Welcome to ...
"A Creed or the word of God".
Or what could also be titled ...
"Christendom's Tradition verses New Testament Doctrine", to throw more light on this written delivery.
Dear Reader, do you follow a creed, a written decree or some article of faith? Meaning, are you locked into some church's written liturgy or dogma, because (being based on this premise) you automatically thought it,
or bought it as 'Christian' without question or being ready to "prove ALL things", at the end of the day? Or you just happened to have assumed it, due to spiritual affiliation, dependency or obligation? Or because it
was evidently established on biblical theology ... because "the experts", "the well trained", or "the qualified", had endorsed it as so? Like it had been taken for granted and seen as the traditional, "Christian", raison d'etre?
According to the New Testament this type of mindset, or this sort of religious disposition, does not qualify in rightly dividing the word of truth and establishing sound doctrine. No, but it does act as a barrier that is
very hard to break, as well as being very contentious at the best of times (wonder why?) while blunting the believer's discernment.
In all things, whether spiritual or theological, and as a Bible believer, is it not safer to just settle for scripture on its own merit? Thatz before a religious academy or seminary has got hold of it and given it its own slight
subtle spin, to entrap its religious constituency, by binding it to its written, "biblically" appearing, so-called decrees or statement of faiths.
Following is a correspondence between a brother sometime back, trying to convince me of the Trinity doctrine as opposed to One Saviour, One Lord and One God, who stands alone (with name changed for
confidentiality purposes, and slight changes made and words added, to make it more reader friendly while not tampering with its intended meaning).
Therefore, I am sending you this response in order to weigh up in the light of scripture and come to your own conclusion based on truth and scriptural backing. With all said and done, all that I am asking here is ...
please read my response prayerfully and thoroughly, before you come at me with spears? Thanks! You may very well find holes in the argument and defence set against me, that cannot be ignored. Thatz if you are
prepared to go for broke for the faith ('contend' is the word), and uphold scripture purely on its on merit, independent of private (sectarian) interpretation.
Here is my reply written in this colour:
Hi Ted,
I have read your two letters addressed to me and can fully understand where you are coming from at this point in time - with my response, without being haughty ... "been there, done that", type of thing. Moreover, as
I am not interested into getting bogged down in a theological debate, I will just briefly make a few counterpoints following, and leave it there. And as always, you can have the last say.
Secondly, in reply to your second letter, I will let my articles speak for themselves . It is up to you whether you want to pursue this issue further by reading what I say. Or whether you wish to stay adamant in
defending something that distracts from Jesus getting all the pre-eminence and total focus, onto something complicated, with shortfalls and inconsistencies discovered once a person is fully motivated in checking it
out. It is one thing to shift the emphasis away from simplicity and onto something that can never been explained, while it is even a bigger violation to endorse it this way, if it indeed turns out to be unbiblical in the
end, which I found out to be the case.
Now let's look at just a couple of these shortfalls/holes/inconsistencies in the light of scripture:
Ted wrote: Tom - this is unacceptable to you?
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Athanasian Creed |
| Date: | Thu, 20 Sep 2007 |
| From: | name suppressed |
| To: | name suppressed |
The primary and historic definition of a cult is a religious person or group which does not receive The Athanasian Creed on The Trinity without protest or qualification.
In other words, within Christendom you have one division called Catholicism (more directly linked to paganism) and another (more subtle) division (thatza milder form being closer to the truth) called Protestantism.
Furthermore, I personally do not use the Latin (like the word "catholic" - whether in capitals or in lower case) when it comes to scriptural reference (which includes both written testaments in the holy Book), but use the
endtime universal English derived from the Greek. Acknowledging a Greek NT and a Hebraic OT, making up the books of the entire Holy Bible, known biblically as the volume of the book.
Latin to me, is the language of the clerics ... the high Protestant churches, as well as the Roman counterfeit church, centralized in the Vatican, with its tentacles spreading out into every facet of Christendom, effected
by compliance to its many (unbiblical) traditions and creeds.
As Protestants (against the Roman Catholic Church), we understand the word "catholic" (small "c") used below in it's Latin signification, which is neither more nor less than the idea of "universal" - just replace
the word "catholic" with the word "universal" and The Athanasian Creed agrees completely with the essential (Luther's) Protestant Faith.
I have added a few helpful annotations in blue italic print.
The following translation was prepared by the International Consultation on English Texts :
Me thinks this is very subtle and hinged to Catholicism (capital C) and its own written repeated statement ... "there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome"! Understanding, the RCC could never have been this
blatant in times past with the breakaway 'separated brethren' (post Vatican Two). It would have been too obvious. Therefore, the ongoing promotion and endorsement of the AC and other doctrinally loose catechisms
and articles of faith, as we see at present.
In regards to the catholic faith you or your creed speak of!? The biblical faith is not universal nor is it catholic. It is not based on a faith outside the name and person of Christ. Salvation also is not wide. Nor is it
open-ended, but narrow. The door (Christ) is narrow whereas the universal gate of Babylon is wide, verifying the meaning of the word Babylon in the first place. Moreover, its religious sphere is accommodated by
catholicism and its religious counterparts anyway.
What this creed is gearing us up to receive, is the notion that to obtain and retain salvation, is to worship God in trinity (as the next coming line says). This is unscriptural. God is one and stands alone. There are
many scriptures in support of this and here is just one taken out of the hat (so to speak) as confirmation ... Ps 86:10 "For thou (singular) art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."
Yes, the catholic faith but not the faith!
"We worship one God in trinity!" as just stated! Is this not the same as saying "we worship the same one God in tandem" (as in two in this case, the Father and the Son - to prove a point)? Or (getting back to 'three'),
"we worship the same one God in trio!"? A bit odd when changing the wording but not the meaning, wouldn't you say? A trio God!!? Again, just to prove a point!
We need to look at this line above and take special note. Coz both here is the crux of the matter and the big contradiction. Any time you study a Trinitarian or Nominalist creed, there is always the watertight
presentation. Until you look under its covers and discover the hole. Meaning, it is now no longer watertight and is therefore now susceptible into allowing leaven to leak in. By examining error there is always a hole
or a weak underbelly. Here is the hole in this case (as the line above - my emphasis):
"For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another."
Thatz 1+1+1 equals 3! Three separate persons as a matter of fact! Or three separate people! Can we use the term three separate beings (meaning the same)? No, not in this case apparently! Because for some reason
the AC wont allow this, as you will see very shortly, further on. Hence, the big contradiction!
There is always a hole or contradiction when examining the Holy Trinity and we are only dealing with a couple in this case. If one can overcome the reservations of a psychological crackdown from your "Christian"
friends, peers or associates, as well as the religious intimidation process implanted in many by the system, for fear of somehow blaspheming the Holy Spirit through questioning "Him", then the hole can be discovered.
With effective religious countermeasures in place as just mentioned, this eliminates the need for 'damage control' as everything is kept rosy and sweet (liked the nicely packaged Holy Trinity tradition) and the apostasy
continues to have its day. The reason there is a huge lack of folk thinking and discerning for themselves, and scripturally proving all things to the end, independent of religious heavies breathing down their neck. Or
being too bloom'n scared to break out of man-made structure or ecclesiastical comfort zones. The Trinity doctrine (as well as other entrenched traditions within the system of Christendom) will simple not allow this.
Think for yourself and search out matters of doctrine for yourself, that is (Pr 25:2). Thus, the proof necessary and presented in exposing this hole as below:
Yes, I waited! Now for the hole to be pointed out here:
My emphasis: "And yet there are not three eternal beings"
Did I read that "there are not three eternal beings" here? Here's the test: See the statements that cancel out each other, provided from the very same sources and statements of this very same 'article of faith'? What is it
saying ... ?
"For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another."
This line in black above (also mentioned before) spells three eternal persons (or beings) to me! Am I reading rightly that there is one person, then another person, and then another person, adding up to three (separate)
people? Then, oh boy, we get this very opposite statement, in the very same creed (all documented), cancelling out the former. Here it is:
"And yet there are not three eternal beings"
Is this not so, as the Creed says? Yet this Creed also says, contradicting itself once again:
"Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit"
Just plain madness once the hole is spotted and admitted. And once the fear of religious reprisal, castigation or being ostracized, is overcome. Or that you are prepared to go-for-broke for the truth's sake. Simply
because this is in the same manner as some other (contradictory) written creeds state or notion ... "Three divine persons", yes! But "never say three divine gods!" As if there is a difference. Or even a slight difference,
when in actual fact there is not.
Or in the case of this creed (spotting the hole, the contradiction, the soft underbelly, the elusive spin, the oxymoron) ... "Three eternal persons, but never three eternal beings!" Wow!!! When does a being every cease
to be a person? Or when does a person ever cease to be a being? Especially in the case of God our Friend and personal Saviour! Is He not a being? Is He not a person?
Yes, three persons but not three beings, according to the creeds! Three divine persons but not three gods, again according to the creeds!
And yet ...
Expounding more on this in my next commentary below:
Here it is (with my emphasis again):
Looking at the above statement in more depth:
"As Christian truth ("Christian truth"! What's that? - Shouldn't it be 'biblical truth' ...) compels us to acknowledge each distinct person (there - three that is!) as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us (God's word
is the only authority that can forbid when it comes to doctrine ... not a church, institution, "faith" or religion) to say that there are three gods or lords." There it is again ... say 'three eternal persons' but never say 'three
gods'! Or never say 'three lords'! Crazy! And "there are not three eternal beings" either, as stated before.
Some creeds and many Protestant writers and preachers say the Trinity is represented by "three divine persons" but not "three Gods" (this is rampant by the way - try keying in ' three divine persons ' in google, without
even mentioning the word trinity)! To me that is mans play on words (as well as an oxymoron) in trying to avoid the contradiction and use as camouflage, so that the lay person and commoner cannot spot that elusive
hole. Remember, they rely on the well groomed, trained, polished, paid and seasoned today's scribes and religious professionals, for instruction and lecture. Not revelation. Not 'revelation direct', of course! Like
heaven was not really open for us creating a need for human proxies.
As you know from our alliance in exposing the HRM together, it gets pretty drastic and even dirty when 'truth manipulators' have to fall back on 'damage control', coz their cover has been foiled as it also spoils the
lovely "Christian" aura of the product they peddle. The Trinity is nothing more than a product of Christendom (mans Christianized tangible kingdom 'replacement') to keep Christendom intact, and in order to get
peoples full attention off Christ (partial attention is okay) and off His true (invisible) spiritual kingdom, to the tangible one ... whether denomination, church, movement, sphere, etc. If folk would or could see this,
then Christendom's cover is blown and it could spell the end, triggering a mass exodus to take place. Which you and I know is not going to happen, as it is not forecasted in the Bible to. Whereas a great falling away
from the faith has been predicted and is happening right now.
Me thinks the question you need to seriously ask yourself Brother (as well as every saint ensnared or indoctrinated by Christendom) ... is this 'great falling away' 'part and parcel' of (or part of the cause of) the masses
embracing "the Most Holy Trinity"? Or by the few who choose to embrace Jesus alone? Which group is fueling it the most? In other words.
That's right! And the reason I say the Trinity's doctrine is very open-ended, while appearing watertight!
Yes, this is the doctrine of Catholicism and much of Christendom. The Trinity plays a big part in apparently avoiding going to hell (by subtle forced coercion) by embracing it; according to the official church.
Whereas the NT is very clear that salvation is based on what we do with Jesus and Jesus alone. A catechism, dogma or article of faith, cannot free anyone. Only the truth can ... by embracing and abiding in it! Which
is the same, or no different than just obeying scripture alone!
Now here is another wild statement (my emphasis)! Yes, another hole ... "He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures."
To me this creed is giving away the fact it believes God has three natures. Or at least more than one nature. Proof the Trinity is made up of three separate people bearing three separate identities and natures. But never
say 'three deities'! However, 'three divine persons' is okay ... apparently!
Who is the "He" you are referring to? I am fully convinced myself that it is not three separate persons!
Did the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity, suffer this death or any death for that matter?
Did the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity, rise again from the dead? Moreover, did the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity suffer
and taste death for every man?
Remember, they (the Three) are eternally co equally one in substance, natures and deity! Like one inseparable, perpetual, equilateral triangle, according to the Trinity!
Did the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity, ever ascend into Heaven or were they already there?
Will the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity, come again as judge?
Furthermore, has the Father and the Holy Spirit, the first and third members/persons of the Trinity, in anyway, ever empathized with man?
No, is the answer to the all the above questions, if the Trinity is indeed authentic and biblical! While at the same time destroying its own teaching that the Three are eternally one of the same person and substance.
You can't have both, although the Trinity tries to accommodate both in its catechisms and articles. Thus creating a huge flaw (or hole) for the non discerning, the naive and unsuspecting, plus the non compliant, if they
ever happened to somehow break lose, and question hard, for the truths sake.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their
own deeds. (this is not to be received as a fully declarative eschatology, but
only as a simple affirmation that Christ Himself instigates all resurrections)
This is not biblical! Salvation is not based on works or how good we are, as you should know!
Yes, it is 'the catholic faith', but not 'the faith'!
No, one cannot be saved outside of trusting in Jesus' complete atonement upon the cross. This is nothing to do with placing your trust in the catholic or protestant, or AC Trinity! Nor any version of the Trinity for
that matter! Nor any theology of Christendom! We can't simply glory or know anything outside the cross!
Just finishing off here Brother (another disclaimer) ... I would also like to give my view (which I believe is biblical) on the religious term "theology". To me the word theology is a countermeasure or replacement for
the doctrine. The doctrine is scriptural and more than just a statement, but "the (very) doctrine of Christ" or "the doctrine of God our Saviour"! This is the reason I will try and avoid getting into a theological debate,
if you can appreciate this. Theology is a way of bamboozling the subject with 'science so-called'. Or philosophizing away the truth, in order to bring your own version of "the truth" to the subject. The NT deals with
doctrine, not theology! The doctrine in fact is central and needs to be explained that it is nothing to do with the law, the Levitical priesthood, Moses, nor the Old Covenant, nor church rules (including its written creeds
and statements or articles of faith), as many tend to get confused with. But it is New Covenant to the core, which points away from bondage to life and freedom in the Spirit.
The NT also makes mention of doctrines, plural. 'Sound', 'true', 'good' doctrine, as opposed to both the doctrines of devils as well as the doctrines of men. The latter two complicating or hijacking the truth by turning
doctrine into theology and achieving its goal of muddling the simple gospel and setting up diversions away from the cross. It also makes the religious professional (the theologian) come out shining as "the expert" and
"authority" above all, in expounding on so-called scriptural insights. As well as creating a false dependence on himself for a wouldbe Bible believer, in thinking they have to go through "the qualified expert" to know
the Bible or know the Lord. Or get the right interpretation on what God is somehow trying to convey. This is why I largely shy away from what is called Oneness Theology ministries, believing (like all denominations
and movements) they are all barking up the wrong (same) tree, although I agree in essence to their refutations on the Trinity.
The "Church of Christ" denomination (CoC) damns to hell all that are not water baptized under their particular formula - and furthermore, even their formula will not save you unless you are utterly convinced
that it (their formula) will.....save you. I find this denomination to be the most totally offensive group that may be called "Protestant". The SDA is NOT the natural product of "Protestantism". The CoC can be said to
be the product of Protestantism. Supposedly, the CoC receives the Athanasian Creed - but (IMO), that will not save them, because they are such liars against the Bible in so many ways and places that one hardly knows
where to begin. The CoC could be said to be the open septic tank where all the worst of the historic (500 years) Protestant heresies collected and settled into one puddle.
The regular Baptist Church down the street is not normally, in my opinion, "a cult" - but they can be, if there is excess focus on the personality of the leader or on some peculiar and surprising aspect of their
doctrine. Usually, what I call "cults" have something about them that really sticks out - some peculiar and strange heresy. In that case, I have to call the Roman Catholic Church a "cult" because ONE THING - "Mary
worship" and "prayers to Mary" turn their Maryinto the 4th member of a quadrilateral Godhead. This is the most peculiar feature of Roman Catholic doctrine, and this matter separates Protestants from Roman
Catholics clearly. Protestants do not pray to Mary, or to anyone but GOD HIMself.
When I refer to ROMAN Catholicism, I try to be careful to include the word ROMAN or at least the letter "R" in there somewhere, for the name itself is an oxymoron. The first part of the name contradicts the last
part. The word ROMAN localizes and centralizes the church to that which presently proceeds from The Vatican - while the word CATHOLIC simply means "universal". The Church is either universal OR it is
localized and centralized in Rome - but not both. At least that is how I need to define these terms - and I think my definitions are in agreement with the dictionary and with classical scholarship. I am a part of The
One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church. The ROMAN Church is a denomination and, (IMO), because of the Maryology (and other things) also is a "cult".
The term "cult" is easily slung around and is easily thrown on anyone who "seems different", and we have been called "a cult" on numerous occasions. According to the way that our accusers often define it, we ARE
"a cult" - but then, I do not agree with their definition for a cult. They think "a cult" is just anyone who does not pay dues and sign in at one of the local public synagogues. They would prefer to discover that I am a
Mormon (CULT!) or a Jehovah's Witness (CULT!) than to find out that I do not serve my time and pay the temple tax AT ANY of the local public synagogues. In that case, "cult" is simply a label they paste across
their designation of "NON CHURCH GOER CLAIMING RELIGION". But then, their defintion for The Church and what A church is, is where we utterly part ways. AND I THOUGHT everyone already knew that a
church is NOT a building..........
Ted.
I can understand what you are saying Ted, and agree with some of the points you make in the last few paragraphs. However, I see things from a slightly different angle (lumping them all tarred with the same brush -
in a word, in a system ... namely Christendom), and trust you don't think I was being too cheeky in my statements, but merely making points the best way I can. Bottom line ... it is amazing how our focus on Christ
can be tainted or partially removed by introducing the Trinity to our faith, where the Trinity takes on a major part of the pre-eminence in many cases, by beholding THREE or a system of THREE, instead of (the) ONE
true Lord, Saviour, and God. This alone should be an indictment against the Trinity.
I remember many years ago, when we were supporting the late Keith Green and his unconventional and controversial ministry, in regards to a traditional hymn he sung, the line where (I believe) he clearly sung unto
'the Trinity' in ignorance (like many of us did) ... "God in three persons, Blessed Trinity!" This somehow did not ring true, as I could never really shake this off. Until I came to God, face to face, and inquired of Him
(ALONE). Yes, "God alone", as the three written witnesses record and confirm ... Ezra 6:7, Ps. 86:10 and Luke 5:21!
Moreover, 1 John 3:16. "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
Amen!
Your fellow pilgrim,
Tom.
http://beyondcamp.net