搜寻结果

All trinity studies Previous Download Next General Info on 1 John 5 7 This is general info on 1 John 5:7. Does 1 John 5:7-8 Have Added Text? Some person or persons in centuries past were so zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity that they literally added it. There are numerous Scholars in fact that inform us that this passage has a spurious comment which has been added. The textual Scholar Bart Ehrman described this forgery as follows: “…this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Thus the scholarly consensus is that this passage is a Latin corruption that found its way into a Greek manuscript at an early date while being absent from the THOUSANDS of other manuscripts. This addition is so famous and hence so well known that it has even been given its own name and is called the “Comma Johanneum.” Comma means a short clause. Modern Bible translations come from two manuscripts called the Codex Sinaiticus, which has more edits than any other manuscript in Biblical history (14800 edits), and the Codex Vaticanus which comes from the Vatican. These two manuscripts do NOT contain the Comma Johanneum and why this added text is not found in modern Bible translations other than the NKJV where it was added only to match the KJV. The King James New Testament on the other hand was compiled from over 5000 copies of copies of the original manuscripts which have long since perished. Now please take careful note that this added text was found in only ONE of the 5000 plus manuscripts. THAT MEANS ADDED! And so there is not one major theologian that does not acknowledge this fact. And yet considering all the irrefutable facts, it is amazing that there are still some who go into denial rather than acknowledge this well-known corruption that is so famous that it has even been given its own name! The English King James Bible translated in 1611 AD retains this Trinitarian forgery, but none of our modern translations have it except the NKJV where it was added to match the KJV. The King James Version reads as follows, “For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8 AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 1 John 5:7-8 Thus the words in CAPS are found in the KJV, NKJV but are missing from almost every other translation. Thomas Nelson and Sons Catholic Commentary, 1951, page 1186 states, “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Gomma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.” Here is how 1 John 5:7-8 reads from the NIV and most other Bible translations. “For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 in either his 1516 or 1519 editions of his Greek New Testament but made its way into his third edition in 1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared in 1516, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma Trinitarian formula because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced called the Codex 61, that was written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520, he reluctantly agreed to include it in his subsequent editions. Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns. He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Thus it passed into the Stephanus Greek New Testament in 1551 (first New Testament in verses), which came to be called the Textus Receptus, and became the basis for the Geneva Bible New Testament in 1557 and the Authorized King James Version in 1611. Note the image of the Codex 61 with the added words underlined in red. “The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus (see Vol. V, p. 141). It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the later editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text that he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. In spite of their appearance in the Vulgate A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture freely admits regarding these words: “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries” (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1951, p. 1186).” — (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 675) The Seventh day Adventist Biblical Research Institute also admits this text in 1 John 5:7 is added. So their final conclusion and advice to Seventh day Adventists was “...you should NOT use this text.” So the SDA BRI and the SDA Bible Commentary both acknowledge this text is added and say it should not be used, and yet you constantly see Adventists and their key organizations using this verse anyway. So Seventh day Adventists are not following their own advice. “I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition.” — (E.G. White, EW, 220.2) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Christ Appeared to the Patriachs and Prophets I’m citing a few passage below where the “Almighty” appeared or spoke directly to the patriarchs and the prophets: Gen 35:11 And God said unto him[Jacob], I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; Gen 48:3 “3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, Exodus 6:1-3 “Then the Lord said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. Exodus 33:11 “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.” Exodus 33: 19-23 "And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live……And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. The Almighty appearing to the patriarchs are generally understood to mean that the Father appeared to them... And yet, we are told that no one has seen God: John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 5:37 “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE.” 1 Tim. 6:13-16. “I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things...who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of lords; 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 honor and power everlasting." The way I reconcile these seemingly contradictory statement is that Christ acted in Father's stead as the God of the Old Testament. both Scripture and SOP (if you believe in the writings of Ellen White) make it pretty clear. One thing most people overlook is that the “Almighty” that spoke to Moses on the Mount Sinai actually appeared to him as the “Angel of the Lord.” "Behold, I send an ANGEL before thee, to keep thee in the way, and TO BRING THEE INTO THE PLACE WHICH I HAVE PREPARED. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for HE WILL NOT PARDON YOUR TRANSGRESSIONS: FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM." (Ex. 23:20,21) "And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an ANGEL OF THE LORD in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, THE VOICE OF THE LORD came unto him, Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold." (Acts 7:30-32) "This is he [Moses], that was in the church in the wilderness with the ANGEL which SPAKE TO HIM in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (v. 38) [mine] “Christ is the One THROUGH WHOM God has AT ALL TIMES revealed Himself to man. “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.” 1 Corinthians 8:6. “This is he [Moses], that was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.” Acts 7:38. This Angel was the Angel of God’s presence (Isaiah 63:9), THE ANGEL IN WHOM WAS THE NAME OF THE GREAT JEVOHAH (Exodus 23:20-23). THE EXPRESSION CAN REFER TO NO OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD.” {PP 761.4} “The priest went through the ceremony of his official work. He took the child in his arms, and held it up before the altar. After handing it back to its mother, he inscribed the name “Jesus” on the roll of the first-born. Little did he think, as the babe lay in his arms, that it was the Majesty of heaven, the King of glory. The priest did not think that this babe was the One of whom Moses had written, “A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you.” Acts 3:22. HE DID NOT THINK THAT THIS BABE WAS HE WHOSE GLORY MOSES HAD ASKED TO SEE. But One greater than Moses lay in the priest’s arms; and when he enrolled the child’s name, he was enrolling the name of One who was the foundation of the whole Jewish economy. {DA 52.2} Previous All trinity studies Next Back to 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 Who is the God of the Bible Who is the God of the Bible? Does the following match with our current understanding of the God of the Bible?? If yes then we're in the harmony with the scriptures and if No then it's high time to review things all over again as who the TRUE God of the Bible ?? Never forget the end time major issue will be over the issue of WORSHIP. Who do you worship? God of the Bible or some mysterious 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 entity ?? Let's see who is the God of the Bible !! 1- What important question does the Bible ask about God? Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? - We cannot of ourselves find out God. God Himself must tell us about Himself. 2- What does God say about Himself? Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. – He is a creator of infinite power. Not only is He creator but He also upholds and maintains all His creation. Isaiah 46:9, 10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure – *God is all knowing or omniscient. 3- How many true gods does the Bible reveal? Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD – God told the Israelites that He is ONE, as opposed to the heathen nations around them which worshiped multiple gods. Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.– There is none other besides Him. It is on this basis that God gave the first commandment which prohibits multiple gods. 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. 4- Who is the most qualified person to tell us about the true God? John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. – Jesus, the Son of God is the highest authority on this topic. John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. – In speaking of God Jesus tells us what He knows and has seen. That was His mission in coming down from heaven; to tell us of heavenly things. 5- According to Jesus, who is “the only true God”? John 17:1, 3 Father… And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. – The only true God, according to Jesus, is the Father. Knowing the only true God and Jesus is the key to eternal life. A correct understanding of God is an issue that affects our eternal life. 6- Who is the Lord of heaven and earth, according to Jesus? Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. – The Father is the Lord of both heaven and earth (see also Luke 10:21). 7- Who will the true worshippers worship? John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. –True worshippers worship the Father, the only true God, in spirit and in truth. 8- Who did Jesus say we should pray to? Matthew 6:9-13 Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven … For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. – The Father’s will is done in heaven. The kingdom, power and glory belong to the Father. 9- Which is the first commandment of all? Mark 12:28-32 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this,Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he. – Knowing God is required before we can love Him. A correct knowledge of God is vital for our relationship with Him. The scribe agreed that there is only one God, and none other but He. 10- Did Jesus correct the scribe? Mark 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him,Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. – The belief of the scribe reflects the faith of the entire Jewish nation. The Jews believed in one God only. John 8:41 Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 11- Did Jesus identify who is the one God of the Jewish nation? John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God. 12- Is He the God of the Jews only? Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. 13- Did the apostles of Christ teach the Gentiles the same truth about God? James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. – *James taught that there is only one God. Even the devils know that! 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. – Paul taught that there is only one God. Jesus is the only link between us and God. We can only know God through Jesus. 14- Who is this one true God? 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many,and lords many,) 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. – The one God is the Father. James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. – *The Apostles of Christ taught that the one God is only the Father. We do not read about different persons making up one God. It is simply the Father. 15- Who is the living and true God? 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. – The “living and true God” is the Father. 16- Did the early Christian church maintain this belief of the Apostles? Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 17- Who is the creator of all things? Revelation 4:9-11 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. –We saw earlier that the Lord of heaven and earth is God the Father. It is God the Father who created all things. 18- How did God the Father create all things? Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:16 For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,visible and invisible,whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. 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. John 1:3 All things were made by him [the Word]; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 19- Who is the head of all things? 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. – The head of Christ is God, who is His Father. 20- Does Christ have a God? 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? 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. Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness,and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Note: This teaching was clearly revealed in the Old Testament, not just the New (see Psalm 45:7). The Father has always been, and will always be, the God of Jesus Christ our Lord. 21- Who does Christ belong to? 1 Corinthians 3:23 And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God‘s. 22- When we get to heaven, who are we going to serve? Revelation 21:22, 23 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him. – We shall serve and worship God and the Lamb, for this is eternal life. To know them both throughout eternity will be our theme. 23- Do we wait till we get to heaven or can this fellowship begin sooner? 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. This fellowship can begin now as we read and learn about the Father and the Son. Conclusion: We have seen that the word of God clearly tells us there is only one God. That one God is none other than the Father, not a mysterious trinity god. This one God is the source of ALL life and power. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next How was the SDA Church Changed to Think the Holy Spirit is a Person How was the SDA Church Changed to Think the Holy Spirit is a Person? It is claimed that Ellen White became a Trinitarian 20 years before her passing. This erroneous claim is based on a handful of quotes that LeRoy Froom set out to search for that he rightly figured would be misunderstood. He searched over 100,000 pages of her writings (25,000,000 words) and found a few quotes that on the surface appeared to fit the Trinitarian concept on the Holy Spirit. But only if you choose to read them as such, and at the expense of the “tens of thousands” of non-Trinitarian statements she wrote. Note that Froom was labelled as being the most dangerous man in the SDA Church and is now suspected of being a Jesuit. On the 14 December 1955, Leroy Froom in a letter to Reuben Figuhr wrote, “I was publicly denounced in the chapel at the Washington Missionary College by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson as the most dangerous man in this denomination.” The claim that Ellen White was given light which resulted in her becoming a Trinitarian means God would have been lying to her for many decades. This claim is obviously false! New light CANNOT contradict old light or the old light was a LIE from God. A change from non-Trinitarian to Trinitarian is a total backflip and can NEVER be called progressive truth. Sadly, Froom eventually managed to convince the SDA Church with these misunderstood quotes that Ellen White had become a Trinitarian. But he had to wait until the death of Ellen White and all the pioneers as he could never have achieved this change while they were still alive. The deception of Froom was so successful that many believe that the quotes called “EV” or “Evangelism” are from a book written by Ellen White. But it was written and compiled by Froom in 1946 which was 30 years after the death of Ellen White. Note that the headings, subheadings and bolded texts before the quotes in this book are NOT her words, and some included the word “Trinity” which she never wrote! These quotes are typically called EV 615-EV 617 or Evangelism 615-617. Ellen White actually taught that the “Holy Spirit” is the “Spirit of God” coming to us through His Son, and hence she frequently wrote the Holy Spirit is the “SPIRIT OF CHRIST.” For example, “We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” — (EGW, Lt66, April 10, 1894) But many today are so indoctrinated with a Trinitarian mindset, that they mistakenly believe that the quotes Froom compiled and put in one place imply the Holy Spirit is a third being. But Ellen White was referring to the “SPIRIT OF CHRIST,” not a third being. She was 100% consistent in all that she wrote. And since she wrote, “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ,” she also wrote: The Comforter is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the Spirit of truth is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the third person is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the third great power is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost was the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the Holy Spirit Jesus breathed on His disciples was HIS own SPIRIT, the Holy Spirit Christ sent to represent Himself was HIS own SPIRIT, the heavenly dignitaries are the Father, Son and SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the Heavenly trio is the Father, Son and SPIRIT OF CHRIST, and she reveals over and over again that there are only two beings. There are literally thousands of quotes from Ellen White that confirm the above facts. But since size is an issue, just one quote will be provided that confirm all of the above. The first covers almost all of the above points. For instance: “THIRD PERSON,” “THIRD GREAT POWER,” “HEAVENLY DIGNITARIES” and “HEAVENLY TRIO.” —<>— “They have ONE God and ONE Saviour; and ONE Spirit--the Spirit of Christ--” — (EGW, 9T 189.3, 1909) ONE + ONE + ONE = “the SPIRIT OF CHRIST” THIRD GREAT POWER —<>— “CHRIST has given HIS SPIRIT as a divine POWER.” — (EGW, RH, Nov 19, 1908) COMFORTER —<>— “This refers to the omnipresence of the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, called the COMFORTER.” (EGW, 14MR 179.2) SPIRIT OF TRUTH —<>— “JESUS comes to you as the SPIRIT of TRUTH;” (EGW, 2MR 337.1) SPIRIT JESUS BREATHED ON HIS DISCIPLES —<>— “And when He had said this, He [Christ] breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: ... Before the disciples could fulfill their official duties in connection with the church, CHRIST breathed HIS Spirit upon them.” (EGW, DA, p. 805) SPIRIT GIVEN AT PENTECOST —<>— “The promise of the HOLY SPIRIT is not limited to any age or to any race. CHRIST declared that the divine influence of HIS SPIRIT was to be with His followers unto the end. From the Day of PENTECOST to the present time, the COMFORTER has been sent to all who have yielded themselves fully to the Lord and to His service.” (EGW, AA, 49.2) SPIRIT THAT REPRESENTS CHRIST —<>— “CHRIST came to our world, but the world could not endure His purity. He has gone to His Father, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to represent HIM in the world till he shall come again.” — (EGW, Ms1, Jan 11, 1897) TWO BEINGS ALONE —<>— “The Father and the Son ALONE are to be exalted.” — (EGW, YI, July 7, 1898) And since Ellen White wrote that the Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, for any quote Froom used regarding the Holy Spirit that has been misunderstood, replace the words “HOLY SPIRIT” with “SPIRIT OF CHRIST” or “CHRIST BY HIS SPIRIT” and read it again. I quite assure you that it can no longer be mistaken as a Trinitarian quote! For example: “We need to realize that the holy spirit [CHRIST BY HIS SPIRIT], who is as much a person as God is a person, is WALKING through these grounds, UNSEEN by human eyes.” — (EGW, 2SAT 136.6, [Evangelism p. 616.5], 1899) And for further clarity on this quote, “How few realize that JESUS, UNSEEN, is WALKING by their side!” — (EGW, 14MR 125.3) And, “He [CHRIST] is an UNSEEN presence in the PERSON of the HOLY SPIRIT,” — (EGW, DG 185.2, 1897) Who is UNSEEN? Christ! And why is Christ UNSEEN? Because it is by HIS HOLY SPIRIT. The early pioneers had no problem with the few quotes that Froom searched for because they knew who the Holy Spirit is and would never read them the wrong way. But if your belief is that the Holy Spirit is another being, then that is what you will see when you read them. Picking out statements from Ellen White’s writings that would fit into a Trinitarian concept of God while ignoring her statements that do not fit the Trinitarian concept of God is a dishonest way to use her writings. To understand correctly what God has revealed through Ellen White, and find out what her beliefs were on this topic, it is necessary to quote all that she wrote on this subject, not just be selective in what we quote to suit our own agenda. That would be tantamount to deception. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 下一篇 我们是否尊崇耶稣如同尊崇祂父一样 我们是否尊崇耶稣如同尊崇祂父一样？ 腓立比书 2:6 “他本有上帝的行像，不以自己与上帝同等为强夺的， 约翰福音 5:21-23 父怎样叫死人起来，使他们活着，子也照样随自己的意思使人活着。22 父不审判什么人，乃将审判的事全交与子，23 叫人都尊敬子如同尊敬父一样。不尊敬子的，就是不尊敬差子来的父。 马太福音 11:27 一切所有的，都是我父交付我的。除了父，没有人知道子；除了子和子所愿意指示的，没有人知道父。 马太福音 28:18 “耶稣进前来，对他们说：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给我了。” 路加福音 10:22 “一切所有的都是我父交付我的。除了父，没有人知道子是谁；除了子和子愿意指示的，没有人知道父是谁。” 约翰福音 3:35 父爱子，已将万有交在他手里。 约翰福音 16:15 “凡父所有的，都是我的，所以我说，他要将受于我的告诉你们。” 约翰福音 17:10 凡是我的都是你的，你的也是我的，并且我因他们得了荣耀。 约翰福音 13:3 耶稣知道父已将万有交在他手里，且知道自己是从上帝出来的，又要归到上帝那里去， 以弗所书1:20-23 20 就是照他在基督身上所运行的大能大力，使他从死里复活，叫他在天上坐在自己的右边， 21 远超过一切执政的、掌权的、有能的、主治的和一切有名的，不但是今世的，连来世的也都超过了。 22 又将万有服在他的脚下，使他为教会作万有之首。 23 教会是他的身体，是那充满万有者所充满的。 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download Next 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 启示录的警告 1-10 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之1） 启示录第14章的神是谁？ 在启示录14:6-7，我们看到一个重要的末世信息【第一天使的信息】，说： “我又看见另有一位天使飞在空中，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。他大声说：应当敬畏神，将荣耀归给祂，因祂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。” 这位天使正慈爱地警告世人，叫他们敬畏和敬拜的这位神是谁呢？注意这个信息所指的神是以单数代名词“祂”来代表的。那么祂是谁呢？ 在约翰福音第4章中，我们看到在耶稣与井边的妇人之间的一段有趣的对话。撒玛利亚妇人请问耶稣关于敬拜上帝的地方。听听耶稣是怎么回答她的：”你们所拜的，你们不知道，我们所拜的，我们知道，因为救恩是从犹太人出来的。“ （约4:22）容我在这里停一下。耶稣告诉妇人说，她不知道她所敬拜的是谁。祂说，但是我们，就是指犹太民族，知道我们敬拜的是谁。 然后，我们再看耶稣在马可福音第12章如何回答那位文士的提问。文士问耶稣说，“诫命中哪是第一要紧的呢？” 看看耶稣怎么回答他：“第一要紧的，就是说：以色列啊，你要听，主我们神，是独一的主。你要尽心、尽性、尽意、尽力，爱主你的神。”（可12:29-30） 那文士就说：“夫子说：神是一位，实在不错，除了祂以外，再没有别的神。”（可12:32） 这很有意思。现在让我们回到井边的妇人那里去。耶稣继续向妇人揭开真理。祂说：“时候将到，如今就是了，那真正拜父的，要用心灵和诚实拜祂，因为父要这样的人拜祂。神是个灵【或神是灵】，所以拜祂的，必须用心灵和诚实拜祂。” （约4:23,24） 启示录第14章呼吁我们应当归荣耀给祂和敬拜的神是谁呢？创造天地万物的神是谁呢？让我们来多看几节经文。 在约翰福音第17章中，耶稣向父祷告说：“父啊，时候到了，愿你荣耀你的儿子，使儿子也荣耀你。正如你曾赐给祂权柄，管理凡有血气的，叫祂将永生赐给你所赐给祂的人。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17:1-3） 约翰又在约翰壹书5:20说： “我们也知道神的儿子已经来到，且将智慧赐给我们，使我们认识那位真实的，我们也在那位真实的里面，就是在祂儿子耶稣基督里面。这是真神【指圣父】，也是永生。” 注意使徒保罗在哥林多前书8:4-6所证实的。千万不要错过这一点。他说：“论到吃祭偶像之物，我们知道偶像在世上算不得什么，也知道神只有一位，再没有别的神。虽有称为神的，或在天、或在地，就如那许多的神，许多的主；然而我们只有一位神，就是父，万物都本于祂；我们也归于祂——并有一位主，就是耶稣基督——万物都是藉着祂有的；我们也是藉着祂有的。” 你能不能看明“神只有一位，再没有别的神”当中的神是指谁呢？根据保罗，这位神就是圣父。 在腓立比书2:11，保罗又说：“无不口称耶稣基督为主，使荣耀归于父神。” 那位在启示录第14章天使呼吁我们应当归荣耀给祂和敬拜的神是谁呢？根据耶稣和众使徒的见证，祂就是独一真神父上帝。我们只要查考众使徒的书信，便能看到他们多次重复指独一真神为父上帝。 保罗说：“我写信给你们在罗马，为神所爱，奉召作圣徒的众人。愿恩惠、平安从我们的父神并主耶稣基督归与你们！第一，我靠着耶稣基督，为你们众人感谢我的神，因你们的信德传遍了天下。” （罗1:7-8） 雅各说：“作神和主耶稣基督仆人的雅各请散住十二个支派之人的安。” （雅1:1） 彼得说：“愿恩惠平安，因你们认识神和我们主耶稣，多多的加给你们。”（彼后1:2） 约翰说：“恩惠、怜悯、平安，从父神和祂儿子耶稣基督，在真理和爱心上，必常与我们同在。” （约贰1:3） 启示录的警告：归向独一真神 (10之2) 创世记第1章是否显示一位复数的神？ 许多三位一体论者此刻就会说：“啊！这些都没有错。不过，创世记第1章里面的神说到‘我们’，这就表明了一位复数的神。而且耶稣在马太福音28:19也吩咐说，你们要奉父、子、圣灵的名给他们施洗，这也表明了一位复数的神。然后，《英王钦定本圣经》的约翰壹书5:7说：‘在天上作见证的原来有三，就是父、道、与圣灵，这三样也都归于一。’ 这再次表明神是复数的，是由三位一体所组成的。”【编按：只有《英王钦定本圣经》才有5:7这一节，中文《圣经》的约壹5:7说： “并且有圣灵作见证，因为圣灵就是真理。” 而约5:8则说：”作见证的原来有三，就是圣灵、水、与血。这三样也都归于一。”】这是三位一体论者所持的普遍立场。就让我们来逐一分析这几点。 在创世记1:26，我们读到：“神说，我们要照着我们的形像，按着我们的样式造人。” 这其实比许多人所领会的意思更简单。问题是，神是谁，而“我们”又是指谁？好，我们已经证明了神是谁，而稍后我们会进一步巩固这个真理。 神就是父。但是父是不是自己一手创造这个世界呢？不，显然不是的。那么祂和谁一起创造这个世界呢？我们来让《圣经》解答这个问题。 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。” 再看歌罗西书1:16：“因为万有都是靠祂【爱子】造的，... 一概都是藉着祂造的，又是为祂造的。” 再看约翰福音1:3：“万物是藉着祂【道】造的，凡被造的，没有一样不是藉着祂造的。” 再看希伯来书1:2： “就在这末世，藉着祂儿子晓谕我们，又早已立祂为承受万有的，也曾藉着祂创造诸世界。” 那些接受怀爱伦的著作为神所启示的人，可以看看她所写的：“地球和其上的走兽被造齐之后，父和子便施行祂们的谋划，就是在撒但堕落之前已设计好的谋划，以按着祂们自己的形象造人。祂们共同完成了创造地球和其上所有生物的大工。于是这时神就对祂儿子说：‘我们要照着我们的形像，按着我们的样式造人。’“ （怀爱伦著，《高举主耶稣》原文第47页） 说话的神是谁呢？是父上帝。祂对谁说话呢？祂儿子耶稣。这就是创世记1:26中的“我们”了。祂们是父和子，而祂们俩透过父自己神圣的灵而共同创造这个世界，这灵是父与祂儿子所共有的灵。我们稍后会查考《圣经》的证据。 我听见一些三位一体论者说：“啊！但是创世记第1章中的神字，希伯来文是ELOHIM，而这个字是复数的，所以神是复数的。” 好，让我们来看看《圣经》中另一节经文，也是用了ELOHIM这个字的。 在出埃及记7:1中，当上帝对摩西说话时，祂告诉摩西说，他将在法老面前代替神【或变作神】。而这一节的神字，在希伯来文中也用了创世记第1章中的同一个字，即ELOHIM。那么上帝是不是告诉摩西说，他将在法老面前变作三个人呢？当然不是。那当上帝说，祂要使摩西在法老面前变作神时，祂是什么意思呢？上帝的意思是，摩西将在法老面前显为伟大。这就是ELOHIM的意思。它不是数目上的复数，而是威严性的复数，指地位上的伟大威严。这是摩西要彰显在法老面前的方式，让法老看他为伟大。这也是为什么ELOHIM在创世记第1章中被用来指父上帝的原因。它要表达的是父的伟大和威严。看看大卫如何在历代志上29:10-13中论到这一点。 “所以，大卫在会众面前称颂耶和华说，耶和华我们的父，以色列的神是应当称颂，直到永永远远的。耶和华阿，尊大，能力，荣耀，强胜，威严都是你的。凡天上地下的都是你的。国度也是你的，并且你为至高，为万有之首。丰富尊荣都从你而来，你也治理万物。在你手里有大能大力，使人尊大强盛都出于你。我们的神阿，现在我们称谢你，赞美你荣耀之名。” 你能不能在这一节中看出父上帝的众多威严呢？这就是为什么祂在创世记第1章中被称为ELOHIM。这不是说明神是由三位生物所组成的。它只是说明神的地位是伟大威严的。摩西也要在法老面前显现为ELOHIM，这也证明这一点。 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之3） 马太福音28:19和约翰壹书5:7是否表明一位复数神？ 现在让我们来解答马太福音28:19和约翰壹书5:7的问题。 马太福音28:19这样说：“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）” 而约翰壹书5:7【英王钦定本】这样说：“在天上作见证的原来有三，就是父、道、与圣灵，这三样也都归于一。” 在这里我暂且不谈这两节经文的有效性（真伪），虽然我们有强有力的证据显示两节经文是后来添加的。既然大多数人不肯接受这个论据，我们就暂且免谈。 在这里我们姑且把这两节当成是受神启示的经文。第一个我们必须注意的重点是，这两节经文都没有提到神或上帝这个字。这意味着什么呢？这意味着这两节经文都没有说明神是谁。你还可以做一件事，去查看《圣经》中有没有提到子上帝和圣灵上帝这两句短语。我们现在可以告诉你，你会找不到这些短语。为什么？ 因为《圣经》告诉我们，独一真神就是父。我们必须注意关于马太福音28:19的一个重点是，如果这一节经文是受神启示的，那么没有一个门徒听从耶稣在这里所吩咐的去行，因为《新约》所记载的洗礼，没有一个是奉父子圣灵的名实施的。《圣经》中所有的洗礼，全都是只奉耶稣的名实施的。你可以自己看看下列这些经文：徒2:38；8:12，16；10:48；19:5；22:16；罗6:3；加3:27。 关于约翰壹书5:7的重点是，根据耶稣在约翰福音8:16-18中的话来看，作见证的并不是三位，而只是两位，就是祂自己和父上帝：“就是判断人，我的判断也是真的。因为不是我独自在这里，还有差我来的父与我同在。你们的律法上也记着说，两个人的见证是真的。我是为自己作见证，还有差我来的父也是为我作见证。” 那么问题仍然是，在马太福音28:19和约翰壹书5:7中所提到的这“三位”究竟是谁呢？有智慧的《圣经》学者应该怎么办呢？去查考《圣经》，让《圣经》自己来诠释自己。就让我们这么做吧！ 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之4） 父是谁？ 在马太福音11:25中，我们读到：“那时，耶稣说，父阿，天地的主，我感谢你，因为你将这些事，向聪明通达人，就藏起来，向婴孩，就显出来。” 耶稣证实了父就是天地的主，也就是天使在启示录第14章所指的那一位。 在约翰福音17:1-3，我们读到耶稣祷告说：“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。” 耶稣又证实了父是独一的真神。 在约翰福音20:17，我们读到：“耶稣说，不要摸我。因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。见我的神，也是你们的神。” 耶稣再次证实了上帝就是他的父，他的神，也是我们的父，我们的神。 在哥林多前书8:6，我们读到：“然而我们只有一位神，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，万物都是借着他有的，我们也是借着他有的。” 保罗也证实了父就是独一的神。 这些还有很多其他的《圣经》经文，都证实了父就是那独一的真神，天地的主。（参阅弗1:17；罗1:7-8；帖前1:9-10；约贰1:3；徒4:24-30；约4:22-24；腓2:11） 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之5） 子【道】是谁？ 约翰福音1:14说：“道成了肉身住在我们中间，充充满满的有恩典有真理。我们也见过他的荣光，正是父独生子的荣光。” 在约翰壹书1:3中，我们读到：“我们将所看见，所听见的，传给你们，使你们与我们相交。我们乃是与父并他儿子耶稣基督相交的。” 在马太福音16:15-17中，我们读到：“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。” 罗马书8:3说：“律法既因肉体软弱，有所不能行的，神就差遣自己的儿子，成为罪身的形状，作了赎罪祭，在肉体中定了罪案。” 现在我们来看父上帝自己怎么说，在耶稣变像的山上：“【当彼得】说这话的时候，有一朵云彩来遮盖他们。他们进入云彩里就惧怕。有声音从云彩里出来，说，这是我的儿子，我所拣选的（有古卷作这是我的爱子），你们要听他。” （路9:34-35） 以上这些经文以及很多其他的经文（例如约3:16；帖前1:9-10；约20:17；约壹5:20；约贰1:3）都表明子或道就是耶稣基督，独一真神父的儿子。 这时许多三位一体论者就会说，”是的，这就是我所相信的。我相信耶稣是上帝的儿子。” 但是许多人没有意识到，三位一体论说，耶稣就是神自己本身，而不是神的亲生儿子。我们稍后会解答约翰福音第1章的问题。 看看本会神学家，也是本会圣经研究所所长，怎么解释耶稣基督与父的关系： “【人类】父子的形象不能按字面用在神圣父子的关系上。圣子不是圣父的自然亲生儿子。‘子’这个术语当用在【三位一体】神的身上时，它只不过是一种比喻而已。【不可当真的意思】”（罗徳瑞格斯著，《复临世界》，2015年11月刊，原文第42页） 如我们从上述引言中所看到的，三位一体论教导说，耶稣只不过是一位象征性的儿子，不是神的真正儿子。它还教导说，耶稣从来没有起源，并一直都与父一同存在。如果这是真的，那么耶稣就不可能是神的真正儿子了。然而《圣经》所彰显的耶稣正是神的儿子，父上帝真正的亲生儿子。 约翰福音3:16说：“神爱世人，甚至将他的独生子赐给他们，叫一切信他的，不至灭亡，反得永生。” 就让我们来探讨《圣经》如何证明耶稣在降世之前乃是父神的真正独生子。一开始，先让我们来建立一个重要的《圣经》原则，这是我们大家都应该遵守的。除了一些先知著作之外，上帝的话是应该按其字面来解读的。譬如，在约翰福音3:16和罗马书8:3中，我们分别读到：“神...将祂的独生子赐给他们”和“神就差遣自己的儿子。”神若要赐下祂儿子，以及差遣祂自己的儿子的话，父神必须有什么，才能赐下和差遣呢？祂首先必须有一个儿子。这是基本的逻辑。我们就是要这样按《圣经》的字面来解读上帝的话语。 就让我们来探讨有关的几节经文。 在弥迦书5:2中，我们有一则预言耶稣要降生世上的预言。看它怎么说：“伯利恒，以法他阿，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。他的根源从亘古，从太初就有。” 如果你看“根源”这个字的希伯来原文的话，你会发现，它的意思是“出于或从...出来。” 那么这则预言就证实了耶稣是在亘古或太初的某一个时间点出于或是从某一样东西出来的。 现在我们来看箴言第8章怎么说。这一章所谈的是智慧，而神学界普遍认为这是指耶稣基督。但我们还是求证一下，使徒保罗在哥林多前书1:24中证实了基督总为神的智慧。 箴言8:23-25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。” 对于接受怀爱伦的先知著作之人，可以看看她就箴言第8章所说的话。“透过所罗门王，基督宣告说，... 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） 所以基督透过所罗门和弥迦启示说，父神在亘古太初某一个时间点上尚未创造任何物之前，基督就已从父生出，作祂真正的儿子了。 那么耶稣在《新约》中是否证实了这一点？是的，祂的确证实了这一点。 在约翰福音16:27-28中，我们读到：“父自己爱你们，因为你们已经爱我，又信我是从父出来的。我从父出来，到了世界。我又离开世界，往父那里去。” 在约翰福音17:7-8中，我们又读到： “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，我是从你出来的，并且信你差了我来。” 所以耶稣本身证实了祂是从神出来的。但有人说，耶稣在这里只不过是说祂是从神那里来到这世上的。但这一节不是这样解读的。注意这些经文所证实的清楚次序。耶稣说祂先从父出来，然后到了世界，这是两回不同的事件。 在箴言30:4中，我们也读到：“谁升天又降下来？谁聚风在掌握中？谁包水在衣服里？谁立定地的四极？他名叫什么？他儿子名叫什么？你知道吗？” 所以《圣经》的确清楚地证实，耶稣是在亘古或太初的某个时间点从父出来，成为父的真儿子的。而且在耶稣降世之前，就有人知道神有个儿子了。 看看尼布甲尼撒王看见火窯中的第四位时怎么说：“王说，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）连一个异教王也知道神有个儿子。 相信怀爱伦的著作之权威的人，可以看看她在《历代愿望》原文第51页怎么说。她写道：“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。” 你知不知道，在《新约》中父神曾两次从天上大声向人说话？在这两个场合之中，祂又选择说些什么呢？在马太福音3:17中，祂说：“这是我的爱子，我所喜悦的。” 祂又在路加福音9:35中说：“这是我的儿子，我所拣选的（有古卷作这是我的爱子），你们要听他。” 神要说什么都可以，但祂却选择在两个场合当中都证实耶稣的确是祂的爱子。如果我们还敢说耶稣不是真的神的亲生儿子，就如三位一体论所教导的那样，那么我们就是说父神说谎了。 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之6） 约翰福音1:1是否表明耶稣是神？ 我听见三位一体论者说：“啊，但耶稣在约翰福音第1章和希伯来书第1章被称为神，所以祂一定是神本身，而不是神的真儿子。” 好，就让我们来探讨这两段经文。 在约翰福音1:1-2，我们读道：“太初有道，道与神同在，道就是神。这道太初与神同在。“ 关于这一节有两点我们必须注意的。我们已经表明耶稣是神的亲儿子，在亘古或太初的某个时候为父神所生。那么耶稣作为神自己的儿子，这使耶稣在本性上成为什么呢？神。因为耶稣与祂父有相同的本性，就是神性。就像我有个儿子，我是人，所以我儿子也是人。这就是为什么约翰在约翰福音1:1说耶稣是神的原因，因为祂是神的亲儿子，并与祂父一样有相同的本性。 注意，约翰说“太初”。那么问题是，太初是什么的开始呢？永恒是没有一个起点的，对吧？那为什么约翰说基督在太初与神同在呢？好，《圣经》中还有哪个地方可以找到 ”太初“ 这个字呢？一是在创世记第1章中天地万物的起源。还有就是箴言8:23的太初，就是在万物被造之前，当神的智慧基督被立的时候。约翰在这里证实耶稣在太初未造天地万物以前就与神同在，表明耶稣从亘古以来真的是神的儿子。而且在约翰福音第1章的希腊原文中，我们发现一个字，是在翻译中遗漏的。这个字使整节的意思完全改变。这个字在英文版本中被省略了。【编按：中文版本也没有】在希腊文中，这一节是这样读的：“太初有道，道与【定冠词：这位】神同在，而道是神。“ 希腊文说，在太初，基督与这位神同在。我们从约翰福音17:3和哥林多前书8：6还有其他经文中知道，父神是这位独一真神。祂就是耶稣在太初与祂同在的那一位，是祂的父，这位独一真神。 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之7） 希伯来书1:8是否表明耶稣是神？ 现在我们来探讨希伯来书第1章。这个很有意思，因为三位一体论者经常只爱断章取义地挑出一小节经文，把它从上下文的语境分开来。就让我们来看他们所用的经文，并且看清其上下文的语境。 在希伯来书1:8中，我们读道：“论到子却说，神阿，你的宝座是永永远远的，你的国权是正直的。” 那么三位一体论者就偏偏挑出这单独一节经文来，然后说：“你看，耶稣是神诶！” 但我们现在来看看这一节经文恰当的上下文语境。 希伯来书1:1-9说：“神既在古时借着众先知，多次多方的晓谕列祖，就在这末世，借着他儿子晓谕我们，又早已立他为承受万有的，也曾借着他创造诸世界。他是神荣耀所发的光辉，是神本体的真像，常用他权能的命令托住万有，他洗净了人的罪，就坐在高天至大者的右边。他所承受的名，既比天使的名更尊贵，就远超过天使。所有的天使，神从来对那一个说，你是我的儿子，我今日生你。又指着那一个说，我要作他的父，他要作我的子。再者，神使长子到世上来的时候，（或作神再使长子到世上来的时候）就说，神的使者都要拜他。论到使者，又说，神以风为使者，以火焰为仆役。论到子却说，神阿，你的宝座是永永远远的，你的国权是正直的。你喜爱公义，恨恶罪恶。所以神就是你的神，用喜乐油膏你，胜过膏你的同伴。” 哇塞！读整个上下文就能把这一节的正确意义给显明出来了！ 希伯来书第1章明显证实耶稣是神的真实儿子，而不是独一真神本身。在这一段经文中就有很多证据了。经文说：“神...藉着祂儿子晓谕我们”，又 “立祂为承受万有的”，“也曾藉着祂创造诸世界。“ “祂所承受的名...更尊贵。” 经文说：”所有的天使，神从来对哪一个说，你是我的儿子，我今日生你。又指着哪一个说，我要作他的父，他要作我的子。“ 又说：”神使长子到世上来。“ 那么耶稣为什么被称为神呢？理由和祂在约翰福音第1章中被称为神是相同的。祂作为独一真神父的儿子，耶稣与父一样有相同的本性——就是神性。但耶稣本身不是独一真神，因为就如希伯来书1:9说：”所以神就是你的神，用喜乐油膏你。“ 所以耶稣自己也有一位神，就是祂的父。再看保罗在哥林多前书11:3中所证实的：”我愿意你们知道，基督是各人的头。男人是女人的头，神是基督的头。“ 父神是基督的头，所以耶稣在坟墓旁对玛利亚说：”我要升上去，见我的父，也是你们的父。见我的神，也是你们的神。” （约20:17） 这也在以弗所书1:17中得到证实：“求我们主耶稣基督的神，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。” 使你们真知道谁呢？父神。 现在我们来看提摩太前书2:5，说：“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。” 这是基本逻辑。如果耶稣是那一位神与人之间的中保的话，那么耶稣本身就不可能是那一位神了，正如我们已经证实的，父才是那一位真神。（参阅约17:3；林前8:6）所以当我们用上下文来对照经文，而不是断章取义，这里挑一节，那里挑一节的时候，我们就可以看到，耶稣本身不是那独一真神。祂是那独一真神父的真亲儿子。{待续} 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之8） 以赛亚书9:6是否表明耶稣是父？ 但是耶稣在以赛亚书9:6中被称为“永在的父”，不是吗？好，就让我们来探讨这一节经文。 “因有一婴孩为我们而生，有一子赐给我们。政权必担在他的肩头上。他名【编按：英文版本有：必或将】称为奇妙，策士，全能的神，永在的父，和平的君。”（赛9:6） 人们老爱拿一节经文，断章取义，把它从《圣经》其余部分切断，然后再把整个道理或教义建立在一两节经文上。这一节经文有没有说耶稣是【现在式】永在的父？没有。经文说祂的名必【未来式】称为永在的父，指着一件将来的事而言。那将是什么事件呢？我们来看另一节经文。在希伯来书5:8-10中，我们读道：“他虽然为儿子，还是因所受的苦难学了顺从。他既得以完全，就为凡顺从他的人，成了永远得救的根源。并蒙神照着麦基洗德的等次称他为大祭司。” 基督在什么时候成了永远得救的根源呢？十字架上。那么以赛亚书9:6所指的事件是什么事件，说明耶稣以后必称为永在的父呢？十字架的事件。在十字架上，耶稣成了凡顺从祂并由祂圣灵重生的人的永生之父。（另外，在启示录21:7中，耶稣说：“得胜的，必承受这些为业，我要作他的神，他要作我的儿子。” 这是指向未来新天新地的事。祂要作那靠着祂的灵得胜之人的父。） 但这并不使耶稣成为父神。《圣经》的其余部分也清楚证明这一点。{待续} 启示录的警告：归向独一真神（10之9） 圣灵是谁或是什么？ 我之前已经说过，你在《圣经》中是找不到一节提到“圣灵神”或“圣灵上帝”的。你会重覆找到的是“神的灵”或“上帝的灵”甚至是“基督的灵。” 《圣经》中希伯来文和希腊文中的“灵”字，意思是“气息”或“思想”。 那就让我们用这个意义来看一看创世记第1章。“起初，神创造天地。地是空虚混沌。渊面黑暗。神的灵运行在水面上。” （创1:1-2） 从希伯来原文直接翻译是：“神的气息、思想、【甚至是】大能” 运行在水面上。 我们已经发现，这里的神是指父。那么这神的灵是否听起来像一个第三位不同的生物（如同三位一体论所教导的）呢？完全不是。 我的意思不是说圣灵只不过是一股“力量”或一阵“风”，因为没有人能明白圣灵的确切性质。但我们必须接受，“灵”字的原始意义并不意味着它是一个第三位不同的生物，即与父和子相等相同的生物，如同三位一体论所教导的。 就让我们来探讨《圣经》的其余部分，来看看我们是否可以进一步证实这一点。在启示录第5章中，约翰看见了一个关于神的全面体现之异像。我们来看他究竟看到了什么。 启示录5:1-7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。我又看见一位大力的天使，大声宣传说，有谁配展开那书卷，揭开那七印呢？在天上，地上，地底下，没有能展开能观看那书卷的。因为没有配展开，配观看那书卷的，我就大哭。长老中有一位对我说，不要哭。看哪，犹大支派中的狮子，大卫的根，他已得胜，能以展开那书卷，揭开那七印。我又看见宝座与四活物并长老之中，有羔羊站立，像是被杀过的，有七角七眼，就是神的七灵，奉差遣往普天下去的。这羔羊前来，从坐宝座的右手里拿了书卷。” 约翰在这里看见了神的充分体现。他是否看见三位不同的神性生物呢？不是的，他只看见两位神性生物，即坐在宝座上的父神，和站立在宝座之中的羔羊耶稣基督。耶稣身上有什么呢？祂有神的灵，就是圣灵。约翰看见圣灵是耶稣本身的一部分。 让我们来看一个代表着这一幕的画面。这里你可以看见基督由一个羔羊来代表。看看基督身上有什么？祂有七角七眼，就是神的灵。这就是圣灵，是基督自己身上的一部分。你看得到吗？这是神在异像中给约翰启示的，而我们在之前的启示录第2章中可以看见这启示。在启示录1:12-16中，我们读道：“我转过身来，要看是谁发声与我说话。既转过来，就看见七个金灯台。灯台中间，有一位好像人子，身穿长衣，直垂到脚，胸间束着金带。他的头与发皆白，如白羊毛，如雪。眼目如同火焰。脚好像在炉中锻炼光明的铜。声音如同众水的声音。他右手拿着七星。从他口中出来一把两刃的利剑。面貌如同烈日放光。” 与约翰说话的那一位是基督。然后在启示录2:1, 7中，我们读道：“你要写信给以弗所教会的使者，说，那右手拿着七星，在七个金灯台中间行走的，说，... 圣灵向众教会所说的话，凡有耳的，就应当听。” 那位在七个教会中间行走并对众教会说话的是谁呢？是人子耶稣基督。祂在这里证实，祂就是那位向众教会说话的圣灵。 在启示录3:1，我们读道：“你要写信给撒狄教会的使者，说，那有神的七灵和七星的，说...” 现在让我们来看其他的《圣经》章节来证实这一点。耶稣在马太福音18:20说了什么？ “因为无论在哪里，有两三个人奉我的名聚会，那里就有我在他们中间.“ 耶稣证实说，祂要亲自在我们中间，与我们同在。（出埃及记33:14说：“我必亲自和你同去。”） 再来看看耶稣在约翰福音第14章中就有关保惠师所说的话：”我要求父，父就另外赐给你们一位保惠师，（或作训慰师下同）叫他永远与你们同在。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。我不撇下你们为孤儿，我必到你们这里来。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。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。“ （约14:16-20） 耶稣在这里是否谈到三位神性生物？不是的。祂正证实了父神藉着神自己的灵在基督里面，而基督自己也要在我们里面。 我听见三位一体论者说：”啊！耶稣称保惠师为”他“，用的是第三人称，而且是说另外一位保惠师。“ 好，就让我们探讨这一点。你知不知道，耶稣经常用”第三人称“来指祂自己呢？比如，在约翰福音17:1-2中，耶稣向父祷告说： ”耶稣说了这话，就举目望天说，父阿，时候到了。愿你荣耀你的儿子，使儿子也荣耀你。正如你曾赐给他权柄，管理凡有血气的，叫他将永生赐给你所赐给他的人。“ 那么，耶稣用”他“来指保惠师是否证明这位”他“就是所谓的”第三位生物“呢？完全不能证明。耶稣在约翰福音第17章这里表明，祂其实是指着祂自己而言。 看看约翰福音14:21，耶稣说：“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。” 翻译成“保惠师”的希腊原文parakletos（音译是“帕拉克乐多斯”），在约翰壹书也被提到过一次。若我们看这一节经文，便能明白这位“帕拉克乐多斯”是谁。在约翰壹书2:1中，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【帕拉克乐多斯】，就是那义者耶稣基督。” 所以耶稣是我们的“帕拉克乐多斯”，即我们的保惠师。 看看彼得在使徒行传2:32-33中启示了什么。他说：“这耶稣，神已经叫他复活了，我们都为这事作见证。他既被神的右手高举，（或作他既高举在神的右边）又从父受了所应许的圣灵，就把你们所看见所听见的，浇灌下来。” 可见耶稣是从父神那里领受了圣灵的。 现在我们来看约翰福音第20章。在耶稣升天见祂父神之后，如祂在坟墓外面所告诉马利亚的话，祂便回到地上，并向门徒显现。在约翰福音20:19-22，我们读：“那日，（就是七日的第一日）晚上，门徒所在的地方，因怕犹太人，门都关了。耶稣来站在当中，对他们说，愿你们平安。说了这话，就把手和肋旁，指给他们看。门徒看见主，就喜乐了。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。说了这话，就向他们吹一口气，说，你们受圣灵。” 哇！这是多么地清晰啊！耶稣就是那位有圣灵的，这圣灵是祂从父神手中领受的，因为是神的灵。所以圣灵是基督的同在和能力，也就是祂从父神那里领受的。而保罗也证实，圣灵就是基督的灵。这一点我们可以从保罗的三个章节中看到。 在加拉太书4:6中，保罗说：“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。” 在哥林多后书3:17中，他说：“主就是那灵。主的灵在哪里，哪里就得以自由。” 然后在腓立比书1:19中，他又说：“因为我知道这事借着你们的祈祷，和耶稣基督之灵的帮助，终必叫我得救。” 朋友们，这是何等佳美的真理啊！圣灵不是什么我们所不认识的第三位生物。圣灵就是我们主耶稣基督。圣灵是父神的同在和能力，藉着祂儿子彰显出来。是基督住在我们心里——（弗3:17：“使基督因你们的信，住在你们心里，叫你们的爱心，有根有基。”）是基督在我们里面活着——（加2:20：“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。”) 是基督在我们心里，就是那赐給我们生命的灵——（罗8:10-11：“基督若在你们心里，身体就因罪而死，心灵却因义而活。然而叫耶稣从死里复活者的灵，若住在你们心里，那叫基督耶稣从死里复活的，也必借着住在你们心里的圣灵，使你们必死的身体又活过来。” “我们要圣灵，就是耶稣基督。” （怀爱伦著，《信函66》1894年4月10日） 没错，人可以欺哄圣灵，也就等于欺哄神，如彼得在使徒行传5:4所证实的。（“你不是欺哄人，是欺哄神了。”）没错，圣灵对我们说话、安慰我们并指导我们。（徒8:29 - “圣灵对腓利说“）那是因为圣灵是父神自己的神圣之灵，就是祂与祂儿子耶稣共有的灵，这一点我们已经从《圣经》证明了。（结36:27 - “我必将我的灵放在你们里面”）所以，如果我们欺哄圣灵，当然也就等于欺哄神自己了，因为圣灵是神自己的灵。如我们从《圣经》上所证明的，那对我们说话、安慰我们、住在我们心里的灵，就是基督祂自己。（启3:1, 6 - “那有神的七灵和七星的，说... 圣灵向众教会所说的话，凡有耳的，就应当听。”) 接受怀爱伦的著作为受神圣启示的信徒，也可以看以下的引言。她说：“那些跪在宝座之前的人常献上祷告并仰望耶稣，随后祂就转脸向祂的父恳求。有一道光从圣父射到圣子身上，再从圣子转到那在祈祷的人群身上。那时我看到一道很明亮的光从圣父射到圣子身上，再从圣子来回照射在那些停在宝座前面的人身上。...那些和耶稣一同站起来的人常使自己的信心达到祂在至圣所的地方，并祈祷说：‘我父啊，求你赐给我们你的灵。’ 这时耶稣便将圣灵吹在他们身上。在祂所吹出的一口气中有亮光、能力和很多仁爱、喜乐、和平。” （怀爱伦著，《早期著作》原文第54-55页） 怀爱伦也说：“接受另一位的灵是不安全的。我们要圣灵，就是耶稣基督。” （怀爱伦著，《信函66》1894年4月10日） “救主是我们的保惠师。我已亲身体验过祂为我的保惠师。” （怀爱伦著，《文稿汇编》第8卷，原文第49页） “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。圣灵是祂自己脱去了人性的位格，并且不必依赖人性位格而独立。祂要代表祂自己，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） 这些只是怀师母众多引言之中的一小撮，给我们启示圣灵就是耶稣基督，而不是我们所不认识的其他第三位神性生物。 启示录的警告：归向独一真神 （10之10） 结论篇 马太福音28:19和约翰壹书5:7的三位是谁呢？我们已经从《圣经》中提出证据，证明父是独一真神父上帝。子或道是耶稣基督，就是父神的亲儿子。而圣灵则是父自己的神圣之灵，就是祂赐给祂儿子的灵，即是父神的同在和大能，藉着祂儿子耶稣基督彰显出来。这三位不是三位一体神。他们是父上帝，祂儿子耶稣基督，和父上帝自己的神圣之灵，就是祂与祂儿子共有的。 三位是谁？ 1.父神 2.神的儿子耶稣基督 3.神的灵，藉着祂儿子耶稣彰显出来 这为什么重要？ 许多三位一体论者会说：“这为什么重要呢？它真的那么重要吗？” 好，首先， 任何错误的传统必须把它除掉，而真理则必须把它接受。如《圣经》说，叫我们得以自由的，不是传统，而是真理——“真理必叫你们得以自由。” （约8:32）可是耶稣说： “他们将人的吩咐，当作道理教导人，所以拜我也是枉然。” （太15:9） 我们真的不想因为跟随人的传统而拜耶稣拜得枉然。而这个三位一体神的传统，更多的是建立在神话上过于《圣经》真理上，并且是透过淫妇之母天主教而进入各教会的。这神秘的三位一体神不是出于《圣经》的。它是出于异教传统，所以在许多异教神庙裡你都可以看到三尊神像。连资深的天主教徒也承认三位一体论不是根据《圣经》的教导。 “我们的反对者有时声称，任何信仰若没有《圣经》的明示，则不可固执武断地持守。可是改革教派自己都接受了这些教条，如三位一体论，这道理在福音书中是没有确切权威认证的。” （葛林著，《生命杂志》1950年10月30日，原文第51页）注：葛林是著名的天主教作家。 再说，这三位一体论是伪宗教的核心教义，正如这段引言所表达的：“至圣三位一体神的奥秘，乃是基督教信仰和生活的核心奥秘。... 因此，它是所有其他信仰奥秘的源头。” （《天主教要理问答》，第234题） “在共济会之中，没有比三位一体论更基础或更受到强调的教义了。”（共济会世界网站） 三位一体神乃是外邦神。《圣经》警告我们勿事奉外邦神。在约书亚记24:20中，我们读：“你们若离弃耶和华【单数】去事奉外邦神【复数】，耶和华在降福之后，必转而降祸与你们，把你们灭绝。” 朋友们，这是个非常严重的问题，所以启示录14:6-7中的天使警告世人务要归向天地的主。耶稣所彰显的独一真神乃是祂父亲。你真的以为我们事奉一位扮演角色的神吗？因为三位一体神正是这样的神，扮演父子圣灵之角色的神。扮演角色叫做什么呢？叫做演戏。演戏又是什么呢？是撒谎、吹牛。三位一体神连自己的律法也不遵守。多么可笑啊！不但如此，三位一体论还拒绝父神与祂儿子之间的真正父子关系。《圣经》如何称这种做法呢？ 约翰壹书2:22-23说：“谁是说谎话的呢？不是那不认耶稣为基督的吗？不认父与子的，这就是敌基督的。凡不认子的就没有父。认子的连父也有了。” 犹大也警告信徒要提防某些偷进教会的人。看看犹大书1:4：“因为有些人偷着进来，就是自古被定受刑罚的，是不虔诚的，将我们神的恩变作放纵情欲的机会，并且不认独一的主宰我们（我们或作和我们）主耶稣基督。” 三位一体论是个来自巴比伦的敌基督教导。它不认独一的主宰，即我们在天上的父，和祂的儿子耶稣基督。这是一个《圣经》从来没有提过的假神。然而，根据启示录的启示，只有两位神性生物将在永恒的岁月裡接受众生的崇拜。我们在启示录5:13中读道：“我又听见，在天上，地上，地底下，沧海里，和天地间一切所有被造之物，都说，但愿颂赞，尊贵，荣耀，权势，都归给坐宝座的和羔羊，直到永永远远。” 启示录也启示，只有两位神性生物将坐在宝座上，直到永永远远。我们在启示录21:1和22:1,3读道：“我又看见一个新天新地。因为先前的天地已经过去了。海也不再有了。”“天使又指示我在城内街道当中一道生命水的河，明亮如水晶，从神和羔羊的宝座流出来。... 以后再没有咒诅。在城里有神和羔羊的宝座。” 不过，看看撒但想要干什么。我们在以赛亚书14:13-14读道：”你心里曾说，我要升到天上。我要高举我的宝座在神众星以上。我要坐在聚会的山上，在北方的极处，我要升到高云之上。我要与至上者同等。” 由此可见，《圣经》启示我们，只有两位坐在宝座上，就是圣父和圣子。可撒但却说，他要升到天上神的宝座，与至上者同等。这样就会变成三位了。 哇！朋友，是时候要听从启示录第14章中天使的警告，并且敬拜那天地的独一真神父上帝。时候到了，我们要“归向神，要服事那又真又活的神，【并】等候他儿子从天降临。“ （帖前1:9-10） 是时候停止依靠你教会领袖来获得真理，而应该开始自己去研究，因为大迷惑已经来临，并且还要通过教会临到我们。愿上帝帮助我们！ 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Who was Right, the Early SDA or the Current SDA Who was right? The Early SDA Church or the Current SDA Church. The well-known Adventist Trinitarian Jerry Moon who was a co-author of the book “The Trinity” wrote, “That most of the leading SDA pioneers were non-Trinitarian in their theology has become accepted Adventist history,” He then goes on to say, “either the pioneers were wrong and the present church is right, or the pioneers were right and the present Seventh-day Adventist Church has apostatized from biblical truth.” — (Jerry Moon, The Trinity, Chapter, Trinity and antitrinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist history, p. 190) Sadly, the latter is true. The present Seventh-day Adventist Church has apostatized from biblical truth. Ellen White wrote this at least 11 years after it was claimed she had become a Trinitarian. “And now, after half a century of clear light from the Word as to what is truth, there are arising many false theories, to unsettle minds. But the evidence given in our early experience has the same force that it had then. The truth is the same as it ever has been, and not a pin or a pillar can be moved from the structure of truth. That which was sought for out of the Word in 1844, 1845, and 1846 remains the truth today in every particular.” — (E.G. White, Letter 38, 1906) It was in this three year period that the pillars of faith were established. So more than 11 years after she supposedly became a Trinitarian, she states that the truths established in these first three years remained the same in every way still in 1906. So this is a declaration from her that the non-Trinitarian view they held in this period is still truth in every particular. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

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

All trinity studies Previous Download Next What Did Moses Tell the Hebrews about the God They Worshipped What did Moses tell the Hebrews about the God they worshipped? Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut. 6:4,5) Our former Trinitarian brethren claim that this "one Lord" is the Trinity God (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost). If this true then the Hebrews should have understood this truth about the God they worshipped. Let's see if the Trinitarians are correct. "And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:28-30) Jesus quoted Deut. 6:4,5. Notice how the scribe replied to Jesus: "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said THE TRUTH: for there is ONE GOD; and there is NONE OTHER BUT HE: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." (Mark 12:32,33) Now notice how Jesus replied to the scribe: "And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, THOU ART NOT FAR FROM THE KINGDOM OF GOD. And no man after that durst ask him any question." (v. 34) And who was the "one God" that the Hebrews acknowledged and worshipped? "...we have one Father, even God." (John 8:41) What did the disciples of Christ believe about God? "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." (1 Cor. 8:6) "ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:6) And in the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi said this too: "Have we not all ONE FATHER? hath not ONE GOD created us?..." (Mal. 2:10) So what is the correct understanding of Deut. 6:4 according to this exchange between Christ and the scribe? That the "one God" is God the Father, not a Trinity. The Hebrews did not have a Trinity God. They had the knowledge of the true God! Ellen G. White wrote this: "The Hebrews were the only nation favored with a knowledge of the true God..." (5T 196) And what did Moses know about Christ? "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." (John 5:46) Jesus here basically said that He and Moses believed the same thing. So what did Jesus say in this chapter? Let me share with you something that startles a trinitarian... "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:26) "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." (John 5:43) What? Jesus said the Father gave Him life and He came in His Father's name! Now what kind of life did the Father give to His Son? Trinitarians claim that this was referring to His human life, but WAIT! Let's read the context, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath EVERLASTING LIFE, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:22-27) Does this sound like the human life? It's nowhere even in the context. It is eternal life that the Father gave to His Son. "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:11) The truth is what the Bible declares about God the Father and Jesus is His Son. This knowledge is LIFE ETERNAL. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and JESUS CHRIST, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Roswell F. Cottrell on the Trinity Roswell F. Cottrell on the Trinity More words from one of the founding members of the Seventh day Adventist Church and the truth the Adventist Church was founded on. “He proceeded to affirm that “man is a triune being,” consisting of body, soul and spirit. I never heard a Disciple confess faith in the doctrine of the trinity; but why not, if man consists of three persons in one person? especially, since man was made in the image of God? But the image he said, was a moral likeness. So man may be a triune being without proving that God is. But does he mean that one man is three men? I might say that a tree consists of body, bark and leaves, and no one perhaps would dispute it. But if I should affirm that each tree consists of three trees, the assertion would possibly be doubted by some. But if all admitted that one tree is three trees, I might then affirm that there were ninety trees in my orchard, when no one could count but thirty. I might then proceed and say, I have ninety trees in my orchard, and as each tree consists of three trees, I have two hundred and seventy. So if one man is three men, you may multiply him by three as often as you please. But if it takes body, soul and spirit to make one perfect, living man; then separate these, and the man is unmade.” — (R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, November 19, 1857) “The Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines.” — (R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, June 1, 1869) “That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them: But the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has himself implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creation. But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it. This our friend thinks objectionable... But to hold the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to popedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I would now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought.… Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could “make justice of injustice,” nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference between the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it.” — (R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, July 6, 1869) “But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. ... Children inherit the name of their father. The Son of God “hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the angels.” — (R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, June 1, 1869) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top