Articles The Fallen Nature of Churches Today
| The Fallen Nature of Churches Today |
 |
 |
The Fallen Nature of Churches Today
Months of study are required to evaluate adequately even one of these denominations. Even when that has been done, the issue remains whether the evaluation rests on a firm foundation. An experienced seeker knows very well that at one time his personal criteria make him favorable to one denomination and at another time favorable to another. So investigation alone cannot give a definitive answer. The Bible seems to be an objective and fair criterion by which to judge how well the churches are doing. But in practice, we run against a real problem. First of all, the Bible is so extensive, that it requires more work than is possible to evaluate the various churches. Secondly, the criteria any one person or even committee might establish upon the basis of the Bible is clearly subjective. The Bible is susceptible to many interpretations, and everyone will have his own idea about what is important and what should be included. A thousand ”Biblical” criteria of evaluation can well be imagined. The solution is simply to take those portions of the Bible that give the highest claims to being revealed by God as a comprehensive expression of what human beings are required to believe and do. That way, a brief but comprehensive criterion can be established without introducing subjective aspects. The Decalogue happens to be the only text that claims to have been spoken by God directly, without a prophet, angel, dream or vision, and publicly to an immense crowd of people from all nations. They are reported to have come from the greatest metropolis of human civilization at the time. They numbered at least over two million individuals representing the human race of the time. No other text of classical religious books in all the world makes the same claims to objective revelation. Whether we believe the story to be true or not, the text is unique in its claims, and therefore the best criterion that we have for evaluating the churches. Another issue makes the use of the Decalogue as a tool of quick and certain evaluation is simply that most of Christianity recognizes the authority of the Decalogue. It is true that a few voices oppose it. But the vast majority of those who claim to be Christians belong to denominations that not only recognize the authority of the Decalogue, but even give the Decalogue a prominent place in their catechisms, their books published to teach their faiths. Such Decalogue-based catechisms exist for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian communion to mention only a few, and to mention the denominations that make up the vast majority of the Christian population in their constituency. It is both fair and objective to evaluate the churches and denominations on the basis of the Decalogue. The Decalogue will be adequate to show whether a denomination is fallen or not. There may of course be aspects of a denomination showing its fallen character that do not appear just by investigating the issues mentioned in the Decalogue. There may be unwarrented burdens that the denominations place on their members in the form of beliefs and practices that are not mentioned in the Decalogue. In other words, the Decalogue may not reveal the extent of how fallen the denominations are, but if it reveals them to be fallen, then they certainly are fallen. From a practical point of view, however, just three commandments suffice: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me; Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; and Thou shalt not kill. There does not appear to be a single church or denomination that upholds even all three of these, to say nothing of the ten. Is the Roman Catholic Church Fallen?
To be fair, let us examine the Roman Catholic Church by its own version of the ten commandments in Exodus 20 from the Douay-Rheims Version of 1899. (Exo 20:1) And the Lord spoke all these words: (Exo 20:2) I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (Exo 20:3) Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. (Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. (Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: (Exo 20:6) And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exo 20:7) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. (Exo 20:8) Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. (Exo 20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. (Exo 20:10) But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. (Exo 20:11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. (Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayst be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. (Exo 20:13) Thou shalt not kill. (Exo 20:14) Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exo 20:15) Thou shalt not steal. (Exo 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exo 20:17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. Verses 2 and 3 refer to God by the pronouns ”I” and ”me”. This is an accurate reflection of the original Hebrew. The words are singular. When more than one person is meant, we always use the pronouns ”we” and ”us” or their corresponding words in other languages. It would be astounding, awkward and highly unusual even for a committee of three to use the words ”I” and ”me” instead of ”we” and ”us”. The text clearly presents ”the Lord thy God” as a single personage. If the Roman Catholic Church, or any other for that matter, either denies the existence of this One God Almighty who is speaking these words according to the text, or make Him out to be a plurality of persons, that is more than one, that is one other than the single speaker here, then it fails the first test in the criterion. That in itself is enough to classify the church or denomination as fallen. Does the Roman Catholic Church pass the first test? Let us see. Three quotations from among scores of the same kind in the Roman Catholic catechism should suffice. Article 249 ”From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith,...” Article 258 ”The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons....” Article 266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).” By this doctrine the Roman Catholic church places itself in conflict with the criterion of the Decalogue and shows itself to be a fallen church. No more evidence is needed than this. But let us go further. Verses 4 and 5 prohibit making, adoring and serving images. Does the Roman Catholic Church pass this second test? Article 2132 ”The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.” Just as the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to maintain the oneness of God while imposing a pagan, Trinitarian view, this principle seeks to justify the use of images in devotion by the claim that the devotion is directed to God and not to the image itself. While this is doubtless true, this rather disarming claim does not take into consideration, it seems, the specific requirements of the commandment not to ”make, adore, serve”. Even if the Catholic argument is accepted, the practice lies somewhere in an undefined area in the word ”adore”. At least half of the commandment is broken. Does the Roman Catholic Church measure up to the idea of verse 7? Article 2143 ”Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.” This expression seems to adhere to the commandment. Those who interpret the commandment to prohibit swearing altogether, will find fault with Article 2154 ”Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus' words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice." And by the same token, there is fault in Article 2155 ”The holiness of the divine name demands that we neither use it for trivial matters, nor take an oath which on the basis of the circumstances could be interpreted as approval of an authority unjustly requiring it. When an oath is required by illegitimate civil authorities, it may be refused. It must be refused when it is required for purposes contrary to the dignity of persons or to ecclesial communion.” It is our view that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation of the law that swearing may take place. However, there is concern that the dignity of the Church is placed above law. This article would prevent, for example, a person from giving sworn witness to the act of pedophilia perpetrated by a priest. Perhaps the Church makes a distinction in that regard, but in any case, it does so upon authority that is placed above morality. It reserves the right to define morality, and this is not acceptable. If verse seven is equivocal, so that we might give the benefit of the doubt to the Church of Rome, verses 8-11 are not. The Roman Church clearly sets itself against the literal meaning and practice of the Sabbath commandment through the institution of Sunday. Article 2175 ”Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ: Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.” Even if we accepted the rather irrational quibbling on the matter of the Trinity, the rational quibbling on the matter of images, and the somewhat questionable interpretation of giving oaths, the position in regard to the Sabbath is so hostile to the clear intention of the text that it proves the Roman Catholic Church to be fallen. While at this point it is not necessary to go further in the investigation, it might be pointed out that for the most part the Roman Catholic Church upholds the rest of the commandments. There is an attempt to bolster its own authority by adding to the meaning of honoring parents. There is the development of the concept of just war, but it is so circumscribed in theory, that the practice ought to be prevented, if the stated position of the Church is accepted in all points. Giving the Roman Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt on all possible points, it still remains fallen on the issues of the oneness of God and the Sabbath, replacing these with the Trinity and Sunday. There are certainly both mitigating circumstances and damning ones that we have not investigated. But the criterion we have followed adequately shows the Church of Rome to be fallen. What About the Orthodox Church?
There appears at the moment to be no single, authorized English version of the Bible in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church bases its Bibles on the LXX in Greek. While the LXX often differs from the Hebrew Bible and consequently from the English King James Version, the ten commandments seem to be quite stable. The only difference of possible significance appears to be the fact that the word Sabbath in verse 8 is plural in the LXX. While this opens the text to interpretation more easily including the annual festivals, it is not necessarily a weakness. The first sentence in the Orthodox Catechism http://orthodoxcatechism.org/, under the article The Holy Trinity is this: ”We believe in one God. This God is trinitarian. That is to say, God includes three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This should be enough to show the Orthodox Church to be fallen. The LXX uses Greek words in verse 5 that seem more specific than the Douay-Rheims version, and by the same token, the Orthodox tradition retreats from the extent of idolatry found in the Roman Church. ”The truth expressed above, which is revealed in Christianity, thus forms the foundations of Christian pictorial art. The Image (or Icon) not only does not contradict the essence of Christianity, but is unfailingly connected with it; and this is the foundation of the tradition that from the very beginning the Good News was brought to the world by the Church both in word and image. ”St. John of Damascus, an eighth century Father of the Church, who wrote at the height of the iconoclastic (anti-icon) controversies in the Church, explains, that because the Word of God became flesh (John 1:14), we are no longer in our infancy; we have grown up, we have been given by God the power of discrimination and we know what can be depicted and what is indescribable. Since the Second Person of the Holy Trinity appeared to us in the flesh, we can portray Him and reproduce for contemplation Him Who has condescended to be seen. We can confidently represent God the Invisible -- not as an invisible being, but as one Who has made Himself visible for our sake by sharing in our flesh and blood. ”Holy Icons developed side by side with the Divine Services and, like the Services, expressed the teaching of the Church in conformity with the word of Holy Scripture. Following the teaching of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the Icon is seen not as simple art, but that there is a complete correspondence of the Icon to Holy Scripture, "for if the Icon is shown by Holy Scripture, Holy Scripture is made incontestably clear by the Icon" (Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council, 6). http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/catechism.html The Orthodox position differs from the Roman Catholic in forbidding graven or three-dimensional images according to the commandment. The theological concept of the two-dimensional image differs somewhat as well. A complete parallel is drawn between the icon or image and the Word of revelation, both being seen as of equal teaching authority. In this, as in so many matters, Rome takes an additional step in apostasy, beyond that of other churches. We would be consistent in claiming that Rome is idolatrous in its use of images, while Orthodoxy is not. But by a stricter view of verses 4 and 5, both can be seen as idolatrous. In terms of verse 7, Orthodoxy appears to measure up to the requirements of the commandment. But in regard to the Sabbath, Orthodoxy is deficient. Although it does not replace the Sabbath with Sunday, it largely neglects the Sabbath except once a year. ”On Great and Holy Saturday the Church contemplates the mystery of the Lord's descent into Hades, the place of the dead.” http://lent.goarch.org/holy_saturday/learn/ Holy Saturday is celebrated in the Roman tradition as well, but without recognising it as the Sabbath. Orthodoxy, for the most part, supports the rest of the commandments. It too is deficient as a witness against killing in warfare. If one focuses on practice, both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church are deficient in the issue of killing. The Catholic depredations in World War II, perpetrated by the Catholic Croatians with the tacit blessing of the Church were the backdrop for the recent Orthodox retaliations in Bosnia, retaliations that the world has judged harshly. A serious consideration for the commandment on either side would have saved lives. But neither church had the moral power nor the theological understanding of the commandment to rise to the challenge of influencing its constituency. Orthodoxy too fails as much as Rome on the commandment Thou shalt not kill. While Orthodoxy does not attain to the same level of rebellion against God that the Roman Church does, its adherence to the Trinity and its neglect of the Sabbath show it to be a fallen church. The Coptic Church differs from Orthodoxy mainly in the Monophysite question. The Orthodox belief is that the Son of God has two natures, one divine and the other human. The Monophysite position is that there is just one nature, being both divine and human. In practice this has led to the emphasis of Jesus as God rather than human. The Ethiopian Church differs from the Coptic in observing the seventh-day Sabbath. All of the historical forms of Eastern Christianity have some form of the Trinity. This is true of the Ethiopian church as well, which is also Monophysite. In sum, as viewed by the criterion of the ten commandments, all of the ancient, historical churches are fallen because of idolatry. All take the pagan Trinity. Some more than others engage in highly questionable worship of images. All except the Ethiopian Church neglect the Sabbath, and the Roman Catholic Church actually replaces the Sabbath with Sunday. How clearly all are fallen! These churches numerically make up the vast majority of Christianity today. Other National Churches
Judged on the basis of the ten commandments, the Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed churches are all fallen. All of them adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, all of them deny the duty of Sabbath observance, and all of them serve as State Churches and support offensive military action when they consider it justifiable, thus breaking the commandment Thou shalt not kill. To be a member of such a church is to partake in those sins. To remain a member of the Lutheran church, for example, is to partake of the guilt of Lutheran support of Hitler's crimes against humanity and to keep blood on one's hands. (Rev 18:4) ”And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” In article 85 of The Large Catechism, the Lutherans speak more strongly against the Sabbath than does Rome, for they call the Sabbath observance the creation of ”disorder by unnecessary innovation.” ”But since from of old Sunday [the Lord's Day] has been appointed for this purpose, we also should continue the same, in order that everything be done in harmonious order, and no one create disorder by unnecessary innovation.” How anyone can consider the Sabbath an innovation and Sunday valid, after just reporting that the Sabbath was in force under the Old Testament and that Sunday is supposed to have been introduced after the New Testament, goes beyond the limits of reason acceptable to the sane human mind. At the same time, the catechism, while neglecting the clear words of the commandment, adds its own burdens. The meaning of the Sabbath is not to rest from labor, but to listen to and obey the priest! The entire teaching under the Sabbath commandment in the Small Catechism is reduced to this: ”We should fear and love God that we may not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred, and gladly hear and learn it.” So Sabbath-keeping, misplaced to Sunday, is to go to the Lutheran church, listen to the priest, and ”gladly hear and learn it.” In question 103 of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, rather than admit the clear import of the Sabbath as a day of rest, they prefer to use it as a vehicle to express their opinions in regard to the subjection of women, by quoting under the question of the Sabbath, the following texts: ”1 Tim.2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 1 Tim.2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 1 Tim.2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1 Tim.2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” How the Sabbath commandment, which lists subordinates male and female, but never the wife, commands the subjection of women, is difficult reasonably to imagine. Yet the Reformed churches can do so, while denying the very word of the commandment. The national churches have fallen even further than Rome, in that they are attached to national armies as patrons. The Reformed or Presbyterian church has for several centuries elevated Sunday in place of the Sabbath even higher than has the Papacy, and in that aspect represents a deeper apostasy. All of them have been involved in persecution. Before the Reformation there were many low-profile Sabbath-keeping Christian groups in Europe. In the areas where Lutheranism gained ground the first action was to slaughter these groups. The Sabbatarians in Selicia, Sweden, Finland and Norway were killed to the last soul. Three commandments suffice to show all of the official Christian establishment to be fallen. There are scores of thousands of faith-based denominations, and it is not possible even to mention all of them. Of those, Baptists and Methodists form the majority, and they fail on all three commandments with few exceptions of small non-violent or Sabbatarian groups. Among those, none adhere to all three test commandments, to say nothing of all ten. The confusing mass of small denominations clamoring for attention can be reduced to the simple test of the three test commandments. None of them adhere to all three. Seventh-day Adventists accept the Trinity and thus break the first commandment. They also compromise on the commandment not to kill, sometimes allowing greater participation in the military than even their governments would impose on them. One of the most visible examples is that of the Adventist church in Germany both in World War I and II. The Jehovah's Witnesses fail on the Sabbath commandment, despite their commendable witness on the others. Mormons fail on all three, with their polytheistic system being one of the most startling things Christianity has ever produced. The number of denominations that pass the three-commandment test is so miniscule, if any exist at all, that they can be evaluated by anyone in some depth and shown on the basis of the Bible to be apostate. Indeed, Babylon is fallen. With tears of love Jesus calls his own out of the confusion of denominations into obedience to him.
Email This
Hits: 7642 Comments (21)
  written by zobcity1, October 11, 2009
precisely why I DO NOT listen to ANYONE on the TV or radio and 95% of these aberrant websites floating around out there nor the masses who dink around in churchinaity trying to be the “great ones” with DVD’s, Books etc etc etc. How much of that stuff did Yeshua do or the Prophets –Apostles of old, then also sell it?
 written by Erna Le Yngson, September 24, 2009
Our God is not a God of confusion but of divine peace and order. Indeed our enemy finds fertile grounds on denominational doctrines - and yes,he's gaining victory in sowing divisions among us and that's pathetic because it's not what God wants us to be. To think that we all claim to be bible-readers and bible believing followers of Christ, it is sad to note that we easily fall upon the devil's trap of believing we are more righteous than others by our denominational interpretation of His word.I believe that when a child of God sincerely seeks for truth, God, in His encompassing wisdom grants him the discernment and the enlightenment to have peace with Him, as well as his brother.God's Word should unite us, not divide us.
 written by Gerson Corominas, September 21, 2009
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT OUR FRIEND DANILO HAS EXPRESSED IS CORRECT. GOD IS A MYSTERY. HE HIM SELF SAID "I AM THAT I AM".
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WLC POSISION ABOUT THE PERSON OF JESUS. WAS JESUS DIVINE?
 written by Danilo Delcoro, September 18, 2009
Sorry, but I don't think the 'Trinity' test is right. Although I believe that the Bible does not specifically teach of such triune God, I can understand or 'tolerate' others who teach it. That's because there are also many valid reasons and verses for it. For me what is important is we believe in God, the Father of us all, and His only Son, Jesus Christ and of course of the Holy Spirit. Now how we explain them in detail I am sure nobody knows for sure! all are just guessing/interpretation/assumption/beliefs. The one sure thing is 'GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS'. That's why no one know for sure, that's because it's a MYSTERY. If somebody says he knows, sorry, I can say he's lying. For if we can understand God's nature in full detail, then it is not a mystery anymore. I suggest therefore that a better criteria for a church's teaching is if it does not proudly and confidently claim that their doctrine of the nature of God is true/perfect/complete and the correct one!
 written by Antoine van der Wielen, September 06, 2009
I agree with wlc that sunday worship is not biblical, and there is someone who says that there are only 2 laws in the new testament, you also must read it carefully... it says that the two most important laws are indeed your relationship with God and the 2nd one is your relationship with your neighbour.. meaning all of mankind. And it does not say it are the two ONLY laws.. so the law of the 10 commandments still stands firm, it's the law of Moses that ended at the cross. When we take this in concideration, it's also the law to worship on saturday, not on sunday.
written by zobcity1, August 14, 2009
the Shabbat will be part of etrnity.
we do not have the descript exactly though. Us believers need to be fully aware of the thing God felt strong enough to make specifically for us all to undestand about and have. Please dont discount what he did for us. Sungod-papal based day is like any of the other 6 days in where gathering on it is not a sin. We have been given a theocracy, not the filthy Constantine hiarchy ponzi pyramid commonly on sungod day. Yet none the less are we anything less then his people still if worship in the Holy Spirit is done and not copying any of the papal mechanisms as God doesnt honour heresy or the copying of it either.
 written by margaret xxxx, August 11, 2009
Im a SDA, and we uphold all the 10 commandments of God in our church,
 written by harold nkrumah, July 31, 2009
the ten commandments were put into 2 commandments in the new testament.
1.Relation to God 2.Relation to mankind I advice the wlc team to research well and you see why Sunday worship is not a problem Now is the time when true worshipers shall................Also find out which day the apostles meet to fellowship and give tithes
 written by Timothy Youngblood, June 29, 2009
Most religions and Christian Churches use what is called a hierarchical government structure and this type of government structure is rule from the top down. They appoint men as Deacons, Elders, Preaching elders, Ministers, Evangelist, and the one at the top usually refers to himself as the "Apostle" or the Leading Evangelist. In the Catholic Church we find them as Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and of course the man at the top is the Pope. Although the names are different it is exactly the same thing, a hierarchical type government! The system in some cases is controlled by the Minister and in some Churches by a council called the "Council of Elders" or the "Council of the twelve" which they get from the twelve apostles. Churches also set up what can be termed as the "Churches Theology" which is in reality what that particular Church believes as is stated in their statement of beliefs which is either written by the Minister in charge or the Council.
Most Churches set out guide lines that must be followed such as what is most important to teach and how to teach it. Also they have to address the subject of preaching to those outside of the Church in order to bring them into the Church. Without this basic function the Church would not grow in the way they would like so one can understand its importance. Is it wrong to have ministers, elders and deacons in the Church? Well scripture is very clear on the fact that ministers, elders and deacons were appointed for different service, but the question is what guidelines should the Church use as their "Theology" and their statement of beliefs? How should the Church choose their teachers, elders, and those that have gifts from God to edify and help the Church grow? Jesus and the apostles left good examples and if you want to study this subject and come to a better understanding see. http://www.masters-table.org/studies/church gov.htm Regards Timotheos
 written by Suenell Burlingame, June 27, 2009
The trinity is indeed merely a word to describe God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit. The proof of the 3 is at the baptism of Jesus where the spirit lit as a dove upon Jesus with God from the heavens saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Thus at that moment all 3 were involved at one time.
 written by Cyprain Ikeche, June 23, 2009
I cannot agree more with Alfred Maesulia's response. The existence of the Trinity is not in doubt as many bible verse are explicit on this. If our Lord Jesus Christ and the Father aren one, it presupposes that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God's love and redemption. Jesus Himself promised to send us a comforter 'The Holy Spirit' of God which shows the existence of yet another God personality.We must regidly stick to what the true word of God reveals to us and not inport man's doctrine into mystery of God. I do not bother myself with denominations some of which preach prosperity instead of salvation which is the essence of God's earthly visitation through Christ.The only true church is the one anchored on Jesus Christ.
 written by Joshua Bernabe, June 10, 2009
It's been confusing...
What is the name of the church or denomination today do you think had been established by Jesus in Matt. 16:18?
 written by Alfred Maesulia, April 26, 2009
Thank you for reading your document on churches or denominations which have fallen short of your expectation in regards to the 10 commandments of God. It surprised me much to find out for the first time in my life, from Bible readings that you connected the Trinity to the use of pronouns 'I' and 'Me' in the first and second commandments and others as well. I don't think there is any bearing to the doctrine of trinity in this commandments. If you think the 'I' and 'Me' as stated in your article refers to nothing but God the Father, I suggest you apply the same to Jesus in John 14:6 where Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life. Jesus was not talking about trinity here. I believe in His own words when He said: I and My Father are One (John 10:30). The word 'trinity' is but an English word which can be applied to anything. English is not my mother tongue. I am dumb founded when people who claimed to know the Bible better argue about the word 'trinity' as though the word comes from the cosmos to mean God. There are other words such as 'trio', 'triune' and list goes on which can be used to mean the same thing: in our discussion, the Godhead'. I further believe in the very words of Jesus who told His disciples that He would send another person: the Spirit of truth. Jesus used quite a number of times the pronoun 'He' to describe the Holy Spirit. From this I can freely say here that I still believe in the Godhead which includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
 written by Auguste williams, April 02, 2009
well i believe in the truth, but i dont really see any clear reasoninig in trinity bases on those verses..
written by Timothy Youngblood, March 26, 2009
Greetings to all on this forum. This is my first post so let me introduce myself. My name is Timothy andd I began my biblical study and historical research around 1971 at age 22 and because as a child I was not introduced into any religion at all I could see early into my studies that many Christian denominations taught contrary to one another even though they all used the same book to preach from. Greatly concerned I set out to find the reason and became interested in finding the truth concerning the word of God and how that matched up with what was being taught. I have been ordained a minister but was removed because I chose to preach the truth. The result of these many years of research is found in my book titled The Great Apostasy.
The purpose of this book is to help the serious bible student with research information concerning the great falling away prophesied to come about in the end time. One scripture in II Th. 2:3, states; "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition," These and other scriptures warn of this great Apostasy, but sincere Christians today fail to understand that this Apostasy is of the Christian faith that many will fall away while believing they are still worshiping the true Messiah. The main point is that it's very important to understand that Jesus did not come preaching His own gospel, nor did He change anything He received from the Father. If He had He would have become an unfaithful servant and could not have been the Messiah and our savior. After studying this book the student will understand that it is not about religion but more about the importance of the first oracles of the original Church of God. Jesus stated that we can't receive salvation by any means except through Him, but we find many other methods being presented as salvation to the people today by way of religion. We must realize that Satan has not ceased at all in his quest to destroy the gospel of Jesus our savior. This Apostasy grows on fertile ground because many Churches today seem to want to preach "feel good sermons" alone and forget about Satan's goals. Regards Timothy (Timotheos)
 written by Iman Kazzi, March 08, 2009 For Bible references on the Godhead, please check the following link: http://www.worldslastchance.com/introduction-godhead/not-the-trinity-nor-3-gods-but-one-god.html
 written by Aura, March 08, 2009
I agree with your reasons about the Sabbath keeping. I am a Protestant but I disagree with the Sunday worship. I had only realized that it's wrong just recently. And I have decided to become a Bible-based Christian instead of belonging to a specific denomination.
As for the trinity, I believe in the trinity. I don't call it trinity though because the Hindus also have a trinity. I call it the Godhead. It's because I believe that God (Father), Jesus and the Holy Ghost are ONE but They have different roles. Even though They have different roles, Their roles and Their work is harmonious with one another. What They do and what They are called may be different but it has the same result and meaning. There is also the account in Genesis 1:26 where we can find the words us[plural] and our[plural] when God talked to Himself which tells us that the Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost is there together with the Father when man was created. Not just with the creation of man, but during the entire creation process from the beginning till the end. And in the next verse (Gen.1:27), we can find the word His[singular] which tells us that God is ONE. Which gives us the idea that God is ONE but He has a three persona. God is a Spirit and He created the universe. At the same time, He is also our Father. HE is the omniscient, omnipotent and loving God of the Bible. Jesus, on the other hand, is the manifestation of God in the flesh. He was conceived through the Spirit. HE is God's Son and, at the same time, He is God Himself because only God can forgive sins and our sins can be forgiven through Jesus Christ. Jesus is also the Judge and God is the Judge. It is still a mystery how the the Two of them can be ONE when we all know that the Father is God and His Son is Jesus. Only God knows and I believe that it is hard for us to grasp it now because our minds are nothing compared to that of the Lord's. I am sure we will be able to understand these things when the time comes by God's grace. The Holy Ghost is the One Who replaced Jesus Christ here on Earth after HE ascended unto heaven because the Spirit is the One Who dwells within God's children{us}. Our bodies are the temples of the Living God and the Holy Ghost is the one Who dwells within us which means that the Holy Ghost is God. Jesus calls the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth (John 14: 16-17 KJV) and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). We also know that God is TRUTH. The prophets and the Bible writers were also inspired by God's Spirit as they were writing the different books of the Bible. It is really hard to explain but that is what I believe and I am convinced with that because I have experienced so many times the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost working in my life. As I read God's Word, I can see Them working together very harmoniously. This is just my stand. And that is what I understand with regards to the Godhead. All in all, there is only ONE God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Prophets and the 12 Apostles.
 written by Dwaine Scott, March 05, 2009
Good article, but I'm still not convinced that the doctrine of the trinity is wrong. I'm not afraid to say that the SDA church could possibly compromise and make an error in its interpretation of scripture, for no church is infallible. But the argument against the trinity is weak.
 written by Natalie K, February 15, 2009
Thank you for your comment. It is indeed very sad to see so many different denominations existing, all of which claim to be following the Bible. I believe that ideally, there should be one denomination, and all else is confusion as you said. We personally do not belong to any denomination because we have not found any that teaches the Bible truth. This is why we strongly encourage people to read and study their Bibles, God will lead to truth.
Thank you and God bless you! In His love and service, WLC Team
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
