搜寻结果

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Joseph H. Waggoner on the Trinity Joseph H. Waggoner on the Trinity Once again, these are the words of one of the founding members of the Seventh day Adventist Church and the truth the Adventist Church was founded on. “It will no doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present. We know that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men's opinions of the Scriptures. It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement. And we are willing, confidently willing to leave the decision of the question with all who will carefully read our remarks, with an effort to divest themselves of prejudice, if they unfortunately possess it. The inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves from inconsistencies without correcting their theology. Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption. And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion.” — (J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, 1884, pp. 164, 165) Socinianism is the heretical tenets of Faustus Socinius, a 16th-century Italian theologian, denying the divinity of Christ, the existence of Satan, original sin, the atonement, eternal punishment, and explaining sin and salvation in rationalistic terms. “We trust that we have shown to the full conviction of every one who “trembles at the word” of the Lord, that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died are, by the Scriptures, proved untrue. These writers take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis, and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the Atonement with unreasonable contradictions. We would not needlessly place ourselves in opposition to the religious feelings of any class, but in order to clear the doctrine of the Atonement from the consequences of these assumptions, we are compelled to notice some of the prominent arguments presented in favor of the doctrine of a trinity. In the “Manual of Atonement,” 1 John 5:20 is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called “the true God and eternal life.” The whole verse reads thus: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. “We are in him that is true.” How? “In his Son Jesus Christ.” The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour's own words in John 17:3: “That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Much stress is laid on Isa. 9:6, as proving a trinity, which we have before quoted, as referring to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity, the distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved. Christ is called “the second person in the trinity;” but if this text proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second, but the first. And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine.” — (J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, 1884, pp. 167-169) Note that the answer to Isaiah 9:6 lies in the correct Hebrew translation. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible explains, “The Chaldee renders this expression, 'The man abiding forever.' The Vulgate, 'The Father of the future age.' Lowth, 'The Father of the everlasting age.' Literally, it is the Father of eternity.” Thus in the Hebrew text, the phrase is literally “the Father of Eternity,” and so Isaiah 9:6 is not saying Christ is the Father but He is the Father of all time to come. Young's Literal Translation and the Darby Bible are two of very few that translated it correctly. The Greek Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles quoted from does not even contain this phrase so one wonders which is correct. “The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as “the Word.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:1-3. This expresses plainly a pre-existent divinity. The same writer again says: “That which was from the beginning,… the Word of life.” 1 John 1:1. What John calls the Word, in these passages, Paul calls the “Son,” in Heb. 1:1-3. “God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” In other places in this letter this same exalted one is called Jesus Christ. In these passages we find the divinity or “higher nature” of our Lord expressed. Indeed, language could not more plainly express it; therefore it is unnecessary to call other testimony to prove it, it being already sufficiently proved. The first of the above quotations says the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident—that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but “one God,” the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul's calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God. This is also confirmed by John's saying that the Word “was with the Father.” 1 John 1:2; also calling the Word “his Son Jesus Christ.” Verse 3. Now it is reasonable that the Son should bear the name and title of his Father, especially when the Father makes him his exclusive representative to man, and clothes him with such power—“by whom he made the worlds.” That the term God is used in such a sense is also proved by Paul, quoting Ps. 45:6, 7, and applying it to Jesus. “But unto the son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,… therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Heb. 1:8, 9. Here the title of God is applied to the Son, and his God anointed him. This is the highest title he can bear, and it is evidently used here in a sense subordinate to its application to his Father. It is often asserted that this exalted one came to earth and inhabited a human body, which he left in the hour of its death. But the Scriptures teach that this exalted one was the identical person that died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man—the wondrous love of God and condescension of his only Son. John says, “The Word of life,” “that which was from the beginning,” “which was with the Father,” that exalted, pre-existent One “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1, 2.” — (J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, 1884, pp. 152-154) “As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.” — (lbid, p. 173 and Review and Herald, November 10, 1863, vol. 22, p. 189) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 Read in English 下一篇 三位一体论的真相 [ trinitytruth.org ] 14-26 (共42部份) （14）耶稣基督是不是被造的？ 亚流是第四世纪的一名亚历山大城祭司。据官方的论述，亚流教导说，上帝在创造万物之前，祂有了一个儿子，是生出的，或是被造的，或被立的。有人声称，从亘古的时候，父上帝与圣灵有了某种形式的宇宙亲密关系，而产下了耶稣。他们推论说，“你还能怎样称祂为儿子呢？” 但这种概念是与《圣经》背道而驰的。《圣经》启示说，耶稣是创造主，而不是一个受造的生物，而且在祂创造万物之先，祂早就已存在了。（参阅约1：1-4） 《圣经》说，基督不是被造的，而是万物的创造主。约1：3说：“万物是藉着祂造的，凡被造的，没有一样不是藉着祂造的。” 这一节有两句直接的陈述，就是耶稣在道成肉身之前早已存在，并创造万有；以及万物都是藉着祂造的，凡被造的，没有一样不是藉着祂造的。你注意到吗？约翰说，不仅万物都是藉着祂造的，而且若是没有祂，则没有一样被造。【编按：这是英文《圣经》的直译。】 保罗也证实约翰所写的：“因为万有都是靠祂造的。” 祂接下来用更清晰的言语来陈述，确保我们明白他所说的“万有”是指什么。“无论是天上的、地上的、能看见的、不能看见的、或是有位的、主治的、执政的、掌权的，一概都是藉着祂造的，又是为祂造的。” （西1：16） 如果耶稣创造了万有，那么祂就不可能是受造之物。保罗还添加了下面一句，使读者更不至于误解这个事实。“祂在万有之先，万有也靠祂而立。” （西1：17） 如果基督创造了凡被造的一切，而且存在于一切受造之物之先，那么显然基督本身不可能列在受造之物当中。祂在一切受造之物之上，不是受造之物的一部分。基督是个受造之物的概念，否认了祂的神性。持有这种看法的人不可能对基督所真正享有的崇高地位有任何正确的概念。 给復临信徒： 注意，预言之灵并没有把“生出”与“被造”这两个概念画上等号，如一些人所声称的。“‘上帝爱世人，甚至将祂的独生子赐给他们，’——不是一个被造的儿子，例如天使，也不是一个得了名分【编按：英文直译相等于“领养”】的儿子，例如得赦免的罪人，而是一个按照圣父本体的真像所生出的儿子。”——怀爱伦著，《时兆》1895年5月30日。 “奉献长子的礼从最早就开始了。上帝曾应许赐下天上“头生的”来拯救罪人。” ——怀爱伦著，《历代愿望》原文第51页。{待续} （15）上帝是谁？ 上帝是不是一个有位格本体的生物？祂是不是一个物体，或是一种无形的宇宙力量？这些都是需要回答的重要问题。任何了解上帝,认识上帝的人都应该很容易回答这些问题。奇怪的是，有很多基督徒被这些问题给难住了，因为他们所领教的观念是，上帝是一种无形的神秘烟雾，弥漫着整个自然界。 但以理所看见的一个异像，有助于我们了解上帝是谁。他写道：“我观看，见有宝座设立，上头坐着亘古常在者，祂的衣服洁白如雪，头发如纯净的羊毛，宝座乃火焰，其轮乃烈火。” （但7：9）一位叫做“亘古常在者”的，一身白袍，一头白发，坐在宝座上。过了不久，“人子”（第13节）便来到祂面前觐见祂。亘古常在者必定是天父上帝。那么根据《圣经》，我们的天父是一个有位格本体的真实生物。 约翰也在异像中看见同一件事，他说：“我看见坐宝座的右手中有书卷，里外都写着字，用七印封严了。” （启5：1）约翰看见了这一幕之后不久，耶稣基督就来到宝座前，并从祂父的手里拿了书卷。我们再次看到上帝是个真实有位格本体的生物，祂坐在宝座上，右手拿着书卷。 上帝必定是个真实有位格本体的生物，因为耶稣说：“清心的人有福了！因为他们必得见神。” （太5：8） 耶稣也警告说：“你们要小心，不可轻看这小子裡的一个，我告诉你们，他们的使者在天上，常见我天父的面。” （太18：10） 我们应该意料到上帝是个真实有位格本体的生物，因为我们是按着祂的形象和样式造的（创1：26）。等我们升到天上的时候，我们会发现，我们长得像上帝一样。我们不会发现一只三头六臂的怪兽，或任何其他类似的怪物。上帝的外观形象跟我们的非常相似。 在希伯来书1：3，我们认识到耶稣基督是上帝本体的真像。因此，上帝必定是一位有本体的生物，而耶稣基督也是一个真实有本体的生物。 保罗也证实这一点。他写道：“你们当以基督耶稣的心为心。祂本有神的形象，不以自己与神同等为强夺的。” （腓2：5-6） 这里翻译成“形象”一词的希腊原文是指“一个人或物看上去的形态；外观。”（塔义儿希腊辞典）上帝有其外观形象，而祂儿子耶稣基督也有同一种外观。 启示录2：7和22：1-2说，上帝的宝座是在乐园裡，就是生命树的所在地，就在这里我们可以找到上帝和祂儿子。上帝的本体不能无所不在，但藉着祂的灵，祂就能无所不在了。要谨慎提防泛神主义，就是相信宇宙和大自然与神性完全相同，基本上使我们周围的一切都变成神。{待续} （16）耶稣基督是谁？ 耶稣“问门徒说：人说我人子是谁？他们说：有人说是以利亚，又有人说是耶利米，或是先知裡的一位。耶稣说：你们说我是谁？西门彼得回答说：你是基督，是永生神的儿子。耶稣对他说：西门巴约拿，你是有福的，因为这不是属血肉的指示你的，乃是我在天上的父指示的。” （太16：13-17） 这段经文说是天上的父指示彼得说，这位在地球上的耶稣，就是祂的儿子。耶稣基督作为上帝的儿子对于约翰是多么的重要，以致他在约翰福音的结论中写道：“耶稣在门徒面前，另外行了许多神迹，没有记在这书上。但记这些事，要叫你们信耶稣是基督，是神的儿子，并且叫你们信了祂，就可以因祂的名得生命。” （约20：30-31) 保罗从基督本身领教了福音之后，他所讲的第一篇道，就是关于耶稣是上帝的儿子。按《圣经》记载，“【扫罗】就在各会堂里宣传耶稣，说祂是神的儿子。” （徒9：20）使徒彼得曾经与耶稣同住，并亲耳听见祂所传的信息，他对耶稣说：“我们已经信了，又知道你是神的圣者。” 【编按：英王钦定本《圣经》翻译成“又知道你是那基督，永生神的儿子。”】（约6：69）基督的门徒也感叹说：“ 我们信你是从神出来的。” （约16：30） 马大是耶稣要好的朋友之一，她曾听见耶稣的许多教训。她对耶稣说：“主啊，是的，我信你是基督，是神的儿子，就是那要临到世界的。” （约11：27） 腓利向太监传福音之后，马上说：“你若是一心相信，就可以。他回答说：我信耶稣基督是神的儿子。” （徒8：37） 马可在他福音书的第一节就说了耶稣是谁：“神的儿子，耶稣基督福音的起头。” （可1：1） 即使是魔鬼也知道耶稣是谁。“他们喊着说：神的儿子，我们与你有什么相干？” （太8：29） 那么魔鬼是如何知道耶稣是上帝的儿子呢？因为他们曾经见过祂！那些鬼魔曾经住在天上。当路锡甫被赶出天庭时，他带了三分之一的天使与他一同被赶出天庭（启12：9）。所以他们知道耶稣是上帝的独生子！ 基督说：“我告诉你们，凡妇人所生的，没有一个大过约翰的。” （路7：28）施洗约翰作见证说：“我看见了，就证明这是神的儿子。” （约1：34） 在所有的见证人当中，最大的见证还是父上帝本身。祂两次从天上说：“这是我的爱子。” （太3：17；17：5）耶稣宣告说：”【我】是神的儿子。“ （约10：36） 祂说，祂是“神【的】独生子。” （约3：18） 根据《圣经》，耶稣基督是“生”的，意思就是诞生，在任何物被造之先，在上帝差祂降世为人许久之前，祂就已生出。（参阅约3：16-17；18：37；西1：15；来1：1-9；约壹4：9）《圣经》没有告诉我们耶稣是如何诞生的，不过上帝要我们知道耶稣是祂所至爱的儿子。耶稣说：“因为父怎样在自己有生命，就赐给祂儿子也照样在自己有生命。” （约5：26） 如果耶稣从永恒一直都与父一同存在，如三位一体论所声称的，那么上帝就不可能赐给祂儿子生命，因为祂儿子的生命也就是自有的了。但是《圣经》的启示表明这是不可能的事。根据耶稣本身的见证，祂是上帝的独生子，并且真的从祂父承受生命。祂没有说祂是三位一体中的其中一位成员，扮演上帝儿子的角色的一位。祂说祂是上帝的儿子！ {待续} （17）耶稣在降世之前是不是上帝的儿子？ 三位一体论者经常声称，耶稣被称为上帝的儿子，只因为祂降生在伯利恒。然而，基督在降世时，道成肉身，降生为人，成为了“人子”，即人的儿子，而并非成为“上帝的儿子”，因为祂早已经是上帝的儿子了。《圣经》多次和多方启示我们，耶稣本是上帝的儿子，甚至在上帝“尚未”差祂来到世间之前，祂已经是上帝的儿子了，而并非来到世间之后才成为上帝的儿子的。譬如，下面两节经文说明上帝差祂儿子来到世间。因此，在上帝尚未差祂来之前，祂早已经是上帝的儿子了。 “神差祂独生子到世间来，使我们藉着祂得生。...” 约壹4：9 “因为神差祂的儿子降世，不是要定世人的罪，【或作审判世人】乃是要叫世人因祂得救。” 约3：17 上帝的儿子在祂降世以前500多年，就曾出现在烈火窯中，与忠心的三个希伯来人在一起。“看哪，我见有四个人，并没有捆绑，在火中游行，也没有受伤，那第四个的相貌，好像神子。” 但3：25 《圣经》也告诉我们，耶稣在万物被造以前，就已是上帝的儿子了。保罗描述基督的时候写道：“爱子是那不能看见之神的像，是首生的，在一切被造的以先。” 西1：15 注意，这一节的下半段在英王钦定本《圣经》中的翻译有误：“...是一切被造当中首生的。” 结果，一些信徒就用英王钦定本《圣经》来证明基督本身是被造的。但是这种诠释在《圣经》的其他地方却产生矛盾，例如约翰福音1：1-4和歌罗西书1：16，17。 所以我们看到，保罗告诉我们说，基督“是首生的，在一切被造的以先”，因为一切的受造之物都是上帝藉着祂儿子耶稣基督造的。“又使众人都明白，这历代以来隐藏在【编按：英文《圣经》有“藉着耶稣基督”】创造万物之神里的奥秘，是如何安排的。” 弗3：9 给復临信徒： “奉献长子的礼从最早就开始了。上帝曾应许赐下天上“头生的”来拯救罪人。” ——怀爱伦著，《历代愿望》原文第51页。 “上帝就差遣自己的儿子，成为罪身的形状，承受身体上的软弱，凡事受过试探，与我们一样。祂是永生上帝的儿子。祂的位格不是在祂降世为人的时候才开始的。”——怀爱伦著，《信函77》1894年8月3日。 《塔义儿希腊词典》说：“基督被称为一切受造物之首生的。祂藉着上帝而生，在全宇宙被造之物以先。” 《巴尔纳斯新约评论》对歌罗西书1：15作了这样的分析： “首生这个词（希腊文prototokos）的正式意思是指父母头生的孩子。“ 《杰密生、法瑟和布朗圣经注释》说：”在一切受造之物以前生的。“ 《马太亨利圣经注释》解释说：“祂在一切受造之物以前，在任何生物被造之前生的。” 《圣经》指耶稣基督是“神的像”，“那不能看见之神的像”，以及“神本体的真像”。（林后4：4；西1：15；来1：3）一个“像”永远都不是原始的样貌，它只不过是有原版的样式，或是原版的一个复制。基督是上帝的儿子，因此祂是父的真像。如果说父是祂儿子的像，那就不对了，因为父才是原始的。同样的，如果说基督是真神或原始的神，那就不对了，因为祂是真神的像。 《圣经》至少120次指基督为上帝的儿子，其中44次用了“神的儿子”这句短语。关于基督的儿子身份之真实性，祂5次被称为“独生子”，3次被称为“首生”，2次被称为“长子”，以及2次被称为“圣子”。【编按：中文《圣经》的译词与英文不尽相同。此处是取自中文和合本《圣经》。章节具体出处可参考第9集的神性名字对照表。】其中四节说，祂是在降世为人之前“生”的，所以这不可能是指祂在地球上从玛利亚的胎中出生的，有些人却选择相信这种说法。另外四节说，祂是“出于神”，“从父出来的”，或“从神而来”的 。这个课题的证据多不胜数。基督真是上帝亲生的独生子，是在一切受造之物以先，从父出来的。下面的章节，连同《塔义尔希腊词典》的注释，也揭示耶稣在创造世界以先就已从父生出。到了后来，祂才被差遣到世间来。 《塔义尔希腊英文词典》 G1831——身体从...出来，从...兴起，出生于 G2064——从一个地方来，往另一个地方去 约翰福音8：42 “耶稣说：倘若神是你们的父，你们就必爱我，因为我本是出于【G1831】神，也是从神而来，并不是由着自己来【G2064】，乃是祂差我来。” 约翰福音16：27-28 “父自己爱你们，因为你们已经爱我，又信我是从父出来【G1831】的。我从父出来【G1831】，到【G2064】了世界，我又离开世界，往父那里去。” 约翰福音17：7-8 “如今他们知道，凡你所赐给我的，都是从你那里来的。因为你所赐给我的道，我已经赐给他们，他们也领受了，又确实知道，我是从你出来【G1831】的，并且信你差了我来。” 既然三位一体论教导三位平行永恒之神性生物的道理，那么《圣经》论述耶稣为上帝的儿子这个真理，对三位一体论者来说，就成了另一个严重的问题，因为他们的信念与《圣经》产生了矛盾。如果耶稣真是上帝所生，如《圣经》100多处所说的那样，那么耶稣就不可能与父同样永恒了。所以，这又是另一个问题，三位一体论者必须把它解释掉。他们的典型解释就是玩弄《塔义尔希腊词典》对译成“生”的希腊词monogenes的定义。他们声称，monogenes的意思是指基督是独一无二、举世无双的，而不是指祂是上帝所生的独生子，如经文有意表达的含义。《史特朗圣经词典》给出的定义是：“独生，即唯独：独一（所生，孩子）”。因此，更准确的意思是独生子。每当这个希腊词用在人物身上时，它都是无一例外地指着亲子关系的。 以下是monogenes这个词在整本《圣经》中的所有用法。 “独生子” 共出现了五次，其中四次是指耶稣（约1:18；3:16；3:18；约壹4:9），一次是指被鬼附的儿子（路9:38）； “父独生子”出现一次，也是指耶稣（约1:14）； “独生的儿子”出现一次，是指亚伯拉罕的独生子以撒（来11:17）； “他母亲独生的儿子”一次，是指寡妇死里复活的儿子（路7:12）；以及 “独生女儿”一次，是指睚鲁死里复活的女儿（路8:42）。 【编按：中文和合本《圣经》与英王钦定本《圣经》所用的译词不尽相同。此处所列的经文乃出自和合本《圣经》。】由此可见，《圣经》凡用这个希腊词的经文没有一节不是指着所生的独生儿子或独生女儿的。 既然“儿子”这个词当意指基督时，不止一次在前面加了“独生”两个字，那么其意思不外是耶稣乃上帝所生，这也解释了为什么祂被称为上帝的儿子，这是不言而喻的。我们也有使徒保罗在歌罗西书1：15的见证，说明基督是首生的，在一切被造的以先。而这一节所用的希腊词prototokos不能被滥用，因为它指的是：“头生，首先生的（通常作名词，真意或象征性的）：首生。” 也有其他经文表明耶稣是上帝所生的。后续我们将作更详尽的介绍。 给復临信徒： “基督是‘那不能看见之神的像，是首生的，在一切被造的以先。因为万有都是靠祂造的，无论是天上的、地上的、能看见的、不能看见的、或是有位的、主治的、执政的、掌权的，一概都是藉着祂造的，又是为祂造的。祂在万有之先，万有也靠祂而立。’ 歌罗西书第1章美妙地教导我们耶稣里的真理。”——怀爱伦著，《时兆》1899年11月15日。 有些人也声称，如果耶稣是上帝所生的，祂就不可能是神性了。但这是撒但的另一个手段，用来拦阻人接受真理。无论如何，问题却是恰恰相反。神性不在乎你的年龄多少，而是在乎你从哪里来。耶稣从祂父那里承受了一切，包括祂的神性。参阅希伯来书1：4。 耶稣是上帝的亲生儿子，“是首生，在一切被造的以先。”（西1：15）祂既从父而生，就有祂父的“神性”。“因为父喜欢叫一切的丰盛，在祂里面居住。”（西1：19）而且，在歌罗西书2：9中翻译成“神本性”的希腊词就是指“神性”。因此，保罗表明，上帝“神性”的丰盛居住在祂儿子里面。“因为神本性一切的丰盛，都有形有体的居住在基督里面。”（西2：9）由此可见，耶稣是完全神性的，因为祂“是”父的独生子，因此祂是从父出来的，所以祂有祂父的“神性”。故此，“神的本性”是在儿子里面，因为祂是上帝的儿子。 构成基督的一切，都是没有开始的。这包括祂的神性、祂的构造、祂的本质，这些都是没有开始的，因为这些都是从父来的。如果你追溯基督的历史，你必须经过父神本身，而你永远都找不到一个开始。但是，基督作为儿子的位格就有一个开始，就是在祂为父所生的那一刻开始。如果耶稣不是从祂父那里承受了祂的神性的话，那祂是从哪里获得神性的呢？那就意味着耶稣本身必须是一个神，就像祂父亲一样，这样的话我们就会有两个神了。这样就会违反第一条诫命，独一真神父上帝说：“除了我以外，你不可有别的神。”（出20：3）诫命所说的，不是“除了我们以外”。如果耶稣由于是上帝的儿子而没有祂父的神性的话，那么我们就有一个非常严重的问题了。 为什么一些人坚持硬要基督符合他们所给祂的形象，他们才会接受祂呢？他们期望基督是在每一方面都与父神一模一样的第二个神，于是就拒绝接受祂为一个亲生的儿子。然而，基督为上帝的儿子这个真理是那么的宝贵。试想一下。基督是上帝自己的儿子，是祂所非常爱戴的！为什么有人偏要毁掉这宝贵的父子关系呢？另一种拒绝相信真理的方法，是声称耶稣不可能是上帝所生的，因为祂没有母亲。 但这种想法是拟人化的想法。三位一体论者为什么要把“人性”的限制套在上帝身上呢？祂是神！不是人！只因为某事在我们看来不合理或不逻辑，或只因为某事超越我们的理解，不代表它不是真理。我们的天父说：“我的意念，非同你们的意念，我的道路，非同你们的道路。天怎样高过地，照样我的道路，高过你们的道路，我的意念，高过你们的意念。”（赛55：8-9）我曾听见过一位牧师说，如果基督有开始，那祂一定是被造的。《圣经》怎么说的？那是他用自己的想法，去限制上帝所能做的事。上帝有能力生一个儿子，并且祂也作到了，而且不需要创造祂出来！《圣经》不可能撒谎，而那些反对基督是父所生的儿子的人，应该知道在上帝没有难成的事，“在神凡事都能” （太19：26）！我们不可将人性的限制套在上帝身上，按着我们自己有限的知识来决定上帝能做什么，不能做什么，或者祂应该如何如何行事，而无视上帝的无所不知和无所不能。为什么这么多基督徒尝试去解释掉上百节清楚无误的经文，都是表明耶稣是上帝的儿子，就只为了维护一个不存在于《圣经》的异教理论呢？当撒但如此费尽心思去到这种地步，你就知道这应该是个非常非常重要的真理了。 给復临信徒： “的确，上帝的儿子有很多；但基督却是‘上帝的独生子’，因此，祂在一个独特的意义上，是上帝的儿子；在这个意义上，别的生物从来都不是，也永远不可能会是这样的儿子。藉着创造，众天使成为上帝的儿子，亚当也是被造的儿子（参阅伯38：7和路3：38）；基督徒则藉着承受儿子的名分而成为上帝的儿子（罗8：14，15）；但基督是藉着诞生而成为上帝的儿子的。希伯来书的作者进一步表明，上帝儿子的地位，不是基督升位得来的，而是祂原本就有的权利。”——瓦格纳著，《基督和祂的义》原文第11，12页。 “上帝爱世人，甚至将祂的独生子赐给世人，不是一个如天使般受造的儿子，也不是一个如被赦免的罪人一般得了名分的儿子，而是一个按着父本体的真像所生的儿子。”——怀爱伦著，《时兆》1895年5月30日。 “奉献长子的礼从最早就开始了。上帝曾应许赐下天上“头生的”来拯救罪人。” ——怀爱伦著，《历代愿望》原文第51页。 鉴于怀爱伦支持瓦格纳上述所写的引言，瓦格纳所说的“基督是藉着诞生而成为上帝的儿子”与怀爱伦所说的 “上帝所生的儿子”和“天上头生的”之间有什么差别呢？当然没有任何区别。耶稣藉着诞生是上帝的亲儿子，因此，曾经有个时候，祂从父生出。祂不可能藉着其他方法而成为天上头生的儿子。上述引言也证明，藉着诞生而成为上帝的儿子，并不代表被造，如许多三位一体论者所误以为的。{待续} （18）基督有没有开始？还是只有祂的位格有开始？ 试想以下的情况。如果我们可以以光的速度之513个10的倍数往任何方向飞行的话，我们是否能找到宇宙的尽头，也许是一道墙挂着一个牌子说：这是尽头？如果是这样的话，那么在那道墙的另一边又是什么呢？在上帝尚未藉着祂儿子创造宇宙万物之前，有什么东西存在呢？是空虚无物，什么都没有吗？如果什么都没有的话，那么这种无物的状态维持了多久呢？那必然会是永远！那上帝又如何呢？祂是什么时候开始存在的呢？是谁创造了祂呢？答案是，从来没有一个时候祂是不存在的，因此祂是不可能被造的。祂是上帝，素来都是上帝，所以祂是没有开始的！那么上帝的儿子呢？祂是从上帝的同一本质而生的，所以祂的本质也一样没有开始。 既然基督有祂父的同一本质，那构成祂的一切也就没有开始了。所以祂的神性没有开始，祂的构造，祂的本性，都没有开始，因为这些都是从父来的。因此，在原则上来说，基督的一切是没有开始的。如果你追溯基督的历史，你必须经过父神本身，你就永远都不会找到一个开始。但是，基督作为上帝儿子的位格，在祂为父所生的那一刻起，就开始了。这个原则多次在《圣经》中提出。所以，其实只有基督的位格是有开始的。这些都是上帝的奥秘，是我们的思维所无法了解的事。 给復临信徒： “主耶稣基督，圣父的独生子，在无穷无限上真的是神，但在位格上却不是上帝。”——怀爱伦著，《文稿116》1905年12月19日。 瓦格纳所写的话比较容易明白，使怀爱伦的上述引言更容易了解。他说：“耶稣是上帝的独生子。祂是生的，不是被造的。祂有父的本质，这使祂在本性上是神；既然如此，”父喜欢叫一切的丰盛，在祂里面居住。”（西1：19）虽然父子俩都属于同一本性，但父在时间上为优先。祂也比较大，因为祂没有开始，而基督的位格则是有开始的。“ ——瓦格纳著，《时兆》1889年4月8日。{待续} （19）耶稣是什么时候以及如何从父生的？ 有人说，耶稣在亘古的日子里，不断地为父所生，这是根据诗篇2:7而得出的论点。“受膏者说：我要传圣旨。耶和华曾对我说：你是我的儿子，我今日生你。”（诗2:7）但这一节是对未来事件所作的预言，而并非指着亘古以前的事。使徒行传13:33解释说：“神已经向我们这作儿女的应验，叫耶稣复活了，正如诗篇第二篇上记着说：‘你是我的儿子，我今日生你。’” 在使徒行传13:16-41的这段重要经文中，保罗述说我们的主和救主的故事，祂如何来到世间，并为我们的罪而死，但祂的天父叫祂从死里复活，使他不致遭受朽坏。故此，这段经文宣告说，这一节经文已经在基督从死里复活的事上得了应验。祂是从死里生的，而叫祂从死里复活的上帝彰显了基督是祂儿子。这也从启示录1:5中得到支持：“并那诚实作见证的，从死里首先复活。...”【编按：英王钦定本《圣经》译成“从死里首生的。”】 那《圣经》说基督是什么时候从父生出的？箴言8:23-26说：“从亘古，从太初，未有世界以前，我已被立。没有深渊，没有大水的泉源，我已生出。大山未曾奠定，小山未有之先，我已生出。耶和华还没有创造大地和田野，并世上的土质，我已生出。” 显然，基督是从亘古在世界未曾被造以前从父生出的。当然，如果基督是生出的，那么这也证实了祂的位格是有起源的。注意，第23节被译成“亘古”的希伯来文原字Olam，有几个可能的含义，而《圣经》译者根据其上下文语境，以及译者本身认为正确的含义，把它翻译成不同的词。它的意思可以是”消失点“，”超出思想的时间——过去或未来“，”古时候“和”世界的起源“等等。以下是一些表明这一点的其他英文翻译版本。 箴言8:23《犹太圣经全版》“在未有世界以先，未开始之前，世界的初始之前，我已被任命。” 箴言8:23《何尔曼基督徒标准圣经》“在古时候之前，从太初，世界未开始之前，我已被形成。” 箴言8:23《新生译本》“在很久以前，从太初，世界未开始之前，我已被命定。” 箴言8:23《新生命版本》“在很久以前，从太初，未有世界以前，我已被分别。” 箴言8:23《修订标准版》“在很久以前，从太初，世界未开始以前，我已被立。” 有人说，箴言第8章的智慧不是指基督。但我们来看看《圣经》说的智慧是指谁。哥林多前书1:24,30说：“但在那蒙召的，无论是犹太人，希利尼人，基督总为神的能力，神的智慧。...但你们得在基督耶稣里，是本乎神，神又使他成为我们的智慧、公义、圣洁、救赎。” 路加福音11:49的智慧或智者也是指基督：“所以，神用智慧（用智慧：或作的智者）曾说：我要差遣先知和使徒到他们那里去...” 给復临信徒： “基督透过所罗门王宣告说：‘在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就有了我。从亘古，从太初，未有世界以前，我已被立。没有深渊，没有大水的泉源，我已生出。大山未曾奠定，小山未有之先，我已生出。’ ”——怀爱伦著，《时兆》1900年8月29日。 有人对《圣经》中的“太初”也有错误的观念。上帝当然是没有起头的，而太初这个词是指某事的“起源”或“来源”。牛津英文词典对英文的beginning（译成“太初”）所给出的定义是：“一个人或组织的背景或起源。” 如果基督与父同永恒的话，那么祂就会像祂父一样没有起源了。耶稣所引用的《七十士译本》（希腊文旧约）说：“在太初，未有时间之前，在祂未创造世界之前，祂设立了我。” 因此，其实所有的《圣经》译本在箴言8:23的翻译上，全都说基督是有起源的！ 所罗门王在箴言8:23中用了希伯来文的对应法，它用某一种方式来表达一个概念，然后又用另一种互补的方式来表达同一个概念。所以，这一节的前三句短语所表达的都是同样的概念，只是用了不同的方式来表达而已。这就让我们非常清楚他所指的太初是几时，但是大多数人仍然误解其含义。《圣经》作者不像我们了解现代科学，他们是用天上的星体来测量时间的，而这些星体在基督未创造万物之前是不存在的。基督是在太初祂还没有创造天地之前被立的。那时还没有时间的计算，因为还没有任何可以用来计算时间的东西。所以，我们知道，太初就是在天地还没有被造之前，还不存在任何可以用来测量时间的东西之时，所以太初是在未有时间之前。故此，第23节中所用的短语，如“从亘古”、“未有时间之前”、“从太初”、“未有世界以前”或类似的短语，都是同一个意思。简单地说，就是在世界和万物尚未被创造之前的时候。弥迦书5:2也告诉我们，基督有起源，并在很久以前生出的。“祂的根源从亘古，从太初就有。” 这一节也用了箴言8:23所用的同一个希伯来文字Olam，因此也遇到了相同的翻译难题。“根源”这个词当然含有起源之意，所以英文的《新国际版本》用了“起源”一词。 弥迦书5:2 “伯利恒以法他啊，你在犹大诸城中为小，将来必有一位从你那里出来，在以色列中为我作掌权的，祂的根源从亘古，从太初就有。” 有人误以为希伯来书1:8的 “神啊，你的宝座是永永远远的” 是指祂的宝座自古以来永远长存而没有开始，但这节的“永永远远”所用的希腊词与启示录22:5所用的希腊词相同，都是指将来的永永远远。“他们【指圣徒】要作王，直到永永远远。”（启22:5）这里的永永远远显然是指向未来，除非圣徒是没有起源的。英文的《新国际版本》翻译得比较清楚：“神啊，你的宝座将存到永永远远。” 给復临信徒： “虽然我们可以尝试用理性去了解我们的创造主，祂【指基督】存在了多长时间，罪恶最初在什么地方进入我们的世界，以及这些所有的问题，我们可以理论和查考这些问题，直到我们精疲力尽而晕倒在地，但却还有无限的永恒在后头。”——怀爱伦著，《基督復临安息日会圣经注释》第7卷，原文第919页。 “有一个时候，基督出于上帝，并从上帝而来，从父的怀里出来（约8:42；1:18），但那个时候在亘古时代中是如此的久远，以至于对人类有限的理解力而言，它几乎等于是没有开始的。”——瓦格纳著，《基督与祂的义》原文第21页。1890年版。由此可见，怀爱伦和瓦格纳都说基督是在很久很久以前从上帝生出的。 基督是上帝的儿子，是在祂还没有被差遣到世间来，还没有从祂父的怀里撕出来之前，就已是上帝的儿子。“永恒的父，那永不变更的一位，赐下祂的独生子，把祂本体的真像从自己的怀里撕出来，并差祂到世间来启示祂对人类的爱何等的大。”——怀爱伦著，《评论与通讯》1895年7月9日。 注意，上帝和祂独生子的本性，其实在亚当和夏娃的身上以小规模的方式彰显出来。“亚当享受了上帝和圣天使的陪伴。...他对创造主的爱、感恩、忠诚——都被他对夏娃的爱所压服了。夏娃是他自己的一部分。”——怀爱伦著，《先祖与先知》原文第56页。 夏娃如何是亚当的一部分，照样，基督也是上帝的一部分。“上帝对世人的爱之所以彰显出来，不是因为祂差遣祂儿子，而是因为祂爱世人而差祂儿子来到世间，叫神性披上了人性，便可以触摸人类，同时神性又可以抓住无限。虽然罪在人类与上帝之间产生了鸿沟，但神圣的仁爱却提供了一个跨越鸿沟的计划。祂用了什么质料呢？祂本身的一部分。父神荣耀所发的光辉来到这个被咒诅所毁坏玷污的世界，并且以祂自己的神性品格，以祂自己的神性身体跨越了鸿沟，并开通了一条贯通神与人之间的沟通管道。”——怀爱伦著，《信函36a》1890年9月18日。 我们看到，基督是从祂父的怀里撕出来的，所以基督是父神本身的一部分，这是三位一体论者永远不能说的。上帝的儿子从父神生出，因此有祂父的同一本质。这意味着构成基督的一切是永远长存而无始无终的，因为这些都是来自父的。但基督的本体则是有开始的，尽管祂的本质是无始无终的。从这个角度来看，或许我们可以说基督在太初还未出生之前就永远存在了，因为祂（本质）存在于祂父（永恒）的怀中。{待续} (20) 圣灵是谁或是什么？ 很多人以为灵是一种没有身体、四处飘荡的鬼魂。《美国文化遗产辞典》对鬼魂的定义是：“死人的灵，尤其是以活人的身体形像出现，或重返故居的灵。” 但圣灵肯定不是一个如辞典所描述般的鬼魂。 大卫写道：“我往哪里去躲避你的灵？我往哪里逃，躲避你的面？”（诗篇139：7）在这里，大卫用了希伯来文的对应法来表达自己。这种对应法用一种方式表达一个概念，然后又用另一种方式来补充这个概念。他的第一个想法是：“我往哪里去躲避你的灵？” 第二个想法相等于第一个想法：“我往哪里逃，躲避你的面？” 大卫的意思是，上帝的灵相等于上帝的面（即上帝的同在）。因此，圣灵最恰当形容为上帝的同在和大能。 给復临信徒： “上帝赐给我们祂的灵时，也就是赐给我们祂自己。” （怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷七，原文第273页，1902年版）“神圣的灵，就是世界的救主所应许要差遣的灵，是上帝的同在和大能。” （怀爱伦著，《时兆》1891年11月23日） 然而，三位一体论声称，圣灵是另一位生物，因为《圣经》表明圣灵有思想、意愿和情感。但这是不符合《圣经》的，而且这种逻辑错误百出。圣灵有位格是因为上帝有位格。上帝赐给我们祂的灵时，也就是赐给我们祂自己。那么，祂的灵有祂的思想、意愿和情感，就好像人的灵有人的思想、意愿和情感一样。 一个人的灵是他的思想、意愿和情感。你的灵就是你自己本身。所以，一个灵本身不是也不可能是一位实在的生物。如果真是的话，它就不再是一个灵了。举个例子，一个灵如果是另一位生物，那么这个灵也就必须拥有它自己的灵。换句话说，圣灵如果是一位生物的话，那么它就必须拥有它自己的灵，这样它才能有自己的思想、意愿和情感。那么到最后我们就会得出圣灵的灵。这种撒但为了获得崇拜而引进的虚伪神学，也似乎让人们丧失了一切对于什么是灵的现实感。然而，尽管我们的灵只能在我们里面，但上帝的灵却能做到我们的灵所不能做的事。上帝能差遣祂的灵到任何一个地方去。这就是上帝和祂儿子在无法亲临现场的情况下代表祂们自己的方式。 约伯记说：“但在人里面有灵，全能者的气使人有聪明。” （伯32:8） 灵是人心里面的一部分，是可以感觉愁烦的。但以理解释说：“至于我但以理，我的灵在我里面愁烦。” （但7:15）灵是人心里的一部分，是可以感知或明白事理的。在马可福音中，我们读到：“耶稣心【原文作：灵】中知道他们心里这样议论，就说：你们心里为什么这样议论呢？” （可2:8） 灵是人心里的一部分，是可以感觉烦乱的。巴比伦王作了一个梦，告诉他的术士，说：“我作了一个梦，心【原文作：灵】里烦乱，要知道这是什么梦。” （但2:3） 所以，我们发现，我们的灵就是我们的思想、意愿和情感。这并不使我们的灵成为另一个人。 如果我说，“我知道我们见过面，不过你还没有见过我的灵吧？我想给你介绍我的灵，它正坐在那张椅子上。” 你会怎么想？你一定会认为我对我的灵有一种歪曲的概念。它不是另一位与我清楚分开的人。我的灵是我本身，所以它是我的思想、意愿和情感。 《圣经》提到几种灵。有“恶鬼【原文作：邪灵】”、“哑巴鬼”、“污鬼”、“污秽之灵”、“谦卑的灵”、“美好的灵”、“良善的灵”、“忧伤的灵”、“诚实的灵”、和“狂心【狂傲之灵】”等等。这些灵都是以形容词来分辨的，例如良善、污秽、谦卑等。我们知道父上帝有一个灵（马太福音10:20）。祂的灵当然是圣洁的。“圣”这个词也是一个形容词。所以“圣灵”不是一个名字，而是一个对于上帝的灵之描述。 父上帝和祂儿子耶稣基督在《圣经》中有不同的名字和称号，因为他们是有位格的生物。如果圣灵是个有位格的生物，与父和子完全同等的生物，如三位一体论所教导的，那么为什么圣灵没有个人的名字呢？“灵”不是一个名字，而是一个灵。“圣”只是一个形容词，用来描述上帝的灵。其他的词如“上帝的灵”也不是一个名字，而是上帝的灵。它就是上帝的灵！它也被称为“你父的灵”，就是上帝的灵。所以，如果圣灵真的是一位有位格的生物，那为什么它没有个人的名字呢？ 既然你的灵是你的思想、意愿和情感，那么如你所预料的，“灵”的希腊词和希伯来词也意味着”思想“。《史特朗圣经辞典》说：”气息，象征着生命、灵（包括其表达和功能）、思想。 注意保罗在罗马书11:34中如何引用以赛亚书40:13的话。我们知道保罗明白耶和华的灵也意指耶和华的心。当然，一个人的心不是另一个人，就如他们的灵也不是另一个人一样。这也包括上帝在内，如保罗在以下章节所透露的。所以我们再次发现，你的灵就是你的心、你的意愿和情感。这不只应用在人的身上，也用在神的身上。希腊词pneuma及其在希伯来文裡的同义词ruach，在各翻译版本中被翻译成“灵”或“心”，而ruach在英王钦定本《圣经》中共六次被翻译成“心”或“思想”。 “谁曾测度耶和华的心，（或作谁曾指示耶和华的灵），或作祂的谋士指教祂呢？” 以赛亚书40:13 “谁知道主的心，谁作过祂的谋士呢？” 罗马书11:34 那耶和华的心怎么可能是另一个生物呢？那是不可能的。 其实，一直到公元381年，一位刚受洗、完全没有神学知识的皇帝，接受了三位卡帕多西亚人的圣灵观之后，上帝的灵才变成另一位分开的生物。任何人若不同意就被标签为愚昧的疯子和异端份子，并依法惩治！就这样，这个天主教的教义经过黑暗时代流传下来，并在宗教改革期间进入了改革教派，而不受任何质疑，如三位一体论一般。它只是被假定为正确的。有一天他们为了辩护这个教义，就声称世俗的词典说人有思想、意愿和情感，而各《圣经》版本表明圣灵也有思想、意愿和情感。因此，它必定是一个真实的生物。但如我们之前所看到的，这不符合《圣经》的逻辑，也意味着我里面的灵是另一个与我分开的人。 如果我说一个人的灵是另一个人，你会相信吗？毕竟，人的心灵可以感觉烦乱， 如但以理书2:3：“我...心【原文作：灵】裡烦乱...” 人的灵可以感到愁烦，如但以理书7:15：“我的灵在我里面愁烦...” 人的灵可以说话和祷告，如哥林多前书14：14：“我的灵祷告...” 人的灵可以欢喜快乐，如路加福音1:47：“我灵以神我的救主为乐。” 人的灵主可以接収，如使徒行传7:59：“求主耶稣接收我的灵魂。” 人的灵也可以事奉，如罗马书1:9：“用心灵所事奉的神...” 人的灵也可以安息，如哥林多后书2:13：“我心里不安...” 所以，我们发现人的灵有思想、意愿和情感。因此，人的灵必定是另一个人。你可能在想我疯了，然而这同一个逻辑也被人用来指圣灵是另一位生物。 有人会回答说：“但神的灵不同。” 其实不然。《圣经》不但表明神的灵没有不同，而且也表明它与人的灵相同，除了一点，就是人的灵在人里面，但神可以差祂的灵到任何地方去。如果《圣经》没有明说圣灵是一位实际的生物，那就不要假设《圣经》说一些它没有说的事。所以，让我们尊敬上帝，并信靠祂的话语所说的，而不要作任何假设或相信我们仇敌的谎言。 我们看过了《圣经》的见证，上帝和祂儿子和所有生物都有灵，而这灵给我们独特的性格，让我们能有自己的思想、意愿和情感。那么，“上帝的灵”若要变成一位“实际生物”的话，它就必须有它“自己的灵”，一个与父和子分开的灵。但这样我们就会被迫相信“圣灵的灵”，而如果圣灵没有它自己的灵，那么它就不能有分开的位格，也不能有它自己的思想、意愿和情感了！ 每个生物的灵都有其位格/性格，因为我们的灵其实就是我们的位格/性格！所以圣灵有位格，是因为上帝有位格。上帝赐给我们祂的灵时，便是将祂自己赐给我们。它不是另一位生物，也不是一种没有位格的非个人力量。它是上帝自己的同在和能力。它是上帝自己的灵，有上帝自己的位格。如果我可以把我的灵给你，你会有谁的位格？我的！所以上帝的灵有上帝的位格。同样的道理可以应用在上帝的灵身上。上帝的灵是神圣的，因为上帝是一位神圣的生物。记住，上帝是灵，然而祂是有位格的生物。“神是个灵，所以拜祂的，必须用心灵和诚实拜祂。”（约4:24） 给復临信徒： 圣灵不是一种力量或另一位生物，而是上帝祂自己。“当上帝赐下祂的灵给我们的时候，便是将祂自己赐给我们，使祂自己成为一个神圣影响的泉源，把健康和生命赐给世人。”（怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷七，原文第273页。1902年）“上帝是个灵，然而祂是一个有位格的生物，因为人是按着祂的形象所造的。” （怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷八，原文第263页。1904年） 注意保罗如何对照人的灵与神的灵，藉此斩钉截铁地推翻这个谎言。当然你的想法是从你的心智来的，所以是你的思想、意志和情感的结果。 “除了在人里头的灵，谁知道人的事，像这样，除了神的灵，也没有人知道神的事。” （林前2:11) 在这里，人的灵就好像神的灵一样。正如人有灵，照样，神也有灵，而神的灵是祂本身的一部分，与祂的思想和情感相连，就像人的灵一样。以弗所书4:30说，圣灵是“神的圣灵”，在此保罗吩咐我们不要叫祂的灵担忧。正如人的灵可以担忧，照样，神的灵也可以担忧。如果我告诉你说，我的灵感到担忧，你会不会认为我的灵是另一个人呢？显然不会。而保罗表明，上帝与祂的灵在这一方面并没有什么差别。上帝的灵属于上帝，正如我的灵属于我一样。如保罗说，神的灵知道神的想法，因为它是神的圣灵，所以有祂的心思、意愿和情感，就像人一样。当然，如上所引，保罗也在罗马书11:34启示说，心和灵是相互联系的。他还进一步在以弗所书4:23表明这种关系，说：”又要将你们的心志改换一新。“ 【编按：英文直译是：将你们心裡的灵改换一新。】这是从《圣经》中引出其含义的解经法。但要是说圣灵有心思、意愿和情感，因此它必定是一位实在且分开的生物，这是一种假定，是不根据《圣经》的，是把自己的含义引入《圣经》的解经法。保罗在哥林多前书2:11表明人与神之间的分别，人的灵是在人里头的，但保罗没有说神里头的灵，这是因为神可以差遣祂的灵到处去。也没有《圣经》章节说圣灵是神。 注意“圣灵”在《圣经》中的用法。马太福音3:16说：“他就看见神的灵，仿佛鸽子降下，落在他身上。” 路加福音3：22记载了同一事件，说：“圣灵降临在他身上，形状仿佛鸽子。...” 那么这些相呼应的经文表明圣灵是神的灵。 我们再看一个更清晰的例子。路加福音12:11-12说：“不要思虑怎么分诉，说什么话。因为正在那时候，圣灵要指教你们当说的话。” 注意马太福音记载的同一事件，和他所谓的圣灵是什么：“不要思虑怎样说话，或说什么话。到那时候，必赐给你们当说的话；因为不是你们自己说的，乃是你们父的灵在你们里头说的。”（太10:19-20）马太称圣灵为“你们父的灵，” 所以圣灵不是另一位生物，而是上帝的灵，所以它被称为神的灵，而不是圣灵上帝。神的灵当然是神圣的，所以它也被称为圣灵。 这就是为什么圣灵有父上帝所有的特征，因为那是祂的灵。耶稣在祂受洗时受了谁的灵的恩膏？“耶稣受了洗，随即从水里上来，天忽然为祂开了，祂就看见神的灵，仿佛鸽子降下，落在祂身上。” （太3:16）耶稣用谁的灵的能力来赶鬼？ “我若靠着神的灵赶鬼，这就是神的国临到你们了。” （太12：28）众使徒如耶稣一样靠着谁的灵的能力来行许多神迹呢？ “除了基督藉我作的那些事，我什么都不敢提，只提祂藉着我言语作为，用神迹奇事的能力，并圣灵【编按：英王钦定本圣经作：神的灵】的能力，使外邦人顺服。甚至我从耶路撒冷，直转到以利哩古，到处传了基督的福音。” （罗15:18,19） 这一节经文斩钉截铁地说圣灵是神的灵。 “所以那弃绝的，不是弃绝人，乃是弃绝那赐圣灵【编按：英王钦定本圣经作：祂的灵】给你们的神。“ （帖前4:8）是谁的灵住在我们里头的呢？是另一位，还是上帝本身藉着祂的灵住在我们里面？ “神将他的灵赐给我们，从此就知道我们是住在他里面，他也住在我们里面。” （约壹4:13） 有超过25节经文启示了这简单的真理。还有一节。“不要叫神的圣灵担忧，你们原是受了他的印记，等候得赎的日子来到。” （弗4:30） 尽管《圣经》常用“神的灵”这一术语，但《圣经》从来不用“灵上帝”，因为其意义是不对的。文法的规则告诉我们，“灵上帝”　这个词意味着这个灵是一位神，而“上帝的灵”意味着这是属于上帝的灵。你可以看出，这两个词之间有不同的意思，而只有其中一个词才是正确的术语。是哪一个呢？当然是《圣经》所用的那个术语了！另一个术语是来自天主教的。类似“灵上帝”或“圣灵上帝”的术语都是天主教三位一体的术语，是撒但透过人在公元381年把上帝的灵窜改为灵上帝的结果。为什么呢？这样撒但就能坐进他所创造出来的神位，好接受人们的敬拜，这是他一直以来梦寐以求的心愿。所以这些天主教的术语是被虚构的，以便能与他们所创造的教义互相吻合。这些从来都不曾出现在《圣经》中，因为是错误的教导。那么《圣经》为什么不曾用“灵上帝”这个术语呢？因为上帝的灵不是另一位神！《圣经》用的是“上帝的灵”，因为圣灵就是上帝自己的灵。这并不是什么难解的概念。真诚的基督徒不应该用这些不符合《圣经》的术语，如“灵上帝”，因为这样做就是跟从敌基督的脚踪行了。《圣经》所用的是诸如“上帝的灵”、“基督的灵”、“我的灵”、“祂的灵”、以及“圣灵”等术语。再说，《圣经》从不叫我们向圣灵“祷告”或“下拜”。如果圣灵是三位一体神当中的一位同等神的话，那么《圣经》为什么忽略这一点呢？《圣经》吩咐我们要向上帝“求”圣灵，但从来没有吩咐我们去向圣灵祈求的。 同样的道理也能应用在基督身上。《圣经》有没有称耶稣为“子上帝”，如天主教信徒和三位一体论者所声称的呢？或者是《圣经》称耶稣为“上帝的儿子”呢？《圣经》其实每一次都称耶稣为“上帝的儿子”，这是有理由的。因为耶稣就是上帝的儿子，这是不言而喻的。你如果用的是天主教的术语，如“子上帝”或“灵上帝”，这些都不是从《圣经》来的，那么你便是在跟从教皇制度下的教会以及那敌基督者，而不是遵行上帝所默示的话了。 有人也提出创世记１:２的话说：“神的灵运行在水面上。”　他们以为这一节支持圣灵是一位实体生物的说法。但《圣经》是否说这是另一位分开的生物叫做灵上帝运行在水面上，还是说上帝藉着祂的灵以亲身的临格运行在水面上呢？ 也值得一提的是，在旧约中，“圣灵”这一术语出现了３次；“神的灵”出现了１４次；而“主耶和华的灵”则出现了２６次之多。这些术语都是同义的，而这４３节中没有一节暗示圣灵是神或是一位实体分开的生物，而只是上帝的圣灵。犹太学者研究过旧约《圣经》中所提到的圣灵，他们都把圣灵定义为上帝的同在和大能。除了这个定义，就没有其他的定义了。｛待续｝ (21) 圣父和圣子是否在灵裡合一？ 保罗在以弗所书4:4说，“圣灵只有一个。” 但《圣经》论到“神的灵”和“基督的灵”，这里面涉及两位神性生物。如果父神有一个圣灵，那圣子也必定有一个圣灵。那么怎么说只有一个圣灵呢？答案是大多数人所错过的，因为大部分人已经被天主教对圣灵的看法所洗脑（即圣灵是另一位生物而非上帝自己的灵）。上帝和祂儿子有一个共同的灵，这灵就是”祂们“在不能亲临现场的情况下代表”祂们自己“的方式。 所以圣灵是上帝本身的生命之思想、大能、品格和亲自的同在，是圣父神藉着祂儿子差遣给我们的。换句话说，圣灵乃是父神的同在和大能，藉着祂独生子耶稣基督彰显出来。这奉差遣的不是另一位神性生物，而是上帝本身的生命藉着祂儿子临到我们。 “但在那蒙召的，无论是犹太人、希腊人，基督总为神的能力，神的智慧。”（林前1:24） 基督所领受的一切，都是祂从祂父亲那里承受的，包括祂自己的生命，即自有永有的生命，因为这生命是从父来的。”因为父怎样在自己有生命，就赐给他儿子也照样在自己有生命。“（约5:26） 但基督所承受的不只是祂的生命，祂也承受了祂父的灵。所以父子俩在灵裡是合一的，而这一个灵从圣父出来，并藉着祂儿子临到我们。所以保罗将“神的灵”等同于”基督的灵“，因为它是父上帝和祂儿子耶稣基督的同一个灵。所以我们发现，圣灵不管是上帝的灵或者是基督的灵，都是同一个灵。“如果神的灵住在你们心里，你们就不属肉体，乃属圣灵了。人若没有基督的灵，就不是属基督的。”（罗8:9） 论到圣灵，保罗说基督就是那灵。“主【基督】就是那灵；主的灵在哪里，那里就得以自由。“ （林后3:17） 再说，保罗在以弗所书4:4说“圣灵只有一个” 之后，又在加拉太书4：6告诉我们说，这灵就是我们的主耶稣基督的灵，就是祂从祂父那里所领受的。所以，当你领受上帝的灵时，你也一并领受祂儿子的灵进入你的心。圣父并没有差遣另一位生物。祂差遣的是祂儿子的灵。“你们既为儿子，神就差他儿子的灵进入你们（原文作“我们”）的心，呼叫：‘阿爸，父！’” （加4:6）这样，藉着祂们的圣灵，圣父和圣子两位就要来到你心中与你同住。“人若爱我，就必遵守我的道，我父也必爱他，并且我们要到他那里去，与他同住。”（约14:23） 灵里的合一使我们得以藉着我们的中保基督进到父面前。“因为我们两下藉着他被一个圣灵所感，得以进到父面前。” （弗2:18） 所以基督是藉着圣灵住在我们里面的。“我已经与基督同钉十字架，现在活着的 不再是我，乃是基督在我里面活着。”（加2:20） 基督的灵是我们的保惠师（希腊词：parakletos）。保惠师这个词也意味着“助手”。“因为我知道，这事藉着你们的祈祷和耶稣基督之灵的帮助，终必叫我得救。”（腓1:19） 既然圣灵是保惠师和真理的灵，如果圣父和圣子不在灵里合一的话，那么基督藉着祂的灵就不可能是保惠师和真理的灵了。只有透过这个共有的灵，这事才有可能成就。 基督也曾藉着众先知说话。“就是考察在他们心里基督的灵，预先证明基督受苦难，后来得荣耀，是指着什么时候，并怎样的时候。”（彼前1:11） 自从基督在未创造万物之前为父所生以来，就已领受了上帝的灵。二千年前，当耶稣降世为人时，祂打从母胎开始就已充满着来自上帝的同一个灵，而祂在世上作为人子的生活也是如此。在祂复活升天以后，祂差遣“另一个保惠师”到世上来加给祂的子民力量，直到末时。这另一位保惠师就是基督自己，以另一种形式，即灵的形式降临在我们心间。在全宇宙中，只有圣父和圣子有能力在祂们的本体以外临格。现今祂们的本体虽然是位于天上的圣所中，但同一个时候，祂们却能以圣灵的方式临格在每一个地方。圣灵是祂们无所不在的方式。早期的天主教徒就是错在这一点上，而发展出一套不可理喻的三位一体论，违反上帝明示的话语。他们是用哲学的思维来创造出这套三位一体论的，本来就不应该去碰它，因为这理论是违反《圣经》教训的。 “经上也是这样记着说，‘首先的人亚当成了有灵的活人（“灵”或作“血气”）’，末后的亚当成了叫人活的灵。但属灵的不在先，属血气的在先，以后才有属灵的。头一个人是出于地，乃属土；第二个人是出于天【英王《圣经》有加上：的主】。” （林前15:45-47） 在这里，使徒保罗谈到两个亚当。第一个亚当是地上第一个被造的人，因吃了禁果而犯了罪。第二个（末后的）亚当是基督，祂来是为了救赎我们。注意，保罗说这人成了“叫人活的灵”。这是关于基督的另一件重要的事。不单只是祂在地上的人类生活，而且也牵连到以后所发生的事。在第46节中，保罗澄清说，属血气的先来，然后才到属灵的。这就是发生在耶稣身上的确切事件。祂先来到世上成为人，服事人，升天，然后到了五旬节，祂便以灵的方式有大能力地重返人间！祂两次来都是为了指导祂的子民并使他们成圣。今天祂也有同样的目的。所以说，父上帝的圣灵现在也是基督的灵，这一点保罗特别在第47节中作出了证实。所以，第47节中的“出于天【的主】” 也就是第45节中的“叫人活的灵”。这一点是再清楚不过的。上帝的灵和基督的灵是神性中的第三实体，但它不是另一个生物，就如我们人的灵也不是另一个人一样。 然而，圣父和圣子作为神性生物，祂们的灵能做到我们所不能做的事。祂们能离开祂们的身体本位（天上圣所），同时又能藉着祂们的圣灵在同一时间临格在全宇宙中的每一个角落。透过这种方式，祂们也能进入悔罪的信徒心中。天主教的三位一体论（一位神里面有三位生物）现在已经广泛的在大多数教会中传播。它透过引进一个不存在的第三位生物，而摧毁圣灵究竟是谁的美妙真理！更糟的是，撒但透过这项他所默示人创造出来的严重谬道，而取得成千上万人的无意敬拜。 给復临信徒： “圣灵是上帝的灵，也是基督的灵。”——瓦格纳著，《基督与祂的义》原文第23页，1890年版。 为什么是两位的灵呢？因为“圣父把祂的灵毫无限量地赐给祂儿子。”——怀爱伦著，《评论与通讯》1908年11月5日 因此，“祂们是两位，但却几乎一模一样；在本体上是两位，但在灵里却是合一的。”——怀爱伦著，《青年导报》1897年12月16日 既然圣灵是圣父和圣子的灵，是谁藉着圣灵住在我们里面呢？是圣父和圣子！ “藉着圣灵，圣父和圣子要来到你们心中，与你们同住。”——怀爱伦著，《圣经回响》1893年1月15日 圣灵是上帝本身的生命，是来自圣父的，也是圣子所共有的灵。它是圣父和圣子的亲身同在，这同在是赐给我们的。凡内心领受这神圣同在与大能，即上帝的生命，并容许祂来改变他们的品格，使他们有祂儿子的样式的人，有朝一日将必亲自与这位奇妙及慈爱的神面对面相见。 （22）三位一体论者如何声称圣灵是神？ 三位一体论教导说，圣父是神，耶稣是神，圣灵是神，但却不是三位神，而是一位神。因此，当初他们受挑战，以证明圣灵是神的时候，三位一体论者就必须在《圣经》中寻找证据，以支持这种错谬的信念。以下是私意解经法（eisegesis）的一个例子，也是他们可以找到的最大证据。“彼得说：“亚拿尼亚，为什么撒但充满了你的心，叫你欺哄圣灵，把田地的价银私自留下几份呢？田地还没有卖，不是你自己的吗？既卖了，价银不是你作主吗？你怎么心里起这意念呢？你不是欺哄人，是欺哄神了。” （徒5:3,4）既然第3节说亚拿尼亚欺哄圣灵，而第4节则说他不是欺哄人，是欺哄神，他们就声称圣灵是神。但是，这是用私意来强解《圣经》的解经法，是红色消防车逻辑，就是说，消防车是红色的，我的车也是红色的，因此我的车是消防车！ 彼得说，欺哄上帝的灵就等于欺哄上帝本身，因为圣灵乃是上帝的灵。我的灵也照样是属于我的，正如保罗先前所启示的一样。如果你欺哄我的灵，你就是欺哄我了，而不是另一个人！上帝的灵启示给彼得说，亚拿尼亚说谎，所以他不是欺哄人，而是欺哄神，因为是上帝本身藉着祂的灵揭穿这个谎言的。如保罗说：“除了在人里头的灵，谁知道人的事？像这样，除了神的灵，也没有人知道神的事。”（林前2:11） 给復临信徒： 亚拿尼亚欺哄神的灵，就是住在彼得里面的灵，这就等于欺哄全能上帝本身，因为是祂的灵。”上帝赐给我们祂的灵时，也就是赐给我们祂自己。“ （怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷七，原文第273页，第1段，1902年版） 那么，使徒行传5:3,4是否说圣灵是神，还是说他们欺哄“全能上帝”因为圣灵就是祂的灵呢？“彼得问道：‘不是你自己的吗？’ 这表明没有过分的外在压力施加于亚拿尼亚和撒非喇的身上，强迫他们牺牲他们的田产来作公益用途。他们这项举动是完全出于自愿的。但他们在假装受圣灵感动，并企图瞒骗使徒这件事上，欺哄了全能者。”——怀爱伦著，《预言之灵》卷三，原文第285页，第1段 如果圣灵是另一位生物的话，这怎么可能呢？ 以下论点值得我们仔细斟酌思考。要明白我们不是在讥诮。若你想想我要说的话，你或会发现这必须是有道理的。 三位一体论者声称，《圣经》里“上帝的灵”这句子是指另一位生物，而非上帝本身的灵。但是如果“上帝的灵”不是真的上帝的灵，而是另一位生物的话，那么上帝本身如何能有自己的灵，如果祂的灵是另一位生物呢？如果上帝真的有一个灵的话，那祂的灵又怎么称呼呢？明显的，祂的灵就叫做“上帝的灵”，而这也是一个圣灵啊！那么这就意味着我们有个 ”上帝的灵“ 和另一个 “上帝的灵”。其中一个是另一位生物，另一个则不是另一位生物，而当然两个都是圣灵。这样的话，一共有几个圣灵呢？ 唯一能解决这个问题的方法，就是如果上帝本身没有自己的灵，而祂的灵只不过是与祂分开的另一位生物。但是另一个问题又会产生。三位一体论教导说，有三位同等的生物，即是在每一方面都同等的。那么如果“上帝的灵”是另一位生物的话，为了叫基督成为一个同等的神性生物，如三位一体论者所声称的，那么“基督的灵”也必定是另一位生物，而这位生物也是一个圣灵啊！这样就会变成上帝的灵是一个圣灵，基督的灵又是另一个圣灵了。 为何不干脆接受圣灵不是另一位生物，而“上帝的灵”其实就是“上帝的灵”，也是祂儿子所共有的灵呢？那所有问题岂不都解决了吗？ 给復临信徒： “上帝的灵”就是祂“自己的灵”，而当上帝赐下祂的灵给我们时，祂就是赐下祂自己给我们了！”上帝赐给我们祂的灵时，也就是赐给我们祂自己。“ （怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷七，原文第273页，第1段，1902年版） 许多人相信，耶稣在伯利恒诞生的时候，祂才成为上帝的儿子的。如果这是真的，那么想想以下这一节经文。马太福音1:18说，“马利亚就从圣灵怀了孕。” 那么如果圣灵使马利亚怀孕的话，而圣灵又是一位个别的神，如三位一体论所称，那么圣灵必定是基督的父亲了。然而，我的《圣经》告诉我说，父上帝才是基督的父亲。那这怎么可能呢？因为圣灵不是另一位叫做“圣灵上帝”的神，而是“上帝的灵”或者说“父的灵”，如《圣经》告诉我们的那样。 《圣经》也称圣灵为“它”，这个代名词从来不用在上帝或基督的身上。罗马书8:16说：“圣灵【原文加上：它自己】与我们的心同证我们是神的儿女。” 而罗马书8:26则说：“只是圣灵【原文加上：它自己】亲自用说不出来的叹息替我们祷告。” 为什么称圣灵为“它”是恰当的，而称父或子为“它”却是不恰当的呢？这意味着这三个不可能是完全同等的，因为你总不能称一个人物为“它”。三位一体论者所翻译的现代《圣经》版本已把这些词从“它”改为“他”或“他自己”，以便隐瞒这项事实，企图使圣灵看似另一位生物。这是很不诚实的手段。 （23）《圣经》是否证明圣灵不可能是一位实体生物？ 三位一体论或三一神论既称父、子、圣灵为三位{按字面解为}同等的实体生物，那么约翰壹书1:3就应该说：“我们乃是与父并他儿子耶稣基督和圣灵相交的。” 但事实并非如此。为什么呢？因为圣灵不是一位实体生物，而是上帝的灵。所以我们只是与父和子相交，因为父子俩乃是实体生物。约翰壹书2:22-23也是一样。约翰没有提到不认圣灵的，其原因也在于此。 如果如三位一体论所称，圣灵是第三位完全同等的生物的话，那么耶稣为什么说我们只需要认识父和子，便能得永生，而不需要认识圣灵呢？“认识你独一的真神，并且认识你所差来的耶稣基督，这就是永生。”（约17:3）这是因为圣灵不是“圣灵上帝”而是“上帝的灵”。我们只需要认识父和子，因为圣灵乃是祂们的灵。 如果圣灵是一位同等的实体生物的话，那么他就应该看见过父，但是《圣经》否认这一点：“这不是说有人看见过父，惟独从神来的，他【耶稣】看见过父。”（约6:46） 圣灵怎么可能是一位实体生物，但却从来没有看见过父呢？因为它不是一位实体生物，而是上帝本身的灵。 路加写道，没有人知道父和子是谁，惟有祂们彼此知道。这就使圣灵实际上不可能成为一位实体生物，如果是的话，那他就必须能够彰显父和子，但事实并非如此。“一切所有的都是我父交付我的。除了父，没有人知道子是谁；除了子和子所愿意指示的，没有人知道父是谁。”（路10:22） 保罗写道：”因为只有一位神；在神和人中间，只有一位中保，乃是降世为人的基督耶稣。“（提前2:5）但是基督已经回到天父那里去了，祂如何能作我们的中保呢？因为圣灵乃是上帝的灵，也是基督的灵，之所以耶稣能说：“我就常与你们同在，直到世界的末了。”（太28:20）如果圣灵是基督的灵，那我们就没有矛盾，但是如果圣灵是另一位生物的话，那我们就会有两位中保，在神和人中间，这就与《圣经》相冲，使《圣经》的话变为谎言了。譬如，约翰壹书2:1表示，耶稣是我们的“中保”，而约翰福音14:26说圣灵是“保惠师”。这些经文中的“保惠师”和“中保”的希腊词是parakletos，翻译出来就是中保、代求者、保惠师。那么我们要么有两位中保在我们与父中间，从而与提摩太前书2:5产生矛盾，要么圣灵就是基督的灵。哪一个正确呢？若圣灵是另一位生物的话，那么提摩太前书2:5就变成谎言了。或者圣灵是基督的灵，这样整本《圣经》就都和谐一致了。 如果圣灵如三位一体论所称，是一位与父和子完全同等的个别生物的话，那么我们为什么从不被告知圣灵爱我们呢？《圣经》为什么从不教导我们去敬爱或崇拜圣灵呢？这样一来，圣灵就不可能是第三位同等生物了。 上帝和祂儿子的宝座有被提及，但圣灵的宝座却从来没有提到。如果圣灵是与父和子完全同等的话，那为什么《圣经》从来没有提到圣灵的宝座呢？因为圣灵是祂们的灵，而不是另一位神。 问问你自己这些简单的问题： 父为什么从不对圣灵说话? 耶稣为什么从不对圣灵说话？ 圣灵为什么从不对耶稣说话？ 圣灵为什么从不对父说话？ 然而，在整本《圣经》的记载中，圣父一次又一次的对祂儿子说话，而耶稣也在《圣经》中一再地对祂父亲说话。圣灵从来不曾对父和子说话，那它怎么可能是一位完全同等的生物呢？ 如果圣灵按字面来看确实是一位与父和子完全同等的生物的话，那么保罗的疏忽就变得无法解释了，因为保罗在他所写的每一封书信中的每一句问候语上，都勘漏了圣灵！彼得和约翰也都如此。 “愿恩惠、平安从我们的父神并主耶稣基督归与你们！” （罗1:7） “愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父并主耶稣基督归与你们！”（林前1:3） “愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父和主耶稣基督归与你们！”（林后1:2） “愿恩惠、平安从父神与我们的主耶稣基督归与你们。”（加1:3） “愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父和主耶稣基督归与你们！”（弗1:2） ”愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父并主耶稣基督归与你们！“（腓1:2) “愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父【英王钦定本有：和主耶稣基督】归与你们！”（西1:2） ”保罗、西拉、提摩太，写信给帖撒罗尼迦在父神和主耶稣基督里的教会。愿恩惠、平安归与你们！“（帖前1:1） ”愿恩惠、平安从父神和主耶稣基督归与你们！“（帖后1:2） “写信给那因信主作我真儿子的提摩太。愿恩惠、怜悯、平安从父神和我们主基督耶稣归与你！”（提前1:2） “写信给我亲爱的儿子提摩太。愿恩惠、怜悯、平安从父神和我们主基督耶稣归与你！”（提后1:2） ”现在写信给提多，就是照着我们共信之道作我真儿子的。愿恩惠、平安从父神和我们的救主基督耶稣归与你！“（多1:4） “愿恩惠、平安从神我们的父和主耶稣基督归与你们！”（门1:3） “愿恩惠、平安，因你们认识神和我们主耶稣，多多地加给你们。”（彼后1:2） “恩惠、怜悯、平安从父神和他儿子耶稣基督，在真理和爱心上必常与我们同在！”（约贰1:3） 圣灵不可能是一位按字面解的同等生物，因为它在每一句问候语中都一致性地被省略。如果圣灵真是一位与父和子完全同等的各别生物的话，那么这种一致性的勘漏是令人费解的，这将意味着使徒们在最高层次上表现了厚颜无耻及不服从的行为。这就好比一个国家有三位总统，但永远只承认他们其中两位。事实上，《圣经》从来不曾尊崇或颂赞圣灵，连一次都没有。《圣经》所颂扬的总是父神和祂儿子耶稣基督两位而已。这是为什么呢？因为“只有一位神，就是父，万物都本于他，我们也归于他；并有一位主，就是耶稣基督，万物都是藉着他有的，我们也是藉着他有的。”（林前8:6）这就是为什么！ 因此，《圣经》揭开以下的真相：只有两位神性生物，而“我们乃是与父并他儿子耶稣基督相交的”（约壹1:3），而不是与圣灵相交。我们只需要认识父和子来获得永生（约17:3）。圣灵没有见过父，只有子见过父（约1:18；6:46）。圣灵也不能彰显父和子，只有子能彰显父（路10:22）。我们唯一的中保乃是基督的圣灵（提前2:5；罗8:26,34），而不是另一位叫圣灵的生物。父和子从来没有对圣灵说话的，而圣灵也不曾对父和子说话。《圣经》从来没有吩咐我们向圣灵祷告或敬拜圣灵的。圣灵也从不包括在任何问候语上。尽管如此，我们仍然被教导去相信圣灵是第三位完全同等的生物！明显的，这是绝对不可能的！还有很多很多《圣经》章节重复地显示这同一事实。圣灵是一位生物的概念，是早在公元381年在《圣经》的著作完成以后，人透过撒但所创造出来的道理，因此绝对不可能是源自《圣经》的。这是一个非常厉害和具有强大说服力的骗局，直到你见到了真光为止。 (24) 保惠师是谁？ 这是另一个充满混淆的误区，因为有些人相信保惠师是圣灵，而另一些人则相信保惠师就是基督。这两种说法都可以被认为是正确的，条件是你必须明白圣灵不是一位实体生物。很多的混淆也出自人们对《英王钦定本圣经》或翻译成中文的《和合本圣经》中约翰福音14:26所产生的误解：“但保惠师，就是父因我的名所要差来的圣灵，他要将一切的事指教你们，并且要叫你们想起我对你们所说的一切话。” （约14:26）注意，”就是“ 这两个字在《英王钦定本》中是斜体的，因为这两个字是译者后来添加进去的，在原来的希腊文手抄本中是不存在的。现代的《英王钦定本》这样翻译：“但保惠师，父因我的名所要差来的圣灵...” 几乎在所有的英文版本中，包括《新英王钦定本》，这两个添加的词都是不存在的。 就因为这两个添加的词，再加上约翰福音14:16中用了第三人称代名词“他”来代表保惠师，因此导致许多人误以为圣灵是一位实体生物。但这是一种对文法性别的无知。”他“这个词在希腊原文中是不存在的。它是译者所添加的，为的是要让这一节在英文中读起来比较通顺。这个代名词”他“之所以被采用的唯一原因，是因为”保惠师“一词在希腊原文中的文法性别是”男性“，而即便保惠师是女性，其文法性别也会仍然保持男性。许多人不明白，这里的性别是文法性别而不是其本身的性别。无论如何，”灵“这个词的文法性别在希腊文中其实是”中性”而不是男性的。不光如此，圣“灵”的文法性别可以是男性，女性或中性，视乎所用的是哪一种语文而定。光是这一点就暴露了错谬和误解。譬如，在希伯来文中，圣“灵”是女性的。从拉丁文衍生的语文，比如希腊文，西班牙文，法文等，都对每一个名词设定其具体的性别，这是改变不了的。所以，每一样事物，不管是有生命的或是无生命的，在这些语文当中，都被指定为男性，女性或中性的。但这种性别往往跟事物本身是男性或是女性的问题扯不上关系。至于圣灵是个“他”还是“它”的问题，我们以后会详细探讨。 保惠师的希腊词是paraklētos，而根据《史特朗词典》，这词的意思是“代求者，中保，安慰者。” 《塔义尔希腊词典》用了这些字来解释这个希腊词：“在审判官面前代另一个人求情的人，诉求者，辩护律师，法律助理，中保。” 那么谁是我们的中保和保惠师呢？谁是神与人之间唯一的中保？对此，我们不可能有任何错误或混淆，因为约翰说：“我小子们哪，我将这些话写给你们，是要叫你们不犯罪。若有人犯罪，在父那里我们有一位中保（保惠师）【paraklētos】，就是那义者耶稣基督。”（约壹2:1，括弧里的字是添加的）。注意，这里的“中保”一词恰恰是约翰福音14:16，26；15:26；16:7所用来指保惠师的同一个希腊词【paraklētos】，但在这里它却被译成“中保“。那么约翰说，我们的中保和保惠师是”那义者耶稣基督”。而保罗说，在神与人之间，谁是我们的中保？“因为只有一位神；在神和人中间，只有一位中保，乃是降世为人的基督耶稣。”（提前2:5） 约14:16： “我要求父，父就另外赐给你们一位保惠师【paraklētos】（或作“训慰师”。下同），叫他永远与你们同在。”约14:26： “但保惠师【paraklētos】，就是父因我的名所要差来的圣灵，他要将一切的事指教你们，并且要叫你们想起我对你们所说的一切话。”约15:26： ”但我要从父那里差保惠师【paraklētos】来，就是从父出来真理的圣灵，他来了，就要为我作见证。“约16:7： “然而我将真情告诉你们，我去是与你们有益的。我若不去，保惠师【paraklētos】就不到你们这里来；我若去，就差他来。”约壹2:1：”我小子们哪，我将这些话写给你们，是要叫你们不犯罪。若有人犯罪，在父那里我们有一位中保（保惠师）【paraklētos】，就是那义者耶稣基督。“ 约翰福音14:16-28多次告诉我们这位保惠师是谁，但一旦耶稣提到“另外”一位保惠师的时候，大部分人就变得盲目，而看不见耶稣实际上是指着祂自己藉着祂的灵而言，即使祂接下来的话是清楚明白的。意指“另外”的希腊词是allos，意思是另一个同类的。那么这一节的意思是，另一个与基督同类的。耶稣当时以肉体的形式与门徒同在，但在祂升天以后，祂要以另一种形式回来，就是藉着祂的灵。所以说，那“另外”一位就是祂的灵。由于基督的灵可以不倚靠基督的本体而独立行事，那么祂的灵就像是“另外”一位。也因为是祂的灵，所以是“另外”一位同类的。如果保惠师是另外一位不同类的，那么约翰就会用heteros这个希腊词来代表，其意思是“另外一位不同类的”。你一旦知道了这个区别，就很容易明白了。很多人也没有注意到，耶稣经常使用第三人称来称呼祂自己，这一节就是一个很好的例子了。其他例子还包括约翰福音17:1-3. Heteros与allos的区别 Heteros——另一位（不同类的，或不同质的，或不同等级或群体的）Allos——另一位同种类的 保惠师这个名词对希伯来人而言是指弥赛亚。伟尼斯(Vines)所编的词典对parakletos所给出的定义是”召唤到一个人的身边“，并意味着有实施援助的能力或适应力。它在法庭上用来指一位法律顾问，辩护律师，中保；一般来说，这是指一位代别人求情的人，一位代求者，中保，就如约翰一书2:1所提到的中保，指的就是主耶稣基督。在广义上来说，它意味着”支援者，安慰者”。当基督谈到圣灵时，根据祂所说的”另外“一位（allos，另一位同类的，而不是heteros，另一位不同类的）保惠师这个词的含意，对祂的门徒而言，祂就有这个广义上的含义。在约翰福音14:26，15:26，和16:7中，基督称圣灵为”保惠师“。”保惠师“或”训慰师“相等于犹太人给弥赛亚所取的名字”门那亨”(Menahem)。（W.E.Vines，《新约评注词典》，1940年版） 以下是相关经文的整个部分。约14:6, 16-23： “【6】耶稣说：“我就是道路、真理、生命；若不藉着我，没有人能到父那里去。【16】我要求父，父就另外【allos】赐给你们一位保惠师【parakletos】（或作“训慰师”。下同），叫他永远与你们同在，【17】就是真理的圣灵，乃世人不能接受的。因为不见他，也不认识他；你们却认识他，因他常与你们同在，也要在你们里面。【18】我不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。【19】还有不多的时候，世人不再看见我，你们却看见我，因为我活着，你们也要活着。【20】到那日你们就知道我在父里面，你们在我里面，我也在你们里面。【21】有了我的命令又遵守的，这人就是爱我的；爱我的必蒙我父爱他，我也要爱他，并且要向他显现。”【22】犹大（不是加略人犹大）问耶稣说：“主啊，为什么【你】要向我们显现，不向世人显现呢？”【23】耶稣回答说：“人若爱我，就必遵守我的道，我父也必爱他，并且我们要到他那里去，与他同住。“” （注：括弧里的字乃作者添加） 在第16节中，耶稣说，父要“另外”赐一位保惠师，然而，对于祂所指的是谁，祂并没有留下怀疑的空间让门徒困惑不解。在第18节中，祂用不容误解的话语说：“我不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。” 这“另一位保惠师”不是别的，正是基督自己以另一种形式（属灵的形式）来。肉眼看不见祂，不像以前祂在世上时那样。如今祂从肉眼的感官上消失，但祂在灵里还是与我们同在的。保惠师在第17节中被称为真理的灵。这是基督首次暗示祂在这段谈话中是指着祂自己而言的。在十节之前，耶稣说：”我就是...真理“（第6节），而藉着祂的灵，祂就是真理的灵了。在第17节中，我们也看到，保惠师是世人所不能接受的，因为世人不认识祂。但基督告诉门徒说，你们却认识祂，因祂常与你们同在。当时与门徒同在的就只有基督自己。在第19节中，基督说，还有不多的时候，世人不再看见我。这是指着祂的死和复活说的。所以在第18和19节中，基督的意思是，虽然祂要离开他们，但祂不会撇下他们不得安慰，祂还要回到他们那里去。所以，门徒知道基督要回到他们中间，作为他们的保惠师，但他们不明白祂要如何回来。那么犹大（不是加略人）就问基督说，你作为保惠师要如何向我们显现，而不向世人显现呢？（第22节） 门徒是如何理解那“另一位保惠师”的呢？他们是否理解基督在讲另一位呢？不是的！这位犹大完全理解到，那要回到他们身边的一位正是基督，而不是另一位。请注意，他的问题不是“谁”，而是“为什么”（英王钦定本译成”如何“）。所以说，他不是不明白要来的是”谁“，他所不明白的，是基督要”如何“向他们显现为他们的保惠师。答案是，祂要藉着祂的灵向他们显现，这是他们当时所不能理解的。 给復临信徒：”基督要向他们显现，但世人却看不见祂，这对门徒来说是一个奥秘。他们不能理解基督的话是带着属灵上的意义的。他们所想象的是一种外在可见的显现。他们不能明白，他们可以有基督与他们同在，但祂却又不被世人看见。他们不明白属灵显现的意义。“ （怀爱伦著，《南方守望者》1898年9月13日） 在约翰福音16:7中，耶稣说：”然而我将真情告诉你们，我去是与你们有益的。我若不去，保惠师就不到你们这里来；我若去，就差他来。“ 那怎么说保惠师在还未被差遣之前，根据约翰福音第14章，祂就已经常与他们同住了呢？在约翰福音7:39中，我们发现： “耶稣这话是指着信他之人要受圣灵说的，那时还没有赐下圣灵来，因为耶稣尚未得着荣耀。” 如果圣灵是另一位生物，如三位一体论所教导的，那么他就不需要等到基督回到天父那里去得了荣耀之后，才能被赐下来了。圣灵还不能被赐下来，直到基督得了荣耀为止，因为这是基督变作另一位回来的方式，也就是藉着祂的圣灵的方式。你注意到约翰福音14:23的最后一句吗？在这里，耶稣说，“我们要到他那里去，与他同住。” 这里的“我们”是指父和子两位，就是藉着祂们的圣灵。这不是另一位神被赐下给我们，而是上帝本身的生命藉着祂儿子耶稣基督临到我们。除了那位作为人类的一份子曾经活在世上，并像我们一样受苦，并亲身体验过受试探的滋味的耶稣以外，还有谁更具有资格来安慰我们呢？有了父子两位，是何等的宝贵呀！那些不明白这事的人所错过的不光是一个福分这么简单。你如果相信圣灵是另一位生物这个从撒但来的人造理论的话，那么你就会得到什么样的灵呢？ 给復临信徒：“藉着灵，父和子要来与你们同住。【引用约14:23】” ——怀爱伦著，《圣经回响》1893年1月15日。 这就领我们回到约翰福音14:26去。很多人相信，圣灵是保惠师，是一个与基督分开的生物，因为他们误会了约翰福音14:26，误解了圣灵其实是谁。中文版《圣经》所添加的“就是”这两个字很容易误导人，虽然这两个字可以用，但如果改用”透过“这两个字的话，这段经文就没那么容易被人误解了。这就与《圣经》的其余部分一致，也就不会与其他启示基督是我们的保惠师和中保的经文产生似乎明显的矛盾了。这节经文这样写就不会产生误解：”但保惠师，透过圣灵，父因我的名所要差来的，他要将一切的事指教你们，并且要叫你们想起我对你们所说的一切话。“ （约14:26） 给復临信徒：“基督是透过圣灵住在我们里面的；而当我们凭信心接受上帝的灵进入我们心中时，就是永生的开始了。”——怀爱伦著，《历代愿望》原文第388页。 那么在约翰福音14:16-23中，耶稣向门徒解释说，祂不久将要离开他们，但祂不会撇下他们不得安慰，祂还会回到他们那里去。犹大就问耶稣要怎样回来向他们显现而又不向世人显现呢。他们不了解，祂要藉着祂的圣灵回到他们身边。不光是祂要来，而且，如基督所说的，那些爱祂并遵守祂诫命的人必要有天父和基督自己（两位）藉着圣灵住在他们里面。这样，耶稣回到父那里去，但又藉着圣灵再回来，作为同类中的另一位。基督向他们解释这件事，好叫他们心里不致忧愁或害怕，并且叫他们到事情成就的时候，就可以相信。以下是这段经文的下文，你会注意到，基督再次说，祂正是要回到他们身边的那一位。 约14:27-29：“我留下平安给你们，我将我的平安赐给你们。我所赐的，不像世人所赐的。你们心里不要忧愁，也不要胆怯。【28】你们听见我对你们说了，我去还要到你们这里来。...【29】现在事情还没有成就，我预先告诉你们，叫你们到事情成就的时候，就可以信。” 耶稣不光说祂要回来，而且还说：”我就常与你们同在，直到世界的末了。” （太28:20）这些话是何等奇妙的安慰呀！耶稣说，你们心里不要忧愁，不要胆怯，似乎我要离开你们一样。我还要回来你们身边，并且要常与你们同在，直到世界末了。但是基督既已升天回到祂父那里去，并要留在那里，那么祂要如何与我们同在并安慰我们，直到世界的末了呢？祂要以另一种同类的方式回来，也就是藉着圣灵作我们的保惠师！ 给復临信徒：“耶稣即将从祂门徒身边被取去；但祂向他们保证说，祂虽然要升上去见祂的父，但祂的灵和影响将会常与他们和他们的后人同在，直到世界的末了。” ——怀爱伦著，《预言之灵》第三卷，原文第238页，第1段。 “由于人性的拖累，基督不能亲自临格在每一个地方；因此，祂若离开门徒，对他们是完全有好处的。祂要离开他们，往祂父那里去，并差遣圣灵来地上作祂的继任者。圣灵是祂【基督】自己脱去了人性的位格，并且不必依赖人性位格而独立。祂【基督】要代表祂自己，藉着祂的圣灵作为无所不在者，以临格在每一个地方。” ——怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第14卷，原文第23页，第3段。1895年刊。 “这是指基督的灵之无所不在，叫做保惠师。”——怀爱伦著，《信函119》1895年2月18日。 大部分基督徒经常错过耶稣所说祂要作我们的保惠师这句话，因为他们误解了耶稣所说“另外赐给你们一位保惠师”的意思。注意以下的七个章节，括弧是添加的： 1，约14:17： “就是真理的圣灵【耶稣就是真理而藉着祂的灵，祂就是真理的灵】，乃世人不能接受的。因为不见他，也不认识他；你们却认识他，因他常与你们同在【与他们同在的就只有基督】，也要在你们里面【藉着祂的灵作保惠师】。” 2，约14:18： “我【耶稣】不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。” 3，约14:20： “到那日你们就知道我在父里面，你们在我里面，我也在你们里面【藉着祂的灵作保惠师】。” 4，约14:21： “有了我的命令又遵守的，这人就是爱我的；爱我的必蒙我父爱他，我也要爱他，并且要向他显现【藉着祂的灵作为保惠师】。” 5，约14:22： ”犹大（不是加略人犹大）问耶稣说：“主啊，为什么【耶稣你】要向我们显现【作为保惠师】，不向世人显现呢？” “ 6，约14:23： ”耶稣回答说：“人若爱我，就必遵守我的道，我父也必爱他，并且我们【耶稣和祂的父】要到他那里去，与他同住。“” 7，约14:28 “你们听见我对你们说了，我【耶稣】去还要到你们这里来【藉着祂的灵作我们的保惠师】。“ 基督若以人类的形体显现，是不可能同时在每一个地方与每一个人同在的，但是藉着祂的灵，祂就能与每一个人同在，作他们的保惠师。所以基督藉着祂所差遣给我们的圣灵来作我们的保惠师。当我们领受圣灵时，我们就是在领受父的灵，而藉着这个灵，我们也领受祂儿子的灵进入我们的心里。（看罗马书8:9-11） 现在我们应该清楚的看到，基督是我们的保惠师，祂也叫做真理的灵。为了再进一步澄清，以下是《圣经》启示基督就是真理的灵的四个方式： 1）约翰福音14:16-17，26；15:26启示，保惠师是真理的灵，而保惠师就是基督。 ”我不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。“【约14:18】 2）约翰福音14:6说，耶稣是真理，而藉着祂的灵，祂就是那真理的灵了。“耶稣说：“我就是道路、真理、生命；若不藉着我，没有人能到父那里去。”“【约14:6】 3）真理的灵不是凭自己说话的；乃是父告诉”祂“要说什么，而那个”祂“就是基督。参考约8:28；12:49；14:10，24和下面的16:13。 4）真理的灵也要给我们启示将来的事，而启示录1:1告诉我们说，是耶稣基督将那必要快成的事指示祂的众仆人，而这启示是祂父所赐给祂的。 约翰福音16:13说： ”只等真理的圣灵来了，他要引导你们明白（原文作“进入”）一切的真理；因为他不是凭自己说的，乃是把他所听见的都说出来，并要把将来的事告诉你们。“ 请注意，在上面的约16:13中，真理的灵（基督）不凭自己说话，乃是把祂从另一位那里所听见的都说出来。在下面的章节里，我们发现那另一位就是祂的父亲。耶稣不凭自己说话，乃说出祂父所指示祂说的话。而当基督回来作我们的保惠师和真理的灵之时，这种情形也必保持不变。甚至是藉着祂的灵，祂也不会凭自己说话，乃说出祂从祂父亲那里所听见的话。这就是祂所要说的。 约12:49： “因为我没有凭着自己讲，惟有差我来的父已经给我命令，叫我说什么，讲什么。”约14:10： “我在父里面，父在我里面，你不信吗？我对你们所说的话，不是凭着自己说的，乃是住在我里面的父作他自己的事。”约14:24： “不爱我的人就不遵守我的道；你们所听见的道不是我的，乃是差我来之父的道。”约8:28： 所以耶稣说：“你们举起人子以后，必知道我是基督，并且知道我没有一件事是凭着自己作的。我说这些话，乃是照着父所教训我的。” 真理的灵也要把将来的事告诉我们，我们在启示录1:1发现，这也就是基督所要做的。正如祂所说的话是从祂父亲来的，照样，祂所要告诉我们的将来的事也是从祂父亲来的。所以，我们发现所有的《圣经》章节都互相吻合，没有任何矛盾或不一致的地方，真理总是前后一致的。 启示录1:1： “耶稣基督的启示，就是神赐给他，叫他将必要快成的事指示他的众仆人。他就差遣使者晓谕他的仆人约翰。” 给復临信徒： “救主是我们的保惠师。这我已经证明祂是。“ （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第8卷，原文第49页。） “黑夜相当漫长痛苦，但是耶稣是我的保惠师和我的盼望。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第19卷，原文第296页） “对于那些接受基督的人而言，祂是他们的一切。祂是他们的保惠师，他们的保障，他们的健康。除了基督以外，就完全没有亮光了。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第21卷，原文第372页，第1段） “基督是我们的向导和保惠师，祂在我们所有的患难中安慰我们。当祂给我们苦杯喝的时候，祂也把福杯递到我们的唇边。” （怀爱伦著，《信息选萃》第2卷，原文第270页，第3段） ”当我们凭信心仰望耶稣时，我们的信心便能刺透阴影，而我们就能因上帝在赐给我们保惠师耶稣的事上所彰显的奇妙大爱而仰慕祂。“ （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第19卷，原文第297页，第3段） “众教会为何如此软弱多病甚至濒临崩溃的原因，在于仇敌带进了令人沮丧的影响，加在动摇的生灵身上。他【撒但】企图掩盖真理，不让他们看明耶稣就是保惠师，是那责备人，警戒人，和劝勉人说：‘这是正路，要行在其间’的一位。” （怀爱伦著，《评论与通讯》，1890年8月26日，第10段） “我们已经准备好迎接保惠师了；我们打开心门，邀请救主进来。” （怀爱伦著，《全球总会报告》，1903年4月2日，C第7段） “让他们研究约翰福音第17章，并学习如何呈献和活出基督的祷告。祂是保惠师。祂必住在他们心里，使他们的喜乐满溢。” （怀爱伦著，《评论与通讯》，1903年1月27日，A第13段） “基督要以保惠师这个有福的名字著称。基督对门徒说：’但保惠师，就是父因我的名所要差来的圣灵，他要将一切的事指教你们，并且要叫你们想起我对你们所说的一切话。我留下平安给你们，我将我的平安赐给你们。我所赐的，不像世人所赐的。你们心里不要忧愁，也不要胆怯。’【约14:26,27】” （怀爱伦著，《文稿》第7卷，1902年1月26日，第10段） “基督说：‘你们若爱我，就必遵守我的命令。我要求父，父就另外赐给你们一位保惠师（或作“训慰师”），就是真理的圣灵，（就是基督在荣耀的盼望里形成）乃世人不能接受的，因为不见他；你们却认识他，因他常与你们同在，也要在你们里面。我不撇下你们为孤儿。’” （怀爱伦著，《文稿》，第24卷，1898年2月22日，第21段） “耶稣作为真理的灵来到你心中；当研究圣灵的心，询问你的主，跟随祂的道路。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》，第2卷，原文第337页，第1段） “真理的灵是神圣真理唯一有效的教师；凡曾经在祂门下受教的人，已经进入了基督的学校。上帝给了人类何等高度的评价，以至祂赐下祂儿子来为他们而死，并任命祂的灵作人类的教师和持续的向导。” （怀爱伦著，《时兆》，1906年10月24日，第7段） “基督即将离开而回到祂天庭的家去。但祂向门徒保证说，祂必另外差遣一位保惠师，叫祂与他们永远同在。凡相信基督的人都可以绝对信任这位保惠师的引导。祂【即基督】是真理的灵，但世人却不能洞悉这真理，也不能接受它。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》，第12卷，原文第260页，第1段） “我们不能像早期的门徒那样，亲自与基督同在，但祂已经差遣祂的圣灵来引导我们进入一切真理，而且藉着这股能力，我们也能够为救主作见证。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿》，第30卷，1900年6月18日，第15段） ”祂升天以后，就不能亲身与他们同在，但藉着保惠师，祂还是与他们同在的。“ （怀爱伦著，《历代愿望》，原文第278页）{待续} (25)约翰壹书的夹注是什么？ 这是一个窜入《英王钦定本圣经》正文里的批注。由于它在【国际】基督教界中享有颇高的知名度，因此被称为约翰一书的夹注（Comma Johanneum）。约翰一书的夹注是约翰一书5：7-8中的一句短语。在整本《圣经》【只限英王钦定本】中，这是”唯一“一节毫无设想地提到三合一的经文，但也欠缺了《圣经》以外的人类常理和逻辑。《英王钦定本》这样写道：“【第7节】在天上作见证的原来有三，就是父，道，与圣灵，而这三样都归于一。【第8节】在地上作见证的原来有三，就是圣灵，水，与血，这三样也都归于一。” （约壹5：7-8） 根据《圣经》学者们的共识，这一段经文是一则拉丁文变体，在早期窜入了某一卷希腊文手抄本当中，而其它手抄本则不含这一段经文。第7节至第8节的”在地上“出现在《英王钦定本》（KJV）和《新英王钦定本》（NKJV）中，但绝大多数的译本【包括中文和合本】却都没有采用这一段话。令人尴尬不安的是，有不少证据显示这一节是被添加的。1951年的《多马尼尔逊与儿子天主教评论》（Thomas Nelson and Sons Catholic Commentary）原文第1186页解释说：”今日一般人认为，这一段被称为约翰一书夹注的经文，是在早期窜入《古拉丁圣经》和《拉丁文公认文本》（Latin Vulgate）中的一则注解，但到了第15和16世纪的时候，它才窜入希腊文的文本中。” 在英文《圣经》中，《新国际版本》（NIV）和大多数其他的《圣经》译本在约翰一书5：7-8中是这样写的：“【第7节】作见证的原来有三，【第8节】就是圣灵，水，与血；这三样也都一致。” 中文和合本《圣经》的约翰一书5：7-8也省略了这一夹注：“【第7节】并且有圣灵作见证，因为圣灵就是真理。【第8节】作见证的原来有三，就是圣灵，水，与血，这三样也都归于一。” 约翰一书的夹注最初是怎么被添加进入《圣经》的？伊拉斯谟（Erasmus）于16世纪初三次出版了世界上首次印刷的希腊文新约《圣经》（Novum Instrumentum omne）。伊拉斯谟并没有将这声名狼藉的约翰一书5：7-8的夹注加进他1516年首版或1519年次版的希腊文新约《圣经》里，但却在他1522年的第三版本中加了进去，这是因为天主教不断向他施压。在他首版于1516年面世后，由于缺少了约翰一书的夹注而引起了当局很大的狂怒与反弹，让伊拉斯谟不得不为自己进行辩护。他争辩说，他之所以没有将这个三位一体方程式的夹注放进去，是因为他找不到任何含有这一节的希腊文抄本。一旦控方出示了含有这句夹注的希腊文抄本，称为《编号61抄本》（Codex 61）或《蒙福天抄本》（Codex Montfortianus）【伊拉斯谟称之为《不列颠尼抄本》Codex Britannicus】，他才勉强地同意将夹注加进他随后的版本中。这本《编号61圣经抄本》是一名叫罗伊（Roy）或弗罗伊（Froy）的人于1520年左右在牛津（Oxford）写的。伊拉斯谟很可能是因为政治神学经济等混合因素而修改了文本。他不想让自己的名誉受损，也不想看到他的作品Novum Instrumentum陷入滞销的困境。于是，约翰一书的夹注便转进了1551年的《斯特芬努斯希腊文新约圣经》(Stephanus Greek New Testament）里。这是史上第一本有章节标注的新约《圣经》，后来被普遍称为《公认文本》或《标准本》（Textus Receptus），并成为了1557年出版的《日内瓦新约圣经》（Geneva Bible New Testament）以及1611年出版的《英王钦定本》（Authorized King James Version）的翻译基础。 毫无疑问，《英王钦定本》中的约翰一书5：7的后半段，以及约翰一书5：8的前半段，在上帝原来所默示的话语中是不存在的。文本学者巴特尔曼（Bart Ehrman）这样描述这项伪造：“这是在新约《圣经》的整个抄本传统中出现以神学为动机的变体之最明显的一个例子。” 于1611年翻译的《英王钦定本》保留了这个三位一体论的伪造，但我们的所有现代译本，除了《新英王钦定本》（NKJV）之外，没有一个译本含有这句夹注的。既然这一节经文不是从上帝而来，那它到底是从谁而来呢？ 现代《圣经》译本源自两卷《圣经》抄本，一是西乃山抄本，它所含的编辑比圣经史上任何其他抄本还更多（14800编辑），二是梵蒂冈抄本，是来自梵蒂冈的。这两本抄本都不含约翰一书的夹注，而这节添加的经文在所有现代《圣经》译本中都找不着，除了《新英王钦定本》之外，这无疑是为了使《新英王钦定本》与《英王钦定本》吻合。 另一方面，《英王钦定本》新约《圣经》是从超过五千卷《圣经》早已失传的原抄本的抄本中汇编的。请注意，在五千多卷新约抄本中，只有区区一卷含有这节添加的经文。这意味着它是被添加的。没有一个资深的神学家会否认这个事实。有鉴于这一切无可否认的事实，竟然还有人拒绝承认这个闻名的变体版本。 《圣经》译者便雅悯威尔逊在他的著作Emphatic Diaglott中解释说：“任何早于15世纪的希腊文抄本都不含这节关于天上作见证的经文。它不曾被任何教会作者引用，早期的拉丁教父也不曾引用过，即便他们所发表的议题自然会引导他们提出这节经文的权威。因此它显然是假的。” 《亚当克拉克圣经注释》（1715-1832年）有更详尽的解释： “在发明印刷之前所写的每一卷约翰一书抄本当中都不含这节经文，除了一卷在都柏林的三一学院里找到的《蒙福天抄本》。其他省略这一节经文的抄本总共有112卷之多。 《叙利亚圣经》，所有的《阿拉伯圣经》，《埃塞俄比亚圣经》，《古埃及圣经》，《沙希地圣经》，《亚美尼亚圣经》，《斯拉夫尼亚圣经》等都不含这节经文。总而言之，除了《拉丁文公认文本圣经》之外，所有的古代《圣经》版本都不含这节经文。甚至《拉丁文公认文本圣经》的许多最古老和准确的抄本也不含这节经文。所有的古代希腊教父著作也不曾引用它，甚至在大多数的拉丁教父著作中也未曾出现过。除了《蒙福天抄本》之外，所有的希腊文抄本都是这样写的： “约翰一书5：6 这借着水和血而来的就是耶稣基督，不是单用水，乃是用水又用血。并且有圣灵作见证，因为圣灵就是真理。 约翰一书5：7 作见证的原来有三，就是圣灵，水，与血，这三样也都归于一。 约翰一书5：9 我们既领受人的见证，神的见证更大了。。。” 以下是被所有的抄本，除了《蒙福天抄本》，和所有的版本，除了《拉丁文公认文本圣经》之外，所省略的字： 【在天上... 就是父，道，与圣灵，这三样都归于一，而在地上作见证的有三】 为了方便读者看清楚所添加的经文，现把添加的经文放在括弧里如下： “约翰一书5：6 并且有圣灵作见证，因为圣灵就是真理。 约翰一书5：7 【在天上】作见证的原来有三，【就是父，道，与圣灵，这三样都归于一。】 约翰一书5：8 【在地上作见证的有三】，就是圣灵，水，与血，这三样也都归于一。 约翰一书5：9 我们既领受人的见证，神的见证更大了。。。” 亚当克拉克总结说：”任何人在检查经文的字之后都可以看到，如果那些括弧里的字，就是抄本和版本所没有的字，都省略的话，上下文的连贯性是不会中断的。就其意义而言，省略了这些字之后会比有这些字来得更加完整和完美。我将引用威廉多德博士的话来总结这部分的注释：“有一些内部和意外的痕迹足以令人怀疑这节经文的真实性，因为若没有这些字，经文的意义仍是完整无缺的，甚至更加清晰和保存完好。此外，圣灵两次被提及，作为天上和地上的见证者，这使到那六个见证者必须减少至五个，因而影响了天上与地上的见证者之间的对立或双边数目的平等。再说，在天上还需要见证者吗？天上没有任何生灵怀疑耶稣是弥赛亚。如果说父子圣灵都是地上的见证者的话，那么在地上就有五个见证者了，而天上则一个都没有。更甭说有点难度去诠释这道或儿子如何可以为祂自己作见证。” 因此，《亚当克拉克圣经注释》说得很清楚，指出经文具体添加了什么话。 其他的专家和历史学家怎么说？ 马丁路德在他1545年的德文《圣经》中省略了第7节。但在1574年，印刷家菲耶拉奔（Feyerabend）把它加入路德所翻译的后期版本中。 注意《新圣经注释：修订本》怎么说：“注意《英王钦定本》（Authorized Version）在此处包含了额外资料。但这些字明显是一则附加旁注，并且被《修订标准版》（RSV）正确地省略，即使它是写于边缘空白处的旁注。” （1970年版，第1269页） 新约《圣经》教授尼尔莱特夫博士（Neil Lightfoot）说，相关的文本证据不利于约翰一书5：7：“在所有的希腊文抄本当中，只有两卷抄本含有这一节。这两卷抄本是属于相当后期的，其一是来自14或15世纪，其二则是来自16世纪。其他两卷抄本有这一节写在边缘的空白处（作旁注）。所有四卷抄本都显示这一节明显是从一本后期形式的《拉丁文公认文本圣经》（Latin Vulgate）翻译过来的。” （《我们如何获得圣经》，2003年版，原文第100，101页） 《阐释者的圣经评论》也拒绝受理《英王钦定本》和《新英王钦定本》所附加的经文，把它视为“一个没有价值的明显后期旁注。” （巴克尔著，第12卷，1981年，原文第353页） 《皮克圣经注释》也一针见血地写道：“’作见证的原来有三‘这句话之后的添写，没有被印在《修订标准版》（RSV）里，这是正确的。... 没有一卷可敬的希腊文【抄本】含有它。它最先出现在一卷第四世纪末的拉丁文抄本中，后来又进入了第五世纪的《拉丁文公认文本》中【这部拉丁版本后来成为普遍的中世纪译本】，最后又窜入了伊拉斯谟【此人于16世纪出版了最新整理的希腊文本和一部新的拉丁文版本】所印刷的希腊文新约《圣经》中。” （原文第1038页） 《圣经疑难大全》告诉我们说：“这一节实际上在早期的希腊文抄本中是没有支持证据的。... 它在后期的希腊文抄本中的出现是基于伊拉斯谟遭受教会的施压而把它添加进他1522年出版的希腊文新约《圣经》中的事实，他在之前出版的1516年和1519年的两个版本中都省略了这一节，因为他找不到任何含有它的希腊文抄本。” （努尔曼基斯乐和多马斯郝伟著，2008年，原文第540，541页） 神学教授安东尼和里察翰森在他们的《合理信仰：纵观基督教信仰》一书中解释这段经文中未经授权的附加章节时说：“它是被古代教会中一些大胆的人士添加进去的。他们觉得《新约》很遗憾地缺少了直接见证他们所持守的那一类三位一体论的教导，进而决定自行弥补这个空缺。... 若要尝试在《新约》的卷页中直接读出三位一体论的道理，那恐怕是个浪费时间的徒劳之举。” (1980年，原文第171页） 《多马尼尔逊与儿子天主教评论》，1951年，原文第1186页解释说：“现代学术界普遍相信，这段被称为约翰一书夹注的经文乃是一则很早便窜入《古拉丁》和《拉丁文公认文本》的旁注，但到了15和16世纪，几经波折之后，它才渗入了希腊文本之中。” “伊拉斯谟在他首印的1516年希腊文新约中省略了这节经文，但承诺如果有人能出示含有这一节的希腊文抄本，他就会义不容辞地采用这些字。后来他面对着一卷的确含有这段经文的后期抄本，而不得不遵守诺言，即便是违反了他个人的判断。因此，透过伊拉斯谟的1522年版本，这节添写的经文便侵入了希腊文新约的文本之中。《修订版》删除这段假经文的举动，无疑是迟来的正义。我们应当珍惜受默示之记载的每一句话，但我们不要这记载受到人为添写的侵略，不管其所表达的神学观点有多正规。” （布莱克洛克著，《新约评论》，原文第246页） “约翰一书夹注（或天上见证者）是约翰一书里的一句短语，即约翰一书5：7-8。《圣经》学术界一致认为，这段经文乃是一则拉丁文变体，在后期的抄本中渗入了希腊文抄本传统之中。” （《维基百科》，约翰书的夹注） “这句声名狼藉的约翰一书夹注是透过《英王钦定本》的圣经译本而闻名整个口操英语的世界的。然而，不管是内外的证据，都截然显示这句经文缺乏真实性。我们的讨论将简略地提出经文以外的证据。含有约翰一书夹注的较长版本只出现在九卷后期的抄本中，而其中四卷抄本的字句是写在边缘的旁注上的。大部分这些抄本...是源自第16世纪的。最早的一卷抄本，《编号221抄本》（第10世纪）的旁注含有此句经文，是原来的抄本写完之后隔了一段时间才添加进去的。最古老的一卷含有约翰一书夹注的抄本是源自第14世纪的，但它里边的字眼跟所有其他的抄本有几处出现了偏差。含有这夹注的第二古老的抄本（12至15世纪）则把该经文写在边缘作为旁注而已。其余的抄本都是源自16至18世纪的。所以说，直到14世纪为止，任何希腊文抄本都没有可靠的证据显示这段经文的真实性，而这卷14世纪的抄本在字眼上偏离了其他抄本。符合《公认文本》的字眼明显是在伊拉斯谟的希腊文新约于1516年出版之后才写成的。约翰一书夹注确实不曾出现在任何种类的希腊文证据上（不管是《圣经》抄本，教父著作，或某些其他版本的希腊文译本），直到1215年才出现在原文为拉丁文的《拉特兰会议法案》的一部希腊文译本中。既然很多希腊教父会喜爱引用这段简便的经文来支持三位一体论的教导，这就显得意义更加重大了。这句经文似乎是出自一篇第四世纪的拉丁文讲道中，它以寓言来诠释这节经文以指出三位一体的成员来。从这个源头，这节夹注后来就走进了《拉丁文公认文本》的抄本之中，这也是罗马天主教所用的文本。由此可见，三位一体的方程式（称为约翰一书夹注）是由于天主教所施加的压力，而窜入了伊拉斯谟的希腊文新约之第三版本（1522年）之中。...” “许多《公认文本》和《英王钦定本》的现代拥护者一般坚持约翰一书的夹注包含在《圣经》中的立场，因为他们相信那些没有把它加进《圣经》抄本中的抄写者是基于他们的异端信仰为由而把它省略掉的。但是这同一批抄写者在别的地方却加进了完全正统公认的经文，甚至在那些《公认文本》或《拜占庭抄本》省略这些经文的地方中也出现。再说，这些拥护者从上帝必保存原文的神学观点上争辩说，既然这节经文出现在《公认文本》中，那么它必定是原文。（当然，这种论证是一种循环论证，问题是，它预设《公认文本》为原来的文本。）事实上，问题的症结是历史而非异端。你如何能争辩说这个约翰一书的夹注可追溯到原文，但却又要等到14世纪才出现在希腊文抄本中（而这节经文当时的形式又与《公认文本》中所印刷的形式大不相同；在《公认文本》中所印的字眼一直到16世纪都不曾出现在任何希腊文抄本中）？这种立场对福音是不公平的：信心必须扎根于历史之中。显著的，马丁路德的德文译本是按照伊拉斯谟的第二版本（1519年）来翻译的，因此它不含约翰一书夹注在内。但是《英王钦定本》的译者们主要是按照泰奥多尔贝扎的希腊文新约之第10版本（1598年）来翻译的，而这一版本基本上就是按着伊拉斯谟的第三版本及其后期版本（和斯特芬努斯的希腊文新约版本）来翻译的。这样一来，《英王钦定本》便将这约翰一书的夹注广传到口操英语的世界中去了。因此，约翰一书的夹注一直以来都在英语界的基督徒中间比其他语言界的基督徒更具争议。“ （摘自《新英文译本圣经注释》对约翰一书5：7-8的评注） 供復临信徒参考： “《英王钦定本》所含的这段经文不存在于比15和16世纪更早的希腊文抄本中。这段备受争议的经文字眼透过伊拉斯谟的希腊文本而进入了《英王钦定本》之中（参阅第5卷，原文第141页）。据说伊拉斯谟献议把这句备受争议的文字放进他的希腊文新约《圣经》中，只要当局能向他出示一卷含有这句话的希腊文抄本即可。结果都柏林的一所图书馆就出示了这样的一卷抄本（被称为《编号34》），而伊拉斯谟就不得不将这句经文纳入他的文本中去了。今日广泛认为，《拉丁文公认文本》（Vulgate）的后期版本是透过一名抄写者误将经文中的一则用以解经的旁注纳入他所抄写的《圣经》中而产生这段经文的。这句备受争议的经文被广泛用于支持三位一体论的教义，然而，鉴于这些压倒性的证据推翻了其真实性，因此它所提供的支持是毫无价值的，而且也不应该被采用。尽管这段经文出现在《拉丁文公认文本》（Vulgate）中，一则天主教的圣经评论对这节经文竟作出了这项毫无保留的承认：‘今日一般人认为，这一段被称为约翰一书夹注的经文，是在早期窜入《古拉丁圣经》和《拉丁文公认文本》（Latin Vulgate）中的一则注解，但到了15和16世纪，它才窜入希腊文本之中。‘ （《多马尼尔逊与儿子天主教评论》1951年，原文第1186页）“ （《基督復临安息日会圣经注释》，第7卷，原文第675页） 基督復临安息日会圣经研究院也承认，这节约翰一书5：7的经文是添加的。那他们的最终结论和给復临信徒的劝告是”你们不应该采用这节经文。” 可见基督復临安息日会圣经研究院和基督復临安息日会圣经注释两者都承认这节经文是添加的，并且不鼓励人们采用它。然而，我们却经常看到復临信徒和他们的组织不顾一切地采用这节经文。所以说，连基督復临安息日会信徒也不听从他们自己的劝告。 “在某些《圣经》版本中，“在天上...，就是父，道，与圣灵，而这三样都归于一。在地上作见证的原来有三” 这些字眼出现在约翰一书5：7-8中（新英王钦定本）。唯一的问题是，这些字是后来添加的，它们并不存在于原来的抄本中。 在圣经学者之间有个共识，就是这句经文不是真实而是添加的，可能是为了支持三位一体教义。...” （安息日学圣经指引：2009年7月至9月，原文第108页) “‘三位一体’这个术语在《圣经》中是找不到的。不过其教义则存在其中——这个结论是很明显的。我们也不必为关于约翰一书5：7-8其中某些被添加的假经文而烦恼。这段经文是从其发源处即《拉丁文公认文本》的某些抄本中进入到我们的《英王钦定本》当中的。” （约翰斯顿著，《传道者》月刊，1964年11月，“我们对圣三位一体能知道什么？”） “新约对于三位一体的课题并没有作出任何明确的声明，除了约翰一书5：7之外。这节经文已经被拒绝为一项中古时期的文本添加物。” （本会历史神学教授德尼斯佛田著，“上帝，三位一体和復临运动”） 当32名圣经学者获得50个基督教派的支持而携手合作，根据他们手上最古老的圣经抄本而汇编出英文圣经的《修订标准本》时，他们作了一些大幅度的修改。其中就包括了约翰一书5：7的唐突删除，因它被视为一项捏造的添加物，从来就不属于上帝所默示的话语之一部分。 即便所添加的文字本身也不在宣扬三位一体论，尽管这项添加物是不合法的，但它充其量也只不过呈献出父，道，和圣灵为见证者，并没有论到这三样的位格，因为第7节显示了无生命的水和血作为见证者。 怀爱伦遗著托管机构：针对约翰一书5：7的疑问 问：“一些年前，我读过你们的出版刊物。我隐约记得当时一篇讨论基督神性的文章。作者引用了约翰一书5：7，但我找不到它。... 请你们告诉我，这个强有力的圣经论证用在什么地方呢？先谢谢你们了。” 答：“谢谢你联络了怀爱伦遗著托管机构。不过，在回答你的问题时，我必须告诉你，我在怀爱伦的出版著作当中找不到她在任何地方引用过这节经文。也许这也不是什么坏事，因为这节经文也许不是一个”强有力的圣经论证“。它不曾出现在任何早于大约13世纪的古希腊文抄本中。即是说，尽管它包含在1611年的《英王钦定本》英文译本原版之中，但它不可能存在于约翰笔下的约翰一书的原文之中。我所知道的现代《圣经》译本，除了《新英王钦定本》之外，再没有一本将其纳入文本之中，而甚至是《新英王钦定本》也在其脚注上说明这节经文不存在于希腊文抄本中，直至相对近代为止。显然这是某位抄写者给自己作的一个关于三位一体的旁注，原本是写在他所抄写的抄本边上空白处的，但后来却被另一名抄写者纳入经文的正文之中。也许这名抄写者不确定这是否一项属于经文的修正。无论如何，他依然决定把它纳入了《圣经》之中。” （资料来源： http://ellenwhite.org/.../did-ellen-g-white-believed ...) “反对者争论说，基督和祂父亲是同一位，而为了证明他的立场，他便引用约翰一书5：7。”在天上作见证的原来有三，就是父，道，与圣灵，而这三样都归于一。“ 这句话被声称为很强的三位一体论证据。三位被称为父上帝，子上帝，以及圣灵上帝。我相信我可以肯定地说，除了《圣经》以外，这种放肆的言论是不可容许的。人类如此习惯性地扭曲《圣经》，并利用词汇，强解经文来支持他们的论点，以至于他们领悟不了其犯罪程度，否则他们就能领悟了。同一个表达方式也经常被用于夫妻两人身上，然而没有人会质疑一个丈夫和他的妻子是两位分开的人物，他们也许是天各一方。克拉克博士明说这段经文【约翰一书5：7】是添写出来的。” ——復临信徒先锋胡尔著，《评论与通讯》1859年11月10日。 “三位一体这个字眼在《圣经》中从来没有出现过。用于教导这个教义的主要经文为约翰一书5：7。这是一项添写的经文。” ——復临信徒先贤老夫伯柔著，《评论与通讯》1861年11月5日 怀爱伦写道：“我看明上帝曾特别保护了《圣经》，但在《圣经》的数量甚少之时，一些有学问的人曾经修改某几段经文的字眼，以为能使其中的意义更清楚，但实际上反而使之偏向他们因遗传而有的成见，因此反使原来很清楚的话变为深奥难懂。但我看出就整本《圣经》来说，它是一条完美的链条，其中的一部分连接到并解释了另一部分。真诚寻找真理的人是不会看错的；因为不但有圣经用简明的话语向他们指明生命之道，同时上帝还赐下圣灵作为向导，帮助他们明了圣经中所显明的生命之路。” （怀爱伦著，《早期著作》原文第220页，第2段）{待续} （26）马太福音28:19出了什么问题? 三位一体论者经常说，马太福音28:19支持他们的信念，声称我们受到这三位所共享的权威之委托去为万民施洗。然而，这一节经文完全不能肯定三位一体论，即是说父子圣灵是三位平行同等同永恒的生物，而他们三位又构成一神的理论。这一节指出三样东西，但从来没说他们是一体或合一的，也没有谈到他们的位格。没有人否认父，子，圣灵的存在。马太福音28:19写道: "所以你们要去，使万民作我的门徒，奉父子圣灵的名，给他们施洗，〔或作给他们施洗归于父子圣灵的名〕。" 这一节经文没有说他们是三位生物， 经文也没有说他们是三位合成一位或者一位里面有三个位格， 也没有说这三位组成一个上帝， 也没有说这三位合成一体（三位一体）， 也没有说这三位是平行同等同永恒的生物， 也没有说这三位的每一位都是神， 然而竟还有人结论说这节经文支持他们的三位一体信念，这种结论明显是不对的。三位一体论者从这一节经文得出了一个经文所未曾指出的结论。 供复临信徒参阅: 这是怀爱伦所理解的三位: "让他们因上帝的大怜悯而向祂感恩，并以恩慈相待。他们有一位上帝和一位救主; 以及一个灵，即基督的灵，要在他们中间带来合一。" （怀爱伦著，《教会证言卷九》，原文第189页第3段，1909年）第三者就是基督的灵，不是第三位生物。 无论如何，我对这一节经文深深感到困惑不解，因为我们在哪里有看到使徒或任何人遵从基督在这里的明确指示去行的呢？下面是所有关于任何人奉任何人的名受洗的章节。 使徒行传2:38 "彼得说：你们各人要悔改，奉耶稣基督的名受洗，叫你们的罪得赦，就必领受所赐的圣灵。" 使徒行传8:12 "及至他们信了腓利所传神国的福音，和耶稣基督的名，连男带女就受了洗。" 使徒行传8:16 "因为圣灵还没有降在他们一个人身上，他们只奉主耶稣的名受了洗。" 使徒行传10:48 "就吩咐奉耶稣基督的名给他们施洗。他们又请彼得住了几天。" 使徒行传19:5 "他们听见这话，就奉主耶稣的名受洗。" 使徒行传22:16 "现在你为什么耽延呢？起来，求告他的名受洗，洗去你的罪。" 罗马书6:3 "岂不知我们这受洗归入基督耶稣的人，是受洗归入他的死吗？" 哥林多前书1:13 "基督是分开的吗？保罗为你们钉了十字架吗？你们是奉保罗的名受了洗吗？" 加拉太书3:27 "你们受洗归入基督的，都是披戴基督了。" 不过你可以看到，没有一个人遵从基督的指示去行。在每一个章节里，我们看到人人都只是奉主耶稣基督的名受洗而已。那么为什么使徒们明显违反基督的话呢？ 以下的字典解释说: "马太福音28:19解开不了这个历史上的谜，因为根据广大学者的共识，这一节经文不是真的耶稣所说的话，也不是阐述耶稣就洗礼所说的话。"（《安克圣经大词典》，第1卷，1992年版，原文第585页）进一步的研究显示这的确是真的，所有引用这门课题的圣经注释和词典都声称，这一节是罗马教会添加的，以用它来支持他们的三位一体方程式。以下的引言说明了这项洗礼程式的由来。 "洗礼的方程式在第二世纪已被天主教从耶稣基督的名字修改为父子圣灵这几个字。"（《天主教百科全书》，第2卷，原文第263页） 在《天主教要理问答手册》中（Catholic Catechism)，天主教宣布洗礼的方程式已在第四世纪从耶稣的名改为三位一体的方程式。《圣经》中每一位受洗的人，从五旬节到以弗所的门徒（使徒行传记载的最后一批受洗者），都是奉耶稣基督的名受洗的。所以有证据显明首300年里的每一位基督徒都是奉耶稣的名受洗的！ “归入基督。《圣经》告诉我们说，基督徒受洗归入基督。他们是属于基督的。使徒行传(2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) 记载了人们’奉耶稣的名（本人）’ 受洗——更好的翻译是’归入耶稣的名（本人）’。只有到了第四世纪，’奉父子圣灵的名’这个方程式才成为一个惯例。” （约翰克斯顿著，《圣经要理》，原文第164页） 马太福音28:19: “早期教会没有遵从这项普世命令，即便他们知道。这道施洗归入三重名字的命令是后期所添加的教义。我们或许应该用简单的’归我的名‘（归我名下），即是使万民归向基督，’奉我的名‘，即本着我的灵（或我的精神）去教训万民，来取代’奉父子圣灵的名给他们施洗‘ 这句话。” （《披克圣经注释》1929年，原文第723页） “那告诉我们最后在祂复活以后，祂吩咐祂的门徒去给万民施洗（太28:19）的一段经文，因采用了下一个世纪的三位一体措辞而出卖了经文本身。它不得不让我们看见经文里面的教会编辑，而不是传道者，更不是创始人本身。这种洗礼的形式在早于第二世纪中叶的《十二使徒遗训》和《游斯丁第一护教辞》之前是没有任何历史记载的，而超过一世纪之后，居普良（Cyprian）认为有必要坚持采用这种洗礼形式，以取代较古老的’归入耶稣基督‘或’归入主耶稣之名‘的洗礼形式（加3:27；徒19:5；10:48）。在众使徒当中，只有保罗在尚未’被圣灵充满‘之前就已经受了洗，而他当然是受洗’归入耶稣基督‘而已（罗6:3）。然而，那三重名字的洗礼形式，纵使不符合历史，实际上竟被几乎每一个基督教派坚持为必需的。如果你尚未接受这三重名字的洗礼，教会就会把你赶出去，又当你是异教徒，并在你有生之年不会赏赐给你基督教的认可，在你去世时也不会为你行基督教的葬礼。这项规则指控使徒所施行的每一个有记载的浸礼为无效的，因为如果使徒行传的记录可以信赖的话，它所采用的不变形式是’奉耶稣基督的名‘受洗的（徒2:38）而不是’奉父子圣灵的名‘受洗。作者（路加）本身无疑见证了他时代的做法（约公元115年），也见证了他笔下的时期所采用的洗礼形式。“ （雅各马丁瑙著，《宗教里的权威宝座》1905年，原文第568页） “有一整班注释家和评论员一致承认，马太福音28:18的开头宣布要求随之而来的一句必须以基督为主。‘天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了’ 这句话引导我们期望其结果会是 ‘你们要去，使万民作我的门徒归我，奉我的名给他们施洗，凡我所吩咐你们的，都教训他们遵守。‘ 其实，第一句和第三句包含了这意义，但第二句似乎经过了修改，从基督之名的形式改为三位一体之名的形式了，这是为了符合礼拜仪式的传统。” （比斯理姆来著，《新约中的洗礼》1962年版，原文第83页） 这是如何发生的呢? 如果这是真的，那么原文又是怎么写的呢？ 我们必须记得，世界上已经不存在第一二三世纪所写的圣经抄本。从马太写他的福音书直到世上存有的最早期之圣经抄本的抄写年代，中间隔了超过300年的空白。（天主教也用了300多年来逐步形成"早期教父"心目中所向往的教会。）这是我研究出来的资料。 优西比乌（约公元260--340年）是该撒利亚的主教。他也被称为"教会历史之父"。他写了很多著作，其中最著名的作品是他的《教会历史》，这是从使徒的时代起至他自己的年代为止的教会历史。优西比乌在他的著作中引用了许多圣经章节，包括好几次引用马太福音28:19。但他所引用的字句从来都不像现代圣经所记载的一般。他总是以"奉我的名"来结束他的章节。 下面这个例子是来自一本未经窜改的马太福音，有可能是原著或者是原著的第一卷抄本。优西比乌这样告诉我们耶稣在马太福音28:19对祂门徒所说的实际话语，那就是: "祂以一句话一把声音对祂门徒说，'你们要去，奉我的名使万民作我的门徒，凡我所吩咐你们的，都教训他们遵守。'" （《优西比乌的福音证据》，第3卷，第6章，132(a)，第152页） “虽然耶稣的门徒很可能有这样说或这么想，但主解决了他们的难题，祂加上了一句话，说他们必要 ‘奉我的名’ 得胜。祂名的能力如此之大，以至于使徒能说：‘上帝又赐给他那超乎万名之上的名，叫一切在天上的，地上的，和地底下的，因耶稣的名，无不屈膝。’ 当祂对门徒说 ‘所以你们要去，奉我的名使万民作我的门徒’ 时，祂显示了祂名所含的能力价值，这是向众人隐藏的。祂也很准确的预测未来，说：‘这天国的福音，要传遍天下，对万民作见证。’“ （《优西比乌的福音证据》，第3卷，第7章，136(a-d)，第157页） 优西比乌曾经出席过尼西亚会议（公元325年），并参与过关于三位一体神的辩论。如果那摆在他面前的抄本真的写着"奉父子圣灵的名"的话，那他就不可能会把经文引用成"奉我的名"了。所以，看来最早期的抄本是写着"奉我的名"的，但随着三位一体论的势力之扩张，这节经文也就被窜改以使其反映正统教会的立场。 那么马太福音28:19应该写 "奉父子圣灵的名给他们施洗" 还是写 "奉我的名给他们施洗"呢？按照你的结论来看，歌罗西书2:12就应该写 "你们既受洗与父子圣灵一同埋葬，也就在此与他们一同复活，都因信那叫他们从死里复活神的功用" 还是写 "你们既受洗与他一同埋葬，也就在此与他一同复活，都因信那叫他从死里复活神的功用" 呢？ 总结来说，马太福音28:19 不能证明三位一体论是对还是错的，而你也必须自行决定这一节到底是真是假，因为双方都不能用它来证明各自的信念。不过，圣经肯定强烈地显示洗礼应该是奉基督的名来进行的，就如所有的例子所显示的一般。 我们之所以奉基督之名受洗，原因是我们受洗"归入"耶稣基督。洗礼象征着祂的死，埋葬和复活。即便三位一体论没有错，也只有一位耶稣基督受死，被埋葬以及被复活。当我们奉基督的名受洗时，我们即成为了基督徒。保罗在林前1:13中争辩这个论点时说: "基督是分开的吗？保罗为你们钉了十字架吗？你们是奉保罗的名受了洗吗？" 这一个反问句的明显答案是，不是的，你是奉基督的名受了洗的，因为是祂为了你的缘故而被钉十字架。 我们也可参考马可福音16:16 "信而受洗的必然得救。。。" 那么当我们受洗时，我们要求告谁的名以便得救呢？使徒行传22:16 "现在你为什么耽延呢？起来，求告他[主]的名受洗，洗去你的罪。" 况且，在全天下我们可以靠着得救的唯一名字是什么名字呢？使徒行传4:12 "除他以外，别无拯救，因为在天下人间，没有赐下别的名，我们可以靠着得救。" 彼得说我们应该奉谁的名来受洗呢？使徒行传2:38 "彼得说：你们各人要悔改，奉耶稣基督的名受洗，叫你们的罪得赦，就必领受所赐的圣灵。" 我们无法证明这一节经文曾被天主教窜改，但下面几点是我们所知道的: 1）天主教承认修改此经文。 2）大部分神学家也同意他们修改了此经文。 3）没有人遵从这个指示去行，而所有人都只奉耶稣基督的名受洗! 4）其他经文说我们只有求告主耶稣的名以便受洗和得救。 5）优西比乌看见了最早的圣经抄本而引用这一节经文时写了"奉我的名"。 大部分读者会一致认为，这一切压倒性的证据都显示马太福音28:19应该写着"奉我的名"。 供复临信徒参考: “我看明上帝曾特别保护了《圣经》，但在《圣经》的数量甚少之时，一些有学问的人曾经修改某几段经文的字眼，以为能使其中的意义更清楚，但实际上反而使之偏向他们因遗传而有的成见，因此反使原来已经够清楚的话变得深奥难懂了。" (怀爱伦著，《早期著作》原文第220页，第2段）{待续} 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 Read in English 下一篇 耶稣有一位上帝-耶和华，天父上帝 耶稣有一位上帝 -- 耶和华, 天父上帝 哥林多前书8章6节- 然而我们只有一位上帝，就是父，万物都本于他，我们也归于他；并有一位主，就是耶稣基督，万物都是藉着他有的，我们也是藉着他有的。 启示录3章12节- 得胜的，我要叫他在我上帝殿中作柱子，他也必不再从那里出去。我又要将我上帝的名和我上帝城的名（这城就是从天上、从我 上帝那里降下来的新耶路撒冷），并我的新名，都写在他上面。 哥林多前书15章28节- 万物既服了他(上帝)，那时，子(耶稣)也要自己服那叫万物服他(上帝)的，叫上帝在万物之上，为万物之主。 以弗所书4章6节- 一上帝，就是众人的父，超乎众人之上，贯乎众人之中，也住在众人之内。 约翰福音20章17节- 耶稣说：“不要摸我，因为我还没有升上去见我的父。你往我弟兄那里去，告诉他们说：我要升上去见我的父，也是你们的父；见我的上帝，也是你们的上帝。” 以弗所书1章3节- 愿颂赞归与我们主耶稣基督的父上帝，他在基督里曾赐给我们天上各样属灵的福气。 哥林多后书11章31节- 那永远可称颂之主耶稣的父上帝知道我不说谎。 彼得前书1章3节- 愿颂赞归与我们主耶稣基督的父上帝，他曾照自己的大怜悯，藉耶稣基督从死里复活，重生了我们，叫我们有活泼的盼望, 约翰福音17章3节- 认识你独一的真神，并且认识你所差来的耶稣基督，这就是永生。 以弗所书1章17节- 求我们主耶稣基督的上帝，荣耀的父，将那赐人智慧和启示的灵赏给你们，使你们真知道他。 哥林多前书11章3节- 我愿意你们知道，基督是各人的头，男人是女人的头，上帝是基督的头。 罗马书15章6节- 一心一口荣耀上帝、我们主耶稣基督的父。 约翰福音12章44-45节- 耶稣大声说：“信我的，不是信我，乃是信那差我来的。45 人看见我，就是看见那差我来的。” 约翰福音20章31节- 但记这些事，要叫你们信耶稣是基督，是上帝的儿子，并且叫你们信了他，就可以因他的名得生命。 约翰福音20章21-22节- 耶稣又对他们说：“愿你们平安！父怎样差遣了我，我也照样差遣你们。” 22 说了这话，就向他们吹一口气，说：“你们受圣灵。” 约翰福音14章10节- 我在父里面，父在我里面，你不信吗？我对你们所说的话，不是凭着自己说的，乃是住在我里面的父作他自己的事。 约翰福音14章24节- 不爱我的人就不遵守我的道；你们所听见的道不是我的，乃是差我来之父的道。 马太福音27章46节- 约在申初，耶稣大声喊着说：“以利，以利！拉马撒巴各大尼？”就是说：“我的上帝，我的上帝！为什么离弃我？” 启示录3章5节- 凡得胜的，必这样穿白衣，我也必不从生命册上涂抹他的名，且要在我父面前和我父众使者面前认他的名。 “人子耶稣基督不是主神全能者，但基督和父是合而为一的。”——（怀爱伦著，《文稿140》，1903年） “祂【基督】不是父，但神本性一切的丰盛，都有形有体的居住在祂里面。”——怀爱伦著，《信函8a》1890年7月7日 “上帝为基督的父；基督乃上帝的儿子。基督已蒙赐与崇高之位。祂得以与父同等，上帝所有的旨意没有不显明给祂儿子的。”——怀爱伦著，《教会证言》卷八，原文第268页。 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 Read in English 下一篇 一上帝和一主 一上帝和一主 哥林多前书 8:6 然而我们只有一位上帝，就是父，万物都本于他，我们也归于他；并有一位主，就是耶稣基督，万物都是藉着他有的，我们也是藉着他有的。 这章节明显列出父上帝和祂儿子耶稣的分别。天父是那独一的一位神，也是宇宙万物的本源，一切都从祂而来。主耶稣是管道，万物都是藉着他有的，他把来自父的生命传给宇宙众生。 一切都是属于父上帝的，包括基督。 哥林多前书 3:23 并且你们是属基督的；基督又是属上帝的。 哥林多前书 1:24 。。。基督总为上帝的能力，上帝的智慧。 箴言 8:22 “在耶和华造化的起头，在太初创造万物之先，就有了我。 使徒行传 17:25 也不用人手服侍，好像缺少什么；自己倒将生命、气息、万物，赐给万人。 约翰福音 5:26 因为父怎样在自己有生命，就赐给他儿子也照样在自己有生命； 因此，我们只有一位上帝，就是父，也是宇宙万物生命的本源。 以弗所书 4:6 一上帝，就是众人的父，超乎众人之上，贯乎众人之中，也住在众人之内。 并有一位主，就是耶稣基督，万物都是藉着他有的。 使徒行传 2:36 “故此，以色列全家当确实地知道，你们钉在十字架上的这位耶稣，上帝已经立他为主、为基督了。” 天父赐予祂儿子耶稣至高的权威，并立他为“主”，也就是希腊文的“kurios”。 这至高权威是在耶稣升天得荣耀后坐在上帝的右边而被赐予的，这荣耀是未有世界之前耶稣同他父所有的荣耀。（约翰福音17：5） 所以未有世界之前，上帝“立”祂儿子为“主”。这表示在那之前他并不是“主”。耶稣是在未有世界之前被赋予至高权威。 哥林多前书 8：6 。。。并有一位主，就是耶稣基督，万物都是藉着他有的，我们也是藉着他有的。 这章节为我们揭晓了为什么基督被赋予至高权威，因为“万物都是藉着他有的”。 在以弗所书3:9中我们读到：“又使众人都明白，这历代以来隐藏在【编按：英王钦定本圣经有：藉着耶稣基督】创造万物之神里的奥秘，是如何安排的。 歌罗西书 1:16 因为万有都是靠他造的，无论是天上的、地上的、能看见的、不能看见的，或是有位的、主治的、执政的、掌权的，一概都是藉着他造的，又是为他造的。 这就是为什么我们有一位上帝，就是父，因为祂是至高无上的，并且是一切的本源。 这也是为什么我们有一位主，就是耶稣基督，因为父上帝立他为一切被造物之上，并让他成为我们伟大的的创造主。 基督被赋予至高权威这个事实意味着什么呢？ 腓立比书 2:9-11 2:9 所以上帝将他升为至高，又赐给他那超乎万名之上的名， 2:10 叫一切在天上的、地上的和地底下的，因耶稣的名无不屈膝， 2:11 无不口称耶稣基督为主，使荣耀归与父上帝。 若敬拜儿子是使荣耀归于父上帝，那么这自然包括在启示录14：6-7节中第一天使信息所宣告永远的福音。 启示录 14:6-7 14:6 我又看见另一位天使飞在空中，有永远的福音要传给住在地上的人，就是各国、各族、各方、各民。 14:7 他大声说：“应当敬畏上帝，将荣耀归给他，因他施行审判的时候已经到了，应当敬拜那创造天、地、海和众水泉源的。” 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download 看中文 Next Who is the One True God Who is the One True God? Jeremiah 10:10“But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.“ When LORD is capitalized in the Old Testament it means Jehovah- One Being- the Father. So the prophet Jeremiah states that the Father is the true God -the Living God! Does the New Testament back this up? Matthew 16:16-17“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” So Peter declares that Jesus is the SON of the Living God - the Living God has a child- the child is not referred to as the Living God, that is His Father. What was Jesus’ opinion about God - His Father? John 17:3“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Jesus clearly stated that His Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD: who am I to argue with Jesus to tell Him that He is wrong or is being mistaken? It is time to start letting go of all traditions that are contrary to scriptures! Have you been worshipping the One True God and His Only begotten Son Jesus or have you been worshipping a man-made 3 in 1 God that no one in the Bible worshipped? I am typing this post with tear-filled eyes for the many who are blindly following their church leaders even though the Bible is so very clear on the point of who is God. How can we share the 3 Angels’ Messages, as God would have us to do, when we are pointing people to fear the god of Babylon? God is not a mystery- He sent His Son to reveal who HE is. Pray, study the scriptures with the aid of the Spirit of the Lord and be prepared to accept and believe the truth even if it goes against your long-cherished ideas. This is a matter of life and death! Eternal life is at stake! Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next What did the People Who Created the Trinity Doctrine Believe What did the People Who Created the Trinity Doctrine Believe? Starting with who created the Trinity doctrine… ATHANASIUS brought in the 3 in 1 idea in 325 AD long after the Bible was written. And what is now known as the THREE CAPPADOCIANS brought in the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third being in 381 AD also long after the Bible was written. ATHANASIUS and the THREE CAPPADOCIANS came from the Alexandria catechetical school, which revered ORIGEN who applied the ALLEGORICAL method of explaining Scripture, which was influenced by Plato and its strong point was PAGAN. “The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and ORIGEN, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the ALLEGORICAL METHOD to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [PAGAN] theological SPECULATIONS. ATHANASIUS and the THREE CAPPADOCIANS [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members.” — (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28) The pagan idea of the 3 in 1 god from ATHANASIUS resulted from studying the works of ORIGEN. “That being said, Athanasius is applying these standard arguments to a more highly developed NEO-PLATONIST PHILOSOPHY and a more cultural diverse society than any previous theologian had faced. Still, the INFLUENCE OF ORIGEN is felt throughout the work, particularly in Athanasius' opening statements about the existence (or rather, non-existence) of evil and the refutation of various dualistic cosmologies.” — (Jonathan Shelley, Critique of Athanasius Two Books against the Heathens) So what did ORIGEN teach and believe whose teachings educated ATHANASIUS? Origen wrote, “Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second, and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are ONLY FICTITIOUS STORIES of things that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries.” — (Tadros Y. Malaty, Before Origen, p. 134) Origen also “believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force, that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals. He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory, transubstantiation, transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul. He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened. The Scriptures were not literal. Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named “Adam.” Based upon Matthew 19, a TRUE MAN OF GOD SHOULD BE CASTRATED, WHICH HE DID TO HIMSELF. He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it. Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers.” — (See Dr. Ken Matto, Origen's Gnostic Belief System) Origen's beliefs clearly indicate that he was a Gnostic Greek Philosopher and not a true child of God. It is these insane beliefs that brought about the Trinity doctrine! The above is very brief information to prove a point. There is an abundance of history and evidence that reveals the Doctrine of the Trinity emanates straight from the dunghill of Roman decretals. Its origin is pagan and from Satan so he could achieve worship and have us deny Jesus is the literal Son of God, thus preventing entrance into the kingdom. It is philosophy, vain deceit and man's tradition. It denies Jesus, preaches another Jesus, another spirit and another Gospel. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next SDA giving up the testimonies and SOP SDA giving up the testimonies and SOP One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4} The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM48 (1890). {LDE 177.5} The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1} It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies, which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction.--4T 211. {LDE 178.2} Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

Back to Contents Previous Download 看中文 Next The Top Fifteen Excuses Used to Avoid the Sabbath(Part 2) Was the Sabbath abolished? Many Christians believe that Colossians 2:16, Galatians 4:10 and Romans 14:5 are referring to the Seventh day Sabbath and even some believe that Colossians 2:16 refers to the Ten Commandments rather than the referenced ceremonial law. Before continuing with these three very misunderstood verses, let’s give a quick explanation on how the Ten Commandments and the Ceremonial law relate to each other. If a man sinned, he broke LAW No. 1 - the moral law of the Ten Commandments. So then he brought his offering, according to LAW No. 2 - the law of sacrifices, and he received forgiveness. LAW No. 1 defines sin, for sin is the transgression of the moral law. (1 John 3:4) LAW No. 2 defined sacrifices, the Ceremonial law which was the remedy for sin. When the Israelite sinned, he broke the first law. To secure forgiveness he had to obey the second law. So here are two very distinct laws. This is the biggest area of confusion when it comes to concluding the Sabbath or Ten Commandments were abolished. Law No. 2 was ONLY for the Children of Israel and Jews until the cross while Law No. 1 is eternal and for EVERYONE. Colossians 2:16 reads, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat (offering), or in drink (offering), or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:” and so the argument is the fourth Commandment was deleted from stone. What was done away with here was called the ordinances (Ceremonial Law). This is seen by noting what Paul said two verses earlier. Colossians 2:14 states, “blotting out the handwriting (Moses) of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” Paul then goes on to say, so “Let no man therefore judge you…of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:” Luke 1:6 KJV shows that the ordinances and the Commandments are two totally different things. It states, “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the Commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” And Hebrews 9:1 explains that the ordinances of this ceremonial sanctuary system are now gone leaving only the Ten Commandments, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” It was the ordinances that were nailed to the cross, “not one jot or one tittle” of the law. The main differences between the Commandments and the ordinances are that the Commandments were written by God’s finger, written in stone, placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, are love, eternal, for everyone and it is sin to break them. The ordinances were in Moses’ handwriting, written in a book, placed on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant, are not love, not eternal and were only for the Jews and practised because of sin. The One great and perfect Sacrifice was offered that Friday afternoon, when the true Passover Lamb bowed His head and died. When He cried out, “It is finished”, the old ceremonial law that pointed the people to His sacrificial death was nailed to the cross. Note how every part of these verses in Colossians 2:14-17 refers to the ceremonial law. Unfortunately, most modern Bible translations have translated the phrase meat or in drink in verse sixteen incorrectly. The King James Bible is one of the few translations that has translated these words correctly and is therefore recommended in these studies. So much gets lost at times when translators don’t have a good understanding of Jewish culture and terminology. To be referring to clean or unclean foods here would be totally out of context for the passage but when it is kept in context, every single point here refers to the various feast days that belonged to the sacrificial sanctuary system. Further clarification is found in the book of Hebrews which is believed by most to be written by Paul. You will note that the context of this passage is undoubtedly the sanctuary service in regards to sacrifices and offerings, of which Christ became the One and final perfect sacrifice for us. The meat and drink described in this passage has to be meat and drink offerings by the unmistakable context of this passage in Hebrews 9:7-14 below. Paul speaks of meat and drink offerings and carnal ordinances which were imposed until the time of reformation, being Jesus Christ who obtained eternal redemption for us and brought an end to the sacrifices prescribed by the ordinances of the ceremonial law once and for all. This continues to illustrate the perfect context of Colossians 2:16 and as per Colossians 2:14, we see that everything referenced belongs to the ordinances of the ceremonial law which Paul said was against us and contrary to us and it was taken out the way and nailed to the cross by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice. Extra verses are given to show context. Hebrews 9:7-14 “But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Nowhere in this passage are clean and unclean foods referred to and there never were unclean drinks, only unclean foods and these had no relationship to the ordinances that were nailed to the cross. What is spoken of here in both Colossians and Hebrews are references to meat and drink offerings that were part of the sanctuary service that are in the ordinances of the ceremonial law. This is all that can possibly be referred to and when done so it fits absolutely perfectly into the context of both passages as it remains totally in context with the sanctuary service. So let’s look at Colossians 2:14-17 again to see if everything does actually refer to the ceremonial law by the fact that the context of the passage remains the same throughout. “Blotting out the handwriting”, the ceremonial law was written in Moses handwriting. “Ordinances”, Strong’s dictionary also directly translates this word to ceremonial law, “that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way”, the ceremonial law is now against us and contrary to us, as Christ has become that One and perfect sacrifice for us. “Nailing it to his cross”, and of course now that Christ has become that perfect sacrifice for us, no longer are meat and drink offerings and animal sacrifices and all associated Holy days necessary, so the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross. Moving onto verse sixteen, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink”, and as we have now seen were part of the ceremonial law. “Or in respect of an holyday”, these Holy days included such days as Passover, Feast of Weeks and many others. “Or of the new moon”, new moon celebrations were also part of the ordinances. “Or of the sabbath days”, Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles and many others were all sabbath days. When spoken of in plural and the context of the passage is the ceremonial law, then the sabbaths referred to can be nothing else but ceremonial. Verse seventeen goes on to say, “Which are a shadow of things to come.” These sabbaths were called a shadow because Passover was a shadow of the crucifixion and Feast of Weeks was a shadow of Pentecost. These Old Testament feasts and holy days were shadows of what was to come and once those things had come and gone then the shadows disappeared. Here is one verse from Leviticus that refers to such feasts and Holy days, which involves meat and drink, that is meat and drink offerings. Leviticus 23:37, “These are the feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice and drink offerings, everything upon his day.” You can also find the perfect parallel between Colossians 2:16 and Ezekiel 45:17. You will note in Ezekiel 45:17 that this was a sin offering, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel for breaking God’s Commandments as prescribed by the ceremonial law until such time that Jesus nailed this law to the cross. Parentheses are added. This is what Israel had to do to make atonement for sin, which is the breaking of God’s Ten Commandments and of course includes the Seventh Day Sabbath. This clearly demonstrates the issue and leaves no doubt as to what Paul was explaining to the Colossians. Note first the Strong’s dictionary definition for holyday used in Colossians 2:16. You will note that the words “feast” and “holyday” are synonymous and so the following two verses are a perfect match. G1859 heorte, Of uncertain affinity; a festival: - feast, holyday. Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat [offerings], or in drink [offerings], or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” Ezekiel 45:17 “And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, [holydays] and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.” Here is a table comparison for those who prefer this format. Colossians 2:16 Ezekiel 45:17 meat, or in drink, meat offerings, and drink offerings, of an holyday, Strong's - feast, holyday in the feasts, or of the new moon and in the new moons, or of the sabbath days: and in the sabbaths, These various Holy days or festivals concerned days that took place at various times of the year as well as yearly Holy days such as the Day of Atonement and monthly like the New Moon celebrations already discussed. As these were a shadow of things to come and those things have past and the shadows are now gone, to still observe these days would be putting us back into unnecessary bondage. This is what Paul is talking about in Galatians 4:9-10 which says, “But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days, and months, and times, and years.” Paul is definitely not saying you can ignore anything that is a day, month or year in the Bible. He is referring to something that includes all of these things, which is and can only be the ceremonial law. Compare with Colossians 2:16. See what is the law in Galatians for more clarity on this very misunderstood book. The ordinances of the ceremonial law was a law of servitude and bondage. Galatians 4:3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” Paul continues telling the Galatians that they are no longer servants in Galatians 4:7 “Wherefore you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” God’s Commandments on the other hand are a law of liberty. James 1:25 “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” And for further clarity James 2:11-12 reads, “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law. So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” If we keep these points in mind and explore the context of the chapter when studying the Bible it will help us see what law is being spoken of. See Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10 Commentaries. While still on this very misunderstood topic of the ceremonial law, let’s cover another scripture that is frequently misinterpreted. Such misunderstandings are common with God’s Ten Commandment law and this temporary law which pointed the way to Christ. I have chosen to use some Bible Commentaries for this scripture, as I believe they explain it very well. The scripture concerned, is mainly Romans 14:5, but I have given the surrounding verses so the context of the passage can be seen. Romans 14:1-5, “Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God has received him. 4 Who are you that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yes, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one [feast] day above another: another esteemeth every [feast] day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Note that the word “alike” in verse 5 does not exist in the Greek text and is an added word, which tends to convey an idea which the apostle never designed or intended. Parentheses are added. To begin with, it must be admitted that the word “Sabbath” is very significantly not even found once in this entire chapter. People assume Paul is talking about the Sabbath. But is he really? The chapter begins, “Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations.” Romans 14:1. The NKJV reads, “disputes over doubtful things.” This chapter concerns “doubtful things” and is not a discussion of the Ten Commandments. God’s “Big Ten” are not “doubtful,” but exceedingly dear and written personally with the finger of God on two tables of stone. It becomes clear from Romans 14 and 15, that many misunderstandings existed between Jewish and Gentile Christians in relation to certain customs, which were sacredly observed by one but disregarded by the other. The main subject of dispute was concerning meats and days and the day issue is not over the Seventh day Sabbath but over the various feast days of the ceremonial law. The converted Jew retaining respect for the Law of Moses abstained from certain meats and observed ceremonial days while the converted Gentile understood that Christianity put him under no such obligation or regard to ceremonial points. It also appears that mutual and heartless judgments existed among them and that brotherly love and reciprocal tolerance did not always prevail. Paul exhorts that in such things no longer essential to Christianity, that even though both parties had a different way of thinking they might still have an honest and serious regard for God. Paul further explains they should not therefore, let different sentiments hinder Christian fellowship and love, but they should mutually refrain and withhold and make allowance for each other and especially not carry their Gospel liberty so far as to prejudice a weak brother or a Jewish Christian. The “weak” brother “eats” some things and “esteems one day above another” while the strong brother believes that he may “eat all things” and “esteems every day alike.” Romans 14:2, 5. The early Church was made up of Jewish believers and Gentile converts. Although Paul did not specify what “days” he was referring to, he could only be talking about the “esteeming” or “not esteeming” of certain Jewish fast or feast days and certain pagan feast days when people were especially “eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols.” 1 Corinthians 8:4. A “strong” Jew who knew that “an idol is nothing” would have no scruples about eating “meat in an idols temple” on a pagan feast day. 1 Corinthians 8-4, 10. Paul warned these “strong” Jewish believers, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. [the Gentile convert from idolatry]. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple [on a pagan feast day], shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish [if he is drawn back to idolatry], for whom Christ died? But when you sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” 1 Corinthians 8:9-13. There is NO evidence that the discussion about “the weak and the strong” in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 has anything to do with the Sabbath. God has never said “one man may choose to esteem MY Sabbath, while another man may choose to esteem Sunday, or every day alike.” He has NOT left it up to us to “pick a day.” Rather, God has commanded, “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy ... the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Exodus 20:8-10. The book of Romans is very clear, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20; 7:7, 12 When the context of the passage is about foods or various days and especially things associated with the sanctuary service, then we must realize that it is not possible that the Ten Commandments are being referred to. When God’s Moral law is being referenced, you will always know as the context of the passage will be centred around love, as that is what God’s law is. The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:8, “He that loves not, knows not God; for God Is Love.” As God is eternal, then Love also must be eternal. 1 John 4:16 says, “And we have known and believed the love that God has to us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him.” Love and obedience are inseparable from God and the true Christian, as God is Love and Love is God. This is why the Ten Commandments are eternal and unchanging, as God changes not, and Love changes not. The Sabbath is a love Commandment! The remainder of this topic will now be left to some of the world’s best theologians so no doubt can be left as to what the meaning of this passage is all about. John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, Romans 14:5 - One day above another - As new moons, and other Jewish festivals. Let every man be fully persuaded - That a thing is lawful, before he does it. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Romans 14:5 - One man esteemeth one day above another - Perhaps the word ημεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the Passover, Pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, etc. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian not having been bred up in this way had no such prejudices. And as those who were the instruments of bringing him to the knowledge of God gave him no such injunctions, consequently he paid to these no religious regard. Another - The converted Gentile esteemeth every day - considers that all time is the Lord’s, and that each day should be devoted to the glory of God; and that those festivals are not binding on him. We add here alike, and make the text say what I am sure was never intended, viz. that there is no distinction of days, not even of the Sabbath: and that every Christian is at liberty to consider even this day to be holy or not holy, as he happens to be persuaded in his own mind. That the Sabbath is of lasting obligation may be reasonably concluded from its institution (see the note on Genesis 2:3) and from its typical reference. All allow that the Sabbath is a type of that rest in glory which remains for the people of God. Now, all types are intended to continue in full force till the antitype, or thing signified, take place; consequently, the Sabbath will continue in force till the consummation of all things. The word alike should not be added; nor is it acknowledged by any MS. or ancient version. Let every man be fully persuaded - With respect to the propriety or non-propriety of keeping the above festivals, let every man act from the plenary conviction of his own mind; there is a sufficient latitude allowed. Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Romans 14:5 - One man esteemeth - Greek “judgeth” krinei. The word is here properly translated “esteemeth;” compare Acts 13:46; Acts 16:15. The word originally has the idea of “separating,” and then “discerning,” in the act of judging. The expression means that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the “Jews” uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths (i.e. ceremonial Sabbaths) as especially sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity. Another “esteemeth - That is, the “Gentile” Christian. Not having been brought up amidst the Jewish customs, and not having imbibed their opinions and prejudices, they would not regard these days as having any special sacredness. The appointment of those days had a special reference “to the Jews.” They were designed to keep them as a separate people, and to prepare the nation for the “reality,” of which their rites were but the shadow. When the Messiah came, the Passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other special festivals of the Jews, of course vanished, and it is perfectly clear that the apostles never intended to inculcate their observance on the Gentile converts. See this subject discussed in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. Every day alike - The word “alike” is not in the original, and it may convey an idea which the apostle did not design. The passage means that he regards “every day” as consecrated to the Lord; Romans 14:6. The question has been agitated whether the apostle intends in this to include the Christian Sabbath. Does he mean to say that it is a matter of “indifference” whether this day be observed, or whether it be devoted to ordinary business or amusements? This is a very important question in regard to the Lord’s day. That the apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations. (1) the discussion had reference only to the special customs of the “Jews,” to the rites and practices which “they” would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians as “Christians.” The inquiry pertained to “meats,” and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, etc.; and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord’s day is introduced here than that he advances principles respecting “baptism” and “the Lord’s supper.” (2) the “Lord’s day” was doubtless observed by “all” Christians, whether converted from Jews or Gentiles; see 1Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10; compare the notes at John 20:26. The propriety of observing “that day” does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, and days of festivals and fasts. (3) it is expressly said that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honor God; Romans 14:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honor, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by “neglecting” his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to “honor the Lord Jesus,” and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead “this passage” as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it “just as it is,” that is, let “him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ.” Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker. Let every man... - That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were “morally” wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the “Jew” esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word “be fully persuaded” denotes the highest conviction, not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination; see Romans 4:21; 2Timothy 4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them. Notice how the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, which primarily references other verses that are referring to the same topic, has referenced the passages that Paul discussed with the Romans, Galatians and Colossians regarding the ceremonial law also. This as we have now seen is because these verses are all referring to the ceremonial law. Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge. Romans 14:5 - esteemeth: Gal 4:9, Gal 4:10; Col 2:16, Col 2:17 People’s New Testament By B. W. Johnson. One man esteemeth one day above another. A second difference of opinion is now cited. Some, Jewish converts or Gentiles who did not understand that the old covenant was ended, believed that the Jewish Sabbaths and new moons should be kept sacred. Compare Colossians 2:16, and Galatians 4:10. This ends the Commentaries on Romans 14:5. You will note that the People’s New Testament commentary above also references Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10. There can be no doubt that the context and the meaning of all these passages is the ceremonial law with all its various holyday festivals, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths. The following table should clear up any remaining misunderstanding between the ceremonial sabbaths and the Sabbath of our Lord. Please look at this table carefully and give the statements that follow some serious thought. Sabbath of the Lord Ceremonial Sabbaths Spoken by God personally (Exodus 20:1, 8-11) Spoken by Moses (Exodus 24:3) Written in stone by God Himself (Exodus 31:18) Written by Moses hand on paper (Exodus 24:4) Placed inside the Ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:5) Stored on the outside of the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26) Breaking the Sabbath is sin (1 John 3:4) These were kept because of sin (See Leviticus) It is a law of love (Matthew 22:35-40, Isaiah 58:13-14) They were not love (Colossians 2:14, Galatians 4:9-10) It is a law of liberty (freedom) (James 1:25; 2:10-12) They were bondage (Galatians 4:9-10, Colossians 2:14) Was established before sin (Genesis 2:1-3) Were established after sin (Exodus 20:24) Was made at creation (Genesis 2:1-3) Were made after Sinai (Exodus 20:24) The Sabbath is for everyone (Mark 2:27) Only for the children of Israel & Jews (Read Old Testament) God calls it MY Sabbath (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:20) God calls it HER sabbaths (Hosea 2:11, Lamentations 1:7) The Sabbath is eternal (Exodus 31:16-17, Isaiah 66:22-23) Were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14, Ephesians 2:15) The Facts: God is all knowing. (Omniscience) He is a God of infinite wisdom. God is love. (1 John 4:8, 16) God’s Ten Commandments are a law of love. (Moral law) The ceremonial sabbaths were observed as a result of sin. (Are not love) The Sabbath of the Lord is for personal quality time with our Creator. (A love Commandment) The Questions: Why would our omniscient God put His Sabbath in His eternal law of love if it is not eternal? Why would our God of infinite wisdom put His Sabbath in His law of love if it is not a law of love? Why didn’t God put His Sabbath with all the ceremonial Sabbaths if it was to end at the cross? Why didn’t God put His Sabbath with the Jewish ceremonial Sabbaths if His Sabbath was only for the Jews? The Sabbath truth: God did not include His Sabbath with the ceremonial sabbaths that ended at the cross because His Sabbath is not a ceremonial Sabbath. And God did not include His Sabbath with the ceremonial sabbaths that were only for the Jews because His Sabbath is for EVERYONE. Why would our God of infinite wisdom place a temporary law in an eternal law or a law that is not love in a law that is love? Our God “is not the author of confusion…” 1 Corinthians 14:33. God put His Sabbath in His moral law because it is a law of Love and a very special one that is a sign that it is God we Love and Worship and that we are His children. It is also a sign that it is God that sanctifies us. What person who truly loves God would not want to be under this sign? It is NOT a sign when we keep another day. To do so is to profane the Holy and to try and make Holy the profane. Only God can make a day Holy. We are not under Law but under Grace We often hear this argument in an effort to belittle God’s law, “Well, since we are not under the law but under grace, we do not need to keep the Ten Commandments any longer.” Is this a valid point? The Bible certainly does say that we are not under the law, but does that imply that we are free from the obligation to obey it? The text is found in Romans 6:14-15, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” How easily we could prevent confusion if we accepted exactly what the Bible says. Paul gives a clear explanation of his statement. After stating that we are not under law but grace, he asks, “What then?” This simply means, “How are we to understand this?” Then notice his answer. In anticipation that some will construe his words to mean that you can break the law because you are under grace, he says, “Shall we sin (break the law) because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” In the strongest possible language Paul states that being under grace does not give a license to break the law. Yet this is exactly what millions believe today, and they totally ignore Paul’s specific warning. Most do not seem to understand that God’s grace is His unmerited, undeserved favour that is preceded by the act of genuine repentance when we do sin. If there were no law, there would actually be no need for God’s grace. Suppose a murderer has been sentenced to death in the electric chair. Waiting for the execution the man would truly be under the law in every sense of the word, under the guilt, under the condemnation, under the sentence of death, etc. Just before the execution date the governor reviews the condemned man’s case and decides to pardon him. In the light of extenuating circumstances the governor exercises his prerogative and sends a full pardon to the prisoner. Now he is no longer under the law but under grace. The law no longer condemns him. He is considered totally justified as far as the charges of the law are concerned. He is free to walk out of the prison and not a policeman can lay hands upon him. But now that he is under grace and no longer under the law, can we say that he is free to break the law? Indeed not! In fact, that pardoned man will be doubly obligated to obey the law because he has found grace from the governor. In gratitude and love he will be very careful to keep the law of the state which granted him grace. Is that what the Bible says about pardoned sinners? “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31. Here is the most explicit answer to the entire problem. Paul asks if the law is nullified for us just because we have had faith in Christ’s saving grace. His answer is that the law is established and reinforced in the life of a grace saved Christian. The truth of this is so simple and obvious that it should require no repetition, but the devious reasoning of those who try to avoid obedience makes it necessary to press this point a bit further. Have you ever been stopped by a policeman for exceeding the speed limit? It is an embarrassing experience, especially if you know you are guilty. But suppose you really were hurrying to meet a valid emergency, and you pour out your convincing explanation to the policeman as he writes your ticket. Slowly he folds the ticket and tears it up. Then he says, “All right, I’m going to pardon you this time, but...” Now what do you think he means by that word “but”? Surely he means, “but I don’t want to ever catch you speeding again.” Does this pardon (grace) open the way for you to disobey the law? On the contrary, it adds compelling urgency to your decision not to disobey the law again. Why then should any true Christian try to rationalize his way out of obeying the law of God? Consider carefully also what 1 John 3:4 says, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” Are we sinners? If we are not sinners, then why was Jesus nailed to the cross? Did Jesus break the Sabbath? Some say Jesus broke the Sabbath so it was not one of the Ten Commandments but a ceremonial law (Mosaic Law) but the Sabbath was never practised because of sin and this was also before the cross where that law ended and so is irrelevant anyway. 1 John 3:4 says that sin is transgression of the law and if Jesus broke the Sabbath then he would have broken His own law and sinned and hence those making this statement obviously have no idea of the implications of their accusation. Be thankful that Jesus only broke the Pharisees rules as breaking the Sabbath is sin and was also made before sin existed. Jesus was there when the Ten Commandments were given, but that does not mean that He can murder or break any one of the Ten Commandments. As a sinner He could not have been our one and final perfect sacrifice and redeemer. Let's look at the verses in contention just to clear up this fallacy anyway. The main passage is found in the book of John where Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and so the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. Note that John is quoting the words of the Pharisees in this passage and are not John's personal opinion. We will see evidence of this soon. This is what Jesus said about the Pharisees in Matthew 5:20, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” These are those who also had Jesus crucified. Whose words do you think we should listen to? The words of Jesus or the words of the Pharisees? John 5:5-18 “And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. … 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up your bed, and walk. 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath. … 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” The Pharisees also accused Jesus of blasphemy because He made Himself equal with the Father. Were the Pharisees correct? They were no more correct on this allegation than they were on their accusation of Jesus breaking the Sabbath. In the book of Matthew, we have another account of Jesus healing someone and the Pharisees once again accused Him of breaking the Sabbath. However, this time we have the words of Jesus to establish if doing good deeds or things of absolute necessity are lawful on the Sabbath. Matthew 12:10-12 “And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.” Why do the proponents quote the Pharisees but ignore the words of their own Lord and Saviour? Why would they put their faith in the Pharisees rather than Jesus Christ? Why do they quote John 5:5-18 but never mention Matthew 12:10-12 where Jesus says it was NOT unlawful to heal and do good on the Sabbath? Jesus thankfully did not sin and so did not break any of the Ten Commandments as He clarifies in this passage when He says “that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath,” such as healing people or pulling an animal out of a hole. Is the Sabbath in the New Covenant? Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law OR the prophets, yet some say that you are putting us back under the Old Covenant and that the Sabbath changed to Sunday with the New Covenant. Not so. Basically, the only change to the New Covenant is the sacrificial Law of Moses ended (Hebrews 9:1) and where God writes His law. God’s law changes not, for He is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) God also said the fault was with the people in they did not obey it, so He now writes His law in our hearts. (Hebrews 8:8-10) See also “Who is Israel Today and the New Covenant.” I had just finished preaching on the subject of the Sabbath in one of my evangelistic crusades. As I stepped off the platform to greet people as they left, three young men blocked my way in the aisle. One of them addressed me in quite a loud voice… loud enough to cause about fifty people near the front of the auditorium to stop and listen. “Dear brother” he said, “we were disappointed tonight with the way you put us back under the Old Covenant. Don’t you realize that we are living under the New Covenant now, and should keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath?” Although most of the congregation were leaving the Church, the group near the front gathered closer to hear all that the young men were saying. It was obvious that I would have to take the time to answer this trio’s challenging question. As I suspected, they turned out to be young seminarians in training at a local Bible college. Eagerly they held their Bibles in their hands and waited triumphantly for me to answer. Usually, I do not like to debate controversial matters in a public forum for fear of stirring combative natures, but there seemed no way to avoid dealing with these ministerial students. Anyway, they had my path completely blocked and the circle of listeners looked at me expectantly for some explanation. “Well, it seems as though you have studied the subject of the covenants quite deeply,” I suggested. “Oh, yes,” they affirmed, “we know all about the covenants.” “Good,” I replied. “You undoubtedly know when the Old Covenant was instituted.” One of them spoke up quickly, “It was instituted at Mt. Sinai.” “And how was it ratified?” I asked. Without a moment’s hesitation one of them answered, “By the sprinkling of the blood of an ox.” “Very good,” I commented, “and how was the New Covenant ratified?” All three chorused the answer, “By the blood of Jesus on the cross.” I commended the young men for their knowledge of the Scriptures and asked them to read me two verses out of their own Bibles. Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16-17. They responded eagerly to the invitation, and read the verses, commenting on each one after reading. “We agree that the New Covenant did not go into effect until after Christ died, and nothing can be added or taken away after He ratified it on the cross,” the spokesman for the group asserted. All three nodded their heads emphatically over this point. I said, “Now you must answer two more questions for me. Here is the first one, and you must think carefully to give me the correct answer: When did Sunday-keeping begin?” There was a moment of shocked silence, and then another, and another. The boys looked at each other, and then down at their feet, and then back at me. I gently prodded them for the answer, “Surely you can tell me the answer to this question. You have known all the others, and have answered correctly. When and why do you think people began keeping Sunday?” Finally, one of them said, “We keep Sunday in honour of the resurrection of Jesus.” I said, “Then I must ask you my last question. How could Sunday keeping be a part of the New Covenant? You just stated that nothing could be added after the death of Christ. He died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. If Sunday was added after Jesus died, it could never be a part of the New Covenant could it?” The three young men shuffled their feet, looked helplessly around, and one of them said, “We will study into that and talk to you later.” They then fled from that auditorium as fast as they could go. I can assure you that they never returned to talk further about the covenants. How could the majority be wrong about the Sabbath? The simple answer is because Satan nearly wiped out the fourth Commandment during the dark ages through the death of millions. And by the time Protestant reformation began, all the Protestant Churches continued keeping Sunday in ignorance. It is always harder to restore a lost truth and even more so when people do not want to know because it would disrupt their Church or lifestyle. See a true story on how the Sabbath was nearly lost. And in Christianity especially, the majority is hardly ever right. How many were right in the time of Noah? Only eight! Revelation says that God is going to destroy a Church for its abominations and yet the majority of Christians belong to this Church. The majority are wrong because Satan works hard to keep this truth from Christians and this is his BEST accomplishment on the Christian Church and the majority have no idea. Why? Because Satan has the majority busy making excuses or perpetuating the last persons excuse instead of studying this out. Sadly, the majority are not searchers of truth and don’t study the Word or see only what they want to see. 2 Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” After the Sabbath and other truths were revealed to me in my search, I attempted to share these truths with large numbers of people and was astounded to find more than 98% would not even consider the possibility because they said how could so many be wrong or they just simply did not want to know. This is sad when you consider God created us, sent His Son to die for us and we can’t be obedient to Him in love as it would mean some sacrifice on our part. It is no longer a mystery to me why the majority are wrong. It is because our adversary still has Christians perpetuating those same excuses they were previously told because it means changes they don’t want to consider or they are ignorant of the fact that Satan accomplished the change by the death of millions of Christians over several centuries. Hence the majority continue to stay wrong and only five hundred plus Sabbath keeping Churches of different denominations remain obedient to God in love. Until the majority stop making excuses and start saying let’s investigate this, the majority will remain wrong. Many also do not know that the attack on this Commandment and Sun-day worship actually began with the worship of Satan as early as 2000 B.C. See the Sabbath to Sunday change or who changed the Sabbath to Sunday and how 666 relates to this change. Was the Sabbath changed to Sunday in the Bible? Read the Sabbath to Sunday change for a very detailed account on how and who changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Did God amend the original stone tablets Sabbath Changedthat John saw in heaven in Revelation 11:19 to, “Remember to keep the first day”? Never. You can’t change a memorial day of creation. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:19, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but obeying God’s Commandments is everything.” Paul plainly identifies here how important God’s Commandments are in comparison to circumcision. Yet this law of circumcision that was changed, and does not have the importance of the Ten Commandments, Paul mentioned more than 33 times and up to 10 verses at a time, and they were not verses you were left to make assumptions on. Yet there is not one clear verse in the whole Bible that says the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Paul’s letters always had plenty to say when people needed correcting or misunderstood the scriptures but the Sabbath was so ingrained in the culture that Paul never had to correct them. Observing the Pharisees reaction to breaking the Sabbath clearly shows this also but they went overboard and turned the day into a burden instead of a blessing, which Jesus found need to correct them on several times. In John 5:18 they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing a man on the Sabbath. Jesus said that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whose words should we trust and listen to? The Pharisees or Jesus? In Matthew 12:10-12 Jesus heals a man and He says to them, “…it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Jesus shows that they misunderstood the intent of the Sabbath day, not the day to keep it. Imagine if Jesus had proposed changing the Sabbath, what a dreadful uproar would have ensued by the Jews that would be heard in several books of the Bible. View a short video of a Sabbath miracle. When Christ was in the flesh, and lived on this earth, how did He regard the Sabbath? Luke 4:16, “So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as HIS CUSTOM was, He went into the synagogue on the SABBATH DAY, and stood up to read.” Jesus made the seventh day Sabbath and He also kept the seventh day Sabbath. He is our perfect example. We also find after the cross that Sabbath observance continued as we see by Paul’s example. In Acts 13:42-44 there is no conflict between Jews and Gentiles over the day to keep the Sabbath. The Jews of course still continue to keep the seventh day Sabbath today. What a perfect opportunity for the Jews to bring a valid accusation against Paul. But the allegations against Paul were always false and never involved an accusation for breaking the Sabbath such as those the Pharisees falsely brought against Jesus. Acts 13:42-44 “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Again in this example, we find no conflict between the Jews (who still keep Saturday today) or Greeks in regard to the day. Paul “came to Corinth ... he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” Acts 18:1, 4. “He continued a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (verse 11). Paul did not preach the traditions of men, but only “the word of God.” “Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized,” including “Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue” (verse 8). Crispus was a Sabbath keeper who probably became one of the leaders (see 1 Corinthians 1:14) of the early New Testament Sabbath keeping Church of Jesus Christ in Corinth. Paul’s letters, First and Second Corinthians, were written to this Church. After Paul was finally arrested in the Temple in Jerusalem, in his trial before the Sanhedrin, even the Pharisees said, “we find no evil in this man” Acts 23:9. Before Felix, Paul declared, “so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” Acts 24:14. Before Festus, “Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all...to the Jews have I done no wrong” Acts 25:8, 10. Before Agrippa, “I continue unto this day ... saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” Acts 26:22. The prophets and Moses did not say that “Sunday keeping should come.” Finally, Paul spoke to the Jews in Rome, “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening” Acts 28:23. During all his trials, the Jews NEVER once accused Paul of breaking the Sabbath. Why? Because he NEVER did! Paul was a Pharisee since his childhood. We also see Paul going into a Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica and “as his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue and on three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the scriptures…” Acts 17:1-4. As already stated, all practicing Jews still keep the seventh day Sabbath today, always have and undeniably did then and so there is no mistake as to what day Paul kept the Sabbath on as was “HIS CUSTOM” as this was a Jewish synagogue. As for his custom, Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee since childhood. Acts 26:5-6 “The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.” Jesus also said in Matthew 5:18, “…Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law...” Not even a comma of the law will be altered. We never have to make assumptions when it comes to important issues in God’s Word. When anything significant changed we were always told. The Ten Commandments are the only thing that God personally added to the Bible. There is no way in this universe that God would not unmistakably tell us in His Word if He were to alter the Ten Commandments by even the smallest amount. Now for that one verse assumption that some use to argue that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. In Acts 20:7 we find a religious meeting on the first day of the week but it was not a Sunday meeting. It was after sunset, prior to midnight on the first day of the week. At that time in history the first day of the week did not start at midnight but at sunset. All Bible days begin and end at sunset. Therefore this meeting and Paul’s preaching took place on what we call Saturday night. It was not a Sunday meeting at all. Regardless of this fact anyway, breaking bread is commonly understood by the Jews as having a meal together and was not the Lord’s Supper. Note how the Good News Bible translates it “The fellowship meal.” Here are examples using the King James, Good News and the New English Bible. (Acts 20:7 King James) “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7 Good News Bible) “On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day.” (Acts 20:7 New English Bible) “On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave next day, addressed them, and went on speaking until midnight.” (Acts 2:42 King James) “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42 Good News Bible) “They spent their time in learning from the apostles, taking part in the fellowship, and sharing in the fellowship meals and the prayers.” The following verse shows not only that breaking of bread was having a fellowship meal but also demonstrates that this breaking of bread was done every day of the week! Therefore, even if it was the Lord’s Supper, which it is not, it was done every day of the week making the argument of the Saturday night meeting irrelevant anyway. (Acts 2:46 King James) “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,” (Acts 2:46 Good News Bible) “Day after day they met as a group in the Temple, and they had their meals together in their homes, eating with glad and humble hearts,” Sunday keeping in Corinth? In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Paul wrote: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come...whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.” Please carefully notice what the apostle said, and also, what he did not say. Many have assumed that a religious meeting was held and a collection plate passed. This is not the case. Paul was writing special appeals to the churches in Asia Minor, because many of the Christians in Jerusalem were suffering greatly for lack of food and daily necessities. Paul asked the church at Corinth to gather food, clothing, etc., and store it up at home until he could send men to transport it to Jerusalem. The expression “lay by him in store” in the original Greek gives the clear connotation of putting aside at home. Even Sunday advocates agree to this. There was no service held on the first day of the week. The gathering up and storing was to be done on that day. Why did Paul suggest that this work be done on Sunday, and what was involved in getting it done? First of all, the letter would have been shared with the church on the Sabbath when they were all gathered for worship. The first opportunity to do the work would be the next day - the first day of the week. Keep in mind that there was an apparent food shortage in Jerusalem, and the need was not primarily for money. Such famine conditions were not unusual in areas of the Middle East, as Luke reminds us in Acts 11:28-30. Paul urges them to return carnal, or material, gifts in appreciation of the spiritual truths received from them. This throws light on Paul’s counsel to the Corinthian Christians to do their work on the first day of the week, “so that there be no gatherings when I come.” Such work as gathering and storing up produce from the field would certainly not be appropriate on the Sabbath. Sunday is identified again as a day for secular activities and gives no indication of religious observance. Besides the two assumptions that are used to try and justify Sunday keeping, the Bible and history show them not to be correct. We have already seen that both Jesus and Paul kept the Sabbath and there can be no doubt that it was the seventh day Sabbath that Paul kept as he was a Jew and a Pharisee and kept it as was his custom since childhood. It has also been established by many historians and theologians holding PhD’s in their field that Matthew and Luke were written between 60 and 80 A.D. and there was never a better time for Luke to tell us of a day change but instead he states in Luke 23:56, “…And they rested on the Sabbath according to the Commandment.” Jesus also showed that the Sabbath would still be kept after the cross and speaks of no day change when He is talking to the Apostles about the destruction of the temple in about 70 A.D. Jesus says in Matthew 24:20, “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.” Read Sabbath in the New Covenant for more information on this verse and topic. World leading historians also confirm this and that the Sabbath was kept by Jews and Gentiles till about 90-120 A.D. where persecution of the Jews became so great that some Christians changed to Sunday using the justification that it was in honour of the resurrection in order to avoid persecution and death. Later you will find out how the Sabbath got changed to Sunday and was made law about 364 A.D. As a result it was early in the fourth century when Sunday was officially named the Lord’s Day. Previous Back to Contents Next Top

Back to Contents Previous Download 看中文 Next Denominational Statements on the Sabbath AMERICAN CONGREGATIONALIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament. —Dr. Layman Abbot, in the Christian Union, June 26, 1890. ANGLICAN QUOTES ABOUTTHE SABBATH And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it. —Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336. BAPTIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found: Not in the New Testament – absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. —Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’. To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject. Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism. —Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in 'New York Examiner,' November 16, 1893 The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath. . .There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation. —The Watchman. We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government. —Baptist Church Manual, Art. 12. There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance. —WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, The Lord's Day in Our Day, page 49. There is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day. —Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976 BRETHREN QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH With the views of the law and the Sabbath we once held ... and which are still held by perhaps the great majority of the most earnest Christians, we confess that we could not answer Adventists. What is more, neither before or since have I heard or read what would conclusively answer an Adventist in his Scriptural contention that the Seventh day is the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10). It is not 'one day in seven' as some put it, but 'the seventh day according to the commandment.' —Words of Truth and Grace, p. 281. CATHOLIC QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church. —Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903. Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope. —Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950. Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change. —This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997 Q. Have you any other proofs that they(Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture? A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book. Q. Give some examples of both? A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; —they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, "Remember thou keep holy the SABBATH-day;" for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated;... —Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. —Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174 Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences? A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week. If, then he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained? —Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 181 Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. —Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS .R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50 Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists? A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. … Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide? A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ... —Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7. The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians. —The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153. The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant. —The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4. All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible. —The Catholic Virginian, To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947). ... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. —The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73. Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.' —Catholic Record, September 1, 1923. But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair. —The Faith of Millions Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy. —Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995 If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church. —Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920. The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church. —Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213. What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants? Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating. Here it is officially: You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered. —Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4. There is but one church on the face of the earth which has the power, or claims power, to make laws binding on the conscience, binding before God, binding under penalty of hell-fire. For instance, the institution of Sunday. What right has any other church to keep this day? You answer by virtue of the third commandment (the papacy did away with the 2nd regarding the worship of graven images, and called the 4th the 3rd), which says 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Any schoolboy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week. —T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893. Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters. —C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895. Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built. —Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157 The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth —Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29. The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. —John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994 ...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'. —John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See here for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’) The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. —William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809 The retention of the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure, owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun. —Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184 When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God. —Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951. Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church. —Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67) Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the NEW LAW, that he himself has explicitly substituted Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days. —Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2. If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ... —A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1. Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first. —Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900 The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church. —Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89. Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible. —John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893. CHRISTIAN CHURCH QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath is changed, or that the Lord’s Day came in the room of it. —Alexander Campbell, in The Reporter, October 8, 1921 It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday. —Dr. N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, p. 415 There is no direct scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day. —Dr. D. H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change. —First-Day Observance, pp. 17, 19. CHURCH OF CHRIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH But we do not find any direct command from God, or instruction from the risen Christ, or admonition from the early apostles, that the first day is to be substituted for the seventh day Sabbath." "Let us be clear on this point. Though to the Christian 'that day, the first day of the week' is the most memorable of all days ... there is no command or warrant in the New Testament for observing it as a holy day. The Roman Church selected the first day of the week in honour of the resurrection of Christ. ... —Bible Standard, May, 1916, Auckland, New Zealand. ... If the fourth command is binding upon us Gentiles by all means keep it. But let those who demand a strict observance of the Sabbath remember that the seventh day is the ONLY sabbath day commanded, and God never repealed that command. If you would keep the Sabbath, keep it; but Sunday is not the Sabbath. The argument of the 'Seventh-day Adventists' is on one point unassailable. It is the Seventh day not the first day that the command refers to. —G. Alridge, Editor, The Bible Standard, April, 1916. There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day. —DR. D. H. LUCAS, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change. —First-Day Observance, pages 17, 19. It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday. —DR. N. SUMMERBELL, History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, page 4I5. It is clearly proved that the pastors of the churches have struck out one of God's ten words, which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality. —ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Debate With Purcell, page 214. I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it. —ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Washington Reporter, Oct. 8, 1821. CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH Many people think that Sunday is the Sabbath. But neither in the New Testament nor in the early church is there anything to suggest that we have any right to transfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. The Sabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday, and if it were binding on us then we should observe it on that day, and on no other. —Rev. Lionel Beere, All-Saints Church, Ponsonby, N.Z. in Church and People, Sept. 1, 1947. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. ...! That is Saturday. —P. Carrington, Archbishop of Quebec, Oct. 27, 1949; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 12. The observance of the first instead of the seventh day rests on the testimony of the church, and the church alone. —Hobart Church News, July 2, 1894; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 14. Where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the Seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. The reason why we keep the first day holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined them. —Rev. Isaac Williams, Ser. on Catechism, p. 334. The seventh day, the commandment says, is the Sabbath of The Lord thy God. No kind of arithmetic, no kind of almanac, can make seven equal one, nor the seventh mean the first, nor Saturday mean Sunday. ... The fact is that we are all Sabbath breakers, every one of us. —Rev. Geo. Hodges. Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles. —SIR WILLIAM DOMVILLE, Examination of the Six Texts, pages 6, 7. (Supplement). There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. . . . Into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters…, The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. —CANON EYTON, 'The Ten Commandments, pages 52, 63, 65. Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? None. —Manual of Christian Doctrine, page 127. The Lord's day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath....The Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because for almost three hundred years together they kept that day which was in that commandment...The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord's day, even in times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none. —BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR, Ductor Dubitantium, Part I, Book II, Chap. 2, Rule 6. Sec. 51, 59. Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adore that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel. —T. M. MORER, Dialogues on the Lord's Day, pages 22, 23. The Puritan idea was historically unhappy. It made Sunday into the Sabbath day. Even educated people call Sunday the Sabbath. Even clergymen do. But, unless my reckoning is all wrong, the Sabbath day lasts twenty-four hours from six o'clock on Friday evening. It gives over, therefore, before we come to Sunday. If you suggest to a Sabbatarian that he ought to observe the Sabbath on the proper day, you arouse no enthusiasm. He at once replies that the day, not the principle, has been changed. But changed by whom? There is no injunction in the whole of the New Testament to Christians to change the Sabbath into Sunday. —D. MORSE-BOYCOTT, Daily Herald, London, Feb. 26, 1931. The Christian church made no formal, but a gradual and almost unconscious transference of the one day to the other. —F.W. FARRAR, D.D., The Voice From Sinai, page 167. Take which you will, either of the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week. —PETER HEYLYN, History of the Sabbath, page 410. Merely to denounce the tendency to secularise Sunday is as futile as it is easy. What we want is to find some principle, to which as Christians we can appeal, and on which we can base both our conduct and our advice. We turn to the New Testament, and we look in vain for any authoritative rule. There is no recorded word of Christ, there is no word of any of the apostles, which tells how we should keep Sunday, or indeed that we should keep it at all. It is disappointing, for it would make our task much easier if we could point to a definite rule, which left us no option but simple obedience or disobedience. . . . There is no rule for Sunday observance, either in Scripture or history. —DR. STEPHEN, Bishop of Newcastle, N.S.W., in an address reported in the Newcastle Morning Herald, May 14, 1924. CONGREGATIONAL QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scripture, and was not by the primitive [early Christian] church called the Sabbath. —Timothy Dwight, Theology, sermon 107, 1818 ed., Vol. IV, p. 49 Note: Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) was president of Yale University from 1795-1817. It is quite clear that, however rigidly or devoutly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath ... The Sabbath was founded on a specific divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday ... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday. —Dr. Dale, The Ten Commandments, pp. 106, 107. It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day. —Buck's Theological Dictionary page 403. There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath. —ORIN FOWLER, A.M., Mode and Subjects of Baptism. The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament. —DR. LYMAN ABBOTT, Christian Union, Jan. 18, 1882. DISCIPLES OF CHRIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day ‘the Lord’s Day.’ —Dr D.H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, January, 1890 EPISCOPALIAN QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Christ. —Bishop Symour, Why We keep Sunday. The Bible commandment says on the seventh-day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday. —Phillip Carrington, quoted in Toronto Daily Star, Oct 26, 1949 [Carrington (1892-), Anglican archbishop of Quebec, spoke the above in a message on this subject delivered to a packed assembly of clergymen. It was widely reported at the time in the news media]. INFIDEL QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH Probably very few Christians are aware of the fact that what they call the 'Christian Sabbath' (Sunday) is of pagan origin. The first observance of Sunday- that history records is in the fourth century', when Constantine issued an edict (not requiring its religious observance, but simply abstinence from work) reading, 'let all the judges and people of the town rest and all the various trades be suspended on the venerable day of the sun.' At the time of the issue of this edict, Constantine was a sun-worshipper; therefore it could have had no relation whatever to Christianity. —HENRY M. TABER. Faith or Fact (preface by Robert G. Ingersoll), page 112. I challenge any priest or minister of the Christian religion to show me the slightest authority for the religious observance of Sunday. And, if such cannot be shown by them, why is it that they are constantly preaching about Sunday as a holy day? … The claim that Sunday takes the place of Saturday, and that because the Jews were supposed to be commanded to keep the seventh day of the week holy, therefore the first day of the week should be so kept by Christians, is so utterly absurd as to be hardly worth considering....That Paul habitually observed and preached on the seventh day of the week, is shown in Acts 18:4-'And be reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath' (Saturday). —Id., pages ,114, 116. LUTHERAN QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church." Augsburg Confession of Faith. They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments. —Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9. They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue. —The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation]. For up to this day mankind has absolutely trifled with the original and most special revelation of the Holy God, the ten words written upon the tables of the Law from Sinai. —Crown Theological Library, page I78. The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together, and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt, this took place as early as the first part of the second century. —Bishop GRIMELUND, History of the Sabbath, page 60. The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance. —AUGUSTUS NEANDER, History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, page 186. I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity abrogate sin also. —MARTIN LUTHER, Spiritual Antichrist, pages 71, 72. We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish Sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christian of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both. —The Sunday Problem, a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36 But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect —John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp.15, 16 LUTHERAN FREE CHURCH QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has the right to do it? —George Sverdrup, ‘A New Day.’ METHODIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages. —JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222. No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. —Methodist Church Discipline, (I904), page 23. The Sabbath was made for MAN; not for the Hebrews, but for all men. —E.O. HAVEN, Pillars of Truth, page 88. The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first. The early Christians began to worship on the first day of the week because Jesus rose from the dead on that day. By and by, this day of worship was made also a day of rest, a legal holiday. This took place in the year 321. The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first... Our Christian Sabbath, therefore, is not a matter of positive command. It is a gift of the church... —CLOVIS G. CHAPPELL, Ten Rules for Living, page 61. Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the seventh day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day. —Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, Sabbath In the days of very long ago the people of the world began to give names to everything, and they turned the sounds of the lips into words, so that the lips could speak a thought. In those days the people worshiped the sun because many words were made to tell of many thoughts about many things. The people became Christians and were ruled by an emperor whose name was Constantine. This emperor made Sunday the Christian Sabbath, because of the blessing of light and heat which came from the sun. So our Sunday is a sun-day, isn't it? —Sunday School Advocate, Dec. 31, 1921. The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other. —JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, Vol. I, Sermon XXV. The Sabbath instituted in the beginning, and confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets, has never been abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a jot or a tittle of its sanctity has been taken away. —New York Herald 1874, on the Methodist Episcopal Bishops Pastoral 1874 MISCELLANEOUS QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' who shall dare to say, 'Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead'? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered. —The Library of Christian Doctrine, pages 3, 4. The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: 'God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.' Genesis 2:3. This precept was confirmed by God in the Ten Commandments: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep It holy. ...The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Exodus 20: 8, 10. On the other hand, Christ declares that He is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17.) He Himself observed the Sabbath: 'And, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.' Luke 4: r6. His disciples likewise observed it after His death: 'They . . . rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' Luke 23: 56. Yet with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None at all but the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostle made the change in honour of Christ's resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week. —JOHN MILNER, The End of Religious Controversy, page 71. Sabbath means, of course, Saturday, the seventh day of the week, but the early Christians changed the observance to Sunday, to honour the day on which Christ arose from the dead. —FULTON OURSLER. Cosmopolitan, Sept. 1951, pages 34, 35. I do not pretend to be even an amateur scholar of the Scriptures. I read the Decalogue merely as an average man searching for guidance, and in the immortal 'Ten Words' I find a blueprint for the good life. —Id., page 33. Most certainly the Commandments are needed today, perhaps more than ever before. Their divine message confronts us with a profound moral challenge in an epidemic of evil; a unifying message acceptable alike to Jew, Moslem, and Christian. Who, reading the Ten in the light of history and of current events, can doubt their identity with the eternal law of nature? —Id., page 124. The Sabbath is commanded to be kept on the seventh day. It could not be kept on any other day. To observe the first day of the week or the fourth is not to observe the Sabbath. . . . It was the last day of the week, after six days of work, that was to be kept holy. The observance of no other day would fulfil the law. —H. J. FLOWERS, B.A., B.D., The Permanent Value of the Ten Commandments, page 13. The evaluation of Sunday, the traditionally accepted day of the resurrection of Christ, has varied greatly throughout the centuries of the Christian Era. From time to time it has been confused with the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. English speaking peoples have been the most consistent in perpetuating the erroneous assumption that the obligation of the fourth commandment has passed over to Sunday. In popular speech, Sunday is frequently, but erroneously, spoken of as the Sabbath. —F. M. SETZLER, Head Curator, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute, from a letter dated Sept. 1, 1949. He that observes the Sabbath aright holds the history of that which it celebrates to be authentic, and therefore believes in the creation of the first man; in the creation of a fair abode for man in the space of six days; in the primeval and absolute creation of the heavens and the earth, and, as a necessary antecedent to all this, in the Creator, who at the close of His latest creative effort, rested on the seventh day. The Sabbath thus becomes a sign by which the believers in a historical revelation are distinguished from those who have allowed these great facts to fade from their remembrance. —JAMES G. MURPHY, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, comments on Exodus 20: 8-11. MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding? —D.L. MOODY, Weighed and Wanting, page 47. I honestly believe that this commandment [the fourth, or Sabbath commandment] is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.' It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age. —Id., page 46. This Fourth is not a commandment for one place, or one time, but for all places and times. —D.L. Moody, at San Francisco, Jan. 1st, 1881. PRESBYTERIAN QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The Christian Sabbath (Sunday) is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath. —Dwight's Theology, Vol. 14, p. 401. A further argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath we have in Matthew 24:20, Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath day. But the final destruction of Jerusalem was after the Christian dispensation was fully set up (AD 70). Yet it is plainly implied in these words of the Lord that even then Christians were bound to strict observation of the Sabbath. —Works of Jonathon Edwards, (Presby.) Vol. 4, p. 621. We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must therefore be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. —JOHN CALVIN, Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 1, page 277. God instituted the Sabbath at the creation of man, setting apart the seventh day for the purpose, and imposed its observance as a universal and perpetual moral obligation upon the race. —American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 175. The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath did not cease till it was abolished after the [Roman] empire became Christian, ... —American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 118. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. —Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 19, Art. 5. The Sabbath is a part of the Decalogue-the Ten Commandments. This alone for ever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution ... Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand...The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath. —T.C. BLAKE, D.D., Theology Condensed, pages 474, 475. Sunday being the first day of which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it) the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear carelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice that might be otherwise taken against the gospel —T.M. Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's Day There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday no Divine Law enters. —Canon Eyton, in The Ten Commandments. Some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon Apostolic command, whereas the Apostles gave no command on the matter at all.... The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta [literal writing] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument. —The Christian at Work, April 19, 1883, and Jan. 1884 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day ... but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church. —‘Explanation of Catechism’ SOUTHERN BAPTIST QUOTES ABOUT THE SABBATH The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10 quoted]… on this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages… Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week, -- that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh. —Joseph Hudson Taylor, ‘The Sabbatic Question’, p. 14-17, 41. The first four commandments set forth man's obligations directly toward God.... But when we keep the first four commandments, we are likely to keep the other six. . . . The fourth commandment sets forth God's claim on man's time and thought.... The six days of labour and the rest on the Sabbath are to be maintained as a witness to God's toil and rest in the creation. . . . No one of the ten words is of merely racial significance.... The Sabbath was established originally (long before Moses) in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God's rest after the six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam. —Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937. Previous Back to Contents Next Top

All trinity studies Previous Download 看中文 Next Two Beings and Not Three According to the Bible TWO BEINGS not three according to the BIBLE Proverbs 30:4 "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." ONLY TWO BEINGS Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ONLY TWO BEINGS Mark 13:32 / Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 Corinthians 1:9 "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." ONLY TWO BEINGS 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 1:14, 18 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. ... v18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 3:16, 18 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. v18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" ONLY TWO BEINGS John 8:16, 28, 42 "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. v28 When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I DO NOTHING OF MYSELF; but as my FATHER has taught me, I speak these things. v42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 12:44-45, 49 "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. v45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. v49 FOR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF; but the FATHER which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” ONLY TWO BEINGS John 14:10, 20, 23, 24 "The words that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: but the FATHER that dwelleth in me v20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. v23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. v24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” ONLY TWO BEINGS John 17:8 "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." ONLY TWO BEINGS John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." ONLY TWO BEINGS Romans 8:3 "……God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh…." ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 John 2:22, 23 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. v23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 John 5:10, 11 "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. v11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." ONLY TWO BEINGS Ephesians 3:9 “God….created all things by Jesus Christ.” ONLY TWO BEINGS Hebrews 1:1-2 "God....spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" ONLY TWO BEINGS This is why John 1:3 says: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Other translations say, “Through him (Jesus) all things were made” (NIV) because “God created everything through him” (NLT). ONLY TWO BEINGS 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" ONLY TWO BEINGS Revelation 1:1 “The Revelation of JESUS CHRIST, WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” ONLY TWO BEINGS Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next We Should Be Baptized Only in the Name of Jesus We should be baptized ONLY in the name of Jesus ! Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:12 “ But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?” 1 Corinthians 1:13 “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” [Implied] Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” “The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism.” — (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, p. 585) Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now pope Benedict XVI) makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19 saying: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome. The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around 33 A.D. It was rather, as the evidence proves, a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.” ( http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2012_01JAN/2012JanWhyWereAdjustmentsMade.cfm ) The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” Does Matthew 28:19 prove a Trinity ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRklea85ZsQ&t=1s  Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Father and Son Relationship and Divine Pattern Father and Son Relationship and Divine Pattern Father is the source of all things. Ephesian 4:6 – One God, and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. John 17:3 – And this is life eternal, that thee might know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 2 Corinthian 1:3 – Blessed be God, even the father our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of mercies , and the God of all comfort. 2 John 1:3 – Grace be with you, mercy and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the father, in truth and love. 1Timothy 6:16 – Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see, to whom be honoured and power everlasting. Amen. Son is the channel of all the father gives him. John 5.26 – For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to hath life in himself. The eternal, everlasting, immortal life. 1 John 5:11 – God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. God is the source of all life, because he has given this life to his son Jesus Christ, he can give life to others whenever he wants. John 5:21 – For as the father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. John 5: 25 –When the dead shall hear the voice of the son of God and they that hear shall live. Not only immortal life, but all things had given to Jesus Christ. Matthew 11:27 – All things are delivered unto me of my father. John 3:35 – The Father loveth his son, and hath given all things into his hands. Philippians 2:9 – Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name. 10 – That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth and things under the earth. 11—That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Matthew 28:18 – All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 1 Corinthians 15:27 – For he hath put all things under his feet. Hebrews 1:2 – Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. He is a channel by whom and through whom all things from the father flow to his creations. This is the patterns, from the beginning. Genesis 1:26 – God said, let us make man in our image and after our likeness. Ephesian 3:9 – God who created all things by Jesus Christ. Then God made man in his own image. 1 Timothy 2:13 -- Adam was first formed. Genesis 2:18 -- But God see that it is not good that the man should be alone. So the woman came forth out of man as part of his very own body. Eve was not created from nothing but was taken out from Adam’s side, his bosom, she was essentially existed in Adam, a part of him, before she was taken out. She became the express image of Adam. So also the word, Jesus is the unique son of God, begotten of the father, taken from his bosom. Genesis 3:20 – Adam named his wife, Eve because she was the mother of all living. Adam was the source, Eve was the channel, by whom, through whom Adam became the father of our race. Eve was the same substance as Adam, both equal in nature, she was just as human as he was, but Eve was begotten in a different manner than all other human births. So too the Son of God, begotten of this Father, they both have the same divine substance, both equal in nature, Christ is just as divine as his father. But the son was begotten in a different manner, back in eternity. Christ gave us his spirit, just as Adam gave Eve his rib, we are part of Christ, we partake of his divine nature, we are born again, Christ in us, we have his character. As Adam and Eve was one flesh, so also the Father and Son are one spirit. John 1:1 – In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word as God. Word = God? Word+ God? Pros ton theon, kai theos hen ho logos. With the God, and God was the Word John speaks the same way in his first epistle. 1 John 1:1—That which was from the beginning, the word of life, that eternal life which was with the father. (Pros ton Patera) The word was with the God, the only true God of whom are all things, John did not say, the word was the God. Now we use the same grammatical structure but with different subjects. In the beginning was the women, and the women was with the human, and the woman was human. Adam= Name Human= Adam and Eve # The woman Eve was human in nature, not the man in indentity, Eve was not Adam, they were 2 separate persons. 2 individual identities. The same divine, Godly nature are possessed by both the father and son. The son was not the God, but he has God’s divine nature by inheritance. Illustrations: 1. Father is the root, Jesus is the branch, we cannot see the root, but we can see the branch and the fruits beared the branch has the same nature, substance, quality as the root, the root is the source, the branch is the expression and channel from which comes more branches. 2. The mountain and the stone ( Zechariah 4:7) Zerubbabel and Joshua the Father is the mountain, Jesus is a stone from the mountain. The stone is just as old as the mountain, they have the same substance, nature, character. It is as hard and enduring as the mountain because it came out of the mountain. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top