God spoke to Himself, let him be anathema. If any one say that
it was not the Son that was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of Him, let him be anathema. If any one say that
it was not the Son that as man wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegotten God or a
part of Him, let him be anathema.... For if any
one should say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, let him be
anathema.”
“If nay one, speaking of the
Holy Spirit the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be
anathema.... If any one affirm that the Spirit is part of the Father and of the
Son, let him be anathema.... For we [the Catholic Church] do not co-ordinate
the Son with the Father, but conceive Him to be subordinate
to the Father.” [234]
By the term “subordinate,” these heretics mean that the Son is an inferior
deity or less than the Father in power, glory and godhood.
The Encyclopedia Biblica speaking of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ says,
“This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius,” It then went on to quote
the Catholic historian Socrates (5.24) as saying, “for they baptize not into
the Trinity, but into the death of Christ.’ They accordingly used single
immersion only.”
Blunt revealed that “the seventh Canon of Laodicea” of
366 AD, condemned God’s Jesus’ name people
especially the “Photinians.” [235]
There was a Oneness Church in Rome before and after c.
367. Harnack say, “Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that there were
Sabellians in Rome in his time.” [236] Around c. 368, there were Synods held in
Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places, which Socrates did not name. In them the
Catholic hierarchy again condemned God’s holy Pentecostal people. “We condemn” says these Catholic Bishops,
the doctrines of “Sabellius, the Patripassians, the Marcionites, the
Photinians, the Marcellians, that of Paul of Samosata, [and] those who
countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies which are opposed to the
aforesaid sacred [Nicene] Creed.” [237]
According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His
followers were Modalist Monarchians, even though they have been reported to
hold strange beliefs about the humanity of Christ. Wolfson writes concerning
him, “it is said that he believed that ‘God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are one God,’ that is to say, one person.” He went on to say, “God’s Logos and his Holy Spirit are eternally
in God the Father, just as man’s own reason - Logos - is in his heart; the Son
of God has no subsistence of His own; it subsists in God the Father.” [238]
Blunt revealed that “the seventh
Canon of Laodicea” of 366 AD, condemned God’s
Jesus’ Name People especially the “Photinians.” [239]
There was a Oneness Church in Rome before and after c. 367. Harnack say,
“Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in his
time.” [240] Around c. 368, there were Synods held in
Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places, which Socrates did not name. In it they
again condemned God’s Churches. “We
condemn” says these Catholic Bishops, the doctrines of “Sabellius, the
Patripassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the Marcellians, that of Paul
of Samosata, those who countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies which
are opposed to the aforesaid sacred [Nicene] Creed.” [241]
According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His followers were Modalist Monarchians, even though they have been reported to hold strange beliefs about the humanity of Christ. Wolfson writes concerning him, “it is said that he believed that ‘God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God,’ that is to say, one person.” He went on t