Theological and Philosophical Discussion in the WCG and its Splinter offshoots

Over the last twenty years we have watched many of the branches of the Churches of God advance theories that have no historical basis or which themselves are later incorrect theories advanced as fact and the members of those churches have taken them on as facts simply because they were told those things by ministers they wanted to trust.

The following things are fact:

1. Herbert W. Armstrong had no formal accredited academic training either in Religious Studies or the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and neither did any of his senior ministry including those referring to themselves as “Dr”. Armstrong had no formal academic training at all.

2. None of the theologians of the major Churches of God has such training with the exception of CCG. One person who is not a church theologian claims graduate-level training in early church theology but his writings do not reflect such training.

3. Much of what these people say is complete misrepresentation of historical fact.

4. Much of what they said has been discredited or withdrawn by the writers. Some publications, such as the United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy are straight plagiarism (in this case from J. Allen’s Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright).

5. Each offshoot is comprised of people that have a combination of views on the nature of God. For example, UCG has ministers and members that are comprised of Radical Unitarians, Ditheists, Binitarians and Trinitarians. The other offshoots such as LCG and RCG are comprised of mixtures of the same groups. Conflicts are also arising on the Calendar issue.

Definitions:

Radical Unitarianism: A Radical Unitarian denies the pre-existence of Jesus Christ and defines Christ as being a product of the Father from the time of the conception in the womb of Mariam (called Mary by them).

Unitarian: A Biblical Unitarian is one who holds to the existence of One True God and acknowledges that He created the Host and He sent Jesus Christ to mankind. Any Monotheist also qualifies as a Unitarian (cf. Universal Oxford Dictionary art. Unitarian). Monists are logically excluded from such a definition.

Ditheist: A Ditheist claims that there were two true Supreme Gods in existence who were both co-eternal and co-equal. Zoroastrians and Manicheans held they were in opposition. The later doctrine of Herbert Armstrong held that one of these two Gods agreed to come down to Earth and become the son of the other to be sacrificed and hence become the Christ. The Christ or Messiah only exists in his function from the incarnation. Prior to that he was the co-equal, co-eternal God existing beside the other who became the Father (cf. also Univ. Oxf. Dict.). This is logically a form of polytheism. The doctrine was published by WCG in the Good News Magazine prior to Tabernacles 1991 and was given as a sermon by Gerald Waterhouse in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) during the Feast of Tabernacles 1991.

Modalism: The Sabellian doctrine that the distinction in the Trinity is ‘modal’ only, i.e. that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are merely three different modes of manifestation of the Divine Nature (Univ. Oxf. Dict.).

Binitarian/Binitarianism: Of or belonging to a belief in a Godhead of two persons only (Univ. Oxf. Dict.), it was used by Loofs in 1898 as the German binitarisch. Within the understanding of the Churches of God a Binitarian is a believer that one God existed and sent part of Himself to the Earth, which element was Christ. The original doctrine of this being was that of the worship of Attis, Adonis and Osiris. This view of the Godhead did not enter Christianity until its formal adoption at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Kirk and Rawlinson (Ess. Trin. and Incarn.) refers to this matter and on page 215 refers to the Binitarianism of Tertullian’s earlier Catholic thought (Oxford English Dictionary Supplement, Vol. 1 A-G, p. 263).

This view was essentially the doctrine of Antichrist in that it sought to separate the humanity from the divinity of Christ. 1John 4:1-2 was altered by those seeking to separate the humanity of Jesus Christ from his divinity (Socrates VII, 32, p. 381.) (It can be reconstructed from Irenaeus ANF, Vol. 1, fn. p. 443.)

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God: and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God but is of Antichrist (cf. also Statement of Beliefs (A1) 4^th ed., p. 7).

Trinitarian. A1. Belonging to the order of the Holy Trinity. 2. Theol. Relating to the Trinity; holding the doctrine of the Trinity (opp. To Unitarian) 1656. 3 Forming a Trinity: triple or threefold. B. sb (with a capital T). 1 A member of the religious order of the Trinity; = Mathurin 1628 2. Theol. One who holds the doctrine of the trinity of the Godhead; a believer in the Trinity 1706 Hence Trinitarianism, Trinitarian belief (Univ. Oxf. Dict. p. 2248).

The doctrine of the Trinity was not developed until the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. They developed it and it was presented for the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. Prior to that time it was unknown in Christianity.

Some of the followers of Armstrong are now trying to claim that he was a Binitarian and that he and his ministry advocated Binitarianism. This is untrue. Armstrong and his ministry taught that God was a family comprised of two beings who were both co-eternal and co-equal and one of whom agreed to become the son of the other and die as a sacrifice to redeem mankind. They taught that the elect of the Churches of God would also become part of this God family as elohim. The writer has studied their material since 1964. It is beyond question that these people were not Binitarians and, indeed, until the writer began to quantify their religious structure and the history of the Churches of God they had never used and seemingly had never even heard of the term.

The claim is now being made that they exclusively used the term elohim to refer to this Binitarian structure. It is a matter of absolute fact that the Long Bible Correspondence Course taught for decades that the original name for God was Eloah and that was a singular name and the extension of that name to Elohim was to include Christ as the son. The absolute conflict between the Unitarian position espoused in the Long Course (L. 8) (which remained in situ for some forty years and was still in use under Joseph Tkach Snr.) and the God Family Dietheist position merely demonstrates the theological ineptitude of the senior ministry and the conflict in their views. They had Unitarians, Radical Unitarians, Ditheists and Trinitarians in their ministry and they rarely taught on the Nature of God because it was too disruptive given their uncertain theology. What is certain is that the Church was never Binitarian except as a transitional position in the final death throes of inducing people to accept Trinitarianism under Tkach. It was used by Trinitarians, who either never understood and repented of their error, or who came into the Church of God to deliberately undermine it. There were many of these people and they are still at work in the offshoots.

The Churches of God were not Binitarian in their formation nor in their general beliefs over two thousand years. That view was the basis of the Athanasian faith, which came to power for two short years in 325 CE under Constantine and then finally in 381 CE at Constantinople. Constantine reinstated the Unitarian structure in 327 CE and was himself baptised a Unitarian on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Trinitarians term these people Arians to disguise the antiquity of their faith. The structure of the Faith was presented to the Friends of the Sabbath as the paper The Role of the Fourth Commandment in the Historical Sabbath-keeping Churches of God (No. 170) in 1996. Despite being warned in 1994, the Church of God (Seventh Day) declared itself Binitarian in 1995. It had been Unitarian as had the Seventh Day Baptist Church before it. The Unitarian Structure of the pre-Reformation Churches of God can be seen clearly from the work Sabbatarians in Transylvania (CCG Publishing 1998). The assertion that LCG is Binitarian is a last-minute attempt at formulating a false historical position and using a faulty theology.

Modern Jewish or Hillel Calendar

The Hillel calendar was never in place during the Temple period. It was brought to Hillel II by two Babylonian rabbis in 344 CE. Hillel authorised its introduction to Judaism in 358 CE. It was altered as late as the 12^th century by Maimonides (Rambam) to correct errors. It is not the calendar that Christ and the Apostles kept. It is based on the Babylonian system of intercalation and is incorrect most of the time in relation to the Temple system.

Some of the Armstrongite ministers have deliberately misrepresented the system as being in operation during the Temple period. That is a blatant and provable fabrication.

Obedience

If God gave us a Book of Laws and told us to keep the days in that book holy and to keep the festivals and the Jubilee system holy, is it permissible for us to change those days and devise a calendar of our own choosing?

The answer to any sane thinking person is no. If our children used that reasoning on us we would discipline them.

In the same way the implementation of a theological structure of Ditheism or Binitarianism or Trinitarianism is a punishable offence.

No theologian has ever claimed the Bible is anything other than a Unitarian structure. The significant theologians (e.g. Calvin, Harnack, Brunner) agree that Rational Theism, Judaism, the Bible, and Islam are Unitarian (cf. Christ and the Koran (No. 163)).

Why was this fallacy invented by the WCG under Armstrong and why does it persist? The answer is that it was invented for the same reasons it was invented as Modalism and then as Binitarianism in the Roman system in the fourth century. That reason was to appeal to the masses that were corrupted by the worship of Attis and Adonis and the Mystery and Sun Cults. The doctrine that God consisted of two elements of father and son, and of which the son came down to Earth to be sacrificed, was not biblical. It was the doctrine of Attis and Adonis. It was a doctrine of the gods of the corn and the oil and wine, as James Frazer has so amply demonstrated in The Golden Bough. The portraits of Christ and Mariam that proliferate the icons of the Trinitarians are simply a carry on from the Mother goddess and the dying God (Attis and Adonis) with the cross of pine that developed to represent the unhappy stake of pine used for their deaths. They had long hair and looked effeminate in their icons, as did their castrated priests. Christ did not have long hair and he was a Jewish man, not this castrated eunuch the Trinitarians flout, which was their Binitarian God introduced by stealth.

The same sort of slippery reasoning we see in the web sites of the people claiming to be of the Churches of God.

One writer, B. Thiel, Ph.D. (not in theology, philosophy or religious studies), who writes as an independent writer and claims membership of the Living Church of God, has written two articles seeking to claim that the early Church was Binitarian. The articles are titled:

“Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning” at:

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm and

“Unitarianism: Is it Taught in the Bible And Was it the Position of the True Church?” at:

http://www.cogwriter.com/unitarian.htm

Both papers differ slightly but have similar subsections and use the same material interchangeably almost word for word. The papers start with the same introduction and then place the heading Old Testament and then in that section use a quotation from one paper to attempt to selectively discredit CCG’s position and the writer on the subject when there are many more papers that deal with the subject and the position of the early Church more thoroughly and in a rigorous way that shows Thiel’s writing to be serious misrepresentation and an attempt to appeal to the readers ignorance and mistrust of the OT writings.

Thiel also discusses those who claim to be part of the Church of God yet espouse Unitarianism, as though they are not, although despite his rhetoric allows in the section Philadelphia and Beyond that concerning the Laodicean era it “may be possible that it may contain some confused Unitarians”. His incoherent rambling is quoted as follows:

Philadelphia and Beyond

The next church in succession in Revelation 3 was Philadelphia. Most outside of the Sardis era of the Church of God, who believe in Church eras, believe that this was what was once known as the Radio Church of God, and for most, the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) under Herbert W. Armstrong. A major portion of the remnant of this era became the old Global Church of God and then the current Living Church of God (LCG). As the beginning of this article has pointed out, LCG is clearly binitarian (as was quoted in the beginning of this article) as was the Radio Church of God and the old WCG. In the letter to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, Jesus states, "you have not denied my name" (Revelation 3:8). And while this also has something to do with governance, this may also be distinguishing the fact that the true portion of the Philadelphia church never denies Jesus' deity (perhaps, unlike some who might be part of other eras).

The last church in succession in Revelation 3 is Laodicea. This is to be the predominate church at the time of the end. While its major branches, splinters, and independents are binitarian, it may be possible that it may contain some confused unitarians, though this may be doubtful (see Acts 4:12).

His discussion of the era system of the seven churches of Revelation adopts Armstrong’s claim to be the Philadelphia Church of God and the Church of God (7^th Day) was Sardis. He conveniently overlooks the serious facts of Christ’s condemnation of the marker Church of the Sardis era that has the name of being Living yet is dead. It is a fact that his own church, the Living Church of God, is the only church in history to adopt that name and Christ specifically mentions them as being Sardis and being dead.

The Introduction and the quotation referred to are as follows:

Introduction

What is God? How is God one? Are the Father and Son God?

This article will attempt to provide biblical and historical evidence on the nature of God and contrast it with unitarian teachings.

This article will discuss the Bible, unitarian views, and the writings of certain historians to provide biblical and historical proofs to see if unitarianism should be considered to be the correct view of the Christian Godhead.

While Islam is the largest "unitarian" religion in number of adherents, this article will focus on unitarians who claim to be Christian. (One reason that Islam will be ignored is that it teaches that the essentially the entire Bible has been corrupted by Jews and Christians, hence no statement from the Bible would be considered conclusive from the perspective of Islam.)

This article will also discuss the beliefs of some who claim to be in the Church of God--yet who espouse unitarianism.

The Old Testament

To begin this, we will start with the beginning of the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1, NKJV throughout, unless otherwise noted).

The Hebrew word translated as 'God' in the above passage is 'elohiym (or sometimes spelled elohim). So the first time God is mentioned in the Bible, the indication is that God is mentioned as plural ("indication" because in some places 'elohim can refer to singular).

And to make sure the plurality of God was known, Genesis 1:26 states,

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Genesis 1:26 shows that 'elohim above refers to "Us". Us is also plural.

Thus, there is no doubt that from the beginning of the Bible, the plurality of God was shown. And this is accepted by both binitarians and trinitarians.

However, one unitarian assertion is (bolding mine),

There is no doubt that the elohim are a plural structure and that they are the messengers in the Bible texts referred to as angels and that Christ himself was the Angel of the Presence or the Angel of YHVH. It is thus absurd to suggest that no angel was referred to as creator when Christ was admitted to be creator and was also the Angel of YHVH. Moreover, there is no indication that the plural terms involving creators were confined to two Beings which were God and Christ. This is an unsupported assumption that is contrary to the Bible. It is, moreover, a basic assertion of Binitarianism, which is logically absurd and conveys within its structure the logical inevitability of Trinitarianism. This error entered the Church some 30-40 years ago and some people cannot divest themselves of their paradigm (Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202). Copyright 1994, 2000 Wade Cox. Christian Churches of God).

The quotation ignores the earlier comments that show the structure of the name of God and its singular origin.

It is a complete fabrication to assert that the early Church was Binitarian and an examination of the papers will demonstrate that fact. The claims regarding Constantine and the Council of Nicaea by these people are also fiction quoting erroneous sources but not identifying the unqualified sources. Constantine revoked the Binitarian position and their bishops within two years and by 327 had installed Unitarianism and was himself baptised a Unitarian on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. No Binitarian or Trinitarian emperor ever sat on the throne nor was that faction in power until Theodosius was appointed by Gratian and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Canons of Nicaea were lost or, more correctly, thrown out and they had to be re-invented from the Canons of Constantinople.

It is clear that the early Church was not Binitarian but Unitarian and to claim otherwise is a fabrication. The prominent Theologians also agree that is the case (see also the Appendix to the Statement of Beliefs of the Christian Faith (A1)). Theology was developed by the Catholics to defeat the Biblical Unitarianism so that the Athanasian Bintarianism could be developed into the Trinitarian model by the Cappadocians.

Refer also to the papers Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith (No. 88); Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127); Arianism and Semi-Arianism (167); and Socinianism, Arianism and Unitarianism (No. 185).

The Illogical Position of Trinitarianism

The Trinitarians attempted to make sense out of a Three-headed God by using the Stoic term hypostases and the Platonic term ousia which mean, in effect, the essence of being.

The term hypostases became ultimately incorporated into Catholic doctrine, resulting in the anathemas of the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople II. The structure resulted in the declarations of the Monarchia and the Circumincession. The declaration that the Godhead is distinct but not separate is essentially a statement of the Monarchia and the Circumincession. It is philosophically absurd given the functions of English. The use of hypostases and ousia as terms appears to attempt to cover up the incoherence. The Godhead is held by Trinitarians to be three hypostases in one ousia using the Stoic and Platonic terms to attempt a distinction.

Some Trinitarians attempt to deny that God is a Being, hoping thereby to introduce some additional vagary to defend against the charges of being illogical, which they defend by declaring the whole thing a mystery. The denial of the term Being to God and Christ effectively denies their existence, which is absurd. Saying that God is Universal Mind (or Universal Soul) utterly depersonalises God and denies the reality of the Son of God except that the Son's existence is notionally declared as a hypostasis. It is a word game that gives no reality to the Saviour. On the other hand, were the reality of the Son to be insisted on, then the doctrine is essentially an insipient breach of the first commandment: You shall have no other elohim before me.

The entity here is the YHVH Eloheik (YHVH Your Elohim) who is identified at Psalm 45:7-8 as the Elohim who anointed the Elohi of Israel. By elevating our intermediary elohim, one of the Council (Ps. 89:7), to the level of Eloah, God the Father, we are in breach of the first commandment. This is the sin of Satan who claimed to be El of the Council of the Elohim (Ezek. 28:2).

The doctrine of the Trinity rests on a series of false premises designed to enable a paradigm shift. These are:

a) That elohim as the Godhead refers to two entities only, making no distinction between Eloah and the multiple entities including the Council and Host (Dan. 7:9 ff.).

b) That these two entities (and the Spirit) are incapable of separation in fact or in thought and are not properly describable as Beings.

c) That the preincarnate existence of Christ was not as the Angel of YHVH.

d) That Christ was the only Son of God before the creation of the world (see Job 1:6; 38:7).

e) That Christ and Satan were the only two Morning Stars (see Job 38:7; Isa. 14:12; Rev. 2:28; 22:16)

f) That Christ is God in the same way that God is God and not a subordinate God (Heb. 1:9) sent by the Lord of Hosts (Zech. 2:10-11). Hence he is made an object of worship and prayer contrary to Exodus 34:14 and Matthew 4:10, etc.

g) That Christ was the only begotten Son and not the Only Born God and Son (monogenes theos & uion) (Jn. 1:18; 3:16; 1Jn. 4:9; see also Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17 for comparison). He was the first begotten (proototokos) of all creation (Col. 1:15) hence the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14, not as per the NIV).

h) That Christ had existence separate to his incarnation hence he could have prayed to himself as God. Such a proposition effectively denies the distinction between Father and Son and the totality of the resurrection. It is of anti-Christ (1Jn. 2:22; 4:3; 2Jn. 7).

i) That Christ and God were of the same will and that Christ was not possessed of a separate will which he subordinated to God through willing obedience contrary to Matthew 21:31; 26:39; Mark 14:36 and John 3:16; 4:34.

j) That Divine nature admits of no gains and no losses in Christ. Logically this would deny the resurrection of the saints as explained in 1Corinthians 15, and in the biblical promises to the elect. The Trinity seeks to assert that the divine nature given to the elect differs from the way in which it is shared by Christ.

k) That the Holy Spirit is given by fixed measure contrary to John 3:34 (RSV) and Romans 12:6.

l) That Christ could not have sinned (from the false premise of divine nature admitting of no gains and no losses rather than from the Omniscience of God, who knew that Christ would not sin).

m) That Christ was consubstantial with God in such a way that he was co-equal and co-eternal with God contrary to Philippians 2:6 and 1Timothy 6:16, which shows that only God is immortal. Christ's eternality or aioonion life (1Jn. 1:2) and that of all Beings, including Christ, derive from that entity. Both Christ and the elect are of the same origin Hebrews 2:11 (RSV) deriving their life and eternality from conditional obedience to the Father (Jn. 5:19-30) who created us all (Mal. 2:10-15). As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave the Son to have life in himself (Jn. 5:26), and we are co-heirs being ordained to have life in ourselves by authority of God.

n) That the elect are not Sons of God in the same way that Christ is a Son of God and hence not co-heirs, contrary to Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:29; Titus 3:7; Hebrews 1:14; 6:17; 11:9; James 2:5 and 1Peter 3:7.

o) That the Supreme God came down in the flesh and dwelt among men (stemming from the fraudulent insertions in 1Timothy 3:16 in Codex A. The false insertions were retained in the KJV and manipulated into the preamble in the NIV). The assertion that the Supreme God came down in the flesh is contrary to John 1:18 (and Jn. 1:14 where it was the logos (or Memra) who became flesh) and the numerous texts distancing Christ from the One True God (Eloah or Theon, who is God the Father), the God of Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:3; 20:17; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 1:3) who stands in His name (Mic. 5:5).

The concept of how God is One is misunderstood by Trinitarians. The Shema (Deut. 6:4) is too detailed to be examined here (see the paper Joshua, the Messiah, the Son of God (No. 134)). The entity at Deuteronomy 6:5 is identifiable as God Most High, the God who anointed Christ as Elohi of Israel in Psalm 45:7. The unity of God, necessary to Monotheism, is of an extended order dwelling in unity under a central will in agreement and spiritual interaction through the Spirit and Power of God (1Cor. 2:4-14), which through Christ is towards God (2Cor. 3:3-4).

The Trinity denies the unification necessary to monotheism and is logically polytheist. It occurs because the rulers do not understand, being unspiritual (1Cor. 2:8,14).

Questions to ask Trinitarians

If God is one being in three hypostases, or persons, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, how is it possible for the following to occur, as it so obviously does within the Bible narrative?

· For Jesus Christ to receive revelation from God?

Revelation 1:1 says that it is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him, to show his servants things which must shortly take place. And he sent and signified it by his angel to His servant John.”

· For Christ to sit on his Father's throne?

(Rev. 3:21) “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.”

· For the head of Christ to be God?

(1Cor. 11:3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God.

· For Christ to cry out to God?

(As he did in Mat. 27:46; Mk. 15:34): “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.”

· For Christ to ascend to God as per John 20:17?

“Jesus said to her, Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”

· For all those with God's spirit to be Gods?

In John 10:34-36: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came – and the Scripture cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said I am God's Son?”

The Scripture cannot be broken is introduced here to show that we are to be elohim and that our destiny cannot be broken or defeated. How can Christ be set apart from others by God as His own and sent into the world if he is God and there are no others?

· For Christ to be created by the Father?

For him to be the beginning (arche - not ruler as per NIV) of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14), “… the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation” (Col. 1:15).

Trinitarians attempt to assert that arche and proototokos are titles, to avoid the obvious conclusions flowing from these texts compared with 1Timothy 6:16, which shows that only God is immortal.

· For a being to beget itself?

(Jn. 3:16) For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son ...

· For only the Father to be over all?

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

Thus this text denies that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father only. This reciprocal relationship extends to the elect.

Jesus is Son of the Most High God (Mk. 5:7) who is his God and Father (Col. 1:3; 1Thes. 3:11), being distinguished from the God and Father of us (2Thes. 2:16). That he said God was his Father did not make himself equal with God, as was asserted by the Pharisees in John 5:18. Thus the Trinitarian assertion is the same lie as Christ was accused of then. How is this so?

· If there are three hypostases, how can the seven spirits of God exist (Rev. 5:6)? Are these seven eyes in the seven horns of the Lamb not seven separate subdivisions or authorities sent out under direction of Christ as the Lamb to control the Earth?

· How can a being sacrifice to itself?

(1Pet. 1:19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot ... who through him believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Romans 5:15 says: For if by the one man’s offence many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded to many.

Our faith and hope are in God, not in Christ, but rather through Christ by means of the Spirit, which is the Spirit of Faith and Truth.

· How can one being pray to itself and/or give itself something? For example:

(Lk.. 11:13) “... How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

(Jn. 17:4) “... I have finished the work which you have given me to do.”

(Jn. 17:9) “I pray for them, I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are Yours.”

(2Jn. 5:10) … because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.

· How can a being be greater than itself?

(Jn. 14:28) “You have heard me say to you, I am going away and coming back to you. If you loved me you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father', for my Father is greater than I.”

· How can a being be divided as to what it knows?

(Mat. 24:36) “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

(Rev. 1:1) The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants what must soon take place.

· How can a being mediate to itself?

(1Tim. 2:5) For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

(Gal. 3:20) Now a mediator does not mediate for one only but God is one.

(1Jn. 2:1) ... we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

(1Jn. 2:22) Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father AND the Son.

· How can a being be subordinate to itself?

(Jn. 10:18) “... This command I have received from my Father.”

· How can a being deny its own doctrine?

(Jn. 7:16) “My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.”

· How can one being differ in wills yet have one element, Christ, obey the superior, that is, God?

(Mat. 7:21) “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

(Mat. 12:50) “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

(Mat. 26:39). “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”

(Mk. 3:35) “For whoever does the will of God is my brother and my sister and mother.”

(Jn. 4:34) “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work.”

(1Thes. 5:18) ... in everything give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

· How can elements of the one being be subordinate yet co-equal and co-eternal and still be part of an extended structure, namely the body of Christ without the same state being extended to all members of the body?

· How can a being worship itself without having serious psychological problems?

God is the object of worship stated in Isaiah and repeated by Christ in Matthew 15:10: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”

(Lk. 4:8) “Get behind me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve'.”

(Jn. 4:21-23) “... worship the Father. You worship what you do not know. We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.”

(Eph. 3:14-15) For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

· How can an omnipresent being in hypostases come and go from itself?

(Jn. 14:28) “You have heard me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for my Father is greater than I.”

(Jn. 16:27-28) “... and have believed that I came forth from God. I came forth from the Father ... I leave the world and go to the Father.”

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Introduction

The Old Testament

Questions to ask Trinitarians