Loofs on the Christology Views of the New Testament

Loofs on the Christology Views 

of the New Testament

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 177-184, Friedrich Loofs presents and discusses five points that show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the Christological views of the New Testament follows.

[1] It is a view of vital importance to orthodox Christology that the historical Jesus is the preexistent Son of God. Do we find anything about this in the New Testament? Certainly many New Testament passages assert the pre-existence of Christ; that is, they assert or assume that Jesus did not begin to exist when his earthly life began. “O Father,” Jesus says in the high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John, “glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) But where in the New Testament is this prehistoric, yea, this antemundane, Christ called the “Son of God”? Where are we told that he is as such begotten of the Father before the world? In the prologue of the Gospel of John, the pre-existent Christ is not called the “Son” but the “word,” and we are told that “this was in the beginning.” (John 1:1, 2.) Only one passage in the Pauline epistles might be suspected of referring to an antemundane birth of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul calls Christ “the first-born of every creature.” But here the Greek equivalent for first-born only means that he was before every creature and above all creatures. Then the only remaining support of the later doctrine is Jesus’ title “Son of God,” which, as we all know, occurs very often in the New Testament. But in the New Testament it is applied to the historical Jesus, either with reference to his birth out of the Spirit of God, (Luke 1:35.) or because the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, (Mark 4:11.) or without reference to a date of its entrance because the Spirit of God lived in him, (Rom. 1:3.) or because Jesus was the Messiah, (Matt. 16:16.) or because he stood in a unique position of love toward God. (Matt. 11:27.) The term, “the only begotten Son,” too, only signifies what was mentioned last. For the Greek equivalent for “only begotten” does not mean anything else than unique or peerless. And it was not modern exegesis that first interpreted the term “Son of God” thus. In the first half of the fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra emphatically pointed out that in the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God only after the incarnation, and not in his pre-existence. And the older apostolic fathers, the so-called first epistle of Clement, dating from about 95 A. D., and the Ignatian letters interpret the term “Son of God” in this manner only.

[2] It is easier to show, secondly, that the idea of the triune God, as dogmatized later, is foreign to the New Testament. We surely find the belief in the New Testament that God was in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit that lives in the single Christians and in the whole community is the spirit of God. That God the Father reveals himself also in the Son and in the Spirit, that is a conviction which is in accordance with the New Testament. But there cannot be the least doubt, nor can we alter the fact, that when  the New Testament speaks of “God,” it is thinking only of the one God whom Jesus called his Father and the Father of the faithful, too. This is shown without the shadow of a doubt by the apostolic greeting: “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.) And the case is not different throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel of John, in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, we even read: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) Also the well-known prayerful wish of the apostle Paul: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all”(II Cor. 13:13.) points in the same direction. For the apostle does not speak here about three persons in the one God, but about the love of the one God, and in addition thereto, or better: in connection with it, of the grace of Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost.

[3] It is easier still to show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views in a third respect. According to the  orthodox Christology, the personal subject, the supreme I, of the historical Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity. Does the fact that Jesus prayed harmonize with this? Does the circumstance that he said to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” (John 20:17.) harmonize with it? We have seen, indeed, that the self-consciousness of Jesus surpassed the measure of a human self-consciousness. But can we deny that in the whole New Testament a human self-consciousness is the frame in which the inner life of Jesus first comes to our notice? His humility, his obedience, his trust in God cannot be interpreted differently. We shall discuss in the last lecture how this view can be reconciled with the fact that the frame of a human self-consciousness proves to be too strait to make the personality of Jesus intelligible. Here it will suffice to have shown that the orthodox Christology which considers a divine person as the personal subject in Christ does not correspond with the New Testament views. 

[4] The fourth point I wish to mention is, that the experiences of Jesus, like his self-consciousness, are at variance with orthodox Christology. Orthodoxy of all ages was worried by the fact that we are told of Jesus, with regard to his youth, that “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Could this be harmonized with the assumption that the real subject of the historical Jesus was the eternal Son of God? Orthodoxy of ancient times considered these two statements as being harmonized by the assertion that the eternal Son of God grew, suffered, and died only according to his human nature. But who will deny that our very self itself is growing during our life? And certainly it sounds very forced to say that the Son of God, who by his own nature could never suffer, suffered nevertheless in his human flesh and in his human soul! Surely such forced constructions are quite foreign to the New Testament.

[5] Fifthly and lastly, I shall have to point out that in the New Testament Jesus, even after his exaltation, appears in such an organic connection with the human race as hardly to agree with orthodox Christology. Especially those very writers of the New Testament who most obviously do not assume that the life of Jesus was a purely human one viz., Paul and John make this very clear. For Paul the risen Lord “is the first-born from the dead,” (Col. 1:18.) “the first-born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29.) The faithful, in Paul’s opinion, are predestinated by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:29 and 8:17.) Very similarly we read in the high-priestly prayer in the Gospel of John: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16.)  and: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; (John 17:24.) “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, . . . that they may be one even as we are one; (John 17:21.) and “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) In Revelation we find the same thoughts. Here the exalted Christ says: “He that overcometh I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev.  3:21) . . .  

These five points show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. And those who are impartial enough to see this are thereby convinced that the old orthodox Christology cannot give us the correct interpretation of the historical person of Jesus.

More religious articles.

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

Thomas Allen

In “Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” which is based on a lecture by Emma Moore Weston, Charles Gilbert Weston gives a different explanation of Daniel’s 70 weeks or 490 years than that given by dispensationalists. (https://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm.)

Daniel 9:24-27 (World English Bible) reads:

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

25 “Know therefore and discern that from the going out of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One, the prince, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

In Daniel 9:24-27, each day equals a year. The 70 weeks or 490 years began with the Jews returning to Jerusalem from Babylon in 457 BC. Thus, rebuilding Jerusalem accounts for the first seven weeks or 49 years. From the return to Jerusalem until the baptism of Jesus accounts for 69 weeks or 483 years. So far, Weston and the dispensationalists agree. The last week or seven years is where they disagree.

Weston understands the second part of verse 26 (“The people of the prince . . .”) to be a parenthetical statement because it is outside the 70 weeks. Titus is the prince and the Roman soldiers are the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD and turned the country into an uninhabitable desolation.

Verse 27 pertains to the final week or seven years of the 70 weeks or 490 years. This final week is where the principal disagreement between Weston and dispensationalists occurs. Whereas Weston has the final week or seven years immediately following the 69 weeks or 483 years, dispensationalists have a lengthy gap between the 69 weeks and the final week.

Many dispensationalists identify the covenant in verse 27 as a treaty between the Antichrist and the Israelis, who are, according to John, antichrist. After three and a half years, the Antichrist breaks the agreement, and the Great Tribulation begins. Other dispensationalists have the Great Tribulation beginning at the start of the seven years. Most have the Christians being raptured at the Great Tribulation’s beginning whenever it occurs. The Great Tribulation ends when Christ returns.

Weston objects to this explanation. This covenant is the New Covenant that the Messiah makes.

According to Weston, the final week or seven years is “the dawn of the Son of righteousness . . . and the focal point of the Covenants of promise, of typology and of prophecy. . . . This one week is the historical, chronological, moral and redemptive fulcrum of all the ages of the human race.” (P. 29.)

At the end of the 69 weeks or 483 years, God identified Jesus as His Messiah when John baptized him. The 69 weeks or 483 years began in 457 BC with Artaxerxes’ decree and ended in 27 AD when God identified Jesus as His Messiah. In 27 AD, the final week or seven years began. In 34 AD, three and a half years after Jesus was crucified, the final week ended with the death of Stephen and the scattering of Christians in Jerusalem.

Thus, Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks or 490 years has been fulfilled. It began in 457 BC and ended in 34 AD.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

Thomas Allen

In “How Should a Christian View Communism,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 99–108, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Communism as a rival to Christianity, the incompatibility of Communism and Christianity, Christianity and social justice, and capitalism. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by identifying three reasons why Christian ministers need to speak to their congregations on Communism. All three reasons are correct at the time he wrote.

“The first reason recognizes that the widespread influence of Communism has, like a mighty tidal wave, spread through Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and now even to our hemisphere.” (P. 99.) Nearly a billion people believe its teachings with many embracing it as a new religion. (People whom Communism oppressed did not believe in it. Probably, most of the Communist leaders did not believe in it. They used it to feed their insatiable lust for power.)

“A second reason is that Communism is the only serious rival to Christianity.” (P. 99.) Although Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are possible rivals to Christianity, “Communism is Christianity’s most formidable rival.” (P. 100.) (Now, Communism has fallen by the wayside. Hinduism and Islam are the fastest-growing rivals of Christianity. Along with Judaism and Zionism, wokeism has infected nearly every Christian denomination. Ironically, if King were alive today, most likely, he would be preaching wokeism as the new Christianity since it is a natural outgrowth of his civil rights movement.) 

“A third reason is that it is unfair and certainly unscientific to condemn a system before we know what that system teaches and why it is wrong.” (P. 99.) Then, King states, “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.” (P. 99.) (Yet, King spent his career associating with known Communists. Communists trained him, financed his movement, and wrote many of his speeches. Although he never became a member of the Communist Party, never did he seriously denounce them — even after the Kennedys urged him to avoid them. Based on his works, King was not a true Christian. Though he preached from the Bible, his heart was with Communism. Based on his actions, he did not consider Communism incompatible with Christianity — at least it was not incompatible with his perverted version of Christianity.)

Then, King proceeds to condemn Communism. “First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe.” (P. 100.) It is secularistic and atheistic. God is a fiction, and religion grows out of ignorance and fear. Communism “thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society.” (P. 100.) Conversely, Christianity believes that God exists, and He “is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values.” (Pp. 100-101.) Correctly, King writes, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.” (P. 101.) (Unfortunately, King did not believe what he wrote. He was much closer to Communism than he was to Christianity.)

Next, King discusses the second reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Second, Communism is based on ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to the most expedient methods for dealing with class war.” (P. 101.) (This relative right and wrong was an underlying principle of King’s civil rights movement.) Correctly, “Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.” (P. 101.) Christianity rejects the philosophy that the ends justify the means. (King and his civil rights movement have resorted to Communist tactics: lying, deception, law-breaking, violence, intimidation, etc.) Then, King writes, “Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends.” (P. 101.) (King and the civil rights movement have used destructive means to achieve their ends. Consequently, America is in its death throes.)

Next, King discusses the third reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Third, Communism attributes ultimate value to the state. Man is made for the state and not the state for man.” (P. 101.) (King fails to explain what the state is. The state is the people who control it; it is the oligarchs who control the government and the country through their political, economic, and social power. They use their control of the state to protect and increase their wealth and especially their power.) In theory, under Communism, the state is supposed to fade away when a classless society is achieved. (However, such a society is never reached. The oligarchs ensure that such a society cannot be achieved.) Nevertheless, as long as the state exists, a classless society is its ostensible end. “Man is a means to that end. Man has no inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. . . . Man must be a dutiful servant to the omnipotent state.” (P. 102.) Correctly, “Christianity insists that man is an end because he is a child of God, made in God’s image.” (P. 102.) Moreover, man “is a being of spirit, crowned with glory and honor, endowed with the gift of freedom.” (P. 102.)

Again, correctly, King notes, “The ultimate weakness of Communism is that it robs man of that quality that makes him man.” (P. 102.) Being confused about God, Communism is also confused about man. Then, King remarks that “never can we, as true Christians, tolerate the philosophy of Communism.” (P. 102.) (Thus, King proves that he is not a true Christian. He not only tolerated the philosophy of Communism, but he also promoted much of it. Like the Communists, he advocated the civil rights movement, which Communists organized and guided. Likewise, King advocated such Communist programs as the welfare state, transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, a guaranteed income, public housing, etc. Further, I have not found him speaking against any of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

Continuing, King comments on Communism and social justice. According to King, Communism is a protest “against the injustice and indignities inflicted upon the underprivileged.” (P. 102.) (If so, why has Communism fascinated the upper middle class more than the lower class? Why has the upper middle class promoted it more than the lower class?)

King notes that in theory, Communism emphasizes a classless society. According to him, this classless society includes not only the elimination of economic classes but also the elimination of all racial differences. (Thus, King promotes genocide. He would have all the races interbreed until only mongrel man exists. Moreover, all these mongrels would have the same income, wear indistinguishable uniforms, live in identical dwellings, etc. so that no class distinction of any kind exists.)

Continuing, King states that Christians need to be concerned with social justice. (King believes that miscegenation, forced wealth transfers, the welfare state, quotas, etc. are essential to the achievement of social justice.) He comments on the Bible expressing concern for the poor. (King’s proposals for expressing concern for the poor differ from the Bible’s. King wants the government to forcibly take property from the rich and give it to the poor. On the other hand, the Bible wants the rich to care so much about the poor that they will voluntarily help them.) Then, King remarks, “No doctrinaire Communist ever expressed a passion for the poor and oppressed such as we find in the Manifesto of Jesus.” (P. 104.) (True, however, Communists have often excelled in manipulating such people.)

King states that Christians should repudiate racism. (What does King mean by “racism?” At least 800 definitions of “racist” exist. [See “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.] Moreover, King disagrees with God about the races. Since God created the races, He must consider them important. However, King does not since he advocates breeding them out of existence. Further, while God commanded racial segregation and separation, which preserves the races, King promoted integration and miscegenation, which genocides the races.)

King writes, “Racial prejudice is a blatant denial of the unity that we have in Christ, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, Negro nor white.” (P. 104.) (First, King is adding to the Scriptures. Negro and White in the sense that he is using the terms are not in the passage that he is paraphrasing. Second, racial prejudice does not exist in the South. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks are based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Therefore, they are not prejudging Blacks.)

Then, King condemns the church for its lack of alacrity in preaching his idea of social justice. (Today, most churches preach King’s social justice instead of the Bible.) The church should focus on present evils on the earth rather than on salvation.

Next, King castigates the church for failing in its mission of social justice; consequently, it has failed Christ. (King seems to believe that his version of social justice is the heart of Christianity and thus its most important aspect. His version of social justice leads to Black supremacy and massive discrimination against Whites.) He chastises the church for not opposing colonialism and slavery. (Nowhere does the Bible condemn or outlaw slavery.)

Continuing, King writes, “The judgment of God is upon the church.” (P. 105.) (True. Ever since the church replaced preaching the gospel of Jesus with preaching the gospel of King, the church has been declining in relevance. Most denominations have degenerated so much that they are drowning in wokeism.)

Next, King discusses what he calls traditional capitalism. Part of the rise of Communism results from the weaknesses of traditional capitalism. He condemns capitalism because it “has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that . . . they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity.” (Pp. 105-106.) Then, he condemns the profit motive because it “encourages a cut-throat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. . . . Capitalism may lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the theoretical materialism taught by Communism.” (P. 106.) (His observation of capitalism has some merit because capitalism has more in common with socialism than it does a free market, free enterprise economy. [See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.] A free market, free enterprise economy depends on all the economic actors cooperating.) According to King, capitalism and Communism represent a partial truth. “Historically, capitalism failed to discern the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise.” (P. 106.) He advocates the melding of the two. (That is, King advocates a form of fascistic welfare state, which most countries have today.)

Continuing, King notes that Communists have a “zeal and commitment to a cause that they believe will create a better world.” (P. 107.) (Communist ideologues may believe that Communism leads to a better world. However, those in control see Communism as a means to feed their insatiable lust for power.) King states that Communists seem to have a greater passion to win others to Communism than most Christians have to win others to Christ. He urges Christians to “recapture the spirit of the early church.” (P. 107.) Then, he discusses the zeal of the early church.

King concludes that preaching the gospel of Jesus and turning people to Christ is the best defense against Communism. War cannot defeat Communism. (Although Communism fell at least in the Soviet Union, progressivism, fascism, and wokeism rose to take its place. Preaching the gospel of Jesus can defeat them. Unfortunately, most churches preach Zionism, i.e., Judeo-Christian heresy, and the gospel of King, which birthed wokeism.)

Additionally, conditions that lead to Communism need to be removed: “poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination.” (P. 108.) (Thus, King endorses the Great Society with its War on Poverty and civil rights laws.) Eliminating them will starve Communism to death.  (What happened to slaying Communism with the gospel of Jesus?)

Once again, King preaches a great sermon and offers some good advice. Yet again, he ignores most of his advice. He has an excellent understanding of Communism and knows that Communism is incompatible with Christianity. Nevertheless, he spent his career associating with known Communists. They controlled his civil rights movement. His alliance with Communists proves by his own words that he was not a Christian.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Loofs on the Trinity Doctrine

Loofs on the Trinity Doctrine

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 171-176, Friedrich Loofs identifies three major difficulties or contradictions of the orthodox Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the difficulties of the orthodox Trinity Doctrine and its Christology follows.

[1] The first one Augustine already experienced as a disturbing element, and the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages tried in vain to get rid of it. If, as Augustine thinks and this has been the orthodox opinion since the distinction of persons in the Trinity is limited to their internal relation to each other within the triune God, how was it possible that only the second person was incarnated? And, on the other hand, if the incarnation of the second person only is certain, how can the oneness of the triune God, i.e., how can Christian monotheism be retained? This unsolvable dilemma, perhaps, may be escaped and the incarnation of the Son only be retained, without endangering monotheism, by emphasizing that the Father and the Holy Ghost were not separated from the incarnated Son.

[2] But then the second difficulty I was going to mention becomes all the greater. Even as it is in itself, the idea of the incarnation, the idea that a divine person became the subject of a human life, restricted with regard to time and space, involves the greatest difficulties. For we cannot imagine the Godhead as being constricted by the limitations of human existence. Then only two alternatives remain. We must either assume that the “Son of God,” when he became man, did not cease, separate from his humanity, to pervade the world in divine majesty. Or, with Luther, we must venture the bold thought that, in virtue of the union of the two natures, the human nature from the first moments of its beginning has been partaking of the divine omnipotence and omnipresence.

This latter view, viz., the Lutheran doctrine of the “ubiquity of Christ’s” leads us to absurdities. If we wish to avoid these really unbearable absurdities we are referred to the former view. But does it not destroy the idea of incarnation? Could we still say of the divine person who was also outside the historical Jesus, pervading the world in divine majesty, that he was in reality incarnated? Is not the idea of the incarnation in this manner really changed into the idea of a divine inspiration, an inspiration such as the prophets experienced without any change in God's position to the world? But then it would be impossible still to say that the second person of the holy Trinity was the acting subject in the historical Jesus. This difficulty evidently becomes greater still if the Father and the Holy Ghost were not separated from the incarnated Son. For in that case it is still more impossible to retain the idea of a real incarnation of the Son. Perhaps these arguments are too difficult to be made intelligible with a few short words. But I may not spend more time on them. I must be satisfied with having just mentioned them. This mention of them was necessary. For here lie the greatest difficulties of the orthodox Christology, which cannot be surmounted by any tricks of reasoning.

[3] More easily understood is the difficulty which I am going to mention in the third and last place. The divine Trinity can, if need be, perhaps be thought of as the one God, the triune God, before the incarnation of the second person. But how is it after the incarnation? It is orthodox doctrine that the incarnated Son of God retained his human form, i.e. the human nature he had assumed, even after his ascension. Can, then, the distinction between the incarnated Son, on the one hand, and the Father and the Holy Ghost, on the other, be conceived of as being confined to the internal relations in which each person stands to the other within the one Godhead? And if this is not the case, the oneness of the Trinity is dissolved after the incarnation; the Trinity has become something different after the incarnation from what it was before. If neither is the case, then the humanity of Christ stands beside the Trinity. And then, also during the earthly life of Jesus, it could not have stood in a real personal union with the second person of the Trinity. Then the idea of the incarnation here again changes into that of an inspiration. Our dogmatics, I think, does not frankly face these difficulties. This, however, does not overcome them. These difficulties alone are sufficient to wreck the orthodox Christology. Augustine, the creator of the Occidental doctrine of the Trinity, when pressed by others, asked himself whether the exalted Christ could see God with his bodily eyes, and he answered the question in the negative. This proves that the difficulties we have discussed broke up the dogma of the Trinity and the closely related Christology even for Augustine himself. And the cause of this was not only that Augustine and the whole church orthodoxy as far as the eighteenth century pictured Christ’s body of glory too much like an earthly body when speaking of the bodily eyes of the exalted Christ; the difficulties, on the contrary, unavoidably remain so long as the humanity of the exalted Christ is conceived as something different from his Godhead. 

More religious articles.

Romans 9:5 and the Trinity Doctrine

Romans 9:5 and the Trinity Doctrine

Thomas Allen

Romans 9:5 is one of the strongest verses used to prove the Trinity Doctrine. A description of the Trinity Doctrine is given in the appendix. Following are six translations of this verse.

New International Version (NIV): Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

English Standard Version (ESV): To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

King James Version (KJV): Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

New American Standard Bible (NASB): whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Revised Standard Version (RSV): to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE): theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

Of these six, the NIV and ESV are the most Trinitarian translations; they clearly declare that Christ or the Messiah is God. Although Trinitarians read the KJV and NASB as supporting the Trinity Doctrine, they can be read as not supporting it; consequently, they are not as emphatic in their support of the Trinity Doctrine as are the NIV and ESV. The RSV and NABRE definitely do not support the Trinity Doctrine; they clearly distinguish between Christ and God. Trinitarians have translated all these versions — except for the Jews who may have been involved in these translations.

As can be seen from the verses above, punctuation is important in the meaning of the verse. Paul’s original letter did contain any punctuation, nor did any of the ancient copies. Punctuation depends on the biases and predilections of copyists and translators. Whichever translation one uses depends on what one is trying to prove.

Based on his other writings, Paul, who wrote Romans, was not a Trinitarian. Paul writes (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:4: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one [not three in one or one in three].

1 Corinthians 8:6: yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 4:6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In spite of these four verses, among other antitrinitarian verses in Paul’s letters, Trinitarians cite verses in Paul’s letters to prove the Trinity Doctrine. If Paul were a Trinitarian, as he would have been if he provided proof text for the Trinity Doctrine, he was a highly confused Trinitarian.

Strangely, in their war with the Arians, Athanasius and his allies never cited Romans 9:5 in support of their Trinity Doctrine. If this verse supported the Trinity Doctrine, surely they would have cited it. At that time, theologians understood this verse as the RSV and NABRE translate it. Nevertheless, today’s Trinitarians consider this verse to be a key verse in proving the validity of the Trinity Doctrine.

Even if the NIV and ESV are the correct translations, this verse does not support the Trinity Doctrine. It does not distinguish the Godhead as three distinct Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since no Person of the Trinity can be God over all because that would make him God over the other two, “God over all” must mean the whole Deity. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that no distinction exists in the Godhead — God is one, one Person, one Being. Instead of supporting the Trinity Doctrine, the NIV and ESV translations support a modalist explanation of the Godhead — God reveals Himself as three manifestations or roles: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Appendix: The Trinity Doctrine

The Trinitarian Athanasian Creed declares, “Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.” Thus, three distinct, co-equal, eternal persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are one God. Although the three are distinct and independent, they are the same. Accordingly, three are one and one is three. That is, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit form and are the one true God. God is one being or entity in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — each being fully God. Each individual person is God, and collectively, they are one God.

Trinitarians assert that the terms “father,” “son,” “person,” “relation,” “unity,” “sending,” and “begotten” are not to be understood literally when used of God. That is, when these terms are used of God, they are not to be understood to mean what they mean when applied to humans. Consequently, the writers of the Bible are deceiving the readers because when the Bible says that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son, he is not a real son, and he is not really begotten. Also, “the Son of God” means “God the Son.” However, “the son of Isaac,” who is Jacob, does not mean “Isaac the son,” who is the son of Abraham. Therefore, before reading the Bible, a person needs to be trained in what common everyday words like “father,” “son,” “begotten,” and “sent” really mean when used in the Bible, or else the Bible will lead him down the road to heresy. He will certainly not derive the Trinitarian Doctrine from merely reading and studying the Bible. (Before the fourth century, most Christians were heretics because they did not worship a Triune God. They believed that the Son had a beginning, i.e., he was not eternal, and that the Son was subordinate to the Father, i.e., was not equal to the Father. As a result, according to the Nicene Creed and later creeds, all these Christians were anathematized.)

Because the New Testament was written in common everyday Greek, one would and should expect that the writers used words in their common everyday meaning. Consequently, Unitarians understand the words in the New Testament referring to God and Jesus to have their common everyday meaning. Trinitarians do not; they give them special technical meanings. Perhaps, this explains why the Catholic Church objected to common people and even aristocrats who had been not trained on how to read the Bible reading the Bible. Untrained people would read words to mean what they commonly mean instead of the technical meanings that Trinitarians give them, and, thus, they risk becoming heretics.

To prove their doctrine, Trinitarians have to change the meaning of words. Also, Trinitarians prefer to follow the councils from the fourth century onward and the confessions formed during the Reformation and later, i.e., the speculative opinions of men, instead of solely or primarily relying on the Bible. Could it be that Trinitarians prefer following these councils instead of the Bible because the Bible does not support their doctrine? (Yes, they can cite passages that they claim support the Trinity Doctrine, but their support is only oblique. They also have to give words special technical meanings to support their doctrine. Other passages refute the Trinity Doctrine if one reads them as they are written without the lens of Trinitarianism.) Interestingly, some verses that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine, Unitarians use to disprove it. Examples of such verses are the salutations in Paul’s letters.

Trinitarians have far more text to explain away than do Unitarians. If one reads all the passages that seem to contradict the Trinity Doctrine literally (read them to mean what they say), he will be led into heresy. To protect oneself from heresy, one must read the Bible wearing the thick glasses of Trinitarianism.

Many Trinitarians believe that the Old Testament teaches Trinitarianism. Nevertheless, Jews are so stupid that they have failed to realize that they have been worshiping a Triune God for thousands of years. If true, why did not Jesus and the writers of the New Testament clearly, comprehensibly, completely, and unequivocally explain Trinitarianism to correct the erroneous beliefs of the Jews? Instead, they concealed Trinitarianism with vague references to it so that theologians would not discover it until the fourth century and then only after a heavy dose of Platonism. 

Intelligent people do not try to explain the Trinity Doctrine so that common people can understand it because people who try to explain it end up crashing on the rock of tritheism or being swept away by the whirlwind of modalism.

When it comes to the Trinity Doctrine, many (most) people are like Thomas Jefferson: They do not have enough sense to understand it. For them, the proposition of Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three is unintelligible.

Of the Bibles listed at Bible Gateway that I have reviewed, the following five most Trinitarian translations are the Amplified Bible, New Century Version, Christian Study Bible, Common English Bible, and New English Bible. The five least Trinitarian translations are the New Revised Standard Version, King James Version, New Matthew Bible, American Standard Version, and 21ct King James.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles. 

Is Jesus Impeccable?

 Is Jesus Impeccable?

Thomas Allen

In “Why Is Christ’s Impeccability Essential?” (Grace in Focus Magazine, January/February 2023, pages 36-38), Anneka Muller argues that Jesus not only did not sin, but he also was incapable of sinning. The foundation of her argument is the Trinity Doctrine: Jesus is God the Son. Since God cannot sin, Jesus, who is God, cannot sin. Moreover, his impeccability is essential for the assurance of salvation.

Muller briefly discusses Hebrews 4:15 (“For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”) People who believe that Jesus could sin, but did not, cite this verse to support their claim that Jesus was capable of sinning. She refutes this claim by arguing that whether or not Jesus “was capable of sinning has no effect on His ability to be tempted and to sympathize with us in our temptation” (p. 38).

True, the ability of Jesus to be tempted is independent of whether he could sin (is peccable) or could not sin (impeccable). However, Hebrews 4:15 goes beyond this. It says that Jesus was tempted as we are tempted. If sinning were impossible for him, he could not have been tempted as we are because we can sin. He had to be able to sin if he were tempted as we are.

According to the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. As stated by Muller, the Deity part of Jesus makes him impeccable. Thus, if Jesus’ Deity affected his experience of temptation and prevented him from sinning, he could not be tempted as we are. Based on James 1:13 (“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man:”), God cannot be tempted. (Muller uses this verse as proof that Jesus cannot sin because he is God.) Consequently, being God, Jesus could not be tempted and, therefore, could not have given in to temptation and sin. Accordingly, his temptations were not a genuine test of character. Being God, not only could Jesus not be tempted as we are, but he also could not have been tempted at all because God cannot be tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 argues against the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine and the deity of Christ. If Jesus were God, he could not have been tempted and could not have sinned. However, this verse claims that he was tempted in every way that we are, which means that he could have succumbed to temptation and sin. Only if Jesus were not God and could have succumbed to temptation and sin, could he have been tempted as we are. (Unitarians use this verse as a proof text against Trinitarians [Jesus is God the Son] and Modalists [Jesus is God]. If Jesus were God as the Trinitarians and Modalists claim, he could not be tempted as we are because God cannot be tempted. Since he was tempted as we are, he is, therefore, not God.)

Furthermore, Muller asserts that because Jesus was God and could not succumb to temptation and sin, the temptations that he endured were far worse than the temptations that we can endure because we can succumb to temptation and sin. In effect, what she is saying is that for a person to resist temptation and not sin is worse than succumbing to temptation and sinning. Nevertheless, for someone who is impeccable, temptation is meaningless.

If Muller’s premise that Jesus is God is true, then her conclusion that Jesus is impeccable is true. However, if her premise is false, then her conclusion is false; Jesus is peccable.

Is Jesus impeccable? If one believes in the man-derived Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of the dual nature of Christ, the answer is “yes.” However, if one believes in the God-inspired Hebrew 4:15 as it is written, the answer is “no.”

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Two Natures of Jesus

Two Natures of Jesus

Thomas Allen

An essential component of the Trinity doctrine is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus, also called the doctrine of the hypostatic union. According to this doctrine, two natures, divine and human, are indissolubly united in Jesus Christ, yet they remain distinct. One nature is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and incapable of suffering. The other nature is weak, has imperfect knowledge, and is liable to sorrow, pain, and death. Thus, the former is infinite eternal God, and the latter is finite mortal man.

In 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon formulated the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus:

One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, the divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or commixture. Consequently, Jesus never ceases to be both fully God and fully man.

A true believer in the Trinity doctrine of the two natures of Jesus has to believe simultaneously in the following contradictions about Jesus:

– He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.

– He is omnipotent and can do all things yet feeble and limited in what he can do.

– He is omnipresent and, therefore, cannot move yet moves from one place to another.

– He is omniscient (knows all things and is completely void of all ignorance ) yet has imperfect knowledge and is ignorant of many things.

– His mind is uncreated and infinite yet his mind is created and finite.

– He is independent yet dependent.

– He is immutable yet mutable.

– He is exempt from pain, sorrow, and death yet suffers pain, sorrow, and death.

– He is immortal yet mortal.

– He is eternal with no beginning yet has a beginning.

– He is self-existent yet derived.

– He is equal to God the Father yet is inferior to God the Father.

– He does not need to pray because in the fulness of the Godhead he needs nothing yet prays because he has needs.

– He did not die on the cross yet died on the cross.

– He cannot be contained by the heavens yet was enclosed in a woman’s womb.

– He is light yet enclosed in the darkness of a womb.

– He is Almighty God yet an infant’s body housed him.

– He is Almighty God yet a suckling babe dressed in diapers.

– He is without limitation yet had to learn to eat, walk, and speak.

– He was incarnated yet conceived.

All these and more conflicting attributes are contained in the person of Jesus.

Orthodoxy demands that a person believe in all these contradictions. Some contend that if a person does not believe these contradictions about Jesus, he cannot be saved.

Besides a lack of Scriptural support, a major flaw in the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus is that it presents Jesus as a deceiver. When Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing. . . .” (John 5:30), Trinitarians claim that Jesus said this in his human nature. However, in his divine nature, he can do everything that God can do. When Jesus said, “. . . my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Trinitarians maintain that he said this in his human nature. In his divine nature, he is as great as the Father. However, if Jesus is God, then he has deceived his audience with these two statements because he told them things that are not true. (According to the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. Most Christians accept the decrees of these two councils. Thus, anyone who claims that Jesus ever spoke in his human nature is a heretic.)

These explanations are like a man claiming that he cannot write because he cannot write with his left hand, but he can write with his right hand. Another example is a man with a good eye and a glass eye who witnesses a crime. On the witness stand, he asserts that he did not see the crime although earlier in his police statement he had admitted seeing it. On the witness stand, he is referring to his glass eye (human nature), which did not see the crime, although his good eye (divine nature) did see the crime. 

Appendix. Atonement 

Trinitarians argue that sin is an infinite evil and, therefore, deserves an infinite punishment. Consequently, the atonement must be infinite, and no finite being can make an infinite atonement. Since Jesus is both God and man, his sacrifice on the cross qualifies as an infinite atonement. However, like the Valentinians, Trinitarians maintain that Jesus died as a man and not as God (God cannot die). Only his human nature bled and died. Thus, only the human nature of Jesus, the mere man, was offered and sacrificed. The divine nature of Jesus, God, was not offered and sacrificed. Consequently, the infinite atonement completely vanishes. The atoning sacrifice to the infinite God is a mere man, for only Jesus as a man endured and died on the cross. Therefore, concerning the atonement, the Trinitarian doctrine of the two natures of Jesus offers no advantage over the Unitarian doctrine that Jesus is solely human. (When dying on the cross, “. . . Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – Mark 15:34. Thus, the God part of him had departed leaving only the human part to die.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

More Random Religious Thoughts

More Random Religious Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are eternal and immortality, Lucifer, Revelation, Saul’s age when he began his reign, Mariology, a time without the Moon, and the Philippines and the Baptists.

Eternal and Immortality

Many people confuse “eternal” with “immortality.” They are different. An eternal being has no beginning and no end. An immortal being has a beginning but no end. Once born or created, an immortal being never dies or ceases to exist.

Are humans naturally immortal? Daniel 12:2 suggests that they are not. Daniel 12:2 reads, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” According to this verse, only many dead are awake, resurrected; the others remain asleep, dead, in the grave. Those who are not resurrected appear not to be immortal. Once they die, their bodies and souls appear to remain dead forever.

Furthermore, the Hebrews believed that the body and soul were so intertwined that when the body died, the soul died with it. Consequently, the soul is not naturally immortal. It remains dead and unconscious until God resurrects it to immortality.

Lucifer

Many theologians teach that Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, is a pure spirit being. Therefore, he is indestructible and must live for all eternity. First, Lucifer is a created being. Since he is created, he has a beginning. An eternal being has no beginning. Consequently, he cannot be eternal. Second, to claim that he must live forever declares that God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, can He not uncreate (annihilate) what He has created? Third, God is omnipresent. Therefore, wherever Lucifer is, God is also. (Being omnipresent, God fills every particle, wave, frequency, or whatever Lucifer is made of.) How can a being as holy as God tolerate the eternal presence of a being as evil as Lucifer? At some point, God must terminate and annihilate Lucifer. Fourth, God is omniscient. Therefore, God always knows the existence of Lucifer. How can His Pure Holiness tolerate knowing the existence of Lucifer, who is pure evil, forever? What God does not know cannot and does not exist. Consequently, at some point Lucifer must vanish because God ceases knowing him, knowing about him, and knowing of him. Contrary, to what most theologians teach, Lucifer is not indestructible and does not live forever.

True Luciferians, such as Albert Pike, consider Lucifer to be Yahweh’s, Jehovah’s (Adonai or Adonay as Luciferians call Him), equal. Lucifer is their god, and Satan, who is a different being and Lucifer’s subordinate, is the prince of the world. Luciferians believe that Lucifer is the God of Light and the God of Good; Adonai (Yahweh) is the God of Darkness and the God of Evil. Lucifer is or was the highest, brightest, and most intelligent of God’s creatures and held the highest office in heaven next to God Himself. They also believe that Satan is the elder brother of the Archangel Michael and that God sent Michael to earth as Christ Jesus. (Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same person.) Both Satanists and Luciferians believe that Jesus failed in his mission when he was crucified. Unfortunately for the Luciferians and Satanists, but fortunately for the followers of Christ, Lucifer and Satan lose.

Another Look at Revelation

In Mysteries of Ancient South America, Harold T, Wilkins cites H. S. Bellamy, who argues that Revelation is the history of a great cataclysm caused by a pre-Lunar satellite of the earth coming to close to earth and being destroyed by the earth, which caused large parts of the satellite to crash into the earth.

How Old Was Saul When He Began to Reign

How old was Saul when he began to reign? The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, so many translators guess at the number. The American Standard Version and several other translations guess 40 years.  The New International Version and other translations guess 30 years. Several translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, leave the number of years blank. A few follow the King James Version and claims that Saul reigned one year; thus, they avoid giving his age when he began his reign.

Mariology

Mariology is the body of beliefs or dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. It is a set of doctrines that Catholics accept and advocate, which Protestants reject.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Moreover, except unitarians, both agree that Jesus is God. Therefore, if Mary is the mother of Jesus and if Jesus is God, then logically Mary is the mother of God. However, Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the mother of God. Therefore, Catholics are logical, and Protestants are illogical. (For unitarians, this issue is not a problem since they reject the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, they hold that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not the mother of God because Jesus is not God.)

When Jesus was promoted to God, his office as the mediator between man and God became vacant. Catholics promoted Mary, the Mother of God, to the office of the mediator. Since Protestants reject the notion that Mary is the mother of God, they logically have not recognized her as the mediator. Consequently, they had to find another solution. For the most part, they use mental gymnastics to explain this problem away by making God the mediator between God and man.

Thus, both proclaim that Paul erred when he wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Both covertly claim that Paul was too ignorant to understand and express deep theological ideas. Whereas, the Catholics assert that Paul should have written “the woman Mary” instead of “the man Christ Jesus,” Protestants believe that Paul should have written, “the God Christ Jesus.”

If Jesus is God as both Catholics and Protestants maintain, then Catholics believe logically about Mariology, and Protestants believe illogically about it. Moreover, both disagree with Paul about who is the mediator between God and man. Is the mediator Mary or God? Both concur that the mediator is not the man.

Was There a time without a Moon

Some allusions to the time before there was a Moon may be found in the Scriptures. In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned as “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also, in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.” A “generation of generations” means a very long time. Thus, much time elapsed between the appearance of the sun and the appearance of the moon.

The Philippines and the Baptists

One good thing came from President McKinley’s war to steal the Spanish empire from Spain. He stole the Philippines and, thus, gave the Baptists a retirement home. Where else can a good Baptist retire and have maids, cooks, gardeners, and other servants and live a lifestyle that he could not afford if he remained at home in the United States and have all of it paid for by the folks back home? As long as he tells them about the great missionary work that he is doing, they gladly and gracefully support him.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Paul Becomes a Heretic

 Paul Becomes a Heretic

Thomas Allen

The following is a summary of Chapter II, “The Changes in the Eschatological Programme” of Section IV of The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of its Problem by Martin Werner and translated by S.G.F. Brandon (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957), pages 283–294. My comments are enclosed in brackets.

For Paul, the final resurrection would occur in two stages. The first came with the return of Christ and his reign on earth. Next, came the final victory over the angels and spiritual powers that had rebelled against God. At the end of the war came the destruction of the Angel of Death. Then, came the last and Final Resurrection.

According to Paul, only the Christians, the saved, who had died before the Second Coming of Christ were resurrected with his Second Coming. The saved living then were “changed.” At the “end,” the dead who had not been resurrected would be raised. Thus, Paul reckoned the Final Judgment occurring in two stages. First, came the judgment of Christians when Christ returned. Last, came a general Final Judgment at the end of Christ’s rule when all the other dead were resurrected. In the Final Judgment, Christians would serve with Christ as judges. 

Paul believed, or at least strongly suggested, that the heavenly Christ would return in his lifetime or shortly afterward. This return would manifest itself as a predestinated number of Christ’s followers, i.e., those in fellowship with him, taking part in the glory of God’s Kingdom in a perfect world order. This world order would be spiritual. Along with the advent of God’s Kingdom would be the final resurrection. 

As the Apostolic generation passed away without the return of Christ, the immediacy of the Second Coming began to fade. Because of this delay, the Church abandoned Paul’s doctrines of the Second Coming and the End Time.

Because of the delayed Second Coming and the rise of a new generation, the Church had no choice but to abandon Paul’s notion about the imminent return of Christ and his advice not to procreate. It also had to abandon Paul’s notion of election. (Paul held that when all the predestined elect had come to faith in Jesus in the last generation [Romans 11:25ff], then Christ would return.)

Nevertheless, the idea of an Antichrist remained popular. The Antichrist was often related to heresy, as in 1 John 2:18ff. For example, Athanasius (293?-373) accused Arius (256?-336) of being the precursor of the Antichrist.

After Paul’s death, the early Church still clung to Paul’s notion of two ages at the end of time. Thus, the Kingdom of God would fulfill the End Time by destroying the existing natural world and the creation of a new and perfect heaven and earth.

However, over time, the Church began abandoning Paul’s view of the End Time as a spiritual new world and replacing it with an End Time as a cleansing of the natural world. For example, Methodius (d.c. 311) argued that if God destroyed the present natural world, He would admit that His first creation was defective. Thus, the future burning of the world should be understood as cleansing the world, i.e., a process of renewing, and not as destroying the world.  Eventually, the Church adopted the doctrine of the future resurrection of the natural physical body.

Opposing this new doctrine of the Resurrection were the heretics, who relied heavily on the Bible in their opposition. Moreover, they argued, “that the resurrection of the physical body to immortality was intrinsically impossible” (p. 287). Because the physical body was of earthly matter, it was mortal. Further, when the physical body died, it decomposed, and its elements returned to the earth. Some of these elements became part of another body. Consequently, a specific individual could never be reassembled with the original parts. Also, between birth and death, each individual body was constantly changing and, therefore, never really remained identical with itself. [Can the omnipotence of God overcome these problems?]

The heretics’ strongest arguments came from the Scriptures. According to Psalm 1:5, “the ungodly would not generally be raised up, even for judgment” (p. 288). Likewise, Job 7:9-10 declared that the dead would not be raised.

The heretics also used the New Testament to argue against the resurrection of the physical natural body. Paul had declared that “the physical body was the seat of sin” (p. 288) and, thus, not worthy of resurrection. At the Final Resurrection, the saved would receive a supernatural body like the body of angels, and, in this way, enter into everlasting life. Restoration of the natural physical body merely meant continuing “the earthly-natural mode of existence in the eternity of the other world” (p. 288). Citing Romans 7:18, 24, 8:8, 1 Corinthians 15:44,50, and Galatians 5:7, the heretics condemned the thought of resurrecting the physical natural body.

This attack against the resurrection of the physical body pushed the Church to defend its dogma more vigorously. The resurrected body would be an exact replica of the natural physical body when it was alive. [Does this mean that if an individual died as an infant, he would forever remain an infant? Likewise, does it mean that if an individual died of old age, he would always appear to be old-age?] Some Church Fathers, such as Tertullian (160?-230?), declared “that the resurrection of Jesus had been a reconstruction of his former natural physical body” (p. 289). (This assertion conflicted with Paul’s teachings in 2 Corinthians 5:16.)

“Accordingly for Paul ‘resurrection’ meant, exclusively and fundamentally, precisely not restoration of the old, of what had been, but change into a new and supernatural form of being, because ‘resurrection’, as he saw it, appertained to those fundamental events, in which, since and by virtue of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the passing of the old and the advent of the new aeon were fulfilled” (p. 289). Paul’s idea of the End Time was a two-stage or two-age resurrection.

However, the Church had abandoned Paul’s doctrine and had substituted a new doctrine. According to the Church’s new doctrine, the Resurrection resulted in “the exact restitution and conservation, at the End of the Days, of that which belonged to the old aeon” (p. 289).

In response to Paul’s claim that the saved would attain a spiritual body, the Catholic theologians interpreted his claim “to mean that physical with which the Holy Spirit had united itself” (p. 290). However, the heretics replied by citing 1 Corinthians 15:50, where Paul declares, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 

Another dispute arose over the fate of the saved dead before the Second Coming. Paul addressed this question in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. He did not envision this intermediate state to last long, as he expected the Second Coming to occur in his lifetime or soon afterward. However, with the long delay of the Second Coming, the Church moved away from Paul’s teaching on this issue.

This delay caused the Church to place more importance on the final destiny of the individual than on the ultimate fate of the present world. Using Jesus’ parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus (Luke 16:19-21), the Catholic theologians developed the doctrine that the saved would enjoy some of the blessings that awaited them after the Resurrection. Thus, this new doctrine of the Church conflicted with Paul’s.

Before this change in doctrine, the Final Judgment occurred after the Resurrection. With the new doctrine, a judgment had to occur directly after the individual died. Paul had taught that the saved would be resurrected and judged with the Second Coming — this was the First Judgment. Now, the Church’s doctrine of a judgment of the individual immediately after death replaced Paul’s doctrine of the First Judgment.

Moreover, the Church’s new doctrine of the soul of the saved going to Paradise or Heaven immediately after death replaced the Hebrew concept of the soul with the pagan Greek concept. The Hebrews held that the soul was so united with the physical body that it had no conscious existence once the body died. On the other hand, the pagan Greeks held that the soul was independent of and trapped in the physical body. Once the body died, the soul was liberated and continued  conscious existence in another state.

When the new doctrines of the Church were combined, the soul of a dead believer went to Heaven where it remained until the Resurrection. When the Resurrection occurred, the soul would be united with its resurrected natural physical body.

By now, Paul was a heretic and his doctrines on the End Times and the Resurrection and the fate of the dead before these events were heresy. Although the Church never overtly declared him a heretic or his doctrines as heresy, it did so covertly by condemning as heretics those who used Paul’s doctrines in opposing the Catholic doctrines on these issues. However, the Church did destroy the truth to avoid overtly making Paul a heretic by asserting that its doctrines were consistent with Paul’s, although they were not.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Thomas Allen

    36. How could the preexisting God the Son become a man without any diminishment of his deity? How could God the Son live a fully human life while continuing to exercise his divine function?
    37. How can Christ be both finite (human) and infinite (Deity) simultaneously? How can one be both God and the Son of God simultaneously?
    38. Do today’s Trinitarians follow the early Trinitarians and believe the Trinity Doctrine and its dual-nature Christology because it is impossible?
    39. Jesus states that God is spirit. If Jesus is God, how could he be flesh — unless the heretical Docetists are correct?
    40. How can the Son be God’s equal if God has appointed the Son heir? If the Son is the heir, there must have been a time when he was not the owner. If Christ were God, he would be the owner, or under the Trinity Doctrine, part owner. Therefore, he could not be an heir.
    41. If the Son were equal to the Father, why did he derive his power from the Father? Would not he, being God and equal to the Father, already have these powers and authority?
    42. The Bible states that blaspheming the Son will be forgiven, but blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal persons in one God, should not the result of blaspheming one be the same as blaspheming the other? Why are these coequal persons treated unequally?
    43. Many verses of the Bible clearly and plainly call Jesus a man. Also, the Bible declares that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), If God is not a man and if Jesus is a man, then how can Jesus, a man, be God, who is not a man? Likewise, if God is not “a son of man,” how can Jesus, who is called “a son of man,” be God?
    44. If Jesus Christ is God, why does he lack the attributes of God: self-existent, immortality, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The Trinitarian would reply that Jesus’ human nature lacks these attributes, but his divine nature does not.
    45. In developing their Christology, the Trinitarians abandoned the Scriptures in favor of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures did not support their dual-nature doctrine. However, they could find statements in some of the writings of the Church Fathers that did.
    46. Both God the Father and God the Son have thrones in heaven. However, God the Holy Spirit does not have a throne in heaven. Why not? (Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit does have a heavenly throne, needs to provide the Scriptural support that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit has a heavenly throne.) If the Holy Spirit does not have a heavenly throne, how can he be equal to God the Father and God the Son as the Trinity Doctrine declares?
    47. According to the Trinity Doctrine, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient. Yet, Mark 13:32 declares that only God the Father knows when the end will occur. Not knowing when the end will occur, God the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. Nor is God the Son. However, Trinitarians avoid God the Son lacking omniscience in the passage by claiming that Jesus is speaking in his human nature and not in his God nature. Yet, unless Jesus had two minds, which Trinitarians deny, how could his mind both know an event and be ignorant of it simultaneously? Further, they do not have the dual-nature out for the Holy Spirit. Lacking omniscience, which is an essential characteristic of God, God the Holy Spirit is not equal to God the Father, who is omniscient. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of three coequal Gods collapses.
    Further, Trinitarians may not even use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to avoid God the Son’s lack of omniscience without risking heresy. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Ephesus (where Mary was formally declared the Mother of God) and the Council of Chalcedon (where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills). The fourth anathema reads: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (The Word is the God the Son.) Thus, whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. As Mark 13:32 clearly shows, Jesus, who spoke as God the Son, was not omniscient. Not being omniscient, God the Son cannot be equal to God the Father. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine falls.
    48. If the Holy Spirit is one of the three coequal Gods of the triune God, how can he be given to people? How can such a divine person be given by another divine person unless he is under the authority of the giver? Coequals cannot be under the authority of other coequals and remain equal. Moreover, if the spirit of God is the third person of the triune God, how can he be divided and distributed?
    49. If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune God, why does the Bible fail to command the worship of the Holy Spirit? Being a coequal person of the triune God, should not the Holy Spirit receive the same amount of worship as the Father, who is his coequal?
    50. The description of the Holy Spirit given in the Bible suggests that he not be independent or self-existent, and, therefore, should be referred to as “it” instead of “he.” Moreover, the relation of the spirit of God is to God as the spirit of man is to man. If the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, and it is not, then the spirit of God is not another person distinct from Himself.
    51. Since the “breath of God” is synonymous with the “spirit of God,” is the breath of God a distinct person from God — one of the coequal Gods of the triune God? It is if the Trinity Doctrine is correct. Moreover, if the breath of God is a distinct person, then the breath of man has to be a distinct person from man. Likewise, the “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and the “finger.” Does this make the hand and finger coequal Gods of the Godhead? Or, are they and the spirit of God subordinate to the will of God?
    52. Every writer of the New Testament epistles identifies himself with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, yet none identifies himself with the Holy Spirit. Did they fail to understand the Trinity Doctrine and its importance, even its necessity, for salvation? Further, did they fail to believe in a triune God?
    53. The Greek word for “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the appropriate pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit should be “it” instead of “he.” (In Hebrew, the word for spirit is feminine.)
    54. Except for a few difficult verses that are often misunderstood, the Bible offers no incontrovertible proof or even indication that the Holy Spirit is a coequal, coeternal person with the Father and Son.
    55. God usually speaks through one or at most a few people. Almost never does he speak through councils and committees: for example, the 400 prophets of Ahab versus the one prophet of God. The unanimous majority of Ahab’s prophets were wrong, whereas the minority of one prophet was right. A majority in some council has adopted all the major creeds of Christendom.
    56. Trinitarians are notorious for changing the meaning of everyday words, e.g., person and begotten, when they apply to God. As most of the Bible is about God, how does one know what the words in the Bible really mean? Are they being used in the ordinary sense, or are they being used in a theological technical sense? Does a word mean what it means in its ordinary, everyday use, or does it mean something else? Only a trained, enlightened theologian knows. Therefore, only a trained and enlightened theologian can really understand the Bible. Unless such a theologian explains the Bible and its meaning to the laity, the laity forever remains ignorant even if he reads and studies the Bible daily. (Were the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true trained theologians? If not, were they wasting their time because they were searching in ignorance?)
    57. Trinitarians maintain that biblical truths are incomprehensible mysteries. Examples of such truths being mysteries are the Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. Thus, Trinitarians depend on mysticism instead of the Scriptures and reason. Yet, speculation about this mysterious, unknowable God has brought forth the Trinity Doctrine. If God is incomprehensible, then how does one know that he is a triune God?
    Moreover, honest Trinitarians admit that they worship an incomprehensible Deity. Furthermore, no attempt should be made to try to understand their God.
    58. Most Trinitarians maintain that God had to die so that man could be saved; the crucifixion of a human who possessed no divine nature is not enough for salvation. Salvation depends on God dying. Besides the human egotism involved in this assertion, it also suffers from the inability of God to die and still remain God.
    59. An underlying premise of the incarnation of God is that it is necessary for the deification of man. Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, and other Orthodox Trinitarians declared that God had to become man so that man could become God. Was not the desire to become like God the great sin of Eve and Adam? (Additionally, one of the Mormon doctrines that cause Trinitarians to consider Mormonism a heresy is the doctrine of man becoming a god.)
    60. Under the creeds related to the Trinity adopted by the ecumenical councils, salvation ceased depending on faith in Jesus or even good works. Salvation came from believing, or at least claiming to believe, in what some council said about Jesus.
    61. The notion that only an uncreated, eternal being, i.e., God Himself, can redeem mankind comes from Gnosticism and was incorporated into orthodox Christology. Where is the scriptural support for this notion? According to the Scriptures (v. Romans 5:15), redemption came from a man, Jesus Christ.
    62. If belief in the triune God of the Trinity Doctrine is necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians claim, why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine? Further, why did Jesus never even teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Nowhere does the Bible give a systematic presentation of the Trinity. Nor does it state that God is a triune God of three coequal, coeternal persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, it does not claim that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
    63. Do Trinitarians agree with Bernard of Clairvaux that “faith in God has no merit, if human reason provides proof for it”? Is faith believing what one does not comprehend, or does faith require some kind of mental understanding?
    64. Why did Jesus teach his followers to pray only to the Father? Why did he not also teach them to pray to the Father’s coequal Gods: the Son and the Holy Spirit?
    65. Often, Trinitarians seem to stress the theoretical over the practical, a system of dogmas over the development of principles, and a series of unknown and unintelligible propositions that must be subscribed to and believed in over a revelation of truths which common minds may understand and sincere and honest hearts appreciate.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.