Skip navigation

Daily Archives: October 25th, 2008

 The Last Hurrah!

It’s no secret Peter Wagner and his associates have been trying to implement a new government in the Church promoting new apostles and prophets are needed for the last age.

Peter Wagner has written a new book called the Second Apostolic Age, (this article is excerpts of a promotional release of his book-Chapter Eleven History Makers). http://www.regalbooks.com/2nd_age.pdf )

He writes in his book “If you are a believer, there has never been a better time for you to make history. “In the Second Apostolic Age, we are already living through the most radical change in our way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation.”

Wagner says at the end of the chapter My purpose in this book (2nd Apostolic Age) is to help us change our minds so that we can be history makers, not mere maintainers of the status quo. God has given us the power to overthrow the spirit of religion. Greater is He who is within us than he who is in the world (see 1 John 4:4).

Do you want new wine? Do you want to fulfill God’s destiny for you in this life? If you do, I recommend that you tune in to what the Spirit is saying to the churches,

resolve to catch the wind of the Holy Spirit and

agree to pay whatever price is necessary to become an active part of the new wineskin-including renewing your mind.

The new wineskin is the Second Apostolic Age. If you are a part of it, you can count yourself in the company of history makers!

Wow, what a sell, an advertising agency could not have done better. Using the current genre he appeals to our desire on making an impact. Who wouldn’t want to be part of this new wineskin. But is this our commission, to overthrow the spirit of religion? As we will see he is talking about the church not the other religions of the world.

Immediately questions spring up from what Wagner is offering. Are we to tune in to new words the Spirit is speaking to the church. Or should we hold to what Jesus already speak to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation through John the last living apostle? Is this adding to the word of God?

What he is proposing is something new and it is delivered through the new apostles and prophets.

Jesus introduces his admonishment to each church saying, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Paul specifically warns “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). These would have to be ignored to hear the new things “the Spirit” is saying to the church by the new apostles and prophets. Are we to read what the Spirit already delivered or what the Spirit is saying now? Obviously the emphasis is on what is new.

Wagner appeals to us to be history makers, If you are a part of his new apostolic movement. A 2nd apostolic age sounds so significant. This certainly is makes one think they are important, it is an appeal to the flesh to be significant. (1 Thessalonians 2:5-7: “For neither at any time did we use flattering words”). It’s God who raises someone up and will use them how he chooses, no man or any organization can decide this. In fact where does the Bible say there will be a second apostolic age? Can you find it?

Catch the Wind is an accepted cliché. The wind is blowing strong but Wagner is mistaken; it is the winds of doctrine (Eph.4:14) that are tossing people back and forth. As each new wave blew the church a was exposed to new things unheard of before, unbiblical practices and experiences. There is no teaching to catch a wind. The Holy Spirit when He first came to birth the church came as a mighty wind but this event was never repeated nor is He spoken of in this manner.

His claim of new wineskins is the Second Apostolic Age is a misapplication of Scripture. To suggest that if you do not join his company of history makers gives the impression that if you are not with him then you are not going to have part of God’s end time plan and will not be significant (a “history maker”). Is he able to decide this?

Wagner says, Old wineskins are strongly appealing. They offer a great deal of comfort and security. Jesus said, “No one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:39). Therefore, the majority of people will never desire to move into the new wineskins of the Second Apostolic Age.

Consequently, they will never join the ranks of history makers. Why do they resist? Moving from an old wineskin to a new wineskin seems to be too much of a risk!

Is this what Jesus meant, joining a another (2nd) apostolic age? What second apostolic age? The Bible says absolutely nothing on this. It is a risk of unprecedented proportions to have a completely new way of doing church, a church that has no basis on the apostles teaching that was already delivered. To speak like this to those who resist his new move smacks of heavy shepherding, Nicolatianism, and just plain intimidation.

At one time Wagner said, “I don’t condemn the old networks,” Wagner says. “But people are now realizing that they have spent 30 or 40 years trying to pour new wine into old wineskins. They are attempting the impossible.” (Charisma Online News Service, 2/24/04; Giant in the Faith’ Theologian Encourages Pentecostalism)

Wagner says “the whole movement based on prophets and apostles that has now emerged as the new wine skin that God is giving to the body of Christ is called the new apostolic reformation” (National School of The Prophets Mobilizing The Prophetic Office Wagner May 11, 2000)

As Bill Hamon one of the apostles/prophets under Wagner presents “A New Church Is Arising That the World Has Never Seen!” That would mean a church that has no connection to the one the apostles Jesus appointed to start. Something that everyone should pause and consider before they join this new apostolic age.

Wagner redefines the Bible in what Jesus meant about wineskins. Now let’s see what Jesus meant. Then He (Jesus) spoke a parable to them: “No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old. “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined.” (Luke 5:36-37)

First, this is a parable not a prophecy. Second, Jesus was not talking about even newer wineskins – a 2nd apostolic age. What Jesus was speaking of was accomplished almost two thousand years ago. He was telling us that he is not extending the life of the law (the Old Covenant of Moses) but making a new covenant (the old was wearing out -Heb.8:7-13 referring to Jer.31:31). This is a bad argument for the “new thing.” What Jesus spoke on the new wine skins already took place and is not to be repeated. Jesus meant that He did not come to strengthen the law (the old covenant) but to bring people into a “new covenant” of grace. This was accomplished by Jesus and it is not a repetitive act throughout history. We don’t have a new, new covenant to practice as some are teaching.

A major train of thought running through this book relates to the activity of the corporate spirit of religion. In order to refresh our memories, here is my definition of the spirit of religion: The spirit of religion is an agent of Satan assigned to prevent change and to maintain the status quo by using religious devices.

This is Wagner’s definition, but is it the Bibles? I looked this term and similar ones up, I could not find a spirit of religion or a religious spirit in the Scripture. This a new term that has been used to put people down who will not join in with the new thing.

Jesus did speak of the traditions of men which made the Pharisees religious, because it severed them from following the law of Moses accurately. Mark 7:6-8 Jesus said ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

“For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” They departed from what was written and substituted their own way of doing things, this is exactly what the new apostolic reformation is about. One only needs to read a portion of their writings to see this is what they are saying.

So if this change means to implement a new government under Wagner’s leadership then he needs to take a closer look at home for the spirit of religion. It is a departure from the word of God substituting new words of men.

In Wagner’s philosophy leaving the Bible behind and implementing new revelation as the course for the church is what the apostles and prophets are all about. Unhitching the church from the real apostles and prophets writings to the new apostles and prophets ways. He says this implicitly and so do his prophets

Chuck Pierce “you know when you come to a school of prophets, it’s very important. Peirce states, “This is where you look at something and even though a city is flowing in a certain way, an individual is flowing in a certain way, a church is flowing in a certain way, you know God’s redemptive plan over that, and you begin to prophesy.”

“…the first word is nabi, nabi or nabi, and that word simply means to bubble up and expound. So that when you’re talking about a prophet and much of and much of what we’ll be doing this afternoon will be linked with this and pastor Mary will discuss this further with us but that just means that within you you have a river and in the innermost being of you is rivers of living water and if you can ever get a bubbling then what’s bubbling begins to speak, needs to bubble and speak.” (Chuck Pierce and Mary Crum #0005114P, tape #5 Thursday May 11, 2000)

Prophecy never came from within man but from God who sent the word to the prophets.

Pierce at the same conference with Cindy Jacobs stated “And the second thing I wanna do is ask forgiveness from the prophetic realm. There will come a time that we will be very, very accurate in days ahead. And I wanna ask forgiveness for immaturity and a lack of accuracy that has come to bring words into the Body of Christ that have not been accurate” (National School of the prophets Chuck Pierce/Cindy Jacobs Sat. May 13, 2000)

Is this what we are to look forward to in the 2nd apostolic age a promise to be more accurate in prophecy?

Wagner says, In most of this book’s chapters, I pointed out how the corporate spirit of religion attempts to keep leaders from moving into God’s new wineskins. In this concluding chapter, let me summarize what I have said.

The last thing that the spirit of religion wants you to be is a world changer. It would like you to be so comfortable with the past that, for the rest of your life, you would prefer to keep doing the things you have been doing.

How does the spirit of religion attempt to maintain the status quo in the Church today?

The spirit of religion would love to maintain the status quo of denominational leadership, which prevents apostles from ministering in their God-given apostolic authority. It does this by casting a spell that convinces denominational leaders that final decisions affecting what the Church does must always be made by groups, not by individuals. In many cases, it has succeeded in elevating the notion of democratic church government to a level usually reserved only for essential doctrines. (underline added)

Are we asked to change the world or bring the gospel to save people and see them change? What if what we have been doing is what God called us to do and we see his hand our life, are we to abandon this to follow Wagner’s new thing?

What was the priority of the early church under the apostles? “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42) and “they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, having all things in common, and the Church increased daily.” The Apostles teaching was first and kept them in unity and increased their numbers.

Then the Bible says there will come false apostles and prophets that cause division by introducing new teachings that oppose the apostles teaching. When the apostles taught, there was no debating of whether it was correct. They were already recognized as God’s appointed leaders by Jesus to reveal God’s will for the Church. John, the last living apostle of those that Jesus chose, wrote that Jesus commended the church in Ephesus for testing “those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars” (Revelation 2:2). Are we testing them today?

What does Wagner mean preventing apostles from ministering in their God-given apostolic authority? What if a church is already following the apostle’s teachings in the Scripture, is that not enough? Jude said, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). Jude does not mention any continuation of apostles in the Church. Jesus never said Jesus would continue to pick more apostles to do the same work they did in the first century. We are to listen to the Old apostles doctrine, not new ones who have new doctrine. Our apostles are in the Bible, they wrote the Bible, and tell us to keep to the writings of the Bible ONLY.

Wagner is saying that the old churches who follow the Bible are not getting on board with the new thing not only have the spirit of religion but are casting a spell, a term related to what Paul said to the Galatians because of their believing the Judaizers. To say the corporate spirit of religion prevents leaders from joining his ranks is in my assessment plain intimidation. Equating churches groups that make decisions (doing what the Bible says) as bewitched is certainly a derogatory remark. His solution is that individuals must make the decision, not a board. But Wagner neglects is that his apostolic government has a board, his decisions are made with many not by one individual. He also overlooks that the Bible always has a plurality of elder’s, not single leadership like the church of Rome. The first decision of the church was made by a council, by a group elders and apostles in Acts 15.

His group of self appointed apostles can gather together and decide they are local or international apostles and prophets, announcing themselves to the church as the new leadership and we are supposed to accept them because they say so?

In 3 John 9, John the Apostle names Diotrephes: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. He would not accept the teaching of the apostles. He as an individual wanted to be recognized and spoke against them, bringing division in the church.

Thirty years of attempting to pour the new wine of the power of the Holy Spirit and of theological orthodoxy into decaying old wineskins of denominational structures has now been seen as a well-intentioned but fruitless effort. The spirit of religion would like reform-minded leaders to do the same for another 30 years, rather than take the bold step of moving and establishing separate apostolic networks. (Wagner/2nd Apostolic Age p. 3 of chapter 11)

Seems as if Wagner is getting a bit teed off on the non-acceptance of his apostolic takeover. His take is that denominations are bad so he wants to replace it with an apostolic denomination (which he calls a government) that will rule over all denominations. This is a repeat of what the Catholic church did, except he wants this done with evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists etc.

In the past, family heritage has been one of the strongest factors in determining a believer’s church affiliation. Today, many church leaders are perceiving that affiliating with churches of other denominations in a given city can produce more effective ministry than restricting their contacts to those with their same heritage. The spirit of religion tries to discredit this change by convincing denominational power brokers that they should preserve the traditions of the elders at all costs.

Are those who have the old status quo the traditions of the elders now accepted if they work with other churches? Now he is saying denominations working together is an advantage. Which is it?

Are denominations that follow the Bible to be considered equal to the tradition of the elders? Certainly there is merit in that those denominations that have no intention in following the word and need reform but Wagner is generalizing the many. Unless those who depart from Scripture are teaching the doctrines of men as if from God, or false teaching this has no correlation. In fact it is his group of prophets and apostles that teaches new revelation as if it is equal to Scripture, which replaces the true revelation thus being guilty of this very thing.

Church leaders in the Second Apostolic Age are now looking beyond enlarging their congregations, although this remains important, to penetrating all levels of society with the values and principles of the kingdom of God. The spirit of religion attempts to keep this vision bottled up because it knows that if it is applied, Satan will end up with much less control of society and finances than he has now.

Seems as if Wagner is saying churches that do not go along with his new apostolic movement are aware of what they are doing and are demonized, not a very nice thing to conclude. Is this our mandate to go into society with kingdom principles? Are we to stop Satan’s influence in society or in people by giving the gospel. His view is a position typical of dominionism. That we go into the work places, the schools, the arts, the music etc. and influence them with Christian ways. Certainly we are to be salt and light but Wagner is proposing a social, civil taking back.

The spirit of religion is strongly attempting to create a Christian antiwar movement, persuading believers that if they do spiritual warfare and attempt to confront the devil and his principalities and powers, they have a good chance of becoming casualties. Christian pacifists make the spirit of religion happy.

Are their new spiritual warfare concepts superior to God answering the prayer of a righteous man? I do not see any validity to this argument, again it is putting down many who have worked hard on the mission field and evangelizing other nations. What many are saying is that they are doing is not biblical spiritual warfare but teach a Gnostic pagan view that does absolutely nothing in reality but puffs up peoples minds, convincing them that they have become a powerful force chasing the devil away with his tail between his legs.

What does Wagner believe in spiritual warfare?

A letter from C. Peter Wagner Unlocking the Supply
In that chapter, Chuck (Pierce) speaks of the keys of the kingdom and writes, “God is saying to us in this hour that He is ready to give us keys. These keys will unlock the supply we need to advance His covenant purposes” (p. 160). He says that in order to do this we must identify the “illegal domination of demonic structures from region to region” (p. 161), and then recognize that “apostolic authority must be established in a field if we are to reap the harvest in that field” (p. 162).

Apostles also have authority over the demonic rulers of a region. They have the ability to demonstrate supernatural power that draws a whole region to our life-giving God” (p. 164). From this I think that we can conclude that if full-stage spiritual warfare is to be done in a region, the generals of that warfare must be apostles.”

Wagner’s non biblical but innovative ideas such as praying on location for a community, region, or nation is seen as more powerful than praying at home. That one must bind these so called strong men and territorial princes to have any affect in our praying.

“Spying out the land is essential when warring for a city… Christians should walk or drive every major freeway, avenue, and road of their cities, praying and coming against demonic strongholds over every neighborhood…” (Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits – C. Peter Wagner, Ventura,CA; Regal , p. 98)

Wagner labels this “occult-level spiritual warfare.” Spiritual mapping is a necessary strategy to “map out” the demons’ geographical activity with the help of individuals who, according to Wagner, have “gifts of prophetic espionage” or a spiritual “hunting instinct to track down the enemy’s manipulations.” Wagner explains that through the gift of prophecy and the gift of the discernment of spirits, “we can know what has and what has not been bound in heaven” (Wagner, Powers, p.155.

Despite the fact that research shows that traditional theological education does not necessarily produce competent church leaders, the spirit of religion persists in trying to make seminary and Bible school training a prerequisite for ministerial ordination.

Should not one pursue education in good schools? I agree that a wrong school can ruin ones faith and that God’s calling does not depend on ones education but should we have less education? Was not Paul educated? In fact, almost all the apostles, though they were mostly fisherman were far more educated in the Scripture than most are today. Does not Wagner have a Leadership Institute? Is this not like a school. The difference is that his school teaches all the new revelatory ways that are not found in Scripture of doing church for the 21st century apostolic church. What is he talking about? He is putting down the old and replacing it with His new, thus implementing a paradigm shift.

The unity of the Body of Christ is very important for the fulfillment of God’s purposes on Earth. It is no secret that differences in doctrine have contributed to a great deal of division. Doctrine, however, is becoming less divisive in the Second Apostolic Age, and the spirit of religion is trying to thwart this trend. (Wagner, 2nd Apostolic Age p. 4 chapter 11)

Wrong doctrine does harm and bring division and some right doctrine brings health buy its division. Real doctrine divides, Jesus gave true doctrine next to the Pharisees invention of laws and it divided. Truth divides, we are told to divide from those who do not hold to the apostles teachings (Rom.16:17). Does Wagner and his associates care for upholding the former apostles teachings or their new agenda- the New Order of the Latter Rain? Doctrine divides and brings harm when it is not the truth. Why does doctrine become less divisive in the Second Apostolic Age? They seem to be more about uniting in a human effort of strength to influence the world than maintaining the unity of the faith that was delivered to us (the saints) once for all. Doctrine we are told is necessary “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Timothy 4:16). 2 John 1:9 “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.”1 Tim 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”

Renewal of the Mind

Wagner’s remedy- The remedy for being under the spell of the spirit of religion in every one of the above scenarios is a new way of thinking. In chapter 1, I explained that the Hebrew word belaw characterizes the tactics of the corporate spirit of religion. This word means to wear out the victim in a mental sense. How do we defeat the enemy in this arena? We become transformed by the renewing of our minds as we are told to do in Romans 12:2. To move ahead, then, we need a paradigm shift.

This is not only the remedy for the spirit of religion but for every believer who is saved. However, Wagner’s renewing of the mind is to accept his new apostolic reforms, get on board but don’t check them by the Scripture or you may have a conflict and then you are labeled as the corporate spirit of religion (proof of this is in all the statements made by him and others under him)

Romans 12:2: states we are transformed by “the renewing of our mind.” This is done through the Word of God and by the power of the Spirit. This means the process to change us is not subjective but primarily objective, based on knowledge from the word and living it out. You can’t know God and His ways outside the Bible.

Rom 12:2 “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

So how does our mind get renewed? Jesus prayed in John 17:17 “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.” He repeated himself many times that we should know. Twice Jesus specifically said, “blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28 also 8:21) John 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.” Hebrews (4:12) states the “Word is living and powerful and Jesus said if “… continue in my word and you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free.” “Your word is truth” (John 17:17) “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 1 Timothy 4:6 Paul writes for us to be “nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.” To “give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine,” We are to be “Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught” (Titus 1:9). Paul continually asserted this: “That you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).

Many other Scriptures can be used, yet Jack Deere who is onboard with Peter Wagner states about finding what the apostles did in their ministry “You know I’m gonna look up every reference to teaching in the Bible. so I just punched it in my computer concordance, looked up every single reference ‘taught, teacher, teaching,’ every single reference in the New Testament and its astounding. Did you know not one time, not one time does it say that Jesus taught the Bible?.. isn’t that interesting not one time does it ever say that. It says He taught about the kingdom, taught about God, preached the Gospel of the kingdom, and the Good news. Not one time does it ever say He taught the Bible … I looked up all the references with the apostles and did you know that with only one possible exception, it never says the Apostles taught the Bible?…Here’s the last verse in the book of Acts, verse 31. Here’s how it ends with what Paul’s doing. V.31 “boldly and without hindrance he preached” not the Bible, the kingdom of God. And he taught, not the Bible, but taught about the Lord Jesus.” (National School Of The Prophets Mobilizing The Prophetic Office May 11, 2000 11:30 AM tape #3)

Deere could not find that Jesus or the apostles taught the Bible!

Gal. 6:6 “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.”

Titus 1:9 “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”

Jack Deere you contradict! And the words we have written is what we are to teach today. You look it up and wee what you find.

Here is what the last verse of Acts actually says Acts 28:31 “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.”

If you don’t think that Paul taught the Old Testament and what pertains to the Messiah then you have not read your Bible well.

The reformation brought the word of God to everyday people; it affected the common people, the laity. Without a reformation that goes back to the word of Scripture people will continue to try and catch the wind.

Peter Wagner and those under him promote his innovated methods; a rhema word that has precedence over the logos word. “The rhema is regarded as a more immediate word from God which we do not find in the 66 books of the Bible” (Engaging the Enemy, by C. Peter Wagner. (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1991), pp.15-16)

Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 4:6 “do not go beyond what is written” Proverbs 30:6 tells us, “Do not add to his words lest you be rebuked and found a liar.”

Jonathan Edward’s wrote of the Bible “The devil has ever shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book, the Bible: he has done all in his power to extinguish that light and to draw men off from it: He knows it to be that light by which the kingdom of darkness is to be overthrown…. He is enraged against the Bible and hates every word in it: And we may be sure that he never will attempt to raise persons’ esteem of it or affection to it.” (Works of Jonathan Edward’s, Vol. 2, p.260)

Since when does the church need a paradigm shift that will take us away from what the bible says to hold to. The paradigm shift was popularized by Wagner’s good friend John Wimber. It is a new age term to mean a new way of looking and doing things. Wagner says that he was told “you are being called to reshape the face of Christianity” (National School of The Prophets, Mobilizing The Prophetic Office Wagner May 11, 2000 )

This whole movement is a challenge to Biblical based ministry and (status quo as stated) are convincing people by the old shepherding methods to accept a paradigm shift to the new apostles (ala Wagner) and prophets to be the government of the church; which he now calls the 2nd apostolic age.

Wagner says, “I myself, for example, would rather not have people call me a Charismatic, I do not consider myself a Charismatic, I am simply an Evangelical Congregationalist who is open to the Holy Spirit working through me and my church in any way He chooses ”(C. (Peter Wagner, cited in Charismatic Chaos – Part 5, Does God do Miracles Today? 1991, by John F. MacArthur, Jr.)

The fact is Wagner and almost all his associates under him are teaching Latter Rain doctrines. They instead call it 3rd wave so it is not recognized. They can call it what they want, it does not change what they are.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=peter+wagner&emb=0&aq=f#q=peter%20wagner&emb=0&aq=f&start=10

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archaeology & the Book of Mormon

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)–In the last part in this series, we saw that the Bible is reliable, being textually pure and verifiably accurate in many places. Therefore, the Mormon can have confidence that the Bible is the Word of God and that it can be accurately translated. In this chapter we will examine the Book of Mormon to see how it holds up to the historical test. The Mormons at your door will tell you that many findings within archaeology have confirmed the Book of Mormon time and time again. Is this true? What does the historical data we have tell us about the events recorded in the Book of Mormon?

1. There is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

A. What Mormon archeologists say.

Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned by the Mormon Church and has a department of professional archeologists who are dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon. These professionals, who are practicing Mormons, are to be applauded for their honesty. What many of them have to say will be a shock to the lay Mormon who is unaware that archaeology and the Book of Mormon are at odds with one another. The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church that archaeology continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars, who actually study archaeology for a living, have something quite different to say.

“[It appears that the Book of Mormon] had no place in the New World whatsoever…. [It] just doesn’t seem to fit anything … in anthropology [or] history…. It seems misplaced” (endnote 20, continuing from endnote 19 in Part 2).

“The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists” (endnote 21).

“What I would say to you is there is no archeological proof of the Book of Mormon. You can look all you want. And there’s been a lot of speculation about it. There’ve been books written by Mormon scholars saying that ‘this event took place here’ or ‘this event took place here.’ But that’s entirely speculative. There is absolutely no archeological evidence that you can tie directly to events that took place” (endnote 22).

“Now, I’m an archeologist, and I work in Mexico where some people think that the events occurred. So a lot of Mormons ask me every week if I find any evidence. And I tell them, ‘No.’ … [T]he question of how to translate what the Book says in terms of real evidence that we can grab in our hands, archeologically, is still a huge problem” (endnote 23).

Keep in mind that all of these are practicing Mormons who are professional Book of Mormon archeologists!

B. What non-Mormon archeologists say.

Earlier we read from the Smithsonian Institution’s statement “The Bible as History.” We saw that archaeology confirms much of the Bible and that professional archeologists use the Bible in their work. The Smithsonian also has a “STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON.” This statement can be requested at the same address. Every one of the statements are damaging to the reliability of the Book of Mormon. Here is the first of eight statements: “The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.”

In 1989, Michael Ammons wrote to the National Geographic Society requesting information on the Book of Mormon and archaeology. The Society replied in a letter dated April 26, 1989:

“Neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically.”

Also in 1989, Linda Hansen wrote to the Department of Archaeology at Boston University with a similar request. In a reply letter dated April 5, 1989, Julie Hansen of the department responded:

“The Archaeological Institute of America has never used the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide in locating historic ruins on the Western Hemisphere…. Over the past 30 years The New World Archaeological Foundation, located at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has conducted numerous scientific excavations in Mesoamerica, originally with a view to confirming the claims in the Book of Mormon. They have discovered no evidence that supports the Book of Mormon in any way. Nonetheless, they have published in full detail the results of their excavations in Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Volumes 1-55, 1959 and following…. They are accepted by the Archaeological Institute of America and the Society of American Archaeologists as legitimate scientific investigations and the New World Archaeological Foundation is to be commended for publishing the results of their work that essentially refutes the basic beliefs of the Mormon Church on which the Foundation is based” (endnote 24).

Therefore, there is a consensus from professional archaeologists, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, that there is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

2. The lack of archaeological evidence is sometimes damaging.

A) The Book of Mormon claims that the ancient inhabitants spoke and wrote in “Reformed Egyptian” and Hebrew (endnote 25). If this were the case, we would expect to find artifacts with writings in these languages. However, the Smithsonian’s eighth statement regarding the Book of Mormon says:

“Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.”

B) The Book of Mormon states that the two peoples mentioned (Nephites and Lamanites) had Jewish beliefs that became Christian when the resurrected Christ appeared to them. However, there is no evidence that the ancient inhabitants in the Americas had either Jewish or Christian beliefs.

C) Hill Cumorah is located in New York, southeast of Rochester. Joseph Smith claimed that when Moroni appeared to him, he was told that Moroni’s father, Mormon, buried the gold plates upon which the Book of Mormon was based on the hill Cumorah just before the great final battle there (Mormon 6:6). In the Pearl of Great Price, Smith writes that the day after his second vision, he went to a large hill outside of the village where his family lived (the hill Cumorah) and found the gold plates (endnote 26). This identifies the hill where Smith dug up the plates as the same hill where Mormon buried them and where the great battle took place. In Mormon 6:10-15, it is claimed that hundreds of thousands of people were killed on or near the hill Cumorah during that final battle. It says that “their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth” (Mormon 6:15). In other words, their bodies were left there, unburied.

To help you understand the magnitude of casualties at hill Cumorah, let us consider another major battle. During the Battle of Gettysburg of the American Civil War, 55,000 soldiers were wounded, including 6,000 of them killed on the battlefield and 4,000 more whose wounds were mortal. Eyewitnesses said that there was so much blood from the dead and injured that there were parts of the battlefield that seemed like streams of blood. So many men and horses died that all could not be buried at once and many corpses were left on the battlefield until a few days later when others were hired to do the task.

If 6,000 men died on the battlefield at Gettysburg, what would a battlefield look like with hundreds of thousands dead? Since they were left unburied at hill Cumorah, wouldn’t there be some artifacts made of metal and stone? Bullets by the thousands are found at Gettysburg. Nothing, however, has been found at hill Cumorah.

University of Rochester paleontologist and stratigrapher Carl Brett has worked in the Palmyra, N.Y, area where hill Cumorah is located and is familiar with the hill and its geologic conditions. He says that if hundreds of thousands were slaughtered at the hill and not buried, there would still be skeletal remains on the surface today, even after 1,600 years. Scavengers and weather conditions would account for why much is gone, but there would still be quite enough left to look at. Metallic artifacts from weapons and armor would also be easily found (endnote 27). But nothing has ever been found at hill Cumorah.

3. Attempts by Mormons to answer the archeological problem fail.

During a series of conversations I once had with a Mormon friend and some Mormon missionaries, I turned to them in the first meeting and said that one objection I had to Mormonism was that there is no archaeological evidence to support the stories in the Book of Mormon. One of the missionaries smiled confidently and claimed there was a lot of evidence from archaeology to support the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I asked him to show me some. He said he did not have any information with him but would bring some to our next meeting. He did. Needless to say he was shocked when I quoted the Mormon scholars below who refuted the very materials he had in hand!

“Few of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe; others have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are Professor Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not qualified to handle the archaeological materials their works often involve” (endnote 28).

“Those volumes which most flagrantly ignore time and space and most radically distort, misinterpret, or ignore portions of the archaeological evidence are the popular Farnsworth volumes. Also inadequate, from a professional archaeologist’s point of view, are the well intentioned volumes by Milton R. Hunter and a number of smaller pamphlets and works by various authors…. New World Old World comparisons have been less popular but fraught with problems. The best known examples are the two volumes by Nibley which suffer from an overdose of Old Worlditis…. He does not know New World culture history well, and his writing ignores the considerable indigenous elements in favor of exclusively Old World patterns” (endnote 29).

“In situations where sources of religious and secular authority conflict with each other, a Latter-day Saint sometimes finds himself in a quandary. He has been assured by a folklore transmitted in lessons, talks and church literature that archaeologists (usually Gentiles) are steadily proving the Book of Mormon authentic, while through his formal education and secular literature he has become aware that in actuality the experts seem to contradict the scripture” (endnote 30).

“Science does not arrive at its conclusions by syllogism, and no people on earth deplore proof demonstration by syllogism more loudly than real archaeologists do. Yet, Mr. Jakeman’s study is nothing but an elaborate syllogistic stew. The only clear and positive thing about the whole study is the objective the author is determined to reach” (endnote 31).

Again, every one of the above are practicing Mormons. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, BYU is owned by the Mormon Church and has a department dedicated to Book of Mormon archaeology. According to BYU anthropologist John Clark, virtually all of the professional archaeologists there admit that archaeological finds which specifically tie the past to events in the Book of Mormon are missing. These practicing Mormons call books and their authors that list sensational findings not qualified, inadequate, and speculative.

Some Mormons will respond that these archeologists do not represent the official church position, so their opinions are not credible. But why trivialize and dismiss the findings of the overwhelming consensus of practicing Mormons who are professional archaeologists, yet accept, without question, the official Mormon Church position? Could it be that the ground’s silence is indicative of a Mormon Church position that is false? After all, if it is false, silence from archaeology is precisely what we might expect to find.

It is fair to mention that professional Mormon archaeologists claim there is general confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology, citing peoples existing where it is thought Book of Mormon peoples may have existed. This general confirmation, however, does not show that the Mormon picture of history is true. These same archaeologists (Johnson, Clark) admit that conclusions regarding the findings are pure speculation. The issue is not, “Did people exist in the Americas between 600 B.C. through A.D. 400?” We know that they did. The issue is, “Can we identify these civilizations as the ones mentioned in the Book of Mormon?” And the answer from virtually all professional Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists alike is no.

In the last part of this series we saw that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in our possession today allow us to have an accurate translation of the Bible. Therefore, even by Mormon standards, we can be confident that we have the Word of God. We also saw that secular history has attested to the accuracy of the Bible so that we can know with certainty that many of the events recorded in it took place. Unfortunately, the Mormon cannot have this same confidence when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and secular history are silent when asked if the events took place. Not only is this silence disturbing to professional Mormon archaeologists, but it is evidence against Mormonism when no artifacts turn up in areas which should be abundant with relics such as the hill Cumorah. However, as damaging as these may be, Mormonism’s greatest challenge concerns another one of their scriptures, the Book of Abraham, which will be the subject of the next part in this series.
–30–
Mike Licona is the director of apologetics & interfaith evangelism at the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.

ENDNOTES

20 Dr. Ray Metheny, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. Address at the Sixth Annual Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 8/25/84.

21 Dr. Dee Green, Former Editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter “Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), pp. 77-78.

22 Dr. David Johnson, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. In a personal telephone conversation, 7/23/97.

23 Dr. John Clark, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. In a personal telephone conversation, 7/25/97.

24 Copies of the reply letters from the National Geographic Society and Boston University were provided by Jim and Judy Robertson of Concerned Christians.

25 Mosiah 1:4; Mormon 9:32-33. Also see Joseph Smith. History 1:64.

26 Joseph Smith. History, verses 51-52. Hill Cumorah is located in Manchester, N.Y., about 25 miles east of Rochester. Smith lived in Palmyra, about five miles away from the hill.

27 A personal telephone conversation on September 8, 1997.

28 John L. Sorenson, Assistant Professor of Anthropology & Sociology, BYU. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 145-246.

29 Dee Green, General Officer, Univ. Archaeological Society. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), p. 74.

30 John L. Sorenson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), p. 81.

31 Dr. Hugh Nibley, quoted by Dee Green. Book of Mormon Archaeology, p. 75.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27018

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

more about “Trinity – Explained for Muslims“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

HOW ANCIENT IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE?

——————————————————————————–

by Wesley P. Walters

As different as para-Christian groups or cults are from each other, most have one thing in common: they hate the biblical teaching of the Trinity. They want their God to be simplistic, uncomplicated, and less complex than the world He created. They want a God reduced to terms they can get their finite minds around.

Modern advances in science have shown that the created world is an extremely complex mechanism. Those who work in nuclear physics or molecular biology are continually discovering the complexity of the world God has created.

In fact, some complex, seemingly contradictory data has yet to be fitted into a rational system that explains the relationships. A simple thing like “light” is known to move like “waves” yet strike like “particles.” Atomic physicists are still struggling to put together a theory that can fully explain this apparent contradiction.

Those who work in the complex mathematical equations of quantum mechanics are told by their instructors that “If you think that you really understand quantum mechanics and how it applies to reality, that proves you do not understand it.” One of the basic theorems is that if the speed of a particle is known, then its location can not be known, and the more accurately you know its location, the less accurately you know its speed. This does not seem very logical to the average person, but it works very well in atomic physics, in which scientists get very close to the essence of matter.

Thus, while scientists are continually learning more about how complex and even apparently contradictory the world of created reality is, cults that reject the complexity of the God who made this reality are proliferating. They, along with Moslems and modern Jews, taunt Christians, saying: “How can there be just one God, and yet the Father be God, the Son be God and the Holy Spirit be God? Is He the Son of Himself and the Father of both?”

Even though Christ Himself taught that the name [singular] of God in which we baptize is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), all cults falsely assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching that grew out of fourth century paganism. So unified are the cults in this assertion that they appear to be using the same erroneous Church history book and parroting one another.

The truth is that by the time of Christ, the first century A.D., the Jews themselves, on the basis of the Old Testament, were coming to an understanding of the complexity of Yahweh.

The Teachings of The Targums

When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the birth of Jesus, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language. Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin ancestor. Consequently, during the first and early second centuries A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament were made.

These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how these first-century Jews understood their Old Testament.

One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God. J.W. Etheridge, in the introduction to his translations of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, has given us a number of examples of this Jewish understanding of the term, “the Word” (Aramaic: Memra).

In Genesis 18:1, where the Hebrew Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) appeared to Abraham, the Targum says, “The Word of the Lord appeared to Abraham.” Further on, where the Hebrew reports “Yahweh rained down upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven,” the Targum states that “the Word of the Lord sent down upon them sulphur and fire from the presence of the Lord out of heaven.” (Genesis 19:24)

In Genesis 16, when Hagar sees “the Angel of the Lord,” the Targum says she saw “the Word of the Lord.” After seeing this “Word” (Memra) she says, “Here has been revealed the glory of the Shekineh of the Lord.” Then, according to the Jerusalem Targum, “Hagar returned thanks and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who had appeared to her.” Thus the Word not only is regard- ed as the presence of deity, but is in some manner personally distinguishable from the Lord.

In Genesis 28:20 the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases Jacob’s vow, “If God will be with me… then Yahweh will be my God” with the words, “If the Word of the Lord will be my help… the Word of the Lord shall be my God.” Again, the Angel of Yahweh who spoke to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:14) is designated by the Jerusalem Targum as “the Word of the Lord.”

The distinct personality of this Divine Word is seen pointedly in Jonathan’s Targum of Isaiah 63:7-10. There, where the Hebrew text speaks of Yahweh being their Savior, the Targum reads, “the Word (Memra) was their Redeemer.” (vs. 8) When the Israelites continued to disobey, then “His Word (Memra) became their enemy, and fought against them” — an action ascribed to Yahweh in the Hebrew text. Again in Isaiah 45:22 the Targum of Jonathan exhorts, “Look unto My Word and be saved.”

While this personalizing of the Word was being expressed in Palestine in the Targums of Jesus’ day, Philo, an Egyptian Jew and contemporary of Jesus, was expressing similar thoughts in even more distinct words. In his essay “On the Creation,” Philo states that man was not made in the image of some creature, but in the image of God’s own uncreated Word. He wrote: “for the Creator, we know, employed for its making no pattern taken from among created things, but solely, as I have said, His own Word.”

Philo continues: “Man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word, when the Divine Breath was breathed into his face. (“On the Creation,” XLVIII: 139, Loeb Edition I, pp. 110-111)

In his work on Noah, Philo again expresses the teaching that man is made by “the First Cause” (that is, God) in the image of “the Eternal Word:” “Our great Moses likened the fashion of the rea- sonable soul to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word.”

He continues: “…man has been made after the Image of God (Genesis 1:27), not however after the image of anything created… man’s soul having been made after the image of the Archetype, the Word of the First Cause.” (“Noah’s Work as a Planter,” I:18-20, Loeb III, pp. 222-223)

Thus, the eternal Word is in some sense distinguishable from God, and yet at the same time is, like God, uncreated, rational and the bearer of the divine image. This comes very close to the teaching of the New Testament that the Word was distinguishable from God, and yet was God. As John 1:1 expresses it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It also appears similar to Paul’s teaching that the Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15); and the writer of Hebrews statement that the Son “is the exact representation of His being.” (Hebrews 1:3)

Philo, however, goes further. He says that God is the king and shepherd of all creation, but rules and controls it through his eternally existing Word, whom Philo calls God’s “First-born Son.”

His “hallowed flock” of created things God directs by his divine laws, setting over it His true Word and first-born son, who shall take upon Him its government like some viceroy of a great king. (“On Husbandry,” I:51, Loeb III, pp. 134-135)

Philo has God expressing Himself in this manner: “I alone… sustained the Universe to rest firm and sure upon the Mighty Word, who is My viceroy.” (“On Dreams,” I:241, Loeb V, pp. 424- 425)

Therefore this eternal Word, God’s first-born Son, is the upholder of the whole creation, “the everlasting Word of the eternal God is the very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. He it is, who extending Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds… keeps up through all its length Nature’s unvanquished course, combining and compacting all its parts. For the Father who begat Him constituted His Word such a Bond of the Universe as nothing can break.” (“Noah’s Work as a Planter,” I:8-9, Loeb III, pp. 216-217)

This reflects the same thought that Paul expressed about the Son as being the one “in whom all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17) It also reminds also reminds us of Hebrews 1:3, which depicts the Son as “sustaining all things by his powerful Word.”

Philo continues his discussion of the Word by maintaining that to those incapable of seeing the supreme cause, God Himself, He appears to them in the form of His Angel, the Word: “For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself, see the gleam of the parahelion and take it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary itself, so some regard the image of God, His Angel, the Word, as His very self.” (“On Dreams,” I:239, Loeb V, pp. 422-423) This sounds very similar to the teaching tha t the Son is “the radiance (or outshining) of God’s glory” (Hebrews 1:3), the only part of God’s nature that people are allowed to see. This is true because “no one has ever seen God,” but “the only begotten God… He has made Him known.” (John 1:18) Thus, Jesus, the Son, can say, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

Philo further explained that God, being light, is “the archetype of every other light.” As such He is “prior to and high above every archetype.” Thus He holds the position of “a model of a model,” that is, He is the model for His Word, which Word becomes the model for creation. The Word, therefore, contains all the qualities of God. As Philo expressed it, “the model or pattern was the Word which contained all His fullness — light, in fact.” (“On Dreams,” I:75, Loeb V, pp. 336-337) Paul expressed a similar thought when he wrote that in the Son all God’s fullness dwells. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)

To Philo, therefore, the Word of God is the eternal, uncreated Word containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine image which the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of the world, carrying on the governing of all things, as God’s viceroy, and containing all God’s fullness.

While the Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods — although he does not attempt to explain how this can be. Philo’s teaching is, therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Philo reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament and certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity. The Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence of Yahweh Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo’s ideas.

To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth- century adaptation of paganism is to ignore the conclusions that several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries earlier, from God’s revelations given to Israel before the time of the coming of Christ. At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh (John 1:1, 14), Jewish writers were already beginning to see that God’s Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father Himself, yet have all the fullness of God contained in Him.

http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

more about “Jesus Is God: Christians Always Belie…“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

 

THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST

If One examines carefully the writings of the early church writers their language and theology reflects their understanding of the Trinity. They contended from Scripture not from Greek philosophy or paganism as is charged from anti-Trinitarian opponents. Trinitarianism certainly was not developed in the 4th century but was part of the theology of the early church. Those who oppose it today, are not part of the Church just as they were not part of the Church in the beginning.

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch died about 110 A.D. he was a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about the lords 2nd coming, “Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible”. Only God is without time , eternal and invisible. In numerous other places in his letter to Polycarp he states “Jesus is God”, “God incarnate”

“Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) JESUS CHRIST [the Son of God], who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who truly was born [both of God and of the Virgin ... truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin"… Bishop of Antioch died about 110 A.D. he was a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about the lords 2nd coming, "Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible". Only God is without time , eternal and invisible. In numerous other places in his letter to Polycarp he states "Jesus is God", "God incarnate."

"Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) JESUS CHRIST [the Son of God], who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who truly was born [both of God and of the Virgin ... truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin."

Ignatius of Antioch "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." ( The ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Vol. 1, p. 52 .)

"For our God Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:9)

"...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)

"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:4)

"For even our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in the Father".( Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans 1:13)

Clement of Rome (Philipians 4:3)"For Christ is with those who are humble, not with those exalt themselves over his flock. The majestic scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with the pomp of arrogance or pride (though He could have done so), but in humility, just as the Holy Spirit spoke concerning Him." (1 Clement 16:1-2)

"Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God : as of the judge of the living and the dead".(2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)

Justin Martyr ( 140 A.D.) "the word of wisdom, who is himself God begotten of the Father of all things, and word, and wisdom, and power, and the glory of the begetter, will bear evidence to me".(Dialogue with Tropho Ch.61)

"God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62).

“For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord…”(Dialogue With Trypho, 34)

“…He preexisted as the Son of theCreator of things, being God, and that He was born a man by the Virgin.” (Dialogue With Trypho, 48 )

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6).

Polycarp (70-160). Bishop of Smyrna.A disciple of John the Apostle. “O Lord God almighty…I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever”

“Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest Himself, the God Jesus Christ, build you up in the faith…”( The Epistle of Polycarp to the Church at Philippi, 12

Iranaeus (120-202) “In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King…”(Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.10.1)

180 A.D. “But he Jesus is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, and king eternal, and the incarnate word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles …The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere man.” (Against Heresies 3:19.1-2)

“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’”.( Against Heresies, 4:10)

Iranaeus gave the Church two statements which have continued in its creeds: (1) Filius dei filius hominis factus, “The Son of God [has] become a son of man, (Earl Cairns Christianity Through the Centuries, Zondervan, 1981, pg.110) Jesus Christus vere homo, vere deus, “Jesus Christ, true man and true God.” (Harold Brown Heresies, Zondervan, 1989, pg.84)

Irenaeus gave three forms of the statement of faith in three different contexts in This is showing the variety of ways that the faith could be expressed in his day:)

Third Form: IN ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, from whom are all things; and IN THE SON OF GOD, JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, by whom are all things, and in his dispensations, through which the Son of God became man; the firm -persuasion also IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which he dwells in every generation of men, according to the will of the Father (IV. xxiii. 7).(God in three persons C.Beisner) this is long before the council of Niacea.

Diogneteus Diogneteus to Mathetes (written 130 A.D.) “as a king sends his Son, who is also king, so sent he him, as God (1) he sent him; as men he sent him; as savior he sent him,…” Chpt.7 says “God” (1) which refers to the person sent.

Theophilus (115-181) Bishop of Antioch (To Autolycus 2:22 ,160 A.D.) “For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice but what else is this voice but the word of God, who is also his Son.”

Tatian the Syrian (170 AD ) “Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is Himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible and untouchable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. This we know by the evidence of what He has created; and we perceive His invisible power by His works”.(Tatian, Address to the Greeks , 4)

“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21).

Melito of Sardis (177 AD )The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism… he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s, The Guide 13).

Athenagoras (160 AD.) Speaks of “one God, the uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, uncontainable, comprehended only by mindand reason, clothed in light and beauty and spirit and powerindescribable, by whom the totality has come to be.”(suppl. 10.1)

…”the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of Spirit, the understanding, and reason of the Father is the Son of God.” (Ante Nicene Fathers vol.2 p.133 a plea for Christians)

“For Christ is the God over all”.(Refutation of All Heresies 10.34)

Athenagoras identifies the Word as the Son of God, says ‘although the word is God’s offspring, he never came into being. Rather, having been with God and in God eternally he issued forth at a point in time.”( A plea for the Christians 12.20) “God the Word came down from heaven…He came forth into the world and…showed Himself to be God”.( Against the Heresy of a Certain Noetus, 17)

speaking of what the church believes, “they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.”(A plea for the Christians.10.3)

“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction in rank?”( Intercession on Behalf of the Saints, 10)

Clement of Alexandria (190 AD) “The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning, for he was in God, and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone. is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1).

Tertullian (converted around 193 AD)(215 AD) “The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6-7).

“God alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God.”(The Soul 41.3)

We find that it was the ones who did not understand the trinity that were looked upon as divisive. Tetullians theological writings consisted mostly in response to what the Oneness (modalists) believes. (God is singular in person) When he debated Praxeas of which he wrote. “thus the connection of the Father in the Son the Son in the paraclete, produces three coherent 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.”( Ante-Nicene fathers vol.3,p.621, against Praxeas.) He went on to say “Yet we have never given vent to the phrases ‘two Gods’, or ‘two Lords’: not that it is untrue the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, each is God.” (ibid 13)

Tetullian developed his arguments and refined his belief of which the third form of his rule of faith became this. “We believe there is but one God, and no other besides the maker of the world, who produced the universe out of nothing, by his word sent forth first of all, that this word, called his Son, was seen in the name of God in various ways by the patriarchs, was always heard in the prophets, at last sent down, from the spirit and power of God the Father, into the virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and born of her, lived as Jesus Christ…”.

Not only is he careful in his explanation but throughout all his writings he defines three persons and one substance who are the one God. .”That this one and only God has a Son, his word, who proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the virgin, and to have been born of her- being both man and God, the Son of man, and the Son of God, and to have been called the name of Jesus Christ;” (against Praxeas vol.3, p.598)

Novatian (235 AD. )”For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God” (Treatise on the Trinity 11).

Novatian “The rule of truth demands that, first of all, we believe in GOD THE FATHER and Almighty Lord, that is, the most perfect Maker of all things. . .’ The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also in the SON OF GOD, CHRIST JESUS, our Lord God, but the Son of God…. Moreover, the order of reason and the authority of faith, in due consideration of the words and Scriptures of the Lord ‘, admonishes us, after this, to believe also in the HOLY GHOST, promised of old to the Church, but granted in the appointed and fitting time.

The church did not have non-Trinitarians. The Gnostics, Arians, Oneness and others were considered to be praching heresy and were excluded from the church universal. (This is not my words but the Churches) This did not stop them from going out and starting their own movements and church’s. These were the first cultic movements and many today have aligned themselves with their teachings , some have synthesized several of them together to make something altogether new.

Hippolytus 190 A.D. (Against the heresy of one Noetus “a Oneness promoter” ch.14, ) After quoting part of Jn.1:1 “If then the word was with God and was also God what follows ? Would one say that he speaks of two God’s ? I shall not speak of two Gods but of one; of two persons however and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father is indeed one but there are two persons because there is also the son; and there is the third the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the word executes and the son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of the harmony is led back to the one God, for God is one. It is the father who commands and the son who obeys and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding; The Father is above all the son is through all and the holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit”.

“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty. “(Hippolytus ” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225)

In another of his writings “This is the order of the rule of our faith…God the Father, not made, not material, invisible; One God, the creator of all things; this is the first point of our faith. the second point is this; the word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the fathers dispensation, through whom all things were made.”

Gregory the Wonder-worker (262 AD) “But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons–namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature” (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8).

“But if they say, ‘How can there be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?’ we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity” (A Sectional Confession of Faith, 14)

Dionysius (262 AD )”Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the Universe. `For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and `I am in the Father, and the Father in me’” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria, 3)

Methodius (305 AD) “For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor…. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty” (Oration on the Psalms 5).

Arnobius (305 AD) “‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘Is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’” (Against the Pagans 1:42).

Athanasius (290 -370) “[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being.” (Letters to Serapion 1:28).

“United without confusion, distinguished without separation. Indivisible and without degrees.” (Sermon on Lk.10:22)

http://www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.