Why Creeds and Confessions?

Media House International
P.O Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713
www.Forerunner.com
© Media House International, 2016
P.O Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 978-1-329-99561-1
Bulk copies of this book for distribution and resale can be ordered
at:
www.Forerunner.com
Cover by Jay Rogers
About the cover: This is a montage of the four great Genevan Reformers standing
among a “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) represented by several Eastern
Orthodox depictions of the Church Fathers. As I explain in chapter 6, “Protestants
and Roman Catholics: The Iconoclast Controversy” (pages 147-150), these images
in no way ought to be viewed as objects of worship. In the early days of the Church,
images of saints, symbols and biblical scenes were often used for instruction in
largely illiterate congregations of Christians. These cover depictions are from the
imaginations of artists. They are based on traditional images of the Church Fathers.
In reality, we have no idea what most of these men looked like. We obviously have
no photos or even contemporary paintings. But these images should not be viewed
any differently than a photo of a modern Christian theologian or a popular preacher.
On the front row, left to right: Victorinus, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus,
Cyprian.
Second row: John Calvin, Guillaume Farel, Théodore de Bèze, John Knox
Third Row: Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Rome, Gregory the Theologian, St.
Nicholas, St. Stephen the Archdeacon.
Background: Unnamed Church Fathers from a miniature in Svyatoslav’s Miscel-
lany.
All cover images are in the public domain.

Table of Contents
Forward .................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1: The Names and Attributes of God .......................... 3
Chapter 2: The Authority of Scripture .................................... 29
Chapter 3: Why Creeds and Confessions?.............................. 60
Chapter 4: The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ............... 72
Chapter 5: Christology ......................................................... 102
Chapter 6: Protestants and Roman Catholics ....................... 133
Chapter 7: Christianity and the Cults ................................... 161
Afterward: Protestantism Both Orthodox and Catholic! ...... 200
About the Author .................................................................. 206

Bibliography .......................................................................... 207
Index ..................................................................................... 208
Scripture Index ..................................................................... 214
Forward
Why a book on the creeds and confessions of the Church?
I asked myself this question while browsing through a Christian

bookstore looking for a volume on the creeds. It is unlikely that you will
easily find such a book. At Christian colleges and seminaries, you might
find some books with a chapter or two on the creeds and confessions, but
even here, a single book containing the actual texts of the most important
creeds of the early church will not often be found. Out of the thousands
of Christian books on the market today, those dealing with the creeds of
the Church are scarce.
This is precisely the reason for this book. Someone might ask: Why
would modern people be interested in a book containing the creeds of
the early Church? I must reply that “interest” is not even an issue here.
The creeds and confessions of the Church cannot be ignored no mat-
ter how obscure and esoteric they may seem to us today. For almost
two thousand years, the creeds of the Church — statements defining the
core elements of Christianity — have been the basis for determining
what it means to be a Christian. If you deviated from these beliefs, you
were rightly labeled a heretic. During the Protestant Reformation, vari-
ous denominations issued lengthier statements of faith, called canons or
confessions, which further defined what the Reformed churches believed
about salvation, church government and other issues. The Roman Catho-
lics issued a statement from the Council of Trent, which represented the
view of Rome on these issues.
On the following pages you will find the full texts of the most im-
portant creeds of the early Church. My purpose in arranging the texts in
this fashion is simply to put into the reader’s hands a book containing
the creeds that all Christians throughout the ages — Roman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox and Protestant — have believed. When we come to the
Reformation period, we will see that the matter of salvation and church
government became a matter of debate between Protestant Reformers
and the Roman Catholic bishops. However, there has always been a con-
tinuous thread of teaching that all Christians have held in common.
1
Why Creeds and Confessions?
This area of common ground for belief is called orthodoxy. The study
of orthodoxy is the basis for promoting unity since, by definition, this is
what all Christians must agree upon. Orthodoxy means literally “right
opinion.” All true believers are orthodox, because they hold to right
opinions concerning the most basic Christian doctrines.
To Christians of past centuries, preserving orthodoxy was something
worth dying for. When Athanasius refuted Arianism in the fourth cen-
tury, many held to a heresy that made Jesus Christ a lesser god than the
Creator. Athanasius was persecuted for what he believed, but he stood
firm for the truth. Thus Athanasius contra mundum (“Athanasius against
the world”) became a proverb for future generations describing a person
who will stand for the truth no matter what the cost. Throughout history,
orthodoxy has not always been popular, but it has always defined what
the true Christian believes. And the truth has prevailed.
Orthodoxy is the only basis for unity in the Church. Unity is also
called catholicity, which means literally “universality.” True believers
are, in this sense, catholic, because they hold to the universal faith. Any
form of unity that does not require the preservation of orthodoxy is false
unity.
C. FitzSimons Allison, author of The Cruelty of Heresy, has pointed
out that today we have more opportunities than ever before for becoming
heretics. To help remedy our anemic condition, I offer this book, Why
Creeds and Confessions? Let it be a defense against the “little foxes that
spoil the vineyard” (Song of Songs 2:15) — the false and truly heretical
doctrines advanced by the spirit of this age.
2
Chapter 1
The Names and Attributes of God
Who is God?
It is hard to imagine a more profound and important question. It is a

question that leads to many more questions.
What is God like? How does he exist?
Can we know absolute truth? Or is truth relative?
These are important questions because the correct answers determine

who is a Christian and who is not. Simply, we have eternal life only be-
cause we know God. And if we know God, then we know who He is and
what He is like.
The fundamental importance of this question, “Who is God?” was
driven into my heart in 1991 when I met young people in Moscow who
had traveled from all over the former Soviet Union to attend a Christian
Youth International conference. Some were from the Far East and had
come half way around the world to be there! Many of the students had
lived their whole lives in cities that had no evangelical churches. Many
had never met true believers in Jesus Christ. The only churches they
had ever seen were represented by buildings — the Russian Orthodox
churches. For years, most churches had been sparsely attended, even
in cities of millions of people, because of atheistic communism. Some
students had come from cities in Siberia that were founded after the com-
munist revolution. In some of these cities, there were no churches at all.
For the first time in my life, I met people who had never heard the
name of Jesus Christ. They had come into adulthood never having
thought much about God. In Soviet schools, God was presented as a
primitive myth or superstition. Jesus Christ was presented as a histori-
cal person, the founder of a world religion. They did not believe in God
3
because they had never heard nor read anything about Him. In order to
preach the Gospel to these young people, they first had to understand the
names and attributes of God.
It is hard for a Christian from the West to understand this, but most
cultures in the world have not yet been influenced by Christianity. Belief
in God dramatically colors our view of the world around us. There are
billions of people in the world who either do not know God or have a
false idea of God. In the East, people are likely to be influenced by Mo-
nism or Eastern mysticism in their idea of divinity. In the West, the av-
erage person has become infected by an anti-Christian modernist view.
Westerners tend to think of “God” in terms of deism, rationalism, nihil-
ism, or existentialism. Modern philosophy denies the objective reality of
God and declares truth and morality to be relative and subject to our per-
sonal understanding. Thus God is falsely created in man’s own image.
All the philosophies of mankind ask the same obvious questions
about reality. Did something or someone exist before the creation of the
universe? In the beginning of time, was there a prime reality, a great un-
caused first cause? How did man come to exist in the universe? What is
man? How do we know we exist? How do we know what is real? What
happens to us after we die? Is there an absolute difference between right
and wrong? Where is history taking us?
Man’s philosophies have proposed many interesting arguments and
solutions, but most conclude that ultimately we can never know for sure
the answers to these questions. Modern philosophy teaches that God
is unknowable; there are no absolutes; reality is a matter of individual
perception. Without realizing it, most people in the modern world have
picked up this relativistic philosophy. They are uncritical, open-minded,
accepting of every idea. Life is a process without meaning. There is no
ultimate purpose in life. There are no absolutes.
Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that the existence and charac-
ter of God is knowable and unchanging. We can know God exists, who
He is and what He is like. Truth and morality are based on God’s charac-
ter and revealed in His eternal Word — the Bible.
When first I came to know God, I realized that He wasn’t just a fig-
ment of my imagination, because He was nothing like what I imagined
Him to be! When we first come to know God, we need to be reeducated
as to who God is and what He is like. Here I will briefly relate the view
of God presented by Christianity. I will then offer some brief explana-
tions on how that foundation in our thinking will determine our view of
ourselves and the world around us.
4
Chapter 1: The Names and Attributes of God
The Names of God
“Who is God?” To answer this question, it is logical to ask, “Who

does God say He is?” For the answers, we must look to the Word of God.
The Bible contains many names of God, which give us an idea of His na-
ture and character. God is the same in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Hebrew and Greek names of God in the Old and New Testaments
are intimately related to His nature and character. His names, nature and
character are forever unchanging.
This needs a little bit of explanation to the modern mind. In these
days, when the majority of people assume God to be a vague, easy-going
Benevolence, it is sometimes difficult for people to view the God of the
Old Testament, Jehovah, the God of righteousness and moral perfection,
as the same God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, the God of love,
who came physically to earth to live as a man and die for us so that our
sins may be forgiven. But we see from the Hebrew and Greek names of
the Old and New Testaments that He is the same God. We will see this
further as we look at God’s attributes.
Old Testament Names of God
’El or ’Elohim — “God” or “Gods.” ‘El is used as a prefix to many

other names of God. ’Elohim is the plural name that indicates the Trinity.
This is used when God swears an oath, makes a covenant, or calls things
into being. It indicates the immutability and agreement of the Godhead:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
’Elyon — “Most High” God. This name points to God’s exalted na-
ture. He is a God who is to be reverenced, worshipped and feared. He is
a strong and mighty God.
’El-Shaddai — “Almighty” God. This names stresses divine great-

ness, but also indicates power over nature for the good of man or “Provi-
dence.” The Almighty makes the powers of nature serve His purposes.
This is a source of comfort and blessing for God’s people. This name is
often used to indicate that God is a loving Father who enters into rela-
tionship and friendship with His people.
’El-Olam — “Everlasting” God. This is a seldom used name, how-

ever, it indicates that God exists for all eternity. He is the God of all ages.
5
The word olam has the sense of something “secret” or “hidden.” Olam
is sometimes translated as “forever.” Hence the idea of God existing
outside of time in a place man cannot fathom. Since God is forever, this
indicates that He is all-patient and all-wise.
Adonai — “Lord” God. He is the King, the Ruler and possessor of all
creation. This name indicates that God is the controller and boss of His
people. When we recognize God as Lord, we are giving up our rights.
We are no longer our own. We are bound to do His will and obey His
commandments.
Yahweh or Jehovah — “I AM” God. This is the greatest name of

God, the one which was held most in reverence by God’s people, Israel.
This name indicates that He is the one and only true God. This name
was first revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. God declared himself to be
“I AM THAT I AM” because Moses wanted to tell the Egyptians what
name the Hebrew God is called. This indicates to the pagan nations of
the world, who worshipped many false gods, that Jehovah is the only
true God who exists. In many translations of the Bible, the capital form,
“LORD,” is used to indicate Jehovah.
Jehovah Sabaoth — “God of Hosts.” This is a common form of the

name of God in the prophetic books of the Bible. This fuller form calls
up a vision of the King of Glory surrounded by a host of angels. It is of-
ten used in the prophetic books to speak of a victorious God, the supreme
King of heavenly hosts, who has triumphed over all His enemies.
Immanu’el or Emmanuel — “God with us.” The word is literally the

Hebrew for “with us [is] God.” This name is only used twice in the Old
Testament (Isa. 7:14;8:10) and once in the New Testament (Matt. 1:23).
It is used to prophesy the coming of Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God
as a man, or literally, God with us.
New Testament Names of God
Theos — “God.” This is the common Greek word for any pagan god,
but in the New Testament, this form takes the place of ’El-Yisrael, the
“God of Israel” in the Old Testament. Most often it is used with a posses-
sive pronoun, such as “my God,” “your God,” or “our God.”
6
Kurios — “Lord.” The name is applied to God and specifically Jesus

Christ. Kurios takes the place of the Hebrew Adonai and Jehovah. God
is the possessor and ruler of all things especially His people.
Pater — “Father.” The name Father is also used in the Old Testament
to indicate that God is the Father of His people, Israel. In the New Testa-
ment, it points specifically to the first person of the Trinity, the Father of
Jesus Christ. It also is used in the sense that God is the Father of individ-
ual believers who have been adopted into the family of God. Children of
God have the legal rights of sons and daughters and may rightfully call
God “our Father.” Pater is sometimes used to designate God the creator
of all things.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit — The Trinity is mentioned throughout

the New Testament to indicate the unity of the Godhead. The one true
God of Israel, ’Elohim, is the same as God the Father, God the Son Jesus
Christ, and God the Holy Spirit.
Scriptural passages that use these names are helpful to understand the
context of the meanings. We can also see clearly how the Hebrew names
of God in the Old Testament correspond to the Greek names of the New
Testament.
The Attributes of God
According to the Bible, God is infinite, personal, Triune, transcen-

dent, immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and holy. Here are some brief
definitions of each of these attributes.
God is infinite — He is everywhere. He cannot be measured or un-

derstood by finite man. He called all reality into existence. The name, “I
AM THAT I AM,” (Exodus 3:14) was given to man to indicate that God
exists in a way that nothing and no one else can exist. God is the first
cause of all things, the primary reality and the only self-existent being.
God is personal — We refer to God as He not It. He is not simply a

force, energy or substance, but a person. God has a personality. God is
self-conscious and self-willed. God thinks and acts.
God is Triune — He is not only personal, but actually three persons
7
in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Within the one essence of the
Godhead we have to distinguish three “persons” or personalities who
are neither three gods, nor three modes, parts or aspects of God, but co-
equally and coeternally one God. The Trinity may seem like a mysterious
paradox to us, but it is important to understand God as a personal being
in eternal relationship with Himself and with man. He is a God who we
can know personally. To Christians, He is both our Father and Brother,
and His Spirit lives within us.
God is transcendent — He is from another world outside our own.

His nature is other-worldly. God is beyond our thinking and imagination.
He cannot be represented by anything in our world. He is not like man or
anything else He created. He is above all.
God is immanent — He is also with us. God is everywhere. We can

sense His presence all around us. God is present in our material world
and reflected in the image of man. This may seem to be a contradiction
to His transcendence, but God is spiritual and not material. He is with us
in a way we do not understand. God is above all things. At the same time,
He is in all things sustaining the whole universe.
God is omniscient — He is all-knowing. God sees the beginning

and end of history and fathoms all eternity. God is the ultimate source
of all knowledge and truth. All truth is God’s truth no matter where it is
found. He knew us as individuals, before time began, when we were be-
ing formed in the womb, he foreknows all the circumstances of our lives,
the time and manner of our death, and where we will spend eternity.
God is sovereign — He is all-powerful. This is a further aspect of

God’s infinite nature. God rules over the whole universe and is able to
give attention to all details of history. All specific events in the entire
universe are under his control. All creation and history are under His
authority.
God is love — He is benevolent and good. God’s ultimate purpose

towards man and all creation is to favor us and draw us into a loving
relationship with Him. He makes the ultimate sacrifice to make this love
relationship possible. All His actions towards His people are motivated
by this love.
8
God is holy — He is absolute righteousness. There is nothing evil

in Him. He is compared to pure light, which darkness cannot overcome.
Holiness is the greatest and all-encompassing attribute of His character.
Because God is infinite, it is impossible for one attribute to be greater
than another. However, God’s holiness encompasses all His other attri-
butes. He is holy God, holy love, holy sovereign, holy grace, holy Trin-
ity, etc. He is holy in everything He is and does.
Further definitions of God may be given. The Bible gives many
names and attributes of God. Since God is infinite, we will never have
complete knowledge of Him in this life. But there have been some ad-
equate and succinct statements that adequately cover the names and at-
tributes of God. One of these is found in chapter two of the Westminster
Confession:
There is but one only living and true God, who is infi-
nite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible,
without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense,
eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most
holy, most free, most absolute, working all things ac-
cording to the counsel of his own immutable and most
righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious,
merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth,
forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of
them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and
terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by
no means clear the guilty.
God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of

himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient,
not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made,
nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting
his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone
foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to
whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion
over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, what-
soever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open
and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and
independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him
contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his coun-
sels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him
9
is due from angels and men, and every other creature,

whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased
to require of them.
In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one

substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, nei-
ther begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begot-
ten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding
from the Father and the Son.
To elaborate any further on each of these names and attributes of

God is not possible in so small a space. I have given just an outline of
the names and attributes of God. There are many more. But these are the
ones that are most important because they distinguish Him from the false
gods and false worldviews of other religions.
What is a worldview?
A discussion on one’s worldview or “view of the world” may seem

out of place in this chapter dealing with the names and attributes of God,
but the two are intimately related. Our understanding of God shapes our
view of the world. Likewise, our worldview will affect how we see God.
What is this concept called worldview? A worldview is a compre-
hensive sense of our personal relationship to the world surrounding us.
Simply, it is a sense of destiny and purpose.
There are many worldviews confronting people in the world today.
Humanism, for example, is a worldview that states that the universe is
centered upon man and his achievements. Marxism is a worldview that
believes in the inevitability of class struggle based on economic factors.
Major world religions are based upon worldviews. Hinduism is a
worldview based upon many deities, and endless life-death cycle and
inevitability of human suffering. Islam, on the other hand, is a religion
of martyrdom, conquests by force, and police-state enforced modesty.
Thus to understand any of these movements and religions, we must un-
derstand the worldview they are founded upon.
The importance of worldview cannot be overstated. For any religious
movement, it is the motivational factor that causes it to expand, contract,
appear or dissolve. Adherents to a movement test their worldview by act-
ing upon it and observing the effects. The chart below illustrates:
10
(2) Actions
(1) Worldview ———————————————— (3) Results
Any individual’s worldview causes them to act based upon how they
perceive their role in the world. This action causes a result, which upon
observation will either verify or prove incorrect their worldview.
For example, a Marxist believes that class struggle is inevitable, thus
he acts to form revolutionary cells bringing disruption to the present
system. When the disruption erupts it will verify his worldviews thus
spurring him to greater revolutionary activity. This worldview caused
Marxism to violently expand both in Europe and Asia. Marxism is now
disappearing because it has been proven false based on its results of eco-
nomic ruin and human misery.
Developing a Christian worldview is of extreme importance in order
to advance Christ’s kingdom as false systems collapse under their own
corrupted weight. One reason for the decline of Christianity in Western
culture is the lack of biblically based worldview. Instead the cultural
worldview of materialism, selfishness and greed has become the pre-
dominant vision. The first step in addressing this problem is by admit-
ting that by and large the materialistic West has a spiritually bankrupt
worldview.
Thus if we were to properly understand the role of worldview, we
would understand it as a set of rules that reside at the very core of our
being. If our set of values is earthly, carnal and debased, then our ac-
tions will reflect this. However, a change in this set of values will bring
a change in our actions. If we are taught a biblically based worldview,
radical change will take place. Believers the world over will experience
revival and evangelism will become more effective than ever.
11
The chief elements in a Christian worldview are as follows:
1. Christian worldview must be based upon Jesus Christ

alone. “For other foundation can no man lay than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Numerous
worldviews are advanced, which focus not upon Christ,
but upon earthly events. These worldviews will eventu-
ally be exposed as false.
2. Christian worldview must express God’s mission for
His people on earth. Implicit in this worldview are re-
vival and spiritual awakening as the great means of for-
warding God’s purposes on the earth. This will spur min-
istry to alleviate social ills and utilize ministry to spread
the Gospel to all levels of society. Society will then be
changed and become more responsive to the demands
and claims of Christ.
3. Christian worldview must express Christ in every
area of the believer’s existence. Family relationships,
work, finance, entertainment, politics, all areas of en-
deavor must be subject to the absolute Lordship of Jesus
Christ. All things will involve the work of Jesus. If He is
not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all. All issues must be
understood through a Christian worldview. Christianity
becomes a filter through which everything from the pro-
found to the ordinary is examined.
Christian Worldview Transforms Culture
The most important force that shaped Western culture is Christianity.

It was much more than a “religion” that shaped the worldview of Chris-
tians during the first few centuries. There were many religions that vied
for the attention of the people and cultures comprising the Roman Em-
pire. A vast array of syncretistic religions and philosophies characterized
the Roman Empire. The Western world of the first century was hungry
for religion. Yet the classical religions of Greece and Rome did not offer
a comprehensive worldview. Many people turned to Eastern mysticism
and Greek philosophy and some turned to Christianity.
The Christian worldview rested on belief in an infinite and personal
God Who had spoken through the prophets of the Jews and had revealed
Himself in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The early Christians
12
had knowledge about God and the universe that rested with revelation
and not speculation. They had absolute, universal values by which to live
and by which to judge their society. Above all they had value for the ba-
sic dignity of the individual based on the belief that each man is unique
and created in the image of God.
This worldview collided with force with the basic values and beliefs
of Rome. At different intervals in the first three centuries, under ten Ro-
man emperors, Christians were persecuted and put to death by the Ro-
man government. At one point, Christians were accused of atheism (be-
cause they did not worship Caesar); cannibalism (because they “ate the
Lord’s Body”); and incest (because of “brotherly love”).
The second century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, offered a de-
fense in a letter to these charges written to the Roman Emperor Anto-
nius Pius. According to his own account, Dialogue with Trypho, Justin
describes how he had studied one after the other of the philosophical
systems — Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism
— and then came to Christianity. One day as he stood near the Aegean
Sea just outside the city of Ephesus, an old man approached him.
“Does philosophy produce happiness?” asked the old

man.
Absolutely,” Justin replied, “and it alone.”
In an extended conversation, the old man suggested to Justin that

there were many questions that Plato could not answer, but there is a
true philosophy with an explanation for all questions. That philosophy
is Christianity. The old man instructed Justin in the teachings of the He-
brew prophets and Jesus Christ. He encouraged Justin to seek God for
the opening of his understanding: “For no one can perceive or under-
stand these truths unless he has been enlightened by God and Christ.”
Justin then describes his response: “When he had said these and many
other things which it is not now fitting time to tell, he went his way, after
admonishing me to meditate on what he had told me, and I never saw
him again. But my spirit was immediately set on fire, and affection for
the prophets, and for those who are friends of Christ, took hold of me;
while pondering on his words, I discovered that his was the only sure
and useful philosophy. Thus it is said that I am now a true philosopher.”
The false charges against Christians were refuted by Justin. But in the
end, Justin was not successful in promoting tolerance for the Christian
13
faith among the Roman rulers. He became a martyr in AD 167.

The sporadic persecutions of the Christians that occurred under the
Roman Emperors did not occur simply because the Christians wor-
shipped Jesus Christ. There were many gods in the Roman world. The
reason that Christians were killed was that they refused to also enter into
the unity of the Roman state by worshipping Caesar. Christians wor-
shipped Jesus as God; they worshipped the infinite-personal God only.
They allowed no mixture; all other gods were seen as false gods.
No totalitarian government, such as Rome, could ever tolerate those
who have an absolute standard by which to judge the state’s actions. But
Christians had an absolute in God’s revelation. Christians had an abso-
lute, universal standard by which to judge the morals of the individual
and the laws and acts of the state. For this, they were considered enemies
of the state.
Any nation, state or government, that continually breaks Gods moral
laws, will ultimately be destroyed within history. When the breakdown
of Rome finally came, Christianity thrived. During a time of turmoil,
frequent wars, and intellectual discontinuity in the advance of learning,
Christianity extended a tremendous civilizing influence on the northern
tribes of Europe through extending the Christianized art forms; medieval
economic teaching which exalted the virtue of honest, well-executed
work; an impressive network of church hospitals and charitable institu-
tions; and impressive architecture.
What is the true nature of history?
History must always be interpreted on the central principle of the

Lordship of Jesus Christ. In history, we see a war between the Christian
idea of God and man and the many competing false ideologies, philos-
ophies, religions and political structures. The resulting picture of this
competition is the true nature of history.
Unfortunately, most people, because of their innate morally depraved
thinking, can neither explain nor understand the conflict of these king-
doms. Most are willfully ignorant of history as a whole, let alone history
from a Christian perspective. They regard history as a long-forgotten
high school subject, rather than what it is if interpreted properly. If his-
tory is understood at all it is usually in a materialist, rationalist sense.
The events of history are unrelated. Man has no origin as a creation of a
holy and loving God and thus has no ultimate destiny.
Although man was originally created in the image of God, through
14
sin he has been robbed of his birthright. Fallen man has no understand-
ing of his past, present and future glory. Only the Holy Spirit of God can
illuminate us as to the truth of God, the purposes of God in history, and
the destiny of God’s people for the future. A proper view of history can
not only give us a view of God’s plan of salvation throughout the ages,
but can give us a vision of the final defeat of all competing worldviews
and the victory of the plan of God on earth.
This will give us a confidence and sense of destiny even amidst cha-
os. We will be encouraged to rise up and fight against evil. We will have
some hope see the tide of ignorance, apathy and failure turned in our
generation.
The truth of history can be understood in the following points:
1. History is controlled by Jesus Christ. This eliminates

worldly, humanistic views of history, as well as cultic
views and the wild conspiracy theories so popular today.
History revolves around the expressed image of the Fa-
ther’s glory, Jesus Christ and His finished work on the
Cross (Col. 1:16).
2. Not only is history subservient to the glorious Christ,
He is the essence of history. His purposes in the earth,
alone, are worthy of consideration or value to the believer.
While all believers “live and move and have their being”
in Christ, even the idolatrous mass of humanity today are
subject to His awesome, history-controlling power.
3. Christians are to understand what God has been do-
ing in history and align themselves with it. We can live
out this view of history in a practical way. The Bible calls
the purpose of the Church in history the “Great Commis-
sion.” Jesus Christ has allowed the Church to participate
in this glorious vision of fervent missionary activity,
reaching every nation and ethnic group with the testimo-
ny of Christ and His kingdom.
There will be great expansion of knowledge of God through Holy

Spirit inspired preaching. Sometimes persecution and violence will re-
sult, but in the long run great numbers of souls will be saved. Large
amounts of people will be visibly brought into the Church. This revived
and awakened Church will continue to confront idolatry, sin, and corrup-
tion in every generation, until a great reformation of humanity occurs. It
15
will one day be apparent to all the nations of the world that Jesus Christ
is the Lord. He will rule as King over the nations.
We are seeing today the beginnings of this worldwide, all-encom-
passing spiritual awakening. Jesus Christ gave the Church all power and
authority to teach the full testimony of God to all the nations of the earth.
History has a meaning as surely as our individual lives have meaning.
There is an ultimate end of history to be accomplished by God. Through-
out history, we see that tyranny and evil have sought to oppress those
who stood for liberty and truth. Tyranny and evil sometimes look as
though they are winning, but the battle belongs to the Lord. Ultimately,
God wins in time and history. Men die, generations come and go, but
truth marches on through wars, massacres and bloodshed. Even in the
darkest times, the truth is always advancing. The human race will one
day see a Christian society that will be inexpressibly wonderful and glo-
rious. This is the purpose of history.
War of the Worldviews
The following are the major categories of the most widespread false
worldviews that compete with Christianity. Virtually all worldviews,
philosophies and religions can be placed under one of these headings:
Christianity, Non-Christian Monotheism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism,
Existentialism, Polytheism, Monism, Eastern Mysticism, or New Age
philosophy.
Epistemology is the study of human belief systems, the nature and
limits of human knowledge, analysis of why we belief the way we do,
and whether truth is attainable through human reason and knowledge. To
become “epistemologically self-conscious” is to become aware of your
belief system; to become more consistent in the implications of your be-
liefs; and to realize that your beliefs and ideas have consequences.
Every worldview begins with some “self-evident” truths, premises,
presuppositions or “unprovable facts” that undergird the entire philoso-
phy. Every argument, belief or philosophy is based on certain presuppo-
sitions, which in turn may be based on prior presuppositions. Ultimately,
there is one or a few presuppositions — unprovable premises or pos-
tulates — that must exist as the prime reality from which reality is ex-
plained and understood. Man is a creature who must believe in order to
know, and who must know in order to think and act. Belief in something
without proof must always presuppose knowledge, thought and action.
16
Worldview: Questions and Answers
The following are questions to be considered. These questions are

inescapable. Throughout history, theologians and philosophers have
grappled with these questions. They have proposed many answers, but
all answers tend to fall into several broad categories. Your answers to
these questions will determine what type of worldview you hold. By
answering these questions, you will show yourself to be a Christian, a
Monotheist, a Deist, a Naturalist, a Nihilist, an Existentialist, a Polythe-
ist, a Monist, an Eastern Mystic, or New Age.
Questions
1. What is first cause? That is, who or what existed first

among all things in the universe?
2. What is the nature of reality and the world we see around
us?
3. What is man?
4. What is man’s relationship to the first cause and the world
we see around us?
5. What is the nature of man?
6. What happens to us after we die?
7. Is there a difference between right and wrong?
8. What is the meaning and purpose of history?
Answers
Here I have given answers that correspond to a Christian worldview.
1. In the beginning was God. He created the universe out of

nothing.
2. God created a universe that operates with order in com-
pliance with unchanging natural laws.
3. God created man in His own image.
4. God communicates with man through His Word, which
is infallible.
5. Though man was created in the image of God, he fell
into sin. Now God is redeeming certain men and women
through the work of Jesus Christ.
6. At death, those who are redeemed by Jesus Christ enter
17
into eternal life or heaven. Those who remain in sin enter

into eternal separation from God or hell.
7. Ethics is a system of moral laws based on the character of
God who is holy and loving.
8. History proceeds in a linear manner. God has sovereignly
ordered the major events of history to lead mankind into
God’s ultimate destiny.
Christianity is the only epistemologically consistent worldview. That

is, its presuppositions are consistent with its conclusions. In Christianity,
there is a perfectly logical philosophy by which to explain and under-
stand every area of human life.
I put the following worldviews in a specific order because it is pos-
sible to demonstrate that each worldview listed here naturally succeeds
the prior one. As the “believer” becomes more epistemologically self-
conscious (consistent with his own belief system), he sees the eternal
contradictions in his false worldview. As he draws conclusions that dis-
prove the premises of his worldview, he is forced to abandon it in favor
of another worldview that is based on these new conclusions. He will
hold that belief until he sees the inherent inconsistencies. And so on.
The result is to be forever in a state of paradigm shift, to exchange one
philosophy for another whenever the evidence seems to contradict the
current model. The ultimate state of the worldly-wise philosopher is to
believe a little bit of everything. Eventually, he will be forced to admit
that consistency of belief is impossible, or he will repent of vain irratio-
nal thinking and humbly and rationally embrace a thoroughly Christian
worldview.
The worldviews competing with Christianity offer only inconsis-
tency. I will here define each competing worldview or philosophy, list
the presuppositions of each and briefly explain why each is ultimately
inconsistent with its own premises.
Monotheism — Besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the

world’s two other monotheistic religions, teaching that there is one God.
Judaism and Islam differ from Christianity in teaching that Jesus Christ
was a great prophet or teacher, but not the Son of God. Both Jews and
Muslims object strongly to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jews and Muslims
accept the Old Testament as being the inspired Word of God. Muslims
also accept the New Testament and the Koran (the writings of the proph-
et Mohammed) as inspired of God. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim
18
worldviews are very similar, in terms of God, the creation of the world,
man, the fall of man, ethics and history. The main inconsistency is what
to think of the man Jesus Christ. For the Jew, His death on the cross is
a stumbling block. The time and place of the promised Messiah’s birth,
many incidents of His life, and the manner and circumstances of His
death were foretold by the Jews’ own Old Testament Scriptures. For in-
stance, the detailed descriptions found in Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; and Daniel
9, specifically point to the only person in history to fulfill the biblical
prophecies about the Messiah — Jesus Christ. The Jews do not recog-
nize Him, even though He fulfilled these prophecies to the letter. For the
Muslim, Jesus Christ is an enigma. He is revered as a “great prophet,”
a good man who nevertheless claimed to be God. According to Islam,
such a claim must be blasphemous coming from a “mere man.” Yet the
Muslim ignores this inconsistency.
Deism — This is simply a belief in a God, or a Supreme Being of

some type. A Deist does not believe that Jesus Christ is God and does not
accept the Bible as the Word of God. For a Deist, Truth is self-evident
and discernible to the rational mind. Some religious philosophers during
the time of the Renaissance, such as René Descartes, wanted to com-
pletely abolish the Greek philosophical worldview, which relied on pre-
suppositions that were unprovable. Descartes proposed a universal pic-
ture of the world, based on human reasoning and mathematical proofs.
Deism proposes a “clockwork universe” originally created by God or a
Supreme Being, but left to run on its own according to universal natural
laws. Truth is understood through the existence of natural revelation,
natural law and the “necessity of reason.” Protestants of the Enlighten-
ment era, including John Locke and David Hume, recognized that God
and God’s Truth were revealed in nature. They believed that the char-
acter of God could be understood through both natural law and biblical
law. Locke and Hume argued that since man was created in God’s image,
man was able to grasp biblical truth through human reason. Deism took
the argument a step further and proposed that natural revelation was the
only standard and denied the necessity of the Bible altogether. Thus the
necessity of reason gave way to the sufficiency of reason. Deism then
became a broad term use to describe the group of Enlightenment era phi-
losophers — from Locke and Hume, who were orthodox in the central
tenets of the Christian faith — to François Voltaire and Thomas Paine,
who were openly hostile to Christianity.
To a Deist, God is the transcendent First Cause who created the uni-
19
verse, but left a well-ordered world to run on its own. God is not imma-
nent or personal; He is not providential or sovereign over human history.
All events in the universe are determined by cause and effect, and not
predetermined by God. There are no miracles. All historical events are a
result of natural laws at work. Human beings, though creations of God,
are intelligent, moral agents endowed with free will. Man himself must
function as a cog in the “clockwork” universe; he cannot have a relation-
ship with God. Man is basically good; not innately evil. The world is not
fallen or abnormal; it is a perfect reflection of the nature and character of
God. This point is an important departure from the Christian worldview.
A Deist believes that knowledge about a perfect God can be derived from
nature, which is also perfect. Since the material world is perfect, ethics,
law and morality can be seen in nature. Christianity does not discount the
revelation of nature in addition to biblical law, but since the world is fall-
en and imperfect, God gave man special revelation of Truth in the form
of the written Word of God. Deism discounts special revelation from
God and relies solely on the sufficiency of nature and human reason. The
afterlife, if it exists at all, is completely separate from the natural world.
We are rewarded and punished through the consequences of natural laws
in this life. Deists might believe in heaven as a reward for man in the
afterlife. Yet Deists doubt the existence of an eternal hell, since no man
is completely evil. History is linear and determined by natural causes, in
which God does not ever supernaturally interfere.
Naturalism — The great inconsistency of Deism is that it agrees with

Christian theism by presupposing a universe of order and reason created
by God. Deism admits that man was originally created by God, but man
is treated as though he is a product of this universe. If man is a personal
being, then must not God also be personal in nature? If man is created in
the image of God, then must not man be ultimately accountable to God’s
law rather than nature’s law? Naturalism solves this problem by remov-
ing God from the picture altogether. Deism can thus be understood as
the bridge between theism and naturalism. According to naturalism, man
is a product of nature. He evolved from a lower organism, the universe
itself was either preexistent or it came into being on its own. Origins
and evolution must be explainable through consistent natural laws. Hu-
manism, modernism, determinism, scientism, Darwinism, Marxism and
Freudianism are each variations on the naturalist worldview.
Humanism is the belief that man is the ultimate being in the universe.
Modernism the idea that man will inevitable solve any problem through
20
the natural course of human progress. Determinism is the philosophy

that all events are interdependent, not only determined by cause and ef-
fect, but that knowledge of reality can only be understood when viewing
the whole universe in this manner. Scientism is the belief that measur-
able natural laws based on cause and effect determine the outcome of
all physical events in the material universe. Scientism is also the belief
that empirical facts can be determined either through observation or ex-
perimentation with known and controlled variables. In other words, all
sequences of cause and effect events are reproducible, with the conse-
quences of reaction always following certain circumstances or actions.
Darwinism synthesizes known scientific laws into a theory of total
organic evolution; that man evolved from a lower animal, which in turn
evolved from a single cell organism. Darwinism ultimately proposes that
a complex universe evolved from a primitive state or that came into ex-
istence out of nothing. Marxism proposes an evolutionary and determin-
istic view of society, with mankind evolving into a communist utopia
dispensing with the need for religion and private ownership of property.
All social history is viewed as a struggle between economic classes; hu-
man history is driven by an undefined force leading society to a state
of worldwide communism. Freudianism proposes a human psychology
based on evolution and determinism. Sigmund Freud speculated that
since man was the product of sexual reproduction of lower animals, all
human intelligence is a sublimation of the sex drive. Sex is the drive
behind all human endeavor, since reproduction of a species is always the
goal of deterministic evolution.
All naturalistic philosophies rely on the following beliefs. Only mat-
ter exists. Nature exists. God does not exist. The universe is based solely
on cause and effect. The universe is orderly even though it was not a
created by a higher intelligence. Human beings are products of nature.
Although conscious rational beings, human beings are not fully able to
understand the complex interaction of physical and chemical properties
that make up the universe. Determinism is the basis of all human knowl-
edge. Death is final. There is no afterlife. History is a series of causes
and effects with no ultimate purpose and no divine destiny. Ethics are a
deterministic invention of human thought.
The great paradox of naturalism is that man is a rational being — the
highest animal created by natural forces apart from God — yet man has
no control over his own destiny. If man was determined by the natural
forces of the universe, then even man’s philosophy of naturalism was
determined by these forces. If man is merely a thinking machine, then
21
how can man know that his thoughts are correct? The presupposition that
man’s view of the universe has any more validity than the conscious un-
derstanding of a rock is the great flaw of naturalism. The design and or-
der of the universe may just as well be an illusion of our consciousness,
which is nothing more that material actions and biochemical reactions.
Deterministic philosophers ultimately saw this contradiction and strug-
gled unsuccessfully to prove that man can know anything for certain.
Charles Darwin recognized this problem when he wrote in his Auto-
biography: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of
man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are
of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of
a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Nihilism — If man’s perception of reality is subject to his own mind,

isn’t it just as likely that reality itself is an illusion? If man’s rational
mind is nothing more than sensation and perception, then it is just as
likely that nothing really exists except the illusion of reality. Nihilism,
the belief in nothing, really isn’t a philosophy at all, but more a feeling of
despair. A Gnostic claims that “to know” is salvation; an agnostic claims
that “no knowing” is possible and salvation is meaningless. Nihilism is
a worldview that leaves everything to chance. There is no possibility of
knowing anything to be real, or knowing any “higher law” to teach us the
standard of right and wrong.
After the two World Wars of the 20th century, Europeans had come
to realize that rational natural science often compounded the problem of
existence. Science did not provide all the answers. Stalin then made it
difficult to believe in Marxism as a fitting social philosophy. When art-
ists saw the difficulty of rationalism, they invented surrealism as an art
form, as a reflection the absurdity of the modern world. Humanism had
provided only alienation and anxiety. Despair seemed to be part of the
human condition.
Nihilism is the absence of a philosophy. To the nihilist God is dead.
Truth has no meaning. No philosophy is valid. Knowledge, ethics, his-
tory, beauty, reality, life and death have no purpose. There is really no
such thing as an eternal purpose or divine destiny in a purely rationalist
system. The naturalist turns to nihilism once he realizes that rationalism
gives man no reason to believe his own thoughts.
In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche offered this piece of
evolutionary perspective: “What is the ape to man? A figure of fun or
an embarrassment. Man will appear exactly the same to the superman.”
22
Nihilism is nothing more than naturalism brought to its logical con-

clusion. A consistent naturalist who presupposes that knowledge and
reason are possible has virtually no way to prove it. At least he cannot
explain why he is conscious of his own thoughts and reasoning. He is
forced to concede “nothingness.” The consistent naturalist also is forced
to concede that ethics — as a system of consequences resulting from
moral actions — exists. However, if God does not exist, then man is
never guilty of having violated any “higher moral law.” He is left only
with “feelings of guilt.” But what use does guilt serve? Man ought to
deny those feelings of guilt if possible. Yet the feeling of having done
a moral wrong persists in people everywhere. As Henry David Thoreau
wrote in Walden, “All men live lives of quiet desperation.” There is no
possibility of transcendent forgiveness in a universe without God. These
feelings of guilt can lead only to the despair of nihilism.
The nihilist is like the person who climbs to the top of a hill at night
and stares into the starry universe. When he asks a non-existent Supreme
Being, “What is the meaning of life?” there is absolutely no reply. Man
innately senses that he must have a purpose and destiny, but naturalism
offers no answer except eventual annihilation. Since man is an innately
moral creature, the loss of meaning leads to hopelessness or nihilism.
Of course, nihilism as a consistent philosophy is impossible. From
meaninglessness nothing at all is logical — or else everything is logical.
Nihilism is a belief in nothing. Yet to affirm that “nothing exists” is to
affirm a belief in everything that is able to be known. An atheist who
believes in “no god,” first affirms the concept of God, and then affirms
that he must know everything in order to know for sure that God does not
exist outside the realm of his knowledge. But for a finite mind to know
everything is impossible. Thus nihilism can never be a belief, but only a
feeling of the despair of meaninglessness. The fact that man is prone to
these psychological and emotional disorders is in itself a motive to seek
meaning, value, beauty, virtue, destiny and purpose. At best nihilism can
only affirm that there are deep questions that challenge the hearts and
minds of men — but there are no easy answers.
Existentialism — The idea that there is no absolute truth, that all

morality is relative became the prevalent philosophy of the 20th century.
“Whatever is right or wrong for you is your own standard of morality.” —
“Do your own thing.” — “Truth is whatever you believe in.” — “There
are no moral absolutes, only moral interpretations.” — “Whatever feels
good do it, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” — “Life is what you
23
make it.” — “Everything is subjective.” These popular statements are

just expressions of existentialism.
When one denies objective truth, the problem of human existence is
intensified. René Descartes demonstrated that the subjective “I” is self-
aware, when he postulated: “I think therefore I am.” But everything else
within us and without us — our feelings, perceptions and thoughts —
can be doubted. Yet we are stuck with these feelings, perceptions and
thoughts. So affirming that external reality exists is a lot easier to cope
with than embracing the impossible nihilistic worldview. Existentialism
can at least be systematized to answer the great philosophical questions.
The existentialist affirms that the material universe exists; but God
does not exist. The universe exists as a logical order of causes and ef-
fects. Human knowledge is divided into objective and subjective under-
standing. Human beings exist, but man’s existence precedes his essence.
In other words, we each define who we are in our own minds. Each per-
son determines his own reality and destiny. The objective external world
is real. However, man often perceives the world as illogical and absurd.
Man’s perception of the external world is reality. Man creates subjective
value and meaning to counter the absurdity of the objective world. This
delusional self sees external events as connected; man creates cause and
effect in his own mind where it doesn’t really exist. History is viewed
as linear, but it reaches no end or purpose. Ethics are an invention of the
delusional mind.
The existentialist recognizes that the world is fallen and abnormal and
that man is fallen and abnormal too. Therefore, whenever man creates
his own meaning out of a world in a state of chaos, his mind becomes
chaotic and delusional. But the delusional mind that creates the illusion
of reality must really exist. That leads to further problems for the ex-
istentialist. The existentialist encounters inescapable paranoia, anxiety,
fear, and even “nausea” when he realizes that the responsibility of creat-
ing meaning, a sense of mental sanity and salvation lies within a mind
that is delusional from the beginning. The existentialist never knows for
certain which reality is the real reality.
It is worth noting that modern philosophers who have self-conscious-
ly attempted to embrace existentialism were ultimately unsuccessful in
trying to work out a system to explain human existence apart from God.
Some ended up proposing a “Christian” existentialism that blended the
presuppositions of Christian theism with the concept of objective and
subjective existence. The others either committed suicide, became in-
sane, or lived with a conscience wracked with guilt and despair. Ironical-
24
ly, the more earnestly man tries to deny the existence of God, the more he
becomes obsessed with the idea of God and religion. He may deny God
in word, but he is constantly shaking his fist at God in conscious hatred.
The willful death of modern rationalist and existentialist philosophy
has led us to the idea of postmodernism. This is an “anti-philosophical”
worldview. The postmodernist concludes: “We can’t go any further with-
out starting over. What is left? It’s all been done before and thought of
before and we still have not secured our salvation.” In this sense, post-
modernism appears to retreat into nihilism once more, but postmodern-
ism is ironically attacked from the rear by another irrefutable paradox:
“Once a man believes in nothing, soon he will believe in anything.” Post-
modernism thus opens the door to Eastern Monism.
Monism or Eastern Mysticism — Eastern mysticism correctly un-

derstands that the logical process of reason is powerless to give final sat-
isfaction to man’s deepest spiritual needs. In Western rationalistic terms,
to know reality is to distinguish one thing from another, to categorize it,
and recognize its distinct relationship to other things. In the East to know
reality is to pass beyond individual consciousness. The goal of life is to
realize the oneness of all, and be one with all. Monism is the belief that
all is one. There is no difference between God, a person, a horse, a tree
or a rock.
Monism can be summarized as follows. The soul of the individual is
the same as the Soul of the universe. Some spiritual beings are more at
one with the cosmos than other things. There are many paths to the One.
To be one with the universe is to empty one’s self. To reach this state of
oneness is to pass beyond human knowledge; and to pass beyond any
difference between good and evil. Death is the end of individual exis-
tence, but to achieve nothingness is to reach Nirvana. Time is unreal.
History is cyclical.
This worldview came to great popularity in the West during the 1960s
and ’70s partly through its promotion by popular superstars such as the
Beatles. In 1967, Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote “I am the
Walrus,” which opened with the line: “I am he as you are he as you are
me and we are all together.” Mass murderer Charles Manson adopted the
Monistic worldview of the Beatles, and at the LaBianca murder scene
in 1969, he instructed his followers to write in blood on the refrigerator
door the words, “Helter Skelter,” a song title from the Beatles’ White
Album. The oneness of right and wrong became a reality for Manson. He
defended his actions by saying, “If God is One, what is bad?”
25
Dostoyevsky said, “Anything is permissible if there is no God.” But

anything is also permissible if everything is God. There is no distinction
between good and evil.
New Age Philosophy — Eastern Monism spawned the New Age

movement, which is a philosophy that combines elements of Eastern
mysticism (that are easiest for Westerners to understand) with rational-
ism. Rationalism and humanism do not answer certain spiritual ques-
tions. New Age pretends to answer these questions.
New Age philosophy is extremely diverse, but can be summarized
as follows. Each individual is God. As more individuals come to realize
their divinity, the closer we will come as the human race to realizing the
“New Age.” The universe is unified, but is expressed on two planes: the
visible universe accessible through ordinary consciousness, and the in-
visible universe accessible only through altered states of consciousness.
The goal of New Age philosophy is to reach “cosmic consciousness,” a
state in which time, space and reality disappear. Physical death is not the
end of the individual self. Death is just a transition to another form of
life through reincarnation. Altered states of consciousness, projections
of the soul out of the body, and mind training are used to reach a state of
cosmic consciousness.
The popularity of New Age philosophy is one indication of the dis-
integration of Western culture. As information and travel between East
and West becomes more fluid and as the prevailing humanist philoso-
phy of the West is collapsing, Eastern philosophy is rushing in to fill
the vacuum. The swing to Eastern mysticism has come at a time when
Christianity is weak at the places where it would need to be strong to
withstand the East. New Age philosophy is now a rising worldview in
Western thought.
However, this discussion of Monism and New Age philosophy ends
here, since we will examine these worldviews in more detail in chapter
seven.
What is Truth?
What is Truth? How can we know anything to be true at all? The

Bible, the Word of God, offers an infallible set of presuppositions about
God, the nature of man and the universe from which to construct a com-
prehensive worldview. Christianity is the only consistent worldview that
provides these answers.
26
The Christian apologists of the first few centuries of the Church were
not afraid to debate the philosophies of the day in order to show the su-
periority of the Christian system. Modern man has not yet offered any
philosophy to contend with the wisdom and truth of Scripture. Preaching
the Gospel, in the words of the Apostle Paul, is “casting down arguments
and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and be-
ing ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled”
(2 Cor. 10:5,6).
Whenever a Christian preaches the Gospel, he transcends his own
understanding of Truth. In a certain sense, all the Truth we need to know
is within us once we are born-again. The Holy Spirit lives within us and
teaches us all things. “But the anointing which you have received from
Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the
same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not
a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27).
The Word of God that is written in Scripture also lives within us. The
Word, Jesus Christ, lives in us through the Holy Spirit. It is impossible
for an unregenerate soul to comprehend the Word of God. Only if a man
is born-again can he begin to fathom the mysteries of the Word. Myster-
ies are revealed to him as Truth evident to his mind, but comprehended
by the Spirit. Thus the spiritual man believes and knows Truth inwardly,
rather than thinks about Truth externally. Logic and reason certainly ex-
ist in the written Word of God, but it is necessary that the written Word
resonate with the Spirit. Anointed preaching of the Word speaks to the
spiritual man at the core of his being.
All true preaching of the Word is prophecy, because the Holy Spirit
speaks through us — although the natural mind is engaged and we may
“see as through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Hearers of the Word may
understand as words are spoken to them by the Holy Spirit. That is what
true prophecy is: the Word of God anointed by the Holy Spirit and re-
vealed in the hearts of those to whom God chooses to speak. It is hoped
that the biblical Truths presented in the rest of this book will resonate
with Truth already within you through the Holy Spirit.
Editor’s note: I have made use of the writings of Ron Auvil whose material has
been edited and paraphrased in the sections: “What is a Worldview” and “The True
Nature of History.” I have made use of James W. Sire’s book, The Universe Next
Door, to provide the outline for summarizing the major worldviews.
27
Questions for Chapter 1

Use the worldview questions in chapter 1 and interview a friend,
acquaintance or family member. Report to your study group the re-
sults of the interview. Did it offer you an opportunity for evange-
lism? Explain how.
1. What is first cause? That is, who or what existed first

among all things in the universe?
2. What is the nature of reality and the world we see
around us?
3. What is man?
4. What is man’s relationship to the first cause and the
world we see around us?
5. What is the nature of man?
6. What happens to us after we die?
7. Is there a difference between right and wrong?
8. What is the meaning and purpose of history?
28
Chapter 2
The Authority of Scripture
The Book That Changed History
It is subversive literature. It has led to the overthrow of governments,

sparked mass migrations across oceans, and more than once changed the
course of history.
Governments — from the 16th-century English monarchy to the
communist Soviet Union — have gone to great lengths to restrict or even
prevent its printing and distribution. Yet it has outlasted its enemies. It is
the most popular book ever printed. No other has been translated into so
many languages and few have had such impact on the development of
those languages.
It is, of course, the Bible, portions of which have been translated into
over 2000 of the 5000 languages of the world. This includes 318 lan-
guages into which the entire Bible has been translated. No other book
even comes close to these numbers.
The Bible, like no other book in history, has withstood vicious attacks
from its enemies. Many have tried to ban it, burn it and outlaw it … from
the days of the Roman emperors to the present-day tyrant-dominated
nations.
In AD 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict to destroy
Christians and their sacred book. An imperial letter was sent everywhere,
ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and the destruction by
fire of the Scriptures, and proclaiming that those who held high positions
would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in
their profession of Christianity, would be deprived of their liberty. The
historic irony of this edict to destroy the Bible is that Constantine, the
emperor following Diocletian, 25 years later commissioned Eusebius to
prepare 50 copies of the Scriptures at the expense of the government.
Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, said that in one
hundred years from his time Christianity would be swept from existence
29
and passed into history. But what has happened? Voltaire has passed into
history, while the circulation of the Bible continues to increase in almost
all parts of the world, carrying blessing wherever it goes. We might as
well try to stop the sun on its burning course, as to attempt to stop the
circulation of the Bible. “Only 50 years after Voltaire’s death, the Ge-
neva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles”
(Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible) a great irony of
history!
Suppression of the Word of God has been an ongoing battle waged
by the vain philosophies of the world and the devil. It was once illegal to
own a Bible in the former Soviet Union and communist China. Suppres-
sion by the Bible was even advocated by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible was on the Vatican’s “list of forbidden books” until the 20th
century.
This only testifies to the indestructibility of this greatest book. If ev-
ery Bible in the world were to be destroyed, the entire book could be
restored by piecing together quotations from books on the shelves of
public libraries. This example is given to show how often the Bible has
been cited in the works of the world’s literature.
Historian Philip Schaff describes the uniqueness of the Bible and its
influence:
This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, con-

quered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Moham-
med, and Napoleon: without science and learning. He
shed more light on things human and divine than all
scholars and philosophers combined: without the elo-
quence of schools. He spoke such words of life as were
never spoken before or since, and produced effects which
lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a
single line. He set more pens in motion, and furnished
themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned
volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole
army of great men of ancient and modern times.
Bernard Ramm, a Christian apologist, elaborates:
There are complexities of bibliographical studies [on the

Bible] that are unparalleled in any other science or de-
partment of human knowledge. From the Apostolic Fa-
30
Chapter 2: The Authority of Scripture
thers dating from AD 95 to the modern times is one great

literary river inspired by the Bible — Bible dictionar-
ies, Bible encyclopedias, Bible lexicons, Bible atlases,
and Bible geographies. These may be taken as a starter.
Then at random, we may mention the vast bibliographies
around theology, religious education, hymnology, mis-
sions, the biblical languages, church history, religious bi-
ography, devotional works, commentaries, philosophies
of religion, evidences, apologetics, and on and on. There
seems to be an endless number.”
Kenneth Scott Latourette, in his History of Christianity, concludes:
It is evidence of His importance, of the effect that He

has had upon history and presumably, of the baffling
mystery of His being that no other life ever lived on this
planet has evoked so huge a volume of literature among
so many people and languages, and that, far from ebbing,
the flood continues to mount.
The Book That Has Survived Its Enemies
The Bible is unique in its survival. This does not prove that the Bible
is true, but it does prove that it stands alone among books. A student
seeking truth ought to consider a book that has these qualifications.
The interest of individuals in the Bible has often changed the course
of history. Cultural historian David Hall of Harvard University argues
that “the history of spirituality in Europe and America coincides closely
with the printing of the Bible and its dissemination.”
The translation of the Bible by a 14th century monk, John Wycliffe,
did much to reform the political structure of England. He laid the foun-
dation of reform of not only the Church, but also the State. Wycliffe
resolved to introduce the common people to the New Testament by trans-
lating it into the vernacular of the Saxon peasants.
Before the 15th century, every Englishman who could read was able
to question the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to both
civil and ecclesiastical government. Because of the perceived threat of
Wycliffe’s followers, the Lollards, who distributed and taught from Eng-
lish New Testaments, the Roman Catholic Church banned translation of
the Bible in 1408. The only copies that continued to exist in English were
31
hand copies of the Wycliffe originals.

In the 1440s, Johannes Gutenburg began experimenting with new,
mysterious ways of approaching printing. Skilled in engraving and met-
al-working, Gutenburg invented movable typeset and printed 200 copies
of the Latin Bible. By the time Martin Luther was born in 1483, Ger-
many had several large printing presses capable of printing hundreds of
books at a time. The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the transla-
tion of the entire Bible in the German language by Martin Luther. Within
a hundred years after the invention of printing press, the Bible began to
be translated and printed in every major language of the world.
In 1521, William Tyndale, an Oxford scholar, began to translate the
Bible into English. He did so because he was shocked to find that the
people of England were so scripturally illiterate. Tyndale translated the
entire Bible into English, printed copies of his version at Antwerp, and
illegally smuggled the Bibles into England. In 1535, he was betrayed by
a fellow Englishman and was burnt at the stake. His last words, report-
edly, were “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” Our freedom to
own a Bible was won by the blood of the martyrs.
The basis of the Protestant Reformation was Martin Luther’s teach-
ing on the universal priesthood of the believer: Every Christian is a priest
before God and is capable of interpreting the Bible for himself with the
aid of the Holy Spirit. In turn, every Christian wanted to own a Bible and
felt responsible to learn to read in order to more effectively commune
with God. The result of this teaching brought what some scholars believe
to be the highest literacy rate in the history of the world. Consider that
in 1525 in northern Germany, only five percent of the population was
literate. Yet 150 years later in New England, 95 percent was literate. This
great advance was the result of the Protestant Reformation, which began
to dominate the religious life of northern Europe.
The Puritans, although never a large group, have done more to influ-
ence the shape of civil government in the world than any other group of
people in modern history. The Puritans were the architects of a new form
of government — Christian self-government with union — that later be-
came the basis for America’s constitutional form of government. This
was the end result of the Puritan’s belief that the Bible holds principles
that are applicable to every area of human life.
Today, there is a resurgence of interest in the Bible and reading the
Scriptures in America. A 1990 Gallup poll found that 42 percent of
Americans view the Bible as God’s Word, up from 38 percent in 1978.
Asked if they read the Bible daily, 17 percent of the people in the same
32
survey said they did, versus 12 percent in 1978. In 1990, 21 percent of

those polled said they belonged to a Bible study group, compared with
19 percent in 1978. Although not gigantic shifts, these results indicate
that interest in the Bible in America is on the upswing.
The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
has led to an unprecedented hunger for the Bible. In China, the lifting
of restrictions by the government has led to the printing of millions of
Bibles in Chinese. Bible publishers expect that Cuba will be one of the
next strong fields of interest as that nation redefines its freedoms.
The Authority of the Word of God
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God and the Word was God … And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1,14).
The name given to Jesus is the Word. The authority of the Word of
God comes from the fact that it is the testimony Jesus Christ has given of
himself: “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true … I am one who
bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me.” (John 6:14,18).
The authority of the Word of God does not come from the study of
the historical accuracy of the Bible; the study of archaeology to prove
the validity of the Bible; nor the study of science to prove the account
of creation. Instead we believe the authority of the Word because it was
given by Jesus Christ. This is called “presuppositionalism.”
Presuppositionalism, a definition: The authority of the Word of God
is presupposed (believed ahead of time). If you have been born-again,
you are under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Word.
The Bible is the supreme source of authority for your life. The authority
of the Word of God does not come from us being able to prove that it
is true. The authority of the Word of God comes from the fact that it is
God’s Word. God spoke it; it is truth.
Presuppositionalism is the opposite of evidentialism, the idea that we
must seek to prove that the Bible is true by offering evidence. Evidential-
ism is not wrong, for it is important to defend what we believe. However,
it is impossible to “prove” Scripture using evidence from philosophy,
history, archaeology, science, and other rational proofs. To do so would
be to claim that these proofs had the infallible authority of Scripture.
The Word of God preached is all the evidence of the truth man needs
in order to be saved. We do not need to “prove” the Gospel in order for
33
it to be effective. The Word of God preached is a living and powerful

sword that pierces the heart of man. In fact, the Word preached is the
only weapon of our warfare.
Presuppositionalism does not deny evidentialism completely. Paul
preached a presuppositional sermon in Athens (Acts 17:23-31), but also
appealed to evidences that God exists from Greek philosophy. The Gos-
pel message for all time is this: “In the past you were ignorant, now you
are hearing the Gospel and are responsible to repent and believe!”
There is already much evidence of the truth in natural revelation
(Rom. 1:20). But the truth preached, not the evidence that the truth is
true, is the only effective message of salvation. “Let God be true, and
every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).
Two Question Test
The following is a two question self-test for deciding whether you are
a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist.
1. Where is your starting point for deciding what is true?
A. Evidence that supports the truth of the Word of God.
B. The Word of God alone.
2. What does man need in order to be saved?
A. Man needs more evidence so that he can decide what

is true — Man can only accept salvation once he under-
stands the truth.
B. Man needs to repent and believe the gospel — God

sets man free by giving him knowledge of the truth.
Truth is revealed not by evidence, but by the Word preached. Man’s

problem is not that he lacks understanding and needs more information.
His problem is that he is a sinner and needs repentance.
34
The Authority of the Word of God
Authority of the Bible is implied by the fact that we call it: “God’s
Word.” Inspiration is the means by which the Bible received its author-
ity. Canonization is the process by which the books of the Bible received
their final acceptance.
The people of God have played a crucial role in the process of canon-
ization through the centuries. In order to fulfill this role they had to look
for certain earmarks of divine authority. How would one recognize an
inspired book if he saw it? What are the characteristics which distinguish
a divine declaration from a purely human one? Several criteria were in-
volved in this recognition process.
The Principles for Discovering Canonicity*
False books and false writings were not scarce. Their ever-present
threat made it necessary for the people of God to carefully review their
sacred collection. Even books accepted by other believers or in earlier
days were subsequently brought into question by the church.
Operating in the whole process were some five basic criteria:
1. Is the book authoritative? Does it claim to be of God?

2. Is the book prophetic? Was it written by a prophet
of God?
3. Is the book authentic? Does it tell the truth about
God, man, etc.?
4. Is the book dynamic? Does it possess life transform-
ing power?
5. Is the book accepted as being inspired of God? Is this
book received or accepted by the people for whom it
was originally written?
The Authority of a Book
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teach-

ing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).
35
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but
men spoke from God as they were carried along by the
Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20,21).
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,

a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who
correctly handles the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15).
Each book in the Bible bears the claim of divine authority. Often the
explicit “thus says the Lord” is present. Sometimes the tone and exhorta-
tions reveal its divine origin. Always there is a divine mandate. In didac-
tic (teaching) literature, there are commandments for believers to obey
the “Word of the Lord.”
In the historical books, the exhortations are implied. The authorita-
tive “Word of the Lord” is about what God has done in the history of
His people. If a book lacked the authority of God, it was not considered
canonical and was rejected from the canon.
The books of the prophets were easily recognized by this principle
of authority. The repeated, “And the Lord said unto me,” or “The word
of the Lord came to me,” is abundant evidence of their claim to divine
authority.
Some books lacked the claim to be divine and were thereby rejected
as noncanonical. Perhaps this was the case with the book of Jasher and
the Book of the Wars of the Lord. Other books, such as Esther, were
questioned and challenged as to their divine authority but finally accept-
ed into the canon.
Not until it was obvious to all that the protection and therefore the
pronouncements of God on His people were unquestionably present in
Esther was this book accorded a permanent place in the Jewish canon.
Indeed, the very fact some canonical books were called into question
provides assurance that the believers were discriminating. Unless they
were convinced of the divine authority of the book it was rejected.
The Prophetic Authorship of a Book
Inspired books come only through men moved by the Holy Spirit and
known as prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21). The Word of God is given to His
people only through His prophets. Every biblical author had a prophetic
gift or function, even if he was not a prophet by occupation (Hebrews
1:1).
36
Paul argued in Galatians that his book should be accepted because

he was an apostle, “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus
Christ and God the Father” (Galatians 1:1). His book was to be accepted
because it was apostolic — it was from a God-appointed spokesman or
prophet. Books were to be rejected if they did not come from prophets of
God, as is evident from Paul’s warnings not to accept a book from some-
one falsely claiming to be an apostle (2 Thessalonians 2:2) and from the
warning in 2 Corinthians about false prophets (11:13).
John’s warnings about false messiahs and trying the spirits would
fall into the same category (1 John 2:18-19; and 4:1-3). It was because
of this prophetic principle that 2 Peter was disputed by some in the early
church. Until some were convinced that it was not a forgery, but that
it really came from the Apostle Peter as it claimed (1:1), it was not ac-
corded to be canonical.
The Authenticity of a Book
Another hallmark of inspiration is authenticity. Any book with fac-

tual or doctrinal errors (judged by previous revelations) could not be
inspired of God. God cannot lie; His word must be true and consistent.
In view of this principle, the Bereans accepted Paul’s teachings and
searched the Scriptures to see whether or not what Paul taught them was
really in accord with God’s revelation in the Old Testament (Acts 17:11).
Simple agreement with previous revelation would not therefore make
a teaching inspired. But contradiction of a previous revelation would
clearly indicate that a teaching was not inspired.
Much of the Apocrypha was rejected because of the principle of au-
thenticity. Their historical errors and theological heresies made it impos-
sible to accept them as from God despite their authoritative format. They
could not be from God and contain error at the same time.
Some canonical books were questioned on the basis of this same prin-
ciple. Could the letter of James be inspired if it contradicted Paul’s teach-
ing on justification by faith and not by works? Until their essential com-
patibility was seen, James was questioned by some. Others questioned
Jude because of its citation of inauthentic books, the Pseudepigrapha
(Jude 9, 14). Once it was understood that Jude’s quotations granted no
more authority to those books than Paul’s quotes from the non-Christian
poets (see also Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12), then there remained no reason
to reject Jude.
37
The Dynamic Nature of a Book
A fourth test for canonicity, at times less explicit than some of the
others, was the life-transforming ability of the book. “The word of God
is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). As a result it is used “for teaching,
for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
The Bible has the ability to convert the unbeliever and to build up
the believer in the faith. Untold thousands have experienced this power.
Drug addicts have been cured by it; derelicts have been transformed;
hate has been turned to love by reading it. Believers grow by studying it
(1 Peter 2:2). The sorrowing are comforted, the sinners are rebuked, and
the negligent are exhorted by the Scriptures. God’s Word possesses the
dynamic, transforming power of God. God vindicates the Bible’s author-
ity by its evangelistic and edifying powers.
The Apostle Paul revealed that the dynamic ability of inspired writ-
ings was involved in the acceptance of all Scripture as 2 Timothy 3:16,17
indicates. Paul said to Timothy: “The holy Scriptures … are able to make
you wise unto salvation” (v. 15).
The Bible indicates that indicates that the Word of God preached is
the means of grace God has provided to draw sinners to salvation (Ro-
mans 10:14). The Word of God is also powerful in the life of the believer.
Nourishment — Craving the milk of the word is a sign that you have
been born-again.
For you have been born-again, not of perishable seed, but

of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of
God. For all men are like grass, and all their glory is like
the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers
fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever. And this is
the word that was preached to you. Therefore, rid your-
selves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and
slander of every kind. Like new born babes, crave pure
spiritual milk, so that you may grow up in you salvation,
now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (1 Peter
1:23-2:3).
“It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by

every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mat-
thew 4:4).
38
I have not departed from the commands of His lips; I

have treasured the words of His mouth more than my
daily bread (Job 23:12).
When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy

and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O Lord God
Almighty (Jeremiah 15:16).
We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain

because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by now
you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you
the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You
need milk, not meat! Anyone who lives on milk, being
still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about
righteousness. But meat is for the mature, who by con-
stant use have trained themselves to distinguish good
from evil (Hebrews 5:11-13).
Cleansing — Reading the Word of God is one of the means of grace

God has given us for our sanctification — the cleansing of the heart and
mind from sin.
Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to

make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water
through the word, and to present her to himself as a radi-
ant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blem-
ish, but holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:26,27).
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive your-

selves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word
but does not do what it says is like a man who looks
at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he
looks like (James 1:22-25).
Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assur-

ance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us
from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed
with pure water (Hebrews 10:22).
39
Devotion — There is a distinction to be made between devotions and

devotion. Devotions are a time set aside for the reading of the Word.
Devotion is to God, and is the highest reason for reading Scripture in our
daily walk with God.
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of

the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat
of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and
on his law he meditates day and night (Psalm 1:1-3).
My eyes stay open through the watches of the night, that

I may meditate on your promises (Psalm 119:148).
“I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem;

they will never be silent day or night” (Isaiah 62:6).
“I will bring him near and he will come close to me, for
who is he who will devote himself to be close to me?”
(Jeremiah 30:21).
“Could you men not watch with me for one hour?” (Mat-
thew 26:40).
Spiritual Warfare — The Christian life is likened to a spiritual war-

fare. The power of the Word is likened to a living blade by which we may
win the battle.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than

any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing
soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts
and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12,13).
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this

world … He has made us competent as ministers of a
new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the
letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 10:4-6,
3:6).
Take the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God

(Ephesians 6:10-17).
40
The Acceptance of a Book
The final trademark of an authoritative writing is its recognition by

the people of God to whom it was initially given. God’s Word given
through His prophet and with His truth must be recognized by His peo-
ple. Later generations of believers sought to verify this fact. For if the
book was received, collected, and used as God’s work by those to whom
it was originally given, then its canonicity was established.
Communication and transportation was difficult in ancient times. It
sometimes took much time and effort on the part of the Church Fathers
to determine acceptance of a book. For this reason the full and final rec-
ognition by the whole Church of the 66 books of the canon took many,
many years.
The books of Moses were immediately accepted by the people of
God. They were collected, quoted, preserved, and transferred to future
generations. Paul’s epistles were immediately received by the church-
es to whom they were addressed (1 Thessalonians 2:13) and by other
apostles (2 Peter 3:16). Some writings were immediately rejected by the
people of God as lacking divine authority (2 Thessalonians 2:2). False
prophets (Matthew 7:21-23) and lying spirits were to be tested and re-
jected (1 John 4:1-3), as indicated in many instances within the Bible
itself (Jeremiah 5:2; 14:14).
Other messages and books were rejected because they held out false
hope (1 Kings 22:6-8) or rang a false alarm (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Thus,
they were not conducive to building up the believer in the truth of Christ.
Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free”
(John 8:32). False teaching never liberates; only the truth has emancipat-
ing power.
Some biblical books, such as Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, were
questioned because they were thought by some to lack this dynamic edi-
fying power. Once they were convinced that the Song was not sensual
but deeply spiritual and that Ecclesiastes was not skeptical and pessimis-
tic but positive and edifying (e.g., 12:9,10), then there remained little
doubt as to their canonicity.
This principle of acceptance led some to question for a time certain
biblical books such as 2 and 3 John. Their private nature and limited cir-
culation being what it was, it is understandable that there would be some
reluctance to accept them until they were assured that the books were
received by the first-century people of God as from the apostle John.
It is almost needless to add that not everyone gave even initial rec-
41
ognition to a prophet’s message. God vindicated His prophets against

those who rejected them (e.g., 1 Kings 22:1-38) and, when challenged,
He designated who His people were. When the authority of Moses was
challenged by Korah and others, the earth opened and swallowed them
alive (Numbers 16). The role of the people of God was decisive in the
recognition of the Word of God. God determined the authority of the
books of the canon, but the people of God were called upon to discover
which books were authoritative and which were not. To assist them in
this discovery were these five tests of canonicity.
The Procedure for Discovering Canonicity
We should not imagine a committee of Church Fathers with a large

pile of books and these five guiding principles before them when we
speak of the process of canonization. The process was far more natural
and dynamic. Some principles are only implicit in the process.
Although all five characteristics are present in each inspired writing,
not all of the rules of recognition are apparent in the decision on each ca-
nonical book. It was not always immediately obvious to the early people
of God that some historical books were “dynamic” or “authoritative.”
More obvious to them was the fact certain books were “prophetic” and
“accepted.”
One can easily see how the implied “thus says the Lord” played a
most significant role in the discovery of the canonical books which reveal
God’s overall redemptive plan. Nevertheless, the reverse is sometimes
true; namely, the power and authority of the book are more apparent than
its authorship (e.g., Hebrews). In any event, all five characteristics were
involved in discovering each canonical book, although some were used
only implicitly.
Some principles operate negatively in the process. Some of the rules
for recognition operate more negatively than others. For instance, the
principles of authenticity would more readily eliminate non-canonical
books than indicate which books are canonical. There are no false teach-
ings that are canonical, but there are many true writings that are not
inspired. Likewise, many books that edify or have a dynamic are not
canonic, even though no canonical book is without significance in the
saving plan of God.
Similarly, a book may claim to be authoritative without being in-
spired, as may of the apocryphal writings indicate, but no book can be
canonical unless it is really authoritative. In other words, if the book
42
lacks authority it cannot be from God. But the simple fact that a book
claims authority does not make it inspired. The principle acceptance has
a primarily negative function. Even the fact that a book is received by
some of the people of God is not a proof of inspiration.
In later generations some Christians, not thoroughly informed about
the acceptance or rejection by the people of God to whom it was origi-
nally addressed, gave local and temporal recognition to books which are
not canonical (e.g., some apocryphal books).
Simply because a book was received somewhere by some believers
is far from proof of its inspiration. The initial reception by the people of
God who were in the best position to test the prophetic authority of the
book is crucial. It took some time for all segments of subsequent genera-
tion to be fully informed about the original circumstances. Thus, their
acceptance is important but supportive in nature.
The most essential principle supersedes all others. Beneath the whole
process of recognition lay one fundamental principle — the prophetic
nature of the book. If a book were written by an accredited prophet of
God, claiming to give an authoritative pronouncement from God, then
there was no need to ask the other questions. Of course the people of God
recognized the book as powerful and true when it was given to them by
a prophet of God.
When there were no directly available confirmations of the prophet’s
call (as there often were, cf. Exodus 4:1-9), then the authenticity, dy-
namic ability, and reception of a book by the original believing commu-
nity would be essential to its later recognition. On the other hand, simply
establishing the book as prophetic was sufficient in itself to confirm the
canonicity of the book.
The question as to whether inauthenticity would disconfirm a pro-
phetic book is purely hypothetical. No book given by God can by false.
If a book claiming to be prophetic seems to have indisputable falsehood,
then the prophetic credentials must be re-examined. God cannot lie. In
this way the other four principles serve as a check on the prophetic char-
acter of the books of the canon.
The Bible Is Inspired of God
Through the centuries Christians have been called upon to give a rea-
son or defense for their faith (1 Peter 3:15). Since the Scriptures lay at
the very foundation of their faith in Christ, it has been necessary for
Christian apologists to provide evidence for the inspiration of the Bible.
43
It is one thing to claim divine inspiration for the Bible and quite an-
other to provide evidence to confirm that claim. Before examining the
supporting evidence for the inspiration of Scripture, let us summarize
precisely what it is that inspiration claims.
The inspiration of the Bible is not to be confused with a poetic inspi-
ration. Inspiration as applied to the Bible refers to the God-given author-
ity of its teachings for the thought and life of the believer.
Biblical Description of Inspiration
The word inspiration means God-breathed, and it refers to the process

by which the Scriptures or writings were invested with divine authority
for doctrine and practice (2 Timothy 3:16,17). It is the writings which are
said to be inspired. The writers, however, were moved by the Holy Spirit
to record their messages. Hence, when viewed as a total process, inspira-
tion is what occurs when writers moved by the Holy Spirit record God-
breathed writings. Three elements are contained in this total process of
inspiration: the divine causality, the prophetic agency, and the resultant
written authority.
The Three Elements in Inspiration
The first element in inspiration is God’s causality. God is the Prime

Mover by whose promptings the prophets were led to write. The ultimate
origin of inspired writings is the desire of God to communicate with
man. The second factor is the prophetic agency. The Word of God comes
through men of God. God uses the instrument of human personality to
convey His message. Finally, the written prophetic utterance is invested
with divine authority. The prophet’s words are God’s Word.
The Characteristics of an Inspired Writing
The first characteristic of inspiration is implied in the fact that it is an

inspired writing; that is, it is verbal. The very words of the prophets were
God-given, not by dictation but by the Spirit-directed employment of the
prophet’s own vocabulary and style. Inspiration also claims to be plenary
(full). No part of Scripture is without divine inspiration. Paul wrote, “All
Scripture is inspired by God.”
In addition, inspiration implies the inerrancy of the teaching of the
original documents (called autographs). Whatever God utters is true and
44
without error, and the Bible is said to be an utterance of God. Finally,

inspiration results in the divine authority of the Scriptures. The teaching
of Scripture is binding on the believer for faith and practice.
Inspiration is not something merely attributed to the Bible by Chris-
tians; it is something the Bible claims for itself. There are literally hun-
dreds of references within the Bible about its divine origin.
The Inspiration of the Old Testament
The Old Testament claims to be a prophetic writing. The familiar

“thus says the Lord” fills its pages. False prophets and their works were
excluded from the house of the Lord. Those prophecies which proved to
be from God were preserved in a sacred place. This growing collection
of sacred writings was recognized and even quoted by later prophets as
the Word of God.
Jesus and the New Testament writers held these writings in the same
high esteem; they claimed them to be the unbreakable, authoritative, and
inspired Word of God. By numerous references to the Old Testament as a
whole, to its basic sections, and to almost every Old Testament book, the
New Testament writers overwhelmingly attested to the claim of divine
inspiration for the Old Testament.
The Inspiration of the New Testament
Matthew 16:13-19 establishes the authority invested in His apostles

who were the authors of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.
We have the testimony of Christ himself that the Apostles were given the
“keys to the kingdom.” These were men who had the authority to com-
pile the Scripture of the New Covenant.
The New Testament was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ min-
istry — by His immediate disciples, Peter, John and Matthew — and by
other men having apostolic authority who later arose in the first century
Church — Paul, Luke, Mark, James and Jude.
Eusebius, the 4th century historian, drawing information from Papias,
who was the Apostle John’s student, tells us that the Gospel of Mark was
actually Peter’s Gospel of Jesus Christ as told to his student Mark:
The Elder (John) used to say this also: “Mark, having

been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down everything
that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ,
45
not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor

a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he
accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as neces-
sity required … So then Mark made no mistake, writing
down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned
them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit
anything that he had heard, not to include any false state-
ment among them.”
The apostolic writings were boldly described in the same authorita-

tive terms which denoted the Old Testament as the Word of God. They
were called “Scripture,” “prophecy,” etc. Every book in the New Tes-
tament contains some claim to divine authority. The New Testament
church read, circulated, collected, and quoted the New Testament books
right along with the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament.
The contemporaries and immediate successors of the apostolic age
recognized the divine origin of the New Testament writings along with
the Old. With only heretical exceptions, all of the great Fathers of the
Christian church from the earliest times held to the divine inspiration of
the New Testament. In brief, there is continuous claim for the inspiration
of both Old and New Testaments from the time of their composition to
the present. In modern times this claim has been seriously challenged
by many from inside and outside Christendom. This challenge calls for
substantiation of the claim for inspiration of the Bible.
Sola Scriptura: The Authority of Scripture “alone”
It is the authority of Scripture alone, known as the doctrine of sola

scriptura, that tells us who God is, and what is the true path to salvation.
In addition, the Bible is central to all other knowledge. The Word of God
gives all other disciplines their truth and credibility, not vice versa.
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi,

He asked His disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that
the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the
Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah,
or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do
you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus said to
him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and
46
blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in

heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will
not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom
of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have
been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
shall have been loosed in heaven’” (Matthew 16:13-19).
In this passage, Peter confesses plainly and clearly that Jesus was the
promised Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus declares
Peter to be blessed. He adds that he had named him Peter (in the Greek:
Petros). The word translated “rock” (petra) in this passage is similar. By
this Jesus Christ indicates that someone who truly believes that He is the
Messiah and God is solid and cannot be swayed in his obedience to the
Lord’s commandments or doctrines.
The Roman Catholic Church has interpreted this verse to mean that
Peter is the Rock, and have derived their doctrine of infallibility of the
pope from this Scripture. Yet it is clear from the Greek grammatical
structure of the passage that this in “this rock” refers to the prior sen-
tence: “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you.” Although it is clear
that Jesus was using a play on words to drive home His point, it is also
clear that “this rock,” petra, is not Peter per se, but namely the revelation
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus declares the authority He would invest in Peter and all His dis-
ciples who make up the Church. His disciples were liable to mistakes
and sins in their own conduct, but they were kept from error in stating
the nature of God, the way of salvation, the rule of obedience, the be-
liever’s character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and
hypocrites. In such matters, their decision would be correct, and would
be confirmed in heaven. No one can forgive sins, but God only. But the
Church is given the mandate to declare God’s judgment on sin ahead of
time. The “binding and loosing” signified “forbidding and allowing,” or
to teach what is lawful or unlawful according to the Word of God.
The Scriptures declare the authority of Jesus Christ over all things
and the authority He has given the Church to declare the Truth:
“Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he
opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open” (Isaiah 22:22).
“I am the First and the Last, and the living One; and I was dead, and
behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Ha-
des” (Revelation 1:17,18).
47
“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy,

who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut,
and who shuts and no one opens, says this” (Revelation 3:7).
From the time of the Apostles to the first lists of books in the New
Testament recorded by second and third century Church Fathers, there
was a consensus as to which writings were apostolic and thus scriptural
in origin.
The Church Fathers also taught the “Rule of Faith” — essentially
an early form of the Apostles’ Creed and a catechism (a body of apos-
tolic teachings) — which was memorized and passed on orally by the
early bishops who were ordained by the Apostles. The stewards of Truth
during this interim period were known as the Apostolic Fathers. They
were those who had had some contact with one or more of the Apostles.
The first century “Apostolic Fathers” — Clement, Ignatius, Papias and
Polycarp — are so named because of their association with one of the
Apostles. We look to the Church Fathers in determining the succession
of the true faith between the time of the Apostles and the time when the
canon of the New Testament was received.
Christ gave His disciples authority, “I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19), so this authority is derived from
the Word made flesh. But somewhere during the time of the early Church,
Scripture had to be written, judged, and included in what we now know
as the New Testament canon. This is why we need to recognize that
strong authority was invested in the Church from the beginning in decid-
ing what was correct doctrine.
Protestants believe that final authority comes from Scripture alone. If
we believe sola scriptura, then who decided what books belong in the
Bible? Jesus did not write the Bible, and since the Bible could not have
written itself, this obviously implies an authority separate from Scrip-
ture. The fact is, the Church preceded the Bible; the Bible did not pre-
cede the Church. The Apostles and their associates defined the Word of
Truth and the Church of the first and second century received the books
that were canonical and rejected books that were not.
Sola scriptura does not mean that every believer with a Bible is a
pope unto himself. Sola scriptura does not mean the Bible alone should
be interpreted without reference to the counsel of Church history, the
creeds and councils of the Church.
Sola scriptura means that only the Bible is infallible, and that Scrip-
ture alone tells us all the Truth we need to know about saving faith. It
does not mean (in fact, it cannot mean) that there is no authority outside
48
of Scripture. Men may make mistakes and they may sin; but Jesus’ Apos-
tles, those they ordained, and the Church councils who were invested
with the authority of the Holy Spirit maintained orthodoxy in their teach-
ing on the way of salvation and the basic doctrines summarized in the
Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
Jesus gave His Apostles infallibility through the Holy Spirit in be-
ing able to expound on Truth. The Holy Spirit also guided the Church
in being able to receive writings that were genuinely apostolic, divinely
inspired, and infallible.
The individualistic “Christianity” of the modern age would never
have stood the test of time throughout the early Church period. Today’s
Christians are inclined to believe that one cannot read any of the Church
Fathers uncritically. Evangelical Christianity has taught that the “Rule
of Faith” of the Church Fathers must first have a biblical reference to
validate it and filter out the imperfections in their thinking. But this is a
contradiction since the “Rule of Faith” is what was used to measure what
was perfect.
God’s Word alone is perfect, but we need to include in our idea of
Scriptural infallibility that God used imperfect men to write Scripture
and that imperfect men later received the books that belonged in the
Canon — without error.
While the Apostles and the Church Fathers themselves were fallible
men, we must understand that what the historic Church said about Scrip-
ture is true. Rather than seek to conform the doctrines of the Church
Fathers to our own understanding of Scripture, we must look at my un-
derstanding of Scripture and ask: “Does our understanding of Scripture
conform to the understanding of the one holy catholic and apostolic
Church?”
Who canonized the Old Testament?
If we accept the words of Jesus Christ as authoritative, then we have

\an explicit statement from that defines the canon of the Old Testament,
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I

spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things
which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and
the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He
opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (Luke
24:44,45).
49
Here Jesus refers to what the Jews called in Hebrew language, the
TANAK — the Law, the Prophets and the Writings — as “the Scriptures.”
TANAK (sometimes spelled “Tanakh”) is an acronym for the Hebrew
Bible consisting of the initial Hebrew letters (T + N + K) of each of the
three major parts of Scripture. Since the ancient Hebrew language had
no clear vowels, subsequent vowel sounds were added to the consonants
resulting in the word TaNaK. The major portions of the Hebrew Bible
represented by these three letters are:
Torah (‫ )הרות‬meaning “Instruction” or “Law.” Also

called the Chumash ‫ שמוח‬meaning: “The five”; “The five
books of Moses.” Also called the “Pentateuch.” The To-
rah is often referred to as the law of the Jewish people.
Nevi’im (‫ )םיאיבנ‬meaning “Prophets.” This term is as-

sociated with anything to do with the prophets.
Ketuvim (‫ )םיבותכ‬meaning “Writings.” This part of the

Tanakh is further separated into different sections in-
cluding a group of history books, wisdom books, poetry
books and psalms (New World Encyclopedia).
The TANAK is identical to the Old Testament canon accepted by Prot-

estants. This saying of Jesus is one of the main reasons why Protestants
(for the most part) after the time of Martin Luther have rejected the deu-
terocanonical books, also known as the “apocrypha.” Although the Jews
read these books for edification, they were not considered authoritative.
Who canonized the New Testament?
Several years ago after publishing the above section on sola scriptura
as an article, I noted a problem with simultaneously holding to the iner-
rancy of Scripture and the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. Since the
original manuscripts of the Bible contain no “table of contents,” how can
we can be sure that all the right books were included or excluded? Jesus
validated all the books of the Old Testament, but what about the books
written after He lived?
How do we know whether several so-called “disputed books” — 2

Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John and Jude — are authentic?
50
I’ve asked this question of a few theologians, including two who

worked on the council that drafted the Chicago Statement of Biblical In-
errancy. The answer was always unsatisfying. They essentially said that
given the evidence, we just have to make a judgment call.
I therefore concluded that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
churches must have been right when they taught that the Church Fathers
had the authority to canonize the Bible and must have been made infal-
lible by the Holy Spirit in their ability to do so. If you read the above, you
can easily come to the conclusion, as I did, that there was an authority
invested in the Church to decide the canon.
This of course flies in the face of the Reformed principle of “Scrip-
ture interprets Scripture.” If we hold to sola scriptura, then how can we
even talk about a canonization process? The result of that journey of
thought is the last chapter of this book, “Protestantism: Both Orthodox
and Catholic!” I still think the article has great merit, but I no longer
believe that the Church Fathers canonized the Bible. I have since edited
the piece to say that the Church Fathers received and defended the canon.
They did not canonize the New Testament.
So the question remains, “Who canonized the New Testament?”
Around the year 2000, I was writing the material for a video series
and book, The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity & Divinity of
Christ, I discovered that none of the Church Fathers ever spoke of the
canon as something that was in the process of being recognized, but
all assumed that the New Testament books they quoted were Scripture.
Even Clement of Rome gives these books the same level of scriptural
authority as the Old Testament at a very early date — in the Epistle of
Clement, which has an early date of AD 68 and an outside late date of
AD 96.
I discovered that the canon is self-authenticating. This was a big sur-
prise to me, because I had never heard this taught. However, I believe
this view is irrefutable. There is a reason why certain things are men-
tioned in Scripture, while other things are not. There is a reason we are
given four Gospels from which to complete a picture and not just one.
If we understand the relationship between the unique parts and the syn-
optic passages, then the self-authenticating nature of Scripture becomes
apparent.
One of the most important examples of this idea is that none of the
books of the New Testament mention the destruction of the Temple in
51
AD 70. The liberal idea that certain New Testament books were written
after AD 70 is ludicrous. Liberal theologians often claim that the three
writers of the Synoptic Gospels forged an ad hoc prophecy in the Mount
Olivet Discourse. In addition, John prophesies the destruction of the
Temple in Revelation and several other New Testament writers allude
to the end of Temple worship. According to the liberals, these “prophe-
cies” were written after the fact. But they ignore that fact that there is no
New Testament writer who mentions the prophecy’s fulfillment. It just
doesn’t make any sense. It is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testa-
ment writings. Therefore, many have concluded that none of these books
could have been written after the fact.
On the other hand, post-AD 70 books such as The Epistle of Barnabas
mention the Temple’s destruction — the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy.
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple,

how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not
in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of
God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they
worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord
speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven
with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?”
“Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth
My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me,
or what is the place of My rest?” Ye perceive that their
hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they
who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it
up again.” It has so happened. For through their going to
war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as
the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it
was revealed that the city and the temple and the people
of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith,
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord
will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-
fold and tower, to destruction.” And it so happened as the
Lord had spoken (Barnabas 16:3,4).
This passage clearly places the composition of the Epistle of Barn-

abas after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, but before The Bar-
Kokhba Revolt from 132-135. The Epistle of Barnabas never enjoyed
52
canonical authority for this reason.

So we have that dividing line of AD 70 (I’d argue for AD 68) as the
cut-off date for all books in the canon with the slightest possible ex-
ception of John’s Gospel (which does not contain the destruction of the
Temple prophecy) and his three Epistles.
We also have to remember that the New Testament writings were
addressed to those who knew the authors personally, In turn, their fol-
lowers and disciples read the accounts and letters knowing the histori-
cal context in which the writings were given. All the books of the New
Testament canon have this self-authenticating quality. No other existing
books from the first century are like this.
Nobody forges a fake account or a false prophecy and delivers it to
supposed eyewitnesses of the events all the while expecting them to re-
ceive the writing as inspired and inerrant.
Simply, if a book were not authentic, whether it was written before or
after AD 70, the Christians living at the time would have known it.
How was the New Testament canon assembled?
Protestants teach sola scriptura — that all the Christian needs to

know about matters pertaining to salvation is contained in Scripture. And
since the Bible contains no “table of contents” this presents a problem
when there are challenges to the canonicity of specific books.
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the authority of
church councils, creeds and canons (or the “Rule of Faith”) not only to
determine matters pertaining to saving faith, but to determine the canon
of Scripture itself. Here is the way one Eastern Orthodox writer put it:
“The church preceded the Bible; the Bible did not precede the church.”
Of course, the writer was using this argument to validate the continued
authority of the church to determine matters of faith and doctrine infal-
libly.
What I am most concerned about is how to counter the arguments
of modern liberals who have popularized the idea that the late second
century fathers, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, began to assemble the
books of the New Testament —and even to revise and edit them — only
when the Gnostics and other heretics became a threat to their authority.
Was the New Testament received as a whole or was it assembled?
Most evangelicals concede that New Testament canonization was a
process that took a century or more. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman
Catholic view is that it was the Church itself that was given the authority
53
to infallibility decide the canon. After considering the above alternatives,

I discovered another idea that is more plausible.
The New Testament canonizes itself through internal evidence
The authority of the canon is implicit in the text itself. First, Jesus
canonized the Old Testament in Luke chapter 24. In fact, this is the only
passage in the entire Bible in which the TANAK (the Hebrew Old Tes-
tament: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings) is referred to as “the
Scriptures.” Likewise, the entire New Testament was self-consciously
canonized by Peter and John. How they did this is staring us right in the
face, if we would only see it. Surprisingly, Luke, who was not an eyewit-
ness to Jesus, was a key link in this process.
If we begin with the writings of Peter, John and Matthew as genuine
apostolic writings, we can quickly find an internal “pedigree” for all the
books of the New Testament with the exception of Hebrews, James and
Jude. And I believe even these are not a problem if we look at other in-
ternal evidences within those books and some external evidence from the
book of 1 Clement that was written between AD 68 to 96.
In fact, Peter, prior to his martyrdom in Rome, knew the writings of
Paul (2 Peter 3:14-16) and therefore must have known most of the other
writings of the Apostles. The majority of apostolic writings (Matthew,
Mark, Luke, Acts, Paul’s Epistles and obviously his own two Epistles)
were available to Peter in Rome by the mid-60s. According to 2 Timothy
4:9-12, Luke, Mark and Timothy were in Rome at the time of the mar-
tyrdom of Paul and Peter around AD 67. In fact, I look at the following
passage as a key to when most of the books of the New Testament could
have been assembled in one place.
Be diligent to come to me quickly; for Demas has for-

saken me, having loved this present world, and has de-
parted for Thessalonica — Crescens for Galatia, Titus
for Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring
him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. And Ty-
chicus I have sent to Ephesus. Bring the cloak that I left
with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books,
especially the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:9-12).
Two questions we could ask here: “Which books?” and “Which

parchments?”
54
Parchments are blank pieces of papyrus or animal skins used for pre-
paring manuscripts. We don’t know which “books” Paul is referring to
here. Some have suggested that Paul is referring to scrolls of the Old
Testament. However, it is unlikely that toward the end of his life, Paul
is asking two important bishops in the early church to take a danger-
ous journey to Rome before winter in order to prepare an edition of the
Hebrew Scriptures. It’s also improbable that Paul needed the Scriptures
for some other purpose. Rome had Jewish synagogues with these writ-
ings and Paul, as a rabbi, would have also committed huge portions of
Scripture to memory.
Paul almost certainly meant his own writings and perhaps other Ap-
ostolic writings that Timothy and Mark had assembled. Some think that
the “cloak” he refers to here is a large piece of waterproof leather used to
wrap scrolls and parchments — sort of a first century book case that was
used to protect parchment and papyrus when traveling.
But what is significant about this passage is that it puts five impor-
tant New Testament figures in Rome around AD 66 or 67. We know
that Mark was an associate of Peter (1 Peter 5:13). The second century
Church Father, Papias of Hierapolis, relates that Mark was Peter’s inter-
preter and wrote his Gospel as a record of what Peter preached at Rome.
We know that that Timothy was Paul’s scribe (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2
Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1; Phi-
lippians 1:1). Timothy is even mentioned as being present at the writing
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:23). Therefore, I personally
believe the most likely explanation for the authorship of Hebrews was
that it was composed during this time as one of the final letters of Paul.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was then redacted soon after Paul’s death in
AD 67 or 68 by Luke, Mark or Timothy — or perhaps by an elder or a
scribe from the Church at Rome, such as Clement.
We have an interesting early testimony from Clement of Rome (c. AD
68-96) on the martyrdom of Peter and Paul near the end of the reign of
the Emperor Nero (according to a Church tradition on June 29, AD 67).
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to

the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble ex-
amples furnished in our own generation. Through envy
and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of
the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us
set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through
unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous
55
labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom,

departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy,
Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, af-
ter being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled
to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and
west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith,
having taught righteousness to the whole world, and
come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered mar-
tyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from
the world, and went into the holy place, having proved
himself a striking example of patience (1 Clement 5).
If we accept 1 Clement as a reliable testimony (although not authori-

tative as Scripture) then we also have to put Peter in Rome along with
Paul, Luke, Mark and Timothy — writers to whom are attributed 19 out
of the 27 books of the New Testament. Thus we have these 19 books of
the New Testament in Rome in about AD 67.
This body of work was then collated passed on to the last remaining
Apostle, John, in Ephesus who assembled the canon together with his
own writings and passed it on to his disciples. The remaining books, the
Gospel of Matthew, the Epistles of James and Jude are associated with
the Jerusalem church and would have come through Antioch to Ephesus
after the destruction of Jerusalem.
This is why Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of
Antioch are able to quote freely from so many New Testament books as
though they were already accepted as authoritative by the late first cen-
tury and early second century. It is significant that these bishops repre-
sent the furthest eastern and western centers of Christianity at the end of
the Apostolic era in AD 70 — Antioch, Asia Minor and Rome. For there
to be such continuity in the New Testament texts they quote, the canon
must have been circulated in some type of systematic way in order for it
to have reached such a wide audience.
The testimony from the late first and second century Church Fathers
(Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria) is
that each of the books received its authority directly from the Apostles
Peter, John and James the brother of Jesus.
1. The Gospel of Matthew originated in Jerusalem or

Antioch and received its authority from the Apostle
Matthew and the other 12 Apostles.
56
2. Mark received its authority from the Apostle Peter.

3. Luke from the Apostle Paul (and the 12 Apostles).
4. John from the Apostle John.
5. Acts from the Apostle Paul (and the 12 Apostles).
6. All the letters of Paul from the Apostle Peter (see: 2
Peter 3:14-16).
7. The letters of Peter from the Apostle Peter.
8. The letters of John from the Apostle John.
9. Revelation from the Apostle John.
10. Hebrews gets its earliest mention by Clement of
Rome (c. AD 68-96).
Hebrews is the only “Pauline” Epistle of disputed authorship that

most modern scholars think has no clear link to Paul. However, Hebrews
is quoted extensively in the earliest writings, such as 1 Clement. Several
second century Church Fathers thought Hebrews was of Paul, as did
John Calvin and many of the Reformers, including the modern scholar
R.C. Sproul.
11. James from James the brother of Jesus (and the 12 Apostles).
12. Jude from James (and from the 12 Apostles).
These two letters have enough internal testimony to place the authors
as brothers named James and Jude in the church at Jerusalem. It is a
small step of process of elimination to identify them as the brothers of
Jesus.
Early Codices
Another key to confirming this view is the fact that the earliest New
Testament papyri (papyrus fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries)
were sometimes bound in codices of five books:
1. The four Gospels

2. Paul’s nine Epistles to seven churches and Hebrews
3. Paul’s five Pastoral Epistles
4. The seven Catholic Epistles
5. Revelation
In fact, the earliest fragments from the mid-second century appear
57
right around the time that “books” came into use of rather than scrolls. It
is then not too much of a stretch to say that the early Christians scribes
either popularized or invented the codex in order to collate the books of
the New Testament and distribute them over a wide geographical area.
This would eliminate the problem of having a separate scroll for each
book that might be lost or damaged.
We should then examine the earliest testimony of the Church fathers,
especially Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian and Clement of Alexandria to confirm the apostolic authority and
authentic authorship of the New Testament books. Irenaeus is arguing to
defend the canon against heretics who would make the number of Gos-
pels more or less. He is writing as if this is already established, not as
one who is arguing to establish a canon. Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp,
received the canon from the generation of Christians who were taught
by the Apostles themselves. The term that evangelicals should use is
“receive as canonical,” rather than “determine” or “choose” which books
were canonical. Thus the canon was not assembled over a long period
of time, but was known by the second and third generation of Christians
who defended its authority against the claims of heretics.
Another important key is the Muratorian Canon (AD 170) is the earli-
est list of the New Testament books. It names all of the New Testament
books in our canon today with the exception of James — which could
have been overlooked or mentioned in a missing portion of the fragment.
From this, I draw the conclusion that a New Testament canon existed
at the very latest by the early-second century, and there is strong evi-
dence that all 27 books of the New Testament were known as Scripture
by bishops whose ministries began in the latter part of the first century,
such as Clement of Rome, Papias of Hierapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna and
Ignatius of Antioch.
* Editor’s note: I have made use of the book From God To Us Revised and Ex-
panded: How We Got Our Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, whose
material has been edited and paraphrased in the sections following: “Principles for
Discovering Canonicity.”
58

1. Would you consider yourself to be more of an evidentialist
or a presuppositionalist in your view and defense of the Word
of God? Defend your answer.
2. Define the words “canon,” “canonization” and

“canonicity.”
3. Is canonicity a quality that a book of the Bible has always

possessed — or is the canonization of a particular book a
determination made by the Church long ago? In other words,
do you believe that the Church canonized the Bible — or is
the canon itself self-authenticating? Explain why.
59
Chapter 3
Modern Dissent from the Creeds
Driving down a country road sometime, you might see a fundamen-

talist church with a sign proudly proclaiming: “No book but the Bible —
No creed but Christ.” The problem with this statement is that the word
creed (from the Latin: credo) simply means “belief.” All Christians have
beliefs, regardless of whether they are written. The creeds of the early
Church were nothing more than scriptural statements of faith put into a
systematic format.
The emphasis on creeds and confessions suffered a blow at the end of
the last century, when conservative evangelicals reacted against Protes-
tant denominations that fell into liberalism. “Dead orthodoxy” became a
term to describe churches that officially held to the creeds and a confes-
sion of faith, yet had little fruit to testify to the genuine salvation of their
members. To vanquish this apostasy, the evangelical movement (and the
fundamentalists a few years later) emerged emphasizing salvation as an
individual experience and the “literal” interpretation of Scripture.
The evangelical and fundamentalist movements were bulwarks
against liberal apostasy. They did away with most of the public reading
of Scripture, creeds and confessions. Liturgical services were abandoned
in favor of a less formal, “seeker-friendly” type of evangelical meeting.
There is certainly nothing wrong with this. But in abandoning the liturgy,
they forgot to teach new church members the core elements of the faith
found in the creeds and confessions. De-emphasizing the public reading
of creeds was intentionally good, but it had disastrous consequences.
Among Pentecostals and charismatics — two of the most recent
groups to have come out of the evangelical and fundamentalist move-
ments — we see an even greater emphasis on throwing off formalism
and dead orthodoxy in favor of freedom of worship and spiritual experi-
ence. Yet we most often find heresies among churches that stress expe-
60
Chapter 3: Why Creeds and Confessions?
rience over doctrine. This is not to say that Christians must now throw
off their experience and freedom in order to return to dead liturgical
services. Simply, what is needed at this time is a revival of confessional
orthodoxy.
We call this movement — “confessionalism” — which is nothing
more than the historic faith of the Early Church Fathers, Augustine, Lu-
ther, Calvin and the Puritans. Through even a casual study of the creeds
and confessions, you will find that confessionalism stands in stark con-
trast to what is being offered today by evangelical Christianity.
Today, we have more options than ever before for becoming here-
tics. Modern evangelical leaders make all sorts of wild claims and assert
teachings that are not orthodox. The modern Church has promoted many
doctrines that are ancient heresies. Pelagianism, Sabellianism, modal-
ism, antinomianism and Gnosticism are frequent heresies. Yet I do not
believe that most modern evangelicals intentionally hold to heresies. I
believe that some have propagated these ideas due to their ignorance or
carelessness in what they have written and preached. Today, we all need
a greater knowledge of confessional orthodoxy.
I offer the following recovery plan to all evangelicals who wish to
build a comprehensive systematic theology based on biblical orthodoxy:
First, avoid the trash that is churned out by the modern evangelical
pulp mills! Once this faulty paradigm is demolished, you should begin
to build a new foundation for your faith by studying the creeds of the
early Church. Then graduate to the more exhaustive and theologically
comprehensive confessions of the Reformation period. (I have included
a list of these confessions at the end of chapter six for further study.)
You should then read some select writings of Augustine, Luther, Cal-
vin, Knox, and the Puritans. With an understanding of confessional or-
thodoxy, you will see more clearly that these giants of the faith were
theologically grounded in the creeds and confessions. Then read some
of the sermons and writings of great modern Christian evangelists and
theologians such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley,
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, J.C. Ryle and Martin Lloyd
Jones.
I hope that by the study of these timeless, immutable truths, you will
strengthen your resolve to press into God in prayer and study of Scrip-
ture in order to know Jesus Christ in a fuller, more intimate way.
61
The Apostles’ Creed with Notes and Explanations*
A creed generally emphasizes the beliefs opposing those errors that

the compilers of the creed think most dangerous at the time. The Creed
of the Council of Trent, which was drawn up by the Roman Catholics in
the 1500s, emphasized those beliefs that Roman Catholics and Protes-
tants were arguing about most furiously at the time. The Nicene Creed,
drawn up in the fourth century, is emphatic in affirming the Deity of
Christ, since it is directed against the Arians, who denied that Christ was
fully God. The Apostles’ Creed, drawn up in the first or second century,
emphasizes the true humanity, including the material body, of Jesus,
since that is the point that the heretics of the time (Gnostics, Marcionites
and later Manicheans) denied (see 1 John 4:1-3).
Thus the Apostles’ Creed is as follows:
• I believe in God the Father Almighty,

• Maker of Heaven and Earth,
The Gnostics held that the physical universe is evil and that God did
not make it.
• And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,

• Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
• Born of the Virgin Mary,
The Gnostics were agreed that the orthodox Christians were wrong
in supposing that God had taken human nature or a human body. Some
of them distinguished between Christ, whom they acknowledged to be
in some sense divine, and the man Jesus, who was at most an instru-
ment through whom the Christ spoke. They held that the man Jesus did
not become the bearer or instrument of the Christ until the Spirit de-
scended upon him at his baptism, and that the Spirit left him before the
crucifixion, so that the Spirit had only a brief and tenuous association
with matter and humanity. Others affirmed that there was never a man
Jesus at all, but only the appearance of a man, through which appearance
wise teachings were given to the first disciples. Against this the orthodox
Christians affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the
Holy Spirit (thus denying the Gnostic position that the Spirit had noth-
ing to do with Jesus until his Baptism), that He was born (which meant
62
that he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin
(which implied that he had been special from the first moment of his life,
and not just from the baptism on.
• Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
There were many stories then current about gods who died and were
resurrected, but they were offered quite frankly as myths, as non-histor-
ical stories symbolic of the renewal of the vegetation every spring after
the seeming death of winter. If you asked, “When did Adonis die?” you
would be told either, “Long ago and far away,” or else, “His death is not
an event in earthly time.” Jesus, on the other hand, died at a particular
time and place in history, under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate, Procu-
rator of Judea from AD 26 to 36, during the last ten years of the reign of
the Emperor Tiberius.
• was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hades.
Here the creed hammers home the point that He was really dead. He
was not an illusion. He was nailed to a cross. He died. He had a real body,
a corpse, that was placed in a tomb. He was not merely unconscious —
His spirit left his body and went to the realm of the dead. It is a common
belief among Christians that on this occasion He took the souls of those
who had died trusting in the promises made under the Old Covenant —
Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and many others — and brought
them out of the realm of the dead and into heavenly glory. But the creed
is not concerned with this point. The reference to the descent into Hades
(or Hell, or Sheol) is here to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not
just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.
• The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
• and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
• From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
• I believe in the Holy Ghost,
• the holy catholic church,
The Gnostics believed that the most important doctrines were re-
served for a select few. On the other hand, the orthodox Christian belief
was that the full Gospel was to be preached to the entire human race.
The term “catholic,” or universal, distinguished them from the Gnostics.
63
• the communion of saints,

• the forgiveness of sins,
The Gnostics considered that what men needed was not forgiveness,
but enlightenment. Ignorance, not sin, was the problem. Some of them,
believing the body to be a snare and delusion, led lives of great asceti-
cism. Others, believing the body to be quite separate from the soul, held
that it did not matter what the body did, since it was completely foul
anyway, and its actions had no effect on the soul. They accordingly led
lives that were not ascetic at all. Either way, the notion of forgiveness
was alien to them.
• the resurrection of the body,
The chief goal of the Gnostics was to become free forever from the
taint of matter and the shackles of the body, and to return to the heavenly
realm as Pure Spirit. They totally rejected any idea of the resurrection of
the body.
• and the life everlasting. AMEN
The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used brief state-
ments of the Christian Faith. In liturgical churches, it is said every Sun-
day as part of the Liturgy. It is common ground to Eastern Orthodox,
Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other
Christian groups. Many groups that do not have a tradition of using it
in their services nevertheless are committed to the doctrines it teaches.
Someone may ask, “What about the Apostles’ Creed?” Traditionally,
in the West, the Apostles’ Creed is used at Baptisms, and the Nicene
Creed at the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper, or the Holy Communion). The
East uses only the Nicene Creed.
The following is the text of the Nicene Creed followed by notes and
explanations.
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of

heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of
64
God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from

God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one being with the Fa-
ther. Through him all things were made. For us
and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate
from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake
he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death
and was buried. On the third day he rose again in ac-
cordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will
come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who
proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father
and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spo-
ken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic
and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
Notes and Explanations*
When the Apostles’ Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Gnos-
ticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man; and the emphases of the
Apostles’ Creed reflect a concern with repudiating this error.
When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Ari-
anism, which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter
(an elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300’s. He taught that the
Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son, and that the Son,
in conjunction with the Father, then proceeded to create the world. The
result of this was to make the Son a created being, and hence not God in
any meaningful sense. It was also suspiciously like the theories of those
Gnostics and pagans who held that God was too perfect to create some-
thing like a material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate
beings between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who
created C, … who created Z, who created the world.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him.
Arius stuck to his position, and was finally excommunicated by a coun-
65
cil of Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote

letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the Emperor
Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across the straits
from modern Istanbul), and there in 325 the Bishops of the Church, by
a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced the first draft of what
is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief spokesman for the full deity of
Christ was Athanasius, deacon of Alexandria, assistant (and later succes-
sor) to the aging Alexander. The Arian position has been revived in our
own day by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), who explicitly
hail Arius as a great witness to the truth.
Here is the Nicene Creed a second time, with notes inserted.
• I believe in one God,

• the Father, the Almighty,
• maker of heaven and earth,
• of all that is, seen and unseen.
• I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
• the only son of God,
Here and elsewhere (such as John 1:14) where the Greek has MONO-
GENETOS HUIOS, an English translation may read either “only Son”
or “only begotten Son.” The Greek is ambiguous. The root GEN is found
in words like “genetics, generation,” and suggests begetting. However, it
is also found in words like “genus” and suggests family or sort or kind.
Accordingly, we may take MONOGENETOS to mean either “only be-
gotten” or “one-of-a-kind, only, sole, unique.”
• eternally begotten of the Father,
One might suppose that this means that the Son was begotten, “before
the galaxies were formed,” or something like that. But in fact it means
something a little different. Arius was fond of saying, “The Logos is not
eternal. God begat him, and before he was begotten, he did not exist.”
Athanasius replied that the begetting of the Logos was not an event in
time, but an eternal relationship.
• God from God, Light from Light,
A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is
66
continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was gener-
ally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at
all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck
the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa.
But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It
is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emit-
ted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the
sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just
so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time
before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate
because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits.
To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, “He who has seen
me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
• true God from true God,

• begotten, not made,
This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius’ teaching that the
Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the
Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has
created the Son.
Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must
be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king. Athanasius re-
plied that a son is precisely the same sort of being as his father, and that
the only son of a king is destined himself to be a king. It is true that an
earthly son is younger than his father, and that there is a time when he
is not yet what he will be. But God is not in time. Time, like distance, is
a relation between physical events, and has meaning only in the context
of the physical universe. When we say that the Son is begotten of the
Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal
and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead. Thus, while
we say of an earthly prince that he may some day hope to become what
his father is now, we say of God the Son that He is eternally what God
the Father is eternally.
• of one being with the Father.
This line: “of one essence with the Father, of one substance with the
Father, consubstantial with the Father,” was the crucial one, the acid test.
It was the one formula that the Arians could not interpret as meaning
67
what they believed. Without it, they would have continued to teach that
the Son is good, and glorious, and holy, and a Mighty Power, and God’s
chief agent in creating the world, and the means by which God chiefly
reveals Himself to us, and therefore deserving in some sense to be called
divine. But they would have continued to deny that the Son was God in
the same sense in which the Father is God. And they would have pointed
out that, since the Council of Nicea had not issued any declaration that
they could not accept, it followed that there was room for their posi-
tion inside the tent of Christian doctrine, as that tent had been defined at
Nicea. Arius and his immediate followers would have denied that they
were reducing the Son to the position of a high-ranking angel. But their
doctrine left no safeguard against it, and if they had triumphed at Nicea,
even in the negative sense of having their position acknowledged as a
permissible one within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, the damage to
the Christian witness to Christ as God made flesh would have been ir-
reparable.
Incidentally, HOMOOUSIOS (“one being”) is generally written
without the hyphen. The word has five syllables HO-mo-OU-si-os, with
accents on first and third, as shown. The Greek root HOMO, meaning
“same,” is found in words like “homosexual” and “homogenized,” and is
not to be confused with the Latin word HOMO, meaning “man, human.”
The language finally adopted in the East was that the Trinity consists
of three HYPOSTASES (singular HYPOSTASIS) united in one OUSIA
The formula used in the West, and going back at least to Tertullian (who
wrote around 200, and whose writings are the oldest surviving Christian
treatises written in Latin), is that the Trinity consists of three PERSONAE
(singular PERSONA) united in one SUBSTANTIA. In English, we say
“Three Persons in one Substance.”
Unfortunately, the Greek HYPO-STASIS and the Latin SUB-STANTIA
each consists of an element meaning “under, below” (as in “hypoder-
mic,” “hypothermia,” etc.) followed by an element meaning “stand.”
Thus it was natural for a Greek-speaker, reading a Latin document that
referred to one SUBSTANTIA to substitute mentally a reference to one
HYPOSTASIS, and to be very uncomfortable, while a Latin-speaker
would have the same problem in reverse. Thus the seeds were sown for
a breakdown of communication.
• Through him all things were made.
This is a direct quote from John 1:3. Before the insertion of the clause
68
containing the word HOMO-OUSIOS, this line immediately followed

“begotten, not made.” The two lines go naturally together. The Son is not
a created thing. Rather, He is the agent through Whom all created things
come to be.
• For us and for our salvation

• he came down from heaven:
• by the power of the Holy Spirit
• he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
• and was made man.
• For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
• he suffered and was buried.
By the time of Nicea, it was no longer necessary to emphasize, to

spell out unmistakably, that Christ had really died at Calvary, as it had
been spelled out in the Apostles’ Creed: “he suffered death and was bur-
ied.” Apparently the Nicene Fathers were supposed that their language
would not be misunderstood.
• On the third day he rose again

• in accordance with the Scriptures;
The Scriptures referred to here are the Old Testament prophecies con-
cerning Christ. The wording here is borrowed from 1 Corinthians 15:3,4:
“And I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and
that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
• he ascended into heaven

• and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
• He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
• and his kingdom will have no end.
• I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
• who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
The words shown in brackets, “and from the Son,” are a Western
addition to the Creed as it was originally agreed on by a Council repre-
senting the whole Church, East and West. They correspond to the Latin
word, FILIOQUE (FILI = Son, -O = from, -QUE = and; pronounced
with accent on the O), and the controversy about them is accordingly
69
known as the Filioque controversy.

If we are looking for a statement that can be taken as common ground
by all Christians, East and West alike, it cannot include the FILIOQUE.
On the other hand, Western Christians will be unwilling to have it sup-
posed that they are repudiating the statement that the Spirit proceeds
jointly from Father and Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
• He has spoken through the Prophets.
This line was directed against the view that the Holy Spirit did not
exist, or was not active, before Pentecost.
• I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Many Christians from various backgrounds will want to know, “Pre-

cisely what would I be agreeing to if I signed this?” We already defined
catholic as “universal.” Catholicity means literally “universality.” All
true believers are part of the catholic Church, because they hold to the
universal faith.
• I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

• I look for the resurrection of the dead,
• and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
* Editor’s note: I have made use of the writings of James Kiefer whose material
has been edited and paraphrased in the: “Notes and explanations.”
70

1. How was the Apostles’ Creed formulated to counter the
errors of Gnosticism? Are there any points of the Apostles’
Creed that a Christian could knowingly disagree with and
still be sure of being in a state of salvation? Why or why not?
Which ones are indispensable? Explain why.
2. How was the Nicene Creed formulated to counter the

errors of Arianism? Are there any points of the Nicene Creed
that a Christian could knowingly disagree with and still be
sure of being in a state of salvation? Why or why not? Which
ones are indispensable? Explain why.
71
Chapter 4
The Trinity:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
What is the Trinity?
Simply stated: “The Trinity is three persons (personae) in one sub-

stance (substantia).”
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the sub-
stance.”
— The Athanasian Creed
In this chapter, we will examine the Trinity. Faith in this most basic,
yet often neglected Truth, is essential to our salvation. Without belief in
the Trinity, we cannot claim to have saving faith in God.
The disciples of the New Testament, not only the eleven but the larger
group of 120 who were strengthened by the baptism of the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost, understood the doctrine of the triune God and were enriched
by a profound experience of Him. As Jews, these first century believers
continued to believe in one God and name Him as many pre-Christian
Jews had done.
But they had also seen God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus
Christ. They were convinced after the empowering at Pentecost that the
same power at work in Jesus was within them and that God was found
through the person of the Holy Spirit. They were indeed the Body of
Christ who had tasted of the power of the age to come. Yet as Jews,
nurtured on the affirmation that “God is one,” they were not surprised to
think of God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Three in One.”
72
Chapter 4: The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Trinity was, for the New Testament Church, an indispensable

precept and an essential truth. Yet it was not until the second century that
the doctrine of the Trinity became the center of intellectual debate. The
experience of the first century disciples was unique: they had seen Christ
in the flesh. Not all questions we have today about the Trinity could be
answered in terms of first century writings, symbols and doctrines. Al-
though as a doctrine, Trinitarianism later became a distinguishing char-
acteristic of orthodox Christianity, in the early years, the doctrine of the
Triune God remained within the realm of universal, implicit acceptance.
The Witness of the Old Testament
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

(Deuteronomy 6:4).
Ancient Israel was one of the few monotheistic cultures of ancient

times. Although some other ancient religions taught the supremacy of a
“one and only god,” Israel’s God, Jehovah, was the only infallible God
of ancient times. Indeed the gods of other cultures made no claims to in-
fallibility, but had superhuman traits and mirrored human foibles. Some
of the gods portrayed by the ancient world were mortal and could be
killed or defeated by other gods. They lacked perfect knowledge and few
were portrayed as being all benevolent. The Hebrew’s God was unique
in His claim to eternal infallibility. All sufficient Truth was in Him.
To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD,
He is God; there is no other besides Him (Deuteronomy
4:35).
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My

glory to another, nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah
42:8).
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel And his Re-
deemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the
last, and there is no God besides Me” (Isaiah 44:6).
In the biblical declaration: “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God,

the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) the Hebrew word for “one” is
not the same word as the integer (the number used for counting) but can
73
also be translated as “unity.” The stress on the unity of God in the Old
Testament sometimes contains an indication of three distinct persons in
the Godhead. God sometimes speaks of himself in the plural; passages
which speak of the Messiah indicate that He is a distinct Person; the Son
often appears as the “Angel of the Lord,” who is spoken of as a divine
Person; the Spirit is also spoken of as distinct Person.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ac-

cording to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26).
“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language,

so that they will not understand one another’s speech”
(Genesis 11:7).
Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre,

while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.
When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men
were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he
ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself
to the earth, and said, “My lord, if now I have found
favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by.
Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet,
and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece
of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you
may go on, since you have visited your servant.” And
they said, “So do, as you have said” (Genesis 18:1-21).
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Un-

til I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” The
LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion,
saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.” Your people
will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy
array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You
as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change
His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the or-
der of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Your right hand; He
will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge
74
among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He

will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will
drink from the brook by the wayside; therefore He will
lift up His head (Psalm 110).
Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not
spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit (Isa-
iah 48:16).
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the

LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the af-
flicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To
proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; to
proclaim the favorable year of the LORD (Isaiah 61:1,2).
“I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the

LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to all that
the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness toward
the house of Israel, which He has granted them accord-
ing to His compassion and according to the abundance of
His lovingkindnesses. For He said, ‘Surely, they are My
people, sons who will not deal falsely.’ So He became
their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and
the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in
His mercy He redeemed them, and He lifted them and
carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and
grieved His Holy Spirit; therefore He turned Himself to
become their enemy, He fought against them. Then His
people remembered the days of old, of Moses. Where is
He who brought them up out of the sea with the shep-
herds of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit
in the midst of them (Isaiah 63:9-11).
The Witness of the New Testament
Equally important to an understanding of the Trinity is the claim of

the Old and New Testament that God’s Word is infallible. A holy and
inerrant God must have a holy and inerrant Word. There can be no com-
peting deity nor any other competing Word. The infallibility and unity of
75
God and His Word is at the heart of biblical monotheism.

In the New Testament, the identity of the Word of God is revealed as
Jesus Christ, the Son of God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14).
Yet the New Testament definition of God is the same “unity” we find
in the Old Testament. Paul writes, “For even if there are so-called gods
whether in heaven or on earth … yet for us there is but one God, the Fa-
ther, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him.”
To the apostolic mind there is but “one God … and one Lord Jesus
Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5,6). To the apostolic mind there is also the
simplistic insight that one God is revealed and expressed to men as three
persons: “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit“ (Matthew 28:19).
There are no complex explanations given, although the Apostle John
is the most definitive of any of the New Testament writers on the person
of Jesus Christ. He is “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father …” (John 1:8).
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begot-
ten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
From John, we are taught that the even as the Son (”the only begot-
ten“) proceeds from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the
Father and the Son — “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will
send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds
from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).
The three persons of the Godhead are enumerated again and again in
John’s writings: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things …” (John
14:26).
Other gospel accounts show a distinction between the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, which was witnessed by the disciples. At Jesus’
baptism “… he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light-
ing upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (Matthew 3:16,17).
In the Great Commission, at the close of the Gospel of Matthew, Je-
sus commands His disciples to baptize — “In the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost“ (Matthew 28:19).
76
Other New Testament writers who enumerate the three persons of the
Godhead are Paul, Peter and Jude:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of

God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with
you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).
According to the foreknowledge of God the Father,

through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience of
the blood of Jesus Christ“ (1 Peter 1:2).
“To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and pre-
served in Jesus Christ … praying in the Holy Ghost,
keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy
of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jude 1,20,21).
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Fa-
ther, the Word, (John refers to Jesus as the Word, the
LOGOS; John 1:1) and the Holy Ghost, and these three
are one (1 John 5:7).
The Term: Trinity
The term Trinity does not appear in the New Testament, however,
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” appear repeatedly. The need to elabo-
rately define the Godhead came at the end of the first century when the
Gnostic heretics caused division through their pagan-influenced teaching
that the Christ or LOGOS (John 1:1) was a lesser god. This threat caused
the early Church to adopt a comprehensive creed called the “Apostle’s
Creed” consisting of twelve apostolic statements of faith derived both
from written Scripture and oral teaching passed down from the first cen-
tury Apostles.
The simplest confession — “Jesus Is Lord” — is found in 1 Corin-
thians 12:3. Other creeds such as: “One Lord, one baptism, one God and
Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5,6), were simple professions of belief in one
God. The Apostles’ Creed was an elaboration of the prayers found in the
New Testament. Out of these confessions, doxologies and prayers arose
a creed that was first used as a confession of faith at baptism: “I believe
in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Matthew
28:19).
77
Meanwhile, other Gnostics were teaching that Jesus and the LOGOS,
or the Christ, were separate gods. They had adapted a Greco-pagan the-
ology to the Gospel. By the end of the first century, the schisms caused
by the Gnostics were so grave that the Apostolic Fathers gradually
formed a systematic and comprehensive statement of faith that would
refute Gnosticism.
Succinct, comprehensive and clear, the Apostles’ Creed was professed
as a defense against the confusion of the Gnostic heretics that threatened
the early Church. The Apostles’ Creed, or a profession close to the one
we have today, appeared at the end of the first century or the beginning
of the second century. With this creed, firmly based on New Testament
Scriptures written by the Apostles, and alluded to by the more extensive
writings of the Apostolic Fathers in the first century and early second
century, a more elaborate explanation of the Trinity began to be formed.
The Trinity is a biblical doctrine
Although the vast majority of Church theologians have been satisfied

with the above quoted Scriptures as evidence for the Trinity, the question
still persists in some circles. There is a general doubt among most textual
critics that the so-called “Johannine Comma” (1 John 5:7,8) is part of the
original manuscript of 1 John. The Johannine Comma “is absent from
every known Greek manuscript except eight” (Metzger, Bruce. Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament. p. 647).
Neither of the two oldest Latin Vulgate manuscripts contain the Jo-
hannine Comma. However, this clause is found mainly in the Old Latin
texts from the fourth century onward and in later versions of the Vulgate.
It is mentioned by many of the Latin church fathers. There is a note on
the Johannine Comma that goes more into detail at the end of this chap-
ter and documents that a number of second and third century Church
Fathers quoted this. However, most agree that the doctrine of the Trinity
does not stand or fall on this one passage.
Since we have no other writings by the Apostles that make this claim,
except the Scriptures themselves, we may next look to two other groups:
the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists.
The Apostolic Fathers are Christians who first believed in Christ dur-
ing the early Church period, or the Apostolic Age (AD 30 to 96). AD 30
represents the year of Pentecost and AD 96 represents the possible date
for the death of the Apostle John, who was seen during the reign of the
Roman Emperor Domitian according to Irenaeus. Three of the Apostolic
78
Fathers, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch,

were Bishops who were ordained by one of the Apostles.
We know that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that Clement was
ordained by Peter. Not much is known about Ignatius except that seven
of his letters exist that indicate he was a personal acquaintance of Poly-
carp and had apostolic authority. The writings handed down to us by
these men have great authority because they were instructed by those
Apostles who had seen the Lord. These letters do not share the same au-
thority as Scripture and are not to be taken as infallible teachings.
The next group of men, the Apologists, were defenders of the faith,
born a generation later than the Apostolic Fathers. The Apologists lived
from AD 100 to 175, while the Apostolic Fathers’ lives overlapped the
first and second centuries. Irenaeus and Athenagoras belong to this sec-
ond group. Tertullian, the last of the Apologists, lived well into the third
century.
Many people attribute the doctrine of the Trinity to either Tertullian
or to the Nicean Council of AD 325. By looking at the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists, however, we will see that a strong
Trinitarian concept was well in place long before the date to which some
Church historians point (usually the reign of Constantine, AD 325).
The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
Trinitarianism was a doctrine taught by the Apostolic Fathers. They

received their tradition from the Twelve Apostles and the Apostle Paul.
The doctrine was handed down orally from the time of the first century in
the form of creeds, apostolic catechisms, or written symbols. In exposi-
tion to the Scriptures, we find a strong Trinitarian tradition at the end of
the first century and the beginning of the second century in the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists.
We may assume that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers contain
teachings entrusted to them by the New Testament Apostles. The Apos-
tolic Fathers had a developed doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was
handed down from the Apostles of Jesus Christ to the Apostolic Fathers
of the second century (AD 100 to 175). A developed Trinitarian doctrine
existed in the church well before AD 175 (the time of Tertullian’s first
writings). This doctrine existed in Christian writings a full generation
before this time.
Although they never answered the questions later tackled by Tertul-
lian, the Apostolic Fathers had a strong concept of the Trinity. The Apos-
79
tle’s revelation of God could never have been expressed in words (2 Cor.
12:4), but through the creeds and symbols they used in their teaching, the
truth of the Trinity was imparted and was widely accepted in the early
Church.
The teaching of the Apostolic Fathers had strong authority since their
ministry originated with the laying on of hands by the Apostles. As a
testimony of their experience with the Holy Spirit, and through verbal
creeds passed down to them by first century Christians, they make nu-
merous allusions to in their writings to the words of the Apostle’s Creed.
Clement of Rome — AD 96
Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous,

since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes,
and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among
you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there
not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we
not one calling in Christ? (Epistle of Clement 46:17,18).
Polycarp of Smyrna — AD 110-117
But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our
everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth,
and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering,
forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot
and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on
all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord
Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who raised Him from the
dead (Epistle of Polycarp 12:2).
Ignatius of Antioch — AD 110-117
… being united and elected through the true passion by

the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God … (Ig-
natius to the Ephesians 1:1).
But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegot-

ten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and
Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a
80
Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-
begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who af-
terwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the
Word was made flesh.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:6-8).
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appoint-

ment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the
seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost (Ignatius to the
Ephesians 18:2,3).
… in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed

of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of
man and the Son of God …(Ignatius to the Ephesians
20:2).
I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union

both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant
source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing
is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father,
in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of
this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God. (Igna-
tius to the Magnesians 1:2).
He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning

of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and
remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there
shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. (Ignatius to the
Magnesians 6:4-6).
On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired

by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is
one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by
Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but
essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utter-
ance, but a substance begotten by divine power, who has
in all things pleased Him that sent Him (Ignatius to the
Magnesians 8:4,5).
81
The Apologists
The Apostolic Fathers provide us with a link between the Apostolic

teachings of the first century and the second century Christian apolo-
gists. Irenaeus had the greatest authority of these because of his close
association with Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Thus a clear line
of Apostolic teaching is maintained. Athenagoras wrote around the same
time as Irenaeus and gives the most eloquent and clear exposition on the
doctrine of the Trinity. Tertullian’s writings came a few years later and
are primarily influenced by the writings of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus — AD 130-200
There are several early summaries of the Christian faith which pre-
date the later creeds, such as the “Rule of Faith” as recorded by Irenaeus:
… this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made

the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things
that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God,
who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy
Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan
of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin,
and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and
the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ
Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in
the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise
anew all flesh of the whole human race …
Hippolytus — AD 200
We have Hippolytus’ account of the baptismal service:
When the person being baptized goes down into the wa-
ter, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall
say: “Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?” And
the person being baptized shall say: “I believe.” Then
holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once.
And then he shall say: “Do you believe in Christ Jesus,
the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and
was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and
82
buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead,
and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the
Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?”
And when he says: “I believe,” he is baptized again. And
again he shall say: “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in
the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?” The
person being baptized shall say: “I believe,” and then he
is baptized a third time.
Both the “Rule” as recorded by Irenaeus and the baptismal service as

recorded by Hippolytus bear very close similarity to the Apostles’ Creed.
Athenagoras’ Plea — AD 177
If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such consider-

ations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked
upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets
confirm our arguments — for I think that you also, with
your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attain-
ments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings ei-
ther of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other
prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural opera-
tions of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit,
uttered the things with which they were inspired, the
Spirit making use of them as a flute-player breathes into
a flute; — what, then, do these men say? “The LORD
is our God; no other can be compared with Him.” And
again: “I am God, the first and the last, and besides Me
there is no God.” In like manner: “Before Me there was
no other God, and after Me there shall be none; I am
God, and there is none besides Me.” And as to His great-
ness: “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool
of My feet: what house will you build for Me, or what
is the place of My rest?” But I leave it to you, when you
meet with the books themselves, to examine carefully
the prophecies contained in them, that you may on fitting
grounds defend us from the abuse cast upon us.
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we ac-

knowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, im-
83
passable, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is appre-

hended by the understanding only and the reason, who is
encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power
ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through
His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being — I have
sufficiently demonstrated. [I say “His Logos”], for we
acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think
it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the
poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better
than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs,
concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son
of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in opera-
tion; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all
things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the
Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in one-
ness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of
the Father is the Son of God.
But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to

inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that
He is the first product of the Father, not as having been
brought into existence (for from the beginning, God,
who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, being
from eternity instinct with Logos; but inasmuch as He
came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all ma-
terial things, which lay like a nature without attributes,
and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed
up with the lighter.
The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements.

“The Lord,” it says, “made me, the beginning of His
ways to His works.” The Holy Spirit Himself also, which
operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of
God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a
beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to
hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their
power in union and their distinction in order, called athe-
ists?
84
Tertullian — AD 155-225
Tertullian did not invent the concept of the Trinity — he merely

elaborated on the apostolic statement of John “these three are one” and
borrowed from the already formulated theology of Athenagoras and Ire-
naeus. The latter was, in fact, a direct influence on Tertullian’s writings.
Irenaeus, having been a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John,
was considered by Tertullian to be an important link in the succession of
pure apostolic doctrine.
Tertullian’s Against Praxeas was a work directed against Praxeas
who held to the heresy of Sabellianism. Praxeas seems to have been con-
vinced by Tertullian and later recanted his view. This work stands today
as the definitive work refuting modalism and Sabellianism.
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was

born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord
Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be
Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have
done and more especially since we have been better in-
structed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all
truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the
following dispensation, or, as it is called, that this one
only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from
Himself, by whom all things were made, and without
whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been
sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born
of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and
the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of
Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and
been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He
had been raised again by the Father and taken back to
heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and
that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who
sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His
own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sancti-
fier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in
the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has
come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even
before any of the older heretics, much more before Prax-
eas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from
85
the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also

from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled
Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a
presumption of equal force against all heresies whatso-
ever — that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spu-
rious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive
rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for
reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the
instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only
that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is
condemned without examination, and simply prejudged;
especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes it-
self to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot
believe in One Only God in any other way than by say-
ing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the
very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not
All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance;
while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded,
which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their
order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in de-
gree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in
aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and
of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom
these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. (Against Praxeas 2).
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria — fourth century
The Athanasian Creed summarizes the view held by Athanasius who

fought against the Arian heresy in the fourth century. Arius was a pres-
byter in Alexandria who preached against the perceived Sabellianism of
his bishop, Alexander. In trying to avoid the error of modalistic monar-
chianism, Arius went to the other extreme and preached that the Son had
a beginning, and was begotten of God the Father who had no beginning.
The Arians essentially taught that Jesus Christ was a lesser or subordi-
nate god to God the Father. The Council of Nicea of 325 was called to
settle the controversy. The Nicene Creed described the three persons of
the Godhead, but did not give a succinct enough definition of the Trinity
86
to quell Arianism.
Athanasius, another bishop of Alexandria, arose as the great defend-
er of the Nicene position, but his victory did not come without a great
struggle. He was exiled from the Roman Empire three times for his de-
fense of the Council of Nicea’s position on the Trinity. Arianism grew in
popularity throughout the 300s, until it was finally defeated. The view
was finally deemed a heresy by the church of the fourth century and then
diminished in influence. The phrase, “Athanasius against the world,”
was coined to describe a person who will stand for the truth, no matter
what the cost. The text of Athanasian Creed may or may not be the words
of Athanasius since it was codified in the early fifth century years after
Athanasius’ death.
The Athanasian Creed
Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all

things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic/
universal] faith, which except everyone shall have kept
whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eter-
nally.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in

Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Per-
sons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person
of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty
coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the
Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated,
and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son
infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal,
the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not
three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites,
nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite.
So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almight-
ies but one almighty.
87
So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit
God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father
is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet
not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are com-
pelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person
by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbid-
den by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods
or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but
begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son,
not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three
Sons, and Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this
Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or
less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together
and coequal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity

and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He there-
fore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think
thus of the Trinity.
But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also be-

lieve faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and
Man.
He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before

the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother
born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of
a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as
touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching
His Manhood.
Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but

one Christ; one however not by conversion of the God-
head in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God;
88
one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity

of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man,
so God and Man is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose

again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the
right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to
judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men
shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account
for their own works. And they that have done good shall
go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil
into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have

believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of
salvation.
Anti-Trinitarian Heresies
In addition to Arianism, which denied or diminished the deity of

Christ, were several other anti-Trinitarian heresies that cropped up in the
first few centuries of the church in the form of Monarchianism. Monar-
chianism is any teaching denying that three persons are in the Godhead.
The following is a brief outline of the three most prevalent heresies:
dynamic monarchianism, modalistic monarchianism, and Sabellianism.
Dynamic Monarchianism
In the closing years of the second century, a heresy appeared that

taught that Christ was a mere man upon whom the Spirit of God had
descended. This teaching is more accurately known as adoptionism — a
Christological heresy. Adoptionism has reappeared throughout Church
history when some have taught that the man Jesus was adopted into the
Sonship by an act of God. In general, adoptionism is any belief that Jesus
was a man who was elevated to divinity at some point in his life.
The second century teachers of adoptionism were concerned with
preserving the divine unity or monarchia. The originator of dynamic mo-
narchianism was a Byzantine leather merchant named Theodotus, who
brought the doctrine to Rome in 190. Although he was in full agreement
with the creedal statements on the creation of the world, divine omnipo-
89
tence and the virgin birth, Theodotus believed that Jesus lived the life of
an ordinary man, the difference being he was supremely virtuous. At his
baptism, the Spirit or Christ descended upon Him and from that moment
he worked miracles without ever becoming fully divine.
Other proponents of this thought were another Theodotus, Asclepi-
odotus, Artemas and Paul of Samosata. These teachers were strict Uni-
tarians concerned with preserving the truth that God is one, but teaching
the heresy that Jesus Christ was a mere man. The dynamic monarchians
refused to consider Jesus to be God and did not worship Him as God.
Modalistic Monarchianism
Modalistic monarchianism or modalism is — at least in theory — a

form of Trinitarianism. Yet ironically, it is between the Trinitarians and
the modalists that the modern controversy over the Trinity has resumed.
Basically, modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness
taught by the United Pentecostal Church, some “Deeper-Life” cults, and
the famous healing evangelist, William Branham. An implicit or “naive”
modalism is sometimes found among modern fundamentalists who insist
on the deity of Christ, but are unwilling to make theological effort to
formulate a clear doctrine of the Trinity.
Modalism is a term used to describe a belief in early church history
that Father, Son, and Spirit are not eternal distinctions within God’s na-
ture but simply modes (methods or manifestations) of God’s activity. In
other words, God is one individual, and various “titles” used to describe
Him — such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — are designations applied
to different forms of His action or different relationships He has to man.
Modalism is also termed patripassianism and Sabellianism.
Modalism appeared as a distinct doctrine in the second century. Its
adherents were fairly widespread. They were concerned with preserving
the teaching of both the oneness of God and the full deity of Christ. The
most early modalists were Noetus of Smyrna, Epigonus, Cleomenes and
Praxeas. Their teaching is summarized by the idea that there is only one
God, the Father who entered into the Virgin Mary’s womb, was born as
a man and suffered and died on the cross. This teaching was also known
as patripassianism — or the belief that the Father suffered.
The distinction between modalism and Trinitarianism is sometimes
obscure. But simply put: a modalist believes that God is one and mani-
fests himself in three separate modes or aspects — or one in three. A
Trinitarian believes that God is three separate persons in one God —
90
“These three are one” (1 John 5:7). Most modalists accept a distinction
between the three members of the Godhead — Father, Son, Holy Spirit
— but say that they are simply modes or aspects of one God. There are
many variations on modalism — some more heretical than others — but
there are scriptural problems with any form of modalism.
Sabellianism
Sabellianism is another form of modalism. This heresy originated

with Sabellius, a heretic of the early third century. Some historians think
that Sabellius may have been taught by Praxeas, the subject of Tertul-
lian’s Against Praxeas. Since Sabellius was the best known modalist,
historians often call the modalist doctrine: Sabellianism.
In Tertullian’s Against Praxeas, he indicated that during his time
some believers either naively or ignorantly adhered to the modalist doc-
trine: “The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned),
who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dis-
pensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of
faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only
true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He
must yet be believed in with His own economy. The numerical order
and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity;
whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far
from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it.”
Sabellius saw the problems with earlier forms of modalism, most
notably with the idea that the Father suffered. To solve this problem,
Sabellius attempted a philosophical explanation. He proposed a process
theology of the Godhead in which God successively expressed Himself
in three operations. The Father was the form or essence of God, but He
revealed himself to man at different times in history in separate modes
of expression, first as the Son, and then as the Spirit. Sabellius said that
God revealed Himself as Father in creation, Son in incarnation, and Holy
Ghost in regeneration and sanctification. He believed these three modes
or manifestations were successive in time.
Sabellianism was widely accepted, but was fiercely opposed by Hip-
polytus. After having been accepted by Pope Callistus for a brief period,
he was finally excommunicated as a heretic.
The reason modalism frequently reappears may be the result of fail-
ure to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, a low view of orthodox teaching,
or simply a misunderstanding of Trinitarian doctrine as being tritheistic.
91
Modalism has also made a comeback in the modern charismatic move-

ment. A Charisma magazine article, “The Other Pentecostals,” by J. Lee
Grady (June 1997) asks: “Are we entering an era when the historic di-
viding line between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals will become
so blurred that it is irrelevant? And will apologies soon be offered from
both sides of this debate?”
While the lines between heresy and orthodoxy may seem to be
“blurred” on the Trinity, a Christological heresy or misunderstanding of
the Godhead is a primary heresy of a most serious nature. The Trinity
is the very object of our saving faith. Therefore, the church fathers and
apologists thought that belief in the Trinity is essential to our salvation.
A simple examination of modalism will expose its inherent problems.
The Supremacy of Trinitarianism
It is easier to reconcile the above New Testament Scriptures with

Trinitarian doctrine than to twist Scripture to fit modalism. The Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist as co-equal, co-eternal, non-subordi-
nate members of the Godhead. They exist in a primary, secondary and
tertiary order; yet they are each equal persons in unity with one eternal
Godhead. Jesus is the “unbegotten-begotten” (or eternally begotten) Son
of the Father. And the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both the Fa-
ther and the Son.
Furthermore, Trinitarianism allows for a more adequate explanation
of the incarnation, resurrection and ascension of Jesus — only the Son,
or the LOGOS, became flesh — and this man, Christ Jesus, was both
fully God and fully man. He is able to identify with us fully in our suf-
fering even today, because He, in a resurrected Body of a man, sits at the
right hand of the Father and intercedes for us. This is why we pray: “In
the Name of Jesus.”
Modalism, only allows for a temporary incarnation, in which Jesus,
who was fully God, became temporarily less than God. Modalism cre-
ates a problem here because it insists that the Father suffered on our
behalf. One aspect or mode of God could not have become a man while
the other half remained in heaven. Modalism teaches that the Father was
born as Jesus Christ and that He died and raised Himself from the dead.
In making this assertion, modalism is forced to conclude that Jesus had
two natures being either a “half-man/half-God,” or a “God-man,” in a
temporal setting. This violates the Chalcedonian creed.
While Trinitarianism holds to an eternal relationship between the Fa-
92
ther and the Son, the modalistic view sees Sonship as primarily function-
al and temporary. It is in the ministry of Jesus, that the inherent weakness
of the “God-man” model appears. Various human acts are attributed to
either His deity or His humanity, thus depicting Him as functioning on
two parallel systems, switching from one to the other as the occasion
demands, but never as an integrated person.
The Trinitarian idea of Jesus as both “fully man and fully God” makes
more sense, since a “half-man/half-God” or a “God-Man” could not be
separated from the Father, or become sin on our behalf. Since Jesus is a
distinct Person of the Godhead, the LOGOS, He was able to take on cor-
ruptible flesh and then be raised in an incorruptible Resurrection Body
— which is the hope of our redemption.
From a modalistic point of view, redemption in the biblical manner
would not be possible. Modalism makes the events of redemptive his-
tory a charade. If Christ is not a Person distinct from the Father, then His
death for our sins, His resurrection, and His intercession to the Father are
not possible. Modalism will always defeat the biblical model of redemp-
tion. Modalism, in teaching that the incarnation was only temporary,
must deny that there is a Resurrection Body with which to be joined.
Since there is only one mode of God that is eternal, then, either the Res-
urrection Body of Jesus Christ must have been done away with at some
point; or, the Father must have actually suffered on the Cross. Scripture
makes no allowance for either one of these scenarios. In fact, both are
contrary to Scripture.
Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus must be both fully man and fully
God because He was at once able to live a perfect life, to identify with
our sufferings, and become sin on our behalf. The idea of Jesus as being
both fully man and fully God, as defined in the Chalcedonian Creed, is a
true biblical doctrine.
Why Modalism is Heresy
Modalistic Monarchianism is heresy. As Tertullian stated, Trinitari-

anism has been the stance of orthodox Christianity from the beginning.
Modalism ignores the fact that Trinitarian Christianity has existed as the
prevalent form of orthodoxy for 2000 years. The theology of the Protes-
tant Reformation is either ignored or looked down upon, and the ortho-
dox creeds of historic Christianity are despised as “Roman Catholic.”
Irenaeus defined the serious nature of schism: “He shall also judge
those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and
93
who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the
Church; and who for trifling reasons … cut in pieces and divide the great
and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it men
who prate peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a
gnat, but swallow a camel” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies).
We most often find modalism among independent sects with a desire
to prove that they are superior to other churches. In these cases, modal-
ism is not simply due to ignorance, but is inspired by human pride. There
is often an elitist, exclusive cult-like belief that “true Christianity” was
in the early Church, but disappeared and came back into existence only
with the appearance of their sect.
Modalists are cultists because they deny the authority of the Holy
Spirit in history. Modalists view the Church as having been apostate until
the appearance of their group, and believe that the Holy Spirit has re-
vealed truth only to them apart from the witness of the Church through-
out history.
In some cases, Modalism may imply the “process theology” of Sabel-
lianism which sees God as “evolving” from a God of law into a God of
grace. God manifested himself as the somewhat harsh, law-based Father
in the Old Testament; then as the grace-giving Son during Christ’s earth-
ly incarnation; and today as the life-giving Holy Spirit. Process theology
holds that God reveals himself under different aspects or modes in dif-
ferent ages — as the Father in the Creation and the giving of the Law, as
the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.
From this modalistic viewpoint, Biblical law represents an earlier and
more “primitive” stage of God’s dealings with man, but now that man
and God have both “grown up,” God deals with man by grace, not by
law. God is seen as being in a sort of metaphysical and ethical transition.
Modalism makes the events of redemptive history a kind of charade. It is
therefore blasphemous. If Christ is not discrete Person, his death for our
sins and resurrection, session, and his intercession for us as his people,
are illusory. Consistent modalism is an assault on Biblical redemption.
Some Conclusions on Trinitarianism
An honest study of the debate between Trinitarianism and Modalism

must come to several conclusions:
1. Trinitarianism, as a formulated doctrine, did not begin

to emerge until after the Gnostic heresy became a seri-
94
ous threat to the church, around AD 100. These Trinitar-

ians were not tritheistic (i.e. believing in three separate
Gods); the early Christians were sure that God was one.
2. Monarchianism was, in general, a response to the same
threat — an attempt to refute those who would make Je-
sus Christ an incarnation of the LOGOS (a Greek philo-
sophical term), which was presented by the Gnostics as
a second or lesser God. Monarchianism did not emerge
until the same time as Trinitarianism or at least a few
years after this.
3. Modalism is actually a form of Monarchianism; the dif-
ference being that God expresses himself in three modes
or aspects. Modalism was probably was an attempt to
solve the perceived threat to Christian thought presented
by tritheism: a belief in three separate Gods.
The New Testament era Christians (AD 30-70) were probably neither
self-consciously Trinitarian nor modalistic. Both of these views were
theological elaborations created later in response to controversies out-
side the experience of the disciples of AD 30.
The disciples of the New Testament held to a more primitive view
of the Trinity. They were constrained to think of God as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, as the numerous references to Scripture attest, but did not
elaborate on this beyond the maxim taught by John: “These three are
one.”
The intellectual issues raised by the concept of a Triune God were
beyond their experience. Most of them had seen Jesus and had expe-
rienced Pentecost. This was enough. Expository teaching proving the
Trinity from Scripture was not necessary before AD 100.
Notes on the Trinity and 1 John 5:7,8
1 John 5:7,8, also known as the Johannine Comma, is the only Scrip-
ture that contains the Trinitarian formula:
For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Fa-
ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree
in one.
95
The bracketed text is the Trinitarian doctrine that God is three in one.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not fall apart on the basis of the rejection
of this one verse. However, it is the only verse that succinctly denies the
Oneness, or Jesus-only doctrine, otherwise known as the ancient heresy
of modalistic monarchianism.
There is a popular belief among textual critics that 1 John 5:7,8 was
interpolated into the Bible sometime in the last 500 to 600 years. This
idea comes from the textual critics’ notion that the received text of the
Bible must contain errors and that it is the job of modern critics to redact
Scripture to maintain integrity with the earliest known manuscripts.
Since 1 John 5:7 is not found in any of the ancient Greek manu-
scripts prior to AD 1300-1400, then this text must be spurious. This is
an accepted idea even among most conservatives. Many modern Bible
translations include the Johannine Comma in brackets or as a footnote
indicating its late inclusion — or so say the textual critics.
The modern criticism of 1 John 5:7 revolves around the stance that
the Latin text is seen as having inferior credibility compared to some
ancient Greek manuscripts. One such commentary explains:
This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives

any color to the Trinity or “oneness” doctrines. How-
ever, the bracketed portion (see above) of this passage
is almost universally recognized as an interpolation. It
first crept into the Greek text in the fourteenth century.
It is true that some late Latin, Vulgate MSS., copied not
more than five centuries before, do contain it. This inter-
polation was first inserted into some Vulgate manuscript
and was in the fourteenth century translated into the first
Greek text having it. Had this text been in the Bible when
the Trinitarian controversies were going on, in the fourth
to the eighth centuries, certainly the Trinitarians who
were hard pressed by their opponents to produce such
a text, would have used it as a proof text. But none of
them ever appealed to John as the author of this, for the
good reason that it was then not in the Bible. It doubtless
crept into the Latin text by a copyist taking it from the
margin, where it was written by somebody as his com-
ment on the text, and inserting it into the Latin text it-
self, from which, as just said, it was first translated into
a Greek manuscript in the fourteenth century. The next
96
Greek manuscript that contains it is from the fifteenth

century (Day, Ronald. Does 1 John 5:7,8 prove that there
is a Trinity?).
The problem for critics who say that none of the Church Fathers
quoted the “Johannine Comma” is that there exist writings of Greek and
Latin Church Fathers who do seem to quote this text as part of 1 John
5:7. Whether the text was in Latin or Greek doesn’t detract from its va-
lidity. From the third century on, the theology of the western church was
written mainly in Latin. Since we have no complete manuscript of 1 John
in Greek from this time, there is no way of knowing whether the Greek
text of 1 John 5:7 contained the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
There is the idea that a Greek manuscript for every authentic verse of
Scripture is obligatory. However, there is no reason to assume that the
Latin received text is not reliable.
On one hand, we have some second century Greek fathers, such as
Irenaeus, Athenagorus and Hippolytus, who were aware of the “three
persons in one God” formula. This word, prosopon, is the word the earli-
est writers employed to say, in Greek, “One God in three persons.” The
Latin term persona is the correlative term to prosopon.
John Calvin wrote:
Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to

the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner,
perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have
taught that there are three “prosopa” in God. All these,
however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as
to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance (John Cal-
vin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter
XIII, 2).
Calvin was most likely referring to Hippolytus who uses “prosopon”

to describe the three persons of the Trinity throughout his refutation of
the heresy of modalistic monarchianism.
Hippolytus c. AD 200 — “If, again, he allege His own

word when He said, ‘I and the Father are one,’ [John
10:30], let him attend to the fact, and understand that He
97
did not say, ‘I and the Father am one, but are one.’ For
the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to
two persons, and one power.” (Hippolytus, Against the
Heresy of One Noetus).
In addition, we have direct quotations of “these three are one” verse,

referring to the Trinity in John 5:7,8, from the following Latin Fathers.
Tertullian c. AD 200 — “These Three are one essence

not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One’
[John 10:30] in respect of unity of Being not singularity
of number” (Against Praxeas, 25).
Cyprian c. AD 250 — “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father

are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’”
(Treatise 8, ch.3).
Priscillian c. AD 380 — “As John says, ‘and there are

three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh
the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three
which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.’”
(Liber Apologeticus)
Augustine AD 410 — “Therefore God supreme and true,

with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one
God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of
every body” (City of God, Book 5, Chapter 11).
Several orthodox African writers also quoted the verse when defend-
ing the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Carthage in AD 484 —
Vigilius of Thapsus, Victor Vitensis, and Fulgentius of Ruspe.
Vigilius of Thapsus AD 484 — “Also to the Parthians,

‘There are three,’ He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the
water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us.
And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Fa-
ther, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one””
(Three Witnesses in Heaven).
98
Victor Vitensis AD 484 — “And in order to show with

clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist
bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Spirit, and these three are one’” (Historia persecutionis
Africanae Provinciae, Book 3, Chapter 11).
Fulgentius of Ruspe AD 513 — “See, in short you have

it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy
Spirit another; in person, each is other, but in nature they
are not other. In this regard he [Christ] says, `The Father
and I, we are one’ [John 10:30]. He teaches us that `one’
refers to their nature and `we are’ to their persons. In like
manner it is said, `There are three who bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these
three are one’ [1 John 5:7]. Let Sabellius hear ‘we are,’
let him hear ‘three,’ and let him believe that there are
three Persons” (The Trinity 4:1).
The Latin Textus Receptus — “… the Father, the Word,

and the Spirit, and these three are one.”
The earliest Greek manuscript containing 1 John 5 is Codex Sinaiti-

cus from AD 350. There is at least a 150 year gap between that manu-
script without the Comma and the earlier witnesses referring to the Trin-
ity as “these three are one.” The Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7,8 was
known to the Greek and Latin Fathers. If it was interpolated, it happened
far earlier than AD 1500 — the date claimed by some textual critics. In
fact, quotations first begin to appear soon after AD 200. There is no rea-
son to think of the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7,8 as either a mistake
in transliteration or as an intentional forgery.
* Editor’s note: I have made use of the writings of Andrew Sandlin whose material
has been edited and paraphrased in the section: “Why Modalism is Heresy.”
99

The following questions are designed to make you understand
the problems with a modalistic interpretation of the Godhead.
You will find it impossible to assume the modalist view while try-
ing to interpret the following Scriptures.
1. “Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven,

He said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that
the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority
over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may
give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know
You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have
sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the
work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify
Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with
You before the world was.’” (John 17: 1-5).
Jesus prayed to His Father. Was this relationship temporary

or was this eternal? What problems does the modalist
encounter in interpreting this Scripture?
2. “… and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily

form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, ‘You are
My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased’” (Luke 3:22).
Who is speaking in this passage?
3. “‘When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you

from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds
from the Father, He will testify about Me, “ (John 15:26).
Note that Jesus did not merely say: “I am sending you my

Spirit.” This passage is meant to teach us something about
the co-eternal bond that exists between the Father and the
Son. What is the interaction between the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit implied here?
100
4. On the cross, Jesus prayed, “My God, My God, why have

you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).
To whom was Jesus praying in this passage?
5. “God is love” (1 John 4:16).
Love, an eternal attribute of God, existed before the creation

of the universe. Who did God love before the creation of
Adam, if there were not distinct persons in the Godhead?
101
Chapter 5
Christology
Jesus Christ: Fully Man and Fully God
At the end of the 19th century, a school of liberal theologians arose

in Germany. They were called the higher critics. Their proclaimed goal
was to isolate the “true historical Jesus” from the “God-man” who has
been worshipped and adored by the Church for two millennia. The ef-
fect of these apostates has grown to the current day as they have stripped
layer upon layer from the “historic Jesus.” The divinity of Jesus Christ
is presumed to be a myth. His many miraculous works are deemed to
be legend. The circumstances of His life, His teachings and works were
brought into doubt. Further examinations of the higher critics’ claims by
archaeologists and historians revealed ample evidence that the Gospel
accounts are accurate records. But these men were undaunted by facts.
Even today, the skeptics continue to spread the error of a “historical Je-
sus” in the Church.
The claims of the higher critics are nothing new. In the first and sec-
ond centuries, early Christians had to deal with ridicule and abuse from
Jewish Rabbis and intellectual skepticism of Greek scholars and philoso-
phers.
Christology is defined simply as theology related to Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, as the second person of the Trinity. For the first five cen-
turies, the Church debated the nature of Jesus Christ. True Christianity
teaches that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God. In this chapter, we
will look at the abundant evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died as the
Gospel accounts testify; that He was incarnate as a man; and that as a
man He was also fully divine.
History confirms that the man Jesus really lived. All major world
religions claim that Jesus was a great religious figure: Jews, Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, many smaller cults and sects. Yet no other
“Savior” of mankind is a historical person who claimed to be God —
102
Chapter 5: Christology
only Jesus. Therefore, Christianity makes a unique claim. Many other

religions have man trying to become like God; only Christianity has God
becoming Man in order to atone for man’s sin.
No other founder of a world religion claimed to be the one true God
— not Moses, Mohammed, nor Buddha. In the eastern religions, we find
“god-kings” who claim to be divine — but something different is meant
here. They believe that there is a divine facet of the individual. But these
are polytheists; they are not claiming that any one individual man is the
One true God. If you are looking for an actual historical person, who
claimed to be the Messiah — and who claimed the be One with the true
God — look no further than Jesus Christ.
The difference between Jesus and other god-man figures of pagan
myths is that Jesus was a real person who lived in the first century. The
others are merely mythological figures — or at best they are shadowy
figures of legend. And the pagans knew this. Most primitive religions
understood that their myths were not, in fact, historically true, but stories
designed to illustrate a point.
These mythological figures — such as the Norse god Balder, who
died on a tree and rose from the dead after three days; the Greek hero
Hercules who descended into Hades; Virishina, the crucified Hindu god;
the Celtic hero upon which the King Arthur legend is based, etc. — are
similar to Christ. Cultures as far reaching as the Chinese and the Native
Americans have stories and myths which are similar to the Bible. This
shows us that almost universally mankind has been looking for a Savior
— a God-Man who would save us from our fallen state and appease the
wrath of God against us. Many cultures have assigned a mythological
figure with the attributes of Christ.
Throughout the world, the Bible is accepted as divine Scripture. Ev-
ery world religion accepts the Bible (or at least some portions) as a di-
vinely inspired book. The Apostle Paul made reference to this fact in his
preaching and writings (see Romans 1:20). In theology, this phenom-
enon is known as “natural revelation” — i.e., even pagan cultures that
do not have the Bible have some revealed truth in their myths. However,
only in the Biblical account of Jesus do we find exact historical records
that can be corroborated through archaeology and extant histories.
In Luke 2:1, we see that Jesus was born in the days when Quirin-
ius was governor of Syria; and when Caesar Augustus was Emperor. In
Luke 3:1, we are given the exact year of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry:
“in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; when Pontius Pilate
was the governor of Judea; when Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee; his
103
brother Phillip the tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis; and
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.” These were surrounding countries of Ju-
dea in the first century. These are all true persons and places that may be
corroborated in other recorded histories.
We have the record that Joseph and Mary answered a census in
Bethlehem when Augustus took a census of the whole world. This was
an actual historical event that can be proved through other sources. In
Luke 3:23, we are given an exact genealogy of Jesus. All the Jews were
supposed to know their exact lineage. The Church fathers said that the
Gospel of Luke contains the genealogy of Mary and that Matthew has
Joseph’s genealogy. (Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King
David — a historical figure.) We are also given exact accounts of his-
torical events that took place at Jesus’ death and at the formation of the
Christian church.
The most reliable witnesses to Christ’s existence, would have been
His disciples — who wrote some books in addition to the New Testa-
ment canon — but there are pagan references to Christ as well. There
are comparatively few pagan writings of contemporaries of Jesus who
mention him by name — but that testifies to the fact that many of the
witnesses of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection became Christians.
The following non-Christian historians mention Jesus:
• The correspondence between the Emperor Trajan (98-

117) and Pliny the Younger corroborates the New Testa-
ment history including the persecution of the Christians
under the Emperor.
• Tacitus in his Annals (c. 115) mentions that Christ was

crucified under Pontius Pilate and gives detailed descrip-
tions of Nero’s persecutions that are alluded to in the New
Testament.
• Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian,

makes mention of Jesus, his brother James and John the
Baptist.
Although some have claimed that Josephus’ passage is a forgery by

later Christian scribes, there is no real evidence for this claim. In fact,
most Josephus scholars agree that the two Jesus passages are either gen-
104
uine or partially genuine with some interpolations. The theory that it

is an outright forgery is held by a small minority of scholars and is the
product of mere speculation. There is no other passage in Josephus that
is attacked by the skeptics — only this one.
In fact, there is good evidence to prove that Josephus’ passage on
Jesus Christ is reliable and authentic, because the New Testament cor-
roborates Josephus in minutest detail in other places in his History. Keep
in mind that Josephus wrote his history after the time of the New Testa-
ment. Thus Josephus testifies to the reliability of the New Testament.
Both sources corroborate one another. In a court of law, that is proof
enough that both documents are reliable.
We do not know of any more references to Christ by contemporary
pagan writers, but there are hundreds of works from the early centuries
written by Christians. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin
in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots and a tremendous
amount of source documents to prove its beginnings.
The late first century Christian writers who mention Jesus are Clem-
ent of Rome (c. AD 35-101), Papias (c. 70-150) the writer of the Epistle
of Barnabas (c. 70-155); The writer of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 95-
135); Polycarp (c. 70-156), a student of the Apostle John; Ignatius (c.
70-110), the Bishop of Antioch, quotes from 16 New Testament books.
Of those born in the second century, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) quotes
from the Synoptic Gospels and constantly alludes to the Gospel of John;
Irenaeus (c. 120-200), the Bishop of Lyons, makes 1,819 references to
New Testament Scriptures; Tertullian (c. 160-220) quotes from the New
Testament 7,258 times. So we have first and second century apologists
who wrote extensively about Jesus and Christianity.
Among a few other Church Fathers from the second century and doz-
ens more from the third century there are hundreds of works quoting
from the Gospels and the New Testament. Most of the text of the New
Testament could be assembled from these writings alone.
A book based on new research, The Rise of Christianity by Rodney
Stark, cites historical evidence on the make-up of the church in the first
four centuries. According to the author, the early church was made up of
mainly converted Jews in the first century. The Christian movement at
the time of AD 100 was comparatively small; church historians estimate
that there were churches in about three dozen urban church centers and
less than 100,000 Christians in the whole world. It is no surprise, there-
fore, that there are not a lot of pagan historians from the first century who
noticed Christians. They were regarded as a sect of Judaism.
105
By the second century, however, Christianity began to make inroads

into the pagan intelligentsia. By the early second century, we find a lot
of Christian philosophy being developed and we find more references to
Christianity in pagan writings. The works of the Church Fathers during
what is known as the Ante-Nicene patristic period (c. AD 100-325) are
massive considering the early Church’s size. These apologists wrote a
lot of books defending the Christian faith. And there is much evidence
from these writers, some of whom were contemporaries of the Apostles,
which corroborates Jesus existed. In fact, there is more historical evi-
dence from this era that Jesus existed than to prove that William Shake-
speare or George Washington lived.
In addition to many quotations of the Gospels from the first and sec-
ond centuries that agree with the versions of later manuscripts, archaeolo-
gists have, in recent years, uncovered many manuscript fragments. These
fragments were originally complete copies of the original manuscripts of
the New Testament. Manuscript fragments are scraps of papyrus leaves
that have survived throughout the centuries in rubbish heaps or have lain
forgotten in monasteries. Many of these fragments have been dated from
the second and third centuries. The oldest known fragment is a tiny scrap
of papyrus, 3-1/2” by 2-1/2” containing John 18:31-33, which scholars
have assigned to the early part of the second century.
Eusebius, the 4th century historian, tells us that Mark was Peter’s
interpreter and traveled with him to Rome in AD 60. J.B. Phillips writes
that during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authori-
ties used the appearance of Mark’s Gospel as evidence to implicate the
Christians as the cause of a large fire that had burned much of the city.
On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ the
Son of God” (Phillips, J.B. The New Testament in Modern English). In
the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently
the title of Mark’s Gospel was misconstrued as treasonous.
Some higher critics suggested that writers pretending to be Matthew
and Luke made up a fictitious person, Jesus, and invented a genealogy
and added historical references as time went by thus “improving” the
historicity and authenticity of their “gospel.” The science of “textual crit-
icism” flatly contradicts any claim that historical references were added
as time went by. One of the earliest papyrus copies of Matthew contains
the genealogical record of Jesus. There is no evidence that the earliest
manuscripts of the Bible were altered to be more “historical” as time
went on.
In fact, there is good proof that little of the Bible has been altered.
106
The Jews recorded exact historical references (the best of the ancients)
because they believed that God was trying to teach them something
through history.
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost biblical ar-
chaeologists, said: “In my opinion, every book in the New Testament
was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and 80s of the first cen-
tury AD (very probably sometime between about AD 50-75).”
The New Testament was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ minis-
try — His own disciples — Peter, John, and Matthew— and by apostles
that later arose in the first century Church — Paul, Luke, Mark, James
and Jude. Although 19th century higher critics once tried to assign later
dates to New Testament books, nearly all modern scholars regard the
New Testament as a primary source document from the first century.
In the late 19th and 20th century, there have been thousands of ar-
chaeological discoveries of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
that are hundreds of years older than the manuscripts available prior to
this century. There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament and 24,000 manuscript portions available for study.
In other words, there are more reliable New Testament manuscripts in
the original Greek language available for direct translation into modern
English today than ever before.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of
the British Museum, states, “The last foundation for any doubt that the
Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has
now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the
books in the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
According to the Apostle Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, there
were over 500 eyewitnesses, including all the Apostles of the New Testa-
ment, who saw Jesus after the resurrection. But not that many of them
recorded this in writing. Many preached the Gospel and a few of them
wrote books. The vast majority of Jews in those days could read Scrip-
ture, but few were taught to write.
Saul of Tarsus was one of the greatest contemporary minds of Jesus.
This was, of course, the terror to the Church who was doing all of the
persecuting in the book of Acts, who later became known as the Apostle
Paul. Even if Saul had not been converted as the Apostle Paul, he would
have been known as a great Rabbi. He was likely one of the few Apos-
tles, with the notable exception of Matthew, a tax collector, who was an
accomplished writer.
Saul of Tarsus lived during the time of Jesus. In fact, Saul was born at
107
least within ten years of Christ. Tarsus is in modern day southern Turkey.
Saul came to Jerusalem to study under the Rabbi Gamaliel while still in
his twenties, so he may have been in Jerusalem during the time of the
crucifixion of Christ. There is no evidence that Saul met Jesus; except
that he preached the Gospel at first without having been instructed by
the Apostles. That indicates that he knew about Jesus from the time of
Christ’s ministry in Galilee and Judea — or he may have been instruct-
ed by Barnabas. The Apostle Paul later met with the other Apostles at
Jerusalem who confirmed his version of the Gospel. Luke’s Gospel is
thought to be the Gospel of Paul, or a very similar account using Paul as
a primary source, since Luke traveled with Paul.
Although most of the 500 witnesses did not write accounts of Jesus,
there is strong testimony of Jesus Christ in the deaths of martyrs in the
first and early second century. Many of the eyewitnesses to Christ’s res-
urrection died as martyrs for their faith. It would be hard to imagine peo-
ple dying for a fraudulent claim. We also have several other “gospels”
and apostolic writings (such as the Shepherd of Hermas; and the Epistle
of Barnabas) from the first century. However, only the existing New Tes-
tament canon was decided to be authoritative by the early Church.
There is tremendous evidence from the first and second century that
corroborates the New Testament Scriptures. Most of these writings were
by Christians of the New Testament era. Because new writings have been
discovered frequently in modern history, we can imagine that many other
such writings are irretrievably lost. There are thousands of extant manu-
scripts of the New Testament and thousands of manuscripts of Christian
writings from the first and early second century by people who claimed
to have seen Jesus or who knew one or more of the Apostles.
The Didache — a collection of Christian teachings from the late first

century contains the Lord’s Prayer, which is identical with Matthew 6:9-
13, and also prayers spoken during baptism and communion services of
the early church.
The Epistle of Barnabas (late first or second century) — Written

possibly by the same Barnabas (though many have disputed this) men-
tioned in Acts and thought to be one of the 500 witnesses:
Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type

and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of
God. Since, therefore, they were to say that Christ was
108
the son of David, fearing and understanding the error of

the wicked, he saith, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy foot-
stool.” And again, thus saith Isaiah, “The Lord said to
Christ, my Lord, whose right hand I have holden, that the
nations should yield obedience before Him; and I will
break in pieces the strength of kings.” Behold how David
calleth Him Lord and the Son of God.
Polycarp (late first and second century) — A disciple of John and

Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (the city of Izmir in modern Turkey).
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righ-

teousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but
because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor
any other such one, can come up to the wisdom” of the
blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, ac-
curately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the
presence of those who were then alive. And when absent
from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully
study, you will find to be the means of building you up
in that faith which has been given you, and which, being
followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God,
and Christ, and our neighbor, “is the mother of us all.”
For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces,
he hath fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he
that hath love is far from all sin. (Epistle of Polycarp
3:21-23)
But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our
everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth,
and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering,
forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot
and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on
all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord
Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who raised Him from the
dead (Polycarp 12:2).
109
Papias (late first century) — the Bishop of Hierapolis (in modern

western Turkey) ordained by John and a friend of Polycarp:
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down

accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, how-
ever, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds
of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied
Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter,
who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of
his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular nar-
rative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no
mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered
them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit
anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious
into the statements.... Matthew put together the oracles
[of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one in-
terpreted them as best he could (Fragments of Papias).
Clement of Rome (AD 96) — a bishop ordained by Peter:
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to

the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble ex-
amples furnished in our own generation. Through envy
and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars
[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.
Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Pe-
ter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two,
but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered
martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.
Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient
endurance, after being seven times thrown into captiv-
ity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both
in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation
due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole
world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and
suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he
removed from the world, and went into the holy place,
having proved himself a striking example of patience”
(Epistle of Clement 5:10-17).
110
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the

Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God.
Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles
by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in
an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having
therefore received their orders, and being fully assured
by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and estab-
lished in the word of God, with full assurance of the
Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the king-
dom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through
countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of
their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to
be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards
believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many
ages before it was written concerning bishops and dea-
cons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, “I will
appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons
in faith” (Clement 42:3-9).
Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110-117) — A bishop ordained by John:
But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegot-

ten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and
Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a
Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-
begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who af-
terwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the
Word was made flesh” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:6-8).
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appoint-

ment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the
seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost (Ignatius to the
Ephesians 18:2,3).
… in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed

of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of
man and the Son of God …(Ignatius to the Ephesians
20:2).
I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union
both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant
111
source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing

is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father,
in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of
this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God. (Igna-
tius to the Magnesians 1:2).
He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning

of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and
remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there
shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet (Ignatius to the
Magnesians 6:4-6).
On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired

by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is
one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by
Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but
essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utter-
ance, but a substance begotten by divine power, who has
in all things pleased Him that sent Him (Ignatius to the
Magnesians 8:4,5).
Mathetes (an early second century apologist):
For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which

was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of
opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so care-
fully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries
been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is
almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent
from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the
truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has
firmly established Him in their hearts…. As a king sends
his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He
sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent
Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for
violence has no place in the character of God. As calling
us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving
us He sent Him, not as judging us (Epistle to Diognetus).
112
Justin Martyr (second century apologist) — A letter written in de-

fense of the Christian faith to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (c. AD 155):
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-
birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and
that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and
died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we pro-
pound nothing different from what you believe regarding
those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter…. But, as we
said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And
we have learned that those only are deified who have
lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe
that those who live wickedly and do not repent are pun-
ished in everlasting fire.
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a

man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wis-
dom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writ-
ers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we as-
sert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar
manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as
said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say
that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one
objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par
with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered
as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death
are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so
that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does
He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as
we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we
will now prove Him superior — or rather have already
proved Him to be so — for the superior is revealed by
His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of
a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept
of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the
lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say
what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done
by Aesculapius.
113
And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that

He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: “Be-
hold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and
they shall say for His name, ‘God with us.’” For things
which were incredible and seemed impossible with men,
these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about
to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass,
there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their
prediction. But lest some, not understanding the proph-
ecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we
have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that
Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to ex-
plain the words.
This, then, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” signifies

that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if
she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was
no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come
upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while
yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was
sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good
news, saying, “Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy
Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the
Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus;
for He shall save His people from their sins,” — as they
who have recorded all that concerns our Savior Jesus
Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah
also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy
declared that He should be born as we intimated before.
It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the

power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also
the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses de-
clared; and it was this which, when it came upon the vir-
gin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by
intercourse, but by power. And the name “Jesus” in the
Hebrew language means “Savior” in the Greek tongue.
Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, “Thou shalt
call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from
their sins.” And that the prophets are inspired by no other
114
than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant.

And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as
another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: “And
thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least
among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come
forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.” Now there
is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from
Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can
ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under
Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea (From the first
Apology of Justin).
There is even more evidence when we take into account the writings
of Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other apologists, who wrote
volumes of material in the second century. These writers did not discuss
church history and practice as much as they debated biblical theology
with pagan philosophers and heretics. Thus we know more about the
history of the Church of the apostolic era (AD 30 to 70) than we do of
the Church of the second century, but we are certain that there was a con-
tinuous thread of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
There are thousands of extant manuscripts of the extra-biblical writ-
ings by early Christians that testify the truth of the Gospel. Today, we
can reconstruct all of the body of Christian doctrine and much of New
Testament Scripture from writings of first and second century Christians.
These writings are not considered to be on the same level as Scripture by
the Church. Nevertheless, they are fascinating historical documents that
prove the New Testament to be authentic, reliable and accurate.
There is a strong literary tradition that links those who lived during
the Apostolic era through the second century up to the time of Tertullian.
Around the time of the Council of Nicea when Christianity became a
state religion of Rome, there is another explosion of writings and re-
cords. In summary, we know that Jesus Christ was certainly a histori-
cal person because documents exist in abundance and trace a tradition
consistent with the writings of the Apostles found in the New Testament:
• Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus mention that Christ lived in

the first century.
• Church Fathers who knew the Apostles record the cir-

cumstances of Christ’s birth.
115
• Second century apologists confirm the writings of the

Apostles and the Church Fathers.
• The written creeds of the early church also record the

circumstances of Christ’s birth.
God left mainly three things on earth to testify of Jesus: the Holy
Spirit, the Scriptures and the Church. Or as the Apostle John put it:
“There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the Water and the Blood”
(1 John 5:8). According to some interpreters, the “water” is thought to
symbolize the written Word of God; and the “blood” is thought to sym-
bolize the blood of the martyrs (or literally: “witnesses”). This passage
seems to indicate that in addition to the Word of God in written form, we
have living testimonies of those within the Church and the leading of the
Holy Spirit to convince us of God’s salvation.
Jesus Christ was God incarnate as a man
The great third century Christian apologist, Athanasius, compiled a

simple, clear and concise argument in favor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
His work, On the Incarnation was essentially the first systematic attempt
at a Christology — a set of teachings on the birth, life, death, resurrec-
tion, heavenly reign and second coming of Jesus Christ. The work was
profound enough to compel scholars of his day, and also lucid enough
to serve as a set of teachings for the common people. Athanasius’ work
was directed primarily at skeptics who denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
The basic outline of Christology since the time of Athanasius has
included the following seven points of teaching:
1. Incarnation — Two natures — full deity and full humanity — are

inseparably united in the one person of Christ. His full humanity is sup-
ported by Scripture: (Jn. 8:40; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:14,17). His full deity
is likewise supported: (Jn. 1:1-3; 10; 30; Heb. 1:10-12; Rom. 9:5; Col.
2:9). Because man brought sin and death into the world (Rom. 5:12-19),
Christ the only begotten Son of God became man in order to die for our
sins and become a true mediator-priest (Heb. 2:17,18). Further, Christ
vicariously lived a perfect life for us (Lk. 4:1,2; Jas. 1:13) that He might
reveal God to us (Jn. 1:18; Heb. 1:1-3) and so that righteousness could
be imputed to man through His sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Jn.
3:5).
116
2. Kenosis — When discussing the full deity and full humanity of

Jesus, it is important to distinguish the divine nature of Christ from his
human nature. At the incarnation, Jesus in his human nature gave up not
only the environment of the Godhead and his position as Ruler, but also
the use of his divine attributes. Jesus temporarily demonstrated non-use
of His own omniscience (Mt. 24:36), omnipotence (Mk. 6:5), omnipres-
ence (Jn. 4:4), righteousness (Heb. 4:15; 9:14), justice (Jn. 5:30), and
immortality (1 Cor. 15:3) in his human nature. The key Scripture for
kenosis is Philippians 2:6,7. Jesus “who, being in the form of God, did
not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no
reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the like-
ness of men.” Jesus did not hold onto His equality with God, but rather
“emptied” (Greek: kenoo) Himself of His divine privileges. Jesus could
“do nothing of Himself” (Jn. 5:19), but “the Father abiding in Him does
His works” (Jn. 14:28). Jesus was made like us in all things. Jesus lived
a holy life by the same means given to us — by dependence on God
and the power of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:10-17). A brief warning about
using the term, kenosis, is that it is important to distinguish Jesus Christ
being emptied of divine privilege by taking on the form of a man from a
heretical view of kenosis that would insist that the Son of God emptied
Himself of His divine nature or His divine attributes.
3. Descent — Between his death and resurrection, Jesus visited

the waiting place of the dead (Hades, Sheol, or Hell). There Christ an-
nounced his victory and their salvation to Old Testament believers (1
Pet. 4:6). He proclaimed defeat and judgment to either Noahic demons
or the unbelievers of Noah’s day. (1 Pet. 3:19). “Descent” (Eph. 4:9)
may refer either to the incarnation, Christ’s burial, or the underworld.
The meaning of the above passages have been disputed by some modern
scholars, but the Church Fathers unanimously taught that at His death Je-
sus really died and went to hell in our place. In the words of the Apostles’
Creed, “He descended into hell.”
4. Resurrection — Christ rose bodily from the dead, resulting in an

empty tomb. Theories that the resurrection was spiritual or in the minds
of the apostles are excluded. This testifies to the authority and truthful-
ness of Jesus and His message (Mt. 12:39,40; Jn. 2:19; 1 Cor. 15:4). It
objectively demonstrates our forgiveness: that Christ’s death was effec-
tive for forgiving sins (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:17; 1 Pet. 1:3). The image
of the Old Testament priest re-emerging from the Holy of Holies is al-
117
luded to in the book of Hebrews and elsewhere. The fact that the priest
survived was evidence that the sacrifice had been accepted by God. It
affirms the fact of the believer’s future resurrection and eternal life (1
Cor. 15:18-23). It assures the believer’s position in Christ (Rom. 6:4,5;
Eph. 2:6) and the power to live the Christian life (Eph. 1:19,20).
5. Ascension — Christ’s resurrected body was literally taken up into

the sky, and He is seated at the right hand of God in heaven. He presented
His body as a living and eternal sacrifice to the Father (Heb. 9:14). He
went to prepare a place for believers (Jn. 14:2,3). He went to be glorified
and to allow the Holy Spirit to be sent to the church (Jn. 7:38,39).
6. Session — Christ sits at the right hand of God, interceding for

believers and guiding the church as its head during the present age. He
mediates between us and the Father (1 Jn. 2:1,2; Heb. 7:25). He rules
and guides the Church (Eph. 1:20,23). He rules over the nations with all
authority (Psalm 110).
7. Second Advent — Christ will physically return to earth to rule, de-

scending bodily from the sky (Acts 1:9-11). He will rule the resurrected
saints as king (Rev. 21:1-4). He will reward the members of the church
for their deeds done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 3:10-15).
Jesus Christ while being fully incarnate as man is also fully the
Son of God!
All Christological heresies can be divided into two broad categories:

Adoptionism (or Ebionism) and Docetism. The first heresy overempha-
sized Jesus’ human nature; the second emphasized His divine nature
while denying the full importance of His human incarnation. Here we
will examine the chief heresies of early Church history and we will see
a pendulating between two extremes. Churches in the West (centered
around Alexandria) tended to overemphasize the divine nature of Christ,
while the churches in the East (centered around Antioch) taught the hu-
manity of Jesus often at the expense of His full divine nature.
What is a Christological heresy? The plain meaning of the word her-
etic from the New Testament is a “divisive man.” This implies a number
of things, but essentially it is someone who introduces doctrine into the
Church that divides and leads some away from the truth. In fact, all doc-
trine divides. That is why we have doctrine in the first place, to divide the
118
true from the false. But in order for a man to be a “heretic,” his doctrine
must not only be false, but bad enough that it could result in damnation.
On a primary level, there are the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, which
define the bare minimum standard for orthodoxy. A person who does not
hold to all these tenets is not a Christian. On a secondary level, there are
Christological heresies and other doctrinal errors. This is where it gets
sticky. One may believe Jesus is Lord and still hold to Christological er-
ror. We cannot judge whether a man is saved on the basis of what he be-
lieves about Jesus Christ. Since it is our faith that justifies us in the sight
of God, a person could have saving faith without being self-conscious
about what that faith actually means.
There were a number of Christological heresies that appeared in the
early centuries of the Church. Some doctrinal errors were held by men
who sincerely sought to uphold truth. Some heretics sought to defend
the truth against a more serious error. By taking an aspect of truth to
an extreme, they committed an error. These heretics actually proved to
be useful because they provoked a series of Church councils that fur-
ther defined the scriptural teaching on the person of Jesus Christ through
written creeds and canons. “Creeds” are short statements describing the
object of our faith. “Canons” and “confessions” are longer documents
that attempt to systematize the Christian faith on a variety of topics.
An orthodox belief system does not save us, it merely explains what
our belief system is. But a thoughtful study of these heresies today will
increase our faith by giving us a deeper understanding of the question:
“Who is Jesus Christ?”
The following are some brief descriptions of the major Christological
heresies of the early Church.
Docetism — A first century Gnostic belief that Christ was a spirit

being only. According to this view, Christ appeared to have a real human
body, but actually was an ethereal being much like an angel. It derives its
name from the Greek, dokein, “to seem, to appear.” Docetism is the basis
for many other heresies emphasizing the divine nature of Christ.
Adoptionism — This heresy is seen among with the dynamic mo-

narchians of the early second century who taught that the man Jesus was
adopted into the Sonship by an act of God. In general, adoptionism is any
belief that Jesus was a man who was elevated to divinity at some point in
his life. Like Docetism, there are many different versions of Adoptionist
heresies.
119
Ebionism — Adoptionism is sometimes called Ebionism, from the

word, ebion, which means poor. A first century heresy originating with
Jewish Christians, the Ebionites rejected the teachings of Paul and em-
phasized the importance of the law of Moses. Generally, they regarded
Jesus as a divinely inspired prophet but not as God. The Ebionites taught
hat Jesus was the Messiah, the first born of God. However, they taught
that He was born as a mere man and achieved perfection through perfect
obedience to God. Thus Christ is our example rather than our God and
Savior.
Gnosticism — A term covering a wide range of religious thought in

the first few centuries after Christ. It originated in paganism, but adopted
many Christian elements, and became a major threat to Christianity. In
general, Gnosticism held that spirit is good, matter is evil, salvation con-
sists in deliverance of the spirit from matter, and salvation is achieved by
means of a secret or higher knowledge (Greek, gnosis). Gnosticism as
applied to the Godhead and to Christology held the following: The Su-
preme God was transcendent and unapproachable, but from Him came
a series of progressively more inferior emanations (called aeons). The
lowest of these aeons was Jehovah. Christ is one of the highest aeons.
Since all matter is evil, Christ was a spirit being only and had only an
apparent body (the doctrine of Docetism). Or, some taught that Christ
was a spirit being temporarily associated with a man Jesus who died (the
doctrine of Cerinthianism). These Gnostic views on the Godhead were
opposed by John in his writings and by Paul in Colossians.
Marcionism — Is popularly known as the “two-Gods” heresy.

Marcion, was the son the bishop of Sinope. His teachings appeared in
the early second century. Marcion opposed the Jewish Scriptures. He
claimed that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures was an evil, creator God
and not the Father of Jesus Christ. He held a Docetic view of Christ,
claiming that Jesus could not be human, since the evil Jewish God cre-
ated the flesh. He taught that Jesus liberated Christians from the power
of the creator God (the power of the flesh). He thought that only Paul un-
derstood the true teachings of Jesus Christ and formed a false, heretical
list of Christian Scriptures. It consisted only of ten letters of Paul and the
Gospel of Luke, which Marcion believed to have been written by Paul.
He taught that grace is the opposite of law; love is the opposite of jus-
tice; Jesus is a loving God and cannot condemn anyone to hell. Marcion
provided a false New Testament canon and forced the Church to defend
120
the true canon. His heresies were opposed in the writings of Irenaeus and
Tertullian. Marcion succeeded in building his own church, and his teach-
ings survived in the East until the fifth century.
Manichaeism — Much more than simply a heresy, Manichaeism

was the largest and most organized Gnostic religion. Founded by Mani,
a third century Persian mystic, it spread over most of the known world.
Manichaean teaching is a dualistic, extreme separation between the spir-
itual and natural world. Good and evil spiritual powers are equal and
independent from each other. Good and evil were originally separate
realms, but evil invaded good and physical matter was the result. The
good forces had to create the world, as a wall between the two realms.
Thus creation was a cosmic catastrophe. The world is now caught in a
battle between good and evil. Manichaeism also teaches a dualism in hu-
man beings. In everyone there is a divine light of the soul, which needs
to be released from the dark material of the body. The meaning of life is
to participate on the divine side of this battle. Every man carries inside
him a seed of light. By Gnosis (or hidden knowledge) this piece of light
can be brought back to the divine world after death. This Gnosis can
be discovered by man’s intellect, but is also something that is revealed,
through messengers like Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus and, of course, Mani.
During the Roman Empire, Manichaeism was strongest in North Africa.
St. Augustine of Hippo was a Manichaean for nine years before his con-
version to Christianity. Its teachings had lasting effects on various Doce-
tic Christian sects, such as the Cathari and Albigensians.
Arianism — The Christological views of Arius, a fourth century

priest at Alexandria. Arius held that there is only one God, and that the
Son or Logos is a divine being like God, but created by God. Thus, Jesus
was a “lesser god.” This view came very close to sweeping Christendom
in the fourth century, but was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325
and again at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Macedonianism — Is not really a Christological heresy, but rather

a Pneumatalogical heresy, a heresy about the relationship of the Holy
Spirit to the Father and the Son. Macedonius, a fourth century bishop
of Constantinople, did to the Holy Spirit what Arius had done to Je-
sus. He taught that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and Son.
Those holding this heresy are also called Pneumata-machoi (i.e., those
who fight against the Spirit). The Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
121
was called to deal with this heresy. The Church reaffirmed the Nicene
Creed and denounced Macedonianism. Thirty-six Macedonianist bish-
ops walked of the council out when this doctrine was condemned.
Apollinarianism — The Apollinarians are named for Apollinarius,

the fourth century bishop of Laodicea. Apollinarius opposed the two na-
tures in Christ. Apollinarianism is the heresy addressed by the Council
of Chalcedon in 451. It is also called the Monophysite heresy, because
the Monophysites held that Christ had only one dominant nature, and it
was the divine nature. Monophysitism, explains the one nature in Christ
in one of four ways: the human nature is absorbed by the divine; the di-
vine Word (Logos) disappears in the humanity of Christ; a unique third
nature is created from the combination of the divine and human natures;
or there is a composition (a natural whole) of humanity and divinity,
without confusion.
Nestorianism — Nestorius, the fifth century bishop of Constanti-

nople, taught that Christ had two complete natures — human and divine.
He taught that one could not call Mary the “Mother of God” because she
was the mother of the human nature only. The Council of Ephesus in 431
condemned Nestorius for dividing Christ into two persons, but Nestorius
denied the charge. Possibly, he taught that the two natures of Christ were
united morally or in purpose only rather than essentially or physically.
However, many historians conclude that Nestorius actually taught two
natures in one person, but became the victim of misunderstanding and
opposition because he emphasized the distinctions between the two na-
tures and refused to call Mary the mother of God.
Eutychianism — Monophysitism later reappeared in modified form

as Eutychianism, after Eutyches, a fifth century leader of a Constanti-
nople monastery. Eutyches taught that in Jesus Christ the humanity was
absorbed by the divinity, “dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea.”
Eutyches fought against the Nestorian doctrine that the two natures of
Christ represented two distinct persons. His doctrine was too reaction-
ary, however, and was condemned as heretical at the Council of Chalce-
don in 451.
The Christology of the Church Fathers
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Athanasius were the Church Fathers most re-
122
sponsible for checking the advance of Christological heresies in the first

four centuries of Church history. They wrote masterful works against
Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism and many oth-
er heresies. In refuting false doctrines with the truth about Jesus Christ,
they formed the basis for the Christology of the early Church.
During the fourth and fifth centuries, theological speculation in the
Church revolved around two great centers, Alexandria in Egypt and An-
tioch in Syria. The tendency of the Alexandrian school was mystical.
With this school the divinity of Christ was everything, and His humanity
was de-emphasized. The tendency of the school of Antioch was to ra-
tionalism, an emphasis on moral duties and independence of the human
will. The Alexandrian party generated Eutychianism, which absorbed the
humanity in the divinity; while the Antiochian party generated Nestori-
anism, in which the unity of the Person is maintained, but overempha-
sized the separation of the two natures, especially the human nature.
Nestorianism was condemned by the ecumenical council held at
Ephesus, AD 431, and Eutychianism was condemned by the council that
met at Chalcedon, AD 451.
The Chalcedonian Creed*
Christological heresy divided the Church in the fifth century. Some

stressed the humanity of Christ; while others stressed His divine nature.
The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds defined Christ as being both God and
man, however, there arose some further confusion over whether He was
a fully integrated God-man; or a half-God, half-man having different
natures at different times.
The Council of Chalcedon was called to define the nature of Christ as
both fully God and fully man diminished in neither aspect. Christ alone
is both God and man, He is the unique mediator between God and man.
He is our only priest. The Chalcedonian Creed implies that all power and
authority is invested in Christ by the Father. All human authority derives
from the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ alone can proclaim: “All power
is given to Me on heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). In Chalcedon,
we find the union of the heavenly and the earthly. Christ was both God
and man. As God, He brings the power of heaven to earth. As man, He
links the eternal power of God with the temporal power on earth.
This is of great importance because, in a certain sense, this idea has
become the foundation of Western culture. This principle defines true
liberty under the law of God because it acknowledges the only valid
123
claim of Lordship of the One who is the source of true human freedom.
This would lead us to conclude that there are limits of authority in all
human institutions. By implication, this creed directly challenges every
false claim of Lordship by any form of government: state, church, family
or individual.
Definition of Chalcedon
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching

all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in
humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and
actually man, with a rational soul [meaning human soul]
and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as
his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we our-
selves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us
in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he
was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and
now in these “last days,” for us and behalf of our salva-
tion, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who
is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only

Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and
we do this without confusing the two natures, without
transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing
them into two separate categories, without contrasting
them according to area or function. The distinctiveness
of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the
“properties” of each nature are conserved and both na-
tures concur in one “person” and in one reality [hypos-
tasis]. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but
are together the one and only and only-begotten Word
[Logos] of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the
prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ him-
self taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers [the Nicene
Creed] has handed down to us.
The Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553)
The Second Council of Constantinople was called to resolve certain

124
questions that were raised by the Definition of Chalcedon, the most im-
portant of which had to do with the unity of the two natures, God and
man, that is, Jesus Christ. The Second Council of Constantinople con-
firmed the Definition of Chalcedon, while emphasizing that Jesus Christ
does not just embody God the Son, He is God the Son.
The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople
I. If anyone does not confess that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit are one nature or essence, one power
or authority, worshipped as a trinity of the same essence,
one deity in three hypostases or persons, let him be
anathema. For there is one God and Father, of whom are
all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.
II. If anyone does not confess that God the Word was
twice begotten, the first before all time from the Father,
non- temporal and bodiless, the other in the last days
when he came down from the heavens and was incarnate
by the holy, glorious, God-bearer, ever-virgin Mary, and
born of her, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone says that God the Word who performed

miracles is one and Christ who suffered is another, or
says that God the Word was together with Christ who
came from woman, or that the Word was in him as one
person is in another, but is not one and the same, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and become hu-
man, and that the wonders and the suffering which he
voluntarily endured in flesh were not of the same person,
let him be anathema.
IV. If anyone says that the union of the Word of God with
man was only according to grace or function or dignity
or equality of honor or authority or relation or effect or
power or according to his good pleasure, as though God
the Word was pleased with man, or approved of him, as
the raving Theodosius says; or that the union exists ac-
cording to similarity of name, by which the Nestorians
125
call God the Word Jesus and Christ, designating the man
separately as Christ and as Son, speaking thus clearly
of two persons, but when it comes to his honor, dignity,
and worship, pretend to say that there is one person, one
Son and one Christ, by a single designation; and if he
does not acknowledge, as the holy Fathers have taught,
that the union of God is made with the flesh animated by
a reasonable and intelligent soul, and that such union is
according to synthesis or hypostasis, and that therefore
there is only one person, the Lord Jesus Christ one of
the holy Trinity — let him be anathema. As the word
“union” has many meanings, the followers of the impiety
of Apollinarius and Eutyches, assuming the disappear-
ance of the natures, affirm a union by confusion. On the
other hand the followers of Theodore and of Nestorius
rejoicing in the division of the natures, introduce only
a union of relation. But the holy Church of God, reject-
ing equally the impiety of both heresies, recognizes the
union of God the Word with the flesh according to syn-
thesis, that is according to hypostasis. For in the mystery
of Christ the union according to synthesis preserves the
two natures which have combined without confusion and
without separation.
V. If anyone understands the expression — one hypos-

tasis of our Lord Jesus Christ — so that it means the
union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to
introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or
two persons, and, after having introduced two persons,
speaks of one person according to dignity, honor or wor-
ship, as Theodore and Nestorius insanely have written;
and if anyone slanders the holy synod of Chalcedon, as
though it had used this expression [one hypostasis] in
this impious sense, and does not confess that the Word
of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that
therefore there is but one hypostasis or one person, and
that the holy synod of Chalcedon has professed in this
sense the one hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ; let
him be anathema. For the Holy Trinity, when God the
Word was incarnate, was not increased by the addition of
126
a person or hypostasis.
VI. If anyone says that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin

Mary is called God-bearer by misuse of language and
not truly, or by analogy, believing that only a mere man
was born of her and that God the Word was not incarnate
of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word result-
ed only from the fact that he united himself to that man
who was born of her; if anyone slanders the Holy Synod
of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be
God-bearer according to the impious sense of Theodore;
or if anyone shall call her man-bearer or Christ-bearer,
as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she
is truly God-bearer, because God the Word who before
all time was begotten of the Father was in these last days
incarnate of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in
this pious sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed
her to be God-bearer: let him be anathema.
VII. If anyone using the expression, “in two natures,”

does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ is made
known in the deity and in the manhood, in order to in-
dicate by that expression a difference of the natures of
which the ineffable union took place without confu-
sion, a union in which neither the nature of the Word
has changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh
into that of the Word (for each remained what it was by
nature, even when the union by hypostasis had taken
place); but shall take the expression with regard to the
mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, let
him be anathema. Or if anyone recognizing the number
of natures in the same our one Lord Jesus Christ, God
the Word incarnate, does not take in contemplation only
the difference of the natures which compose him, which
difference is not destroyed by the union between them
— for one is composed of the two and the two are in one
— but shall make use of the number two to divide the
natures or to make of them persons properly so called,
let him be anathema.
127
VIII. If anyone confesses that the union took place out of

two natures or speaks of the one incarnate nature of God
the Word and does not understand those expressions as
the holy Fathers have taught, that out of the divine and
human natures, when union by hypostasis took place,
one Christ was formed; but from these expressions tries
to introduce one nature or essence of the Godhead and
manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in saying
that the only-begotten Word was united by hypostasis
personally we do not mean that there was a mutual con-
fusion of natures, but rather we understand that the Word
was united to the flesh, each nature remaining what it
was. Therefore there is one Christ, God and man, of the
same essence with the Father as touching his Godhead,
and of the same essence with us as touching his man-
hood. Therefore the Church of God equally rejects and
anathematizes those who divide or cut apart or who in-
troduce confusion into the mystery of the divine dispen-
sation of Christ.
IX. If anyone says that Christ ought to be worshipped

in his two natures, in the sense that he introduces two
adorations, the one peculiar to God the Word and the
other peculiar to the man; or if anyone by destroying the
flesh, or by confusing the Godhead and the humanity,
or by contriving one nature or essence of those which
were united and so worships Christ, and does not with
one adoration worship God the Word incarnate with his
own flesh, as the Church of God has received from the
beginning; let him be anathema.
X. If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ

who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of
Glory and one of the Holy Trinity; let him be anathema.
XI. If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius,

Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Ori-
gen, together with their impious, godless writings, and
all the other heretics already condemned and anathema-
tized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by
128
the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who

have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in
holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just
mentioned; let him be anathema.
Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680, Sixth Ecumenical)
The whole Church, East and West, agreed on the definitions of Jesus
Christ offered by Chalcedon and Second Constantinople. But the advo-
cates of Eutychianism still endeavored to maintain, as a compromise po-
sition, that although the two natures in Christ remain entire and distinct,
they coalesce in Christ in one single Person, so that Person can possess
but one will, divine-human, and not a divine and a human will combined
in one personality.
This party was then known as the Monothelite, or the “one-will” par-
ty. This heresy was condemned at the sixth ecumenical council, held in
Constantinople in AD 680-681, the controversy was closed, and the faith
of the Church remained as represented by the old definitions until the
time of the Reformation.
Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth Ecumenical) further clarified
the Definition of Chalcedon, dealing with the question of whether the
two natures of Jesus Christ (God and man) had two separate wills as
well. The issue was important because of the existence of the Monophy-
site (one nature) heresy, which maintained that Jesus Christ has only one
nature, truncating to some degree His humanity in favor of His divin-
ity. Some taught that even though Jesus’ two natures, He had only one
will. The Third Council of Constantinople rejected this view as being too
close to the teaching of the Monophysites. The statement is an effort to
tread the line between the Monophysite and the Nestorian heresies:
The Statement of Faith of the Third Council of Constantinople
We also proclaim two natural willings or wills in him

and two natural operations, without separation, without
change, without partition, without confusion, according
to the teaching of the holy Fathers — and two natural
wills not contrary to each other, God forbid, as the impi-
ous heretics have said they would be, but his human will
following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather sub-
ject to his divine and all-powerful will. For it was proper
129
for the will of the flesh to be moved naturally, yet to be

subject to the divine will, according to the all-wise Atha-
nasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God
the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and
is God the Word’s own will, as he himself says: “I came
down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will
of the Father who sent me,” calling the will of the flesh
his own, as also the flesh had become his own. For in
the same manner that his all-holy and spotless ensouled
flesh, though divinized, was not destroyed, but remained
in its own law and principle also his human will, divin-
ized, was not destroyed, but rather preserved, as Gregory
the divine says: “His will, as conceived of in his charac-
ter as the Saviour, is not contrary to God, being wholly
divinized.” We also glorify two natural operations in
the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, without
separation, without change, without partition, without
confusion, that is, a divine operation and a human opera-
tion, as the divine preacher Leo most clearly says: “For
each form does what is proper to it, in communion with
the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to
the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the
flesh.” We will not therefore grant the existence of one
natural operation of God and the creature, lest we should
either raise up into the divine nature what is created, or
bring down the preeminence of the divine nature into the
place suitable for things that are made. For we recog-
nize the wonders and the sufferings as of one and the
same person], according to the difference of the natures
of which he is and in which he has his being, as the elo-
quent Cyril said.
Preserving therefore in every way the unconfused and

undivided, we set forth the whole confession in brief;
believing our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, to be one
of the holy Trinity even after the taking of flesh, we de-
clare that his two natures shine forth in his one hypos-
tasis, in which he displayed both the wonders and the
sufferings through the whole course of his dispensation,
not in phantasm but truly, the difference of nature being
130
recognized in the same one hypostasis by the fact that

each nature wills and works what is proper to it, in com-
munion with the other. On this principle we glorify two
natural wills and operations combining with each other
for the salvation of the human race.
Church Councils that condemned Christological heresies
Council of Nicea (AD 325) — was called by Constantine to consider

and, if possible, settle the ARIAN heresy. It gave the church the first great
ecumenical creed.
First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) — called by Emperor

Theodosius the Great to correct errors of APOLLINARIANISM and
MACEDONIANISM.
The Council of Ephesus (AD 431) — was presided over by Cyril,

Bishop of Alexandria, and was called to deal with NESTORIANISM.
The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) — three bishops and two pres-
byters presided. They were representatives of Leo of Rome. The Council
condemned EUTYCHIANISM.
Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553) — called to resolve

certain questions that were raised by the Definition of Chalcedon, the
most important of which had to do with the unity of the two natures, God
and man, that is, Jesus Christ is not just the embodiment of God the Son,
but is fully God the Son.
Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680) — was called by the

Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, and was against MONOTHELITISM.
* Editor’s note: I have made use of the writings of C. FitSimmons Allison’s The
Cruelty of Heresy and Erwin W. Lutzer’s All One Body — Why Don’t We Agree? in
compiling information on the heresies and councils of the early centuries. Material
from R.J. Rushdoony has been edited and paraphrased in the section: “The Chalce-
donian Creed.”
131

More than any other area of orthodoxy, modern Christians are
most often ignorant of Christology. The following questions are
designed to make you realize the importance of understanding
the true nature of Jesus Christ. Try to answer the questions using
your own knowledge before consulting the Scriptures above for
the answers.
1. Could Christ sin or couldn’t He?
2. Where did Christ go between His death and resurrection?
3. At the Incarnation, why did Christ empty himself of His

divine privileges? Did He also empty Himself of His divine
attributes? Why or why not?
4. Why is the bodily resurrection of Christ important?
5. What is Christ doing now?
6. Are any of these issues are non-essential? Which are

essential? Explain why.
If you had trouble answering any of these questions, you need

a better understanding of Christology!
132
Chapter 6
Protestants and Roman Catholics
The Reformation Paradigm
All over the world today it is happening afresh. Evangelical Chris-

tians are rediscovering the literary works of the Protestant Reformation
and are self-consciously studying Protestant theology as a model for a
new Reformation.
There is no doubt that this is a work of the Holy Spirit. God is re-
vealing the Reformation paradigm to the hearts and minds of Christians
throughout the world. God is emphasizing once again the historic doc-
trines of the Reformation: the sovereignty of God, the Law of God, the
total depravity of man, justification by faith alone, the authority of Scrip-
ture alone, and the universal priesthood of the believer.
In many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries today, there
is an evangelical awakening. Many new believers are joining evangelical
Protestant churches for the first time after a remarkable born-again expe-
rience. Prior to their conversion, many of these new believers had only a
vague understanding of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
They were only nominal in their faith and now have many questions.
Pastors of evangelical churches in the midst of this spiritual awakening
are spending much of their time answering the same questions over and
over again.
While they should be training the mature believers in their church-
es to be useful in ministry, they are spending untold hours explaining
the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. While they
should be training church leaders, they are too busy teaching new con-
verts their ABC’s.
In the midst of this evangelical awakening, even Christians in tradi-
tionally Protestant countries are recovering a biblical worldview. They
are beginning a systematic study of biblical doctrine that will strengthen
133
them in Reformed thinking. They are following in the footsteps of the

Protestant Reformation and returning to the vibrant, robust faith found
in Reformed theology.
“Reformed Theology?” you may ask, “Does this mean that every
Christian should master the Westminster Confession?
No doubt such a serious course of study must seem overwhelming
to average Christians, who are just trying to pay their bills, fulfill the
needs of their family, and find time to pray to God, study the Bible, and
be useful to the local church. This chapter provides a beginning to this
study of Reformation theology. It is an outline of the basics of Protestant
doctrine.
Protestantism establishes Jesus Christ as Lord over all areas of life
and can be defined as a return to the basic doctrines of the New Tes-
tament; especially a reemphasis of the Gospel of salvation by grace
through faith alone.
Time and again, God has given the blueprint for reformation through-
out history. Whenever the Church has reached a crisis stage, God has al-
ways brought revival and reformation to transform the moral climate of
the Church and the entire culture. Every great revival has been preceded
by a fresh emphasis on the doctrines of justification by faith alone and
regeneration.
The Reformation paradigm requires that all spheres of human life be
reformed according to biblical principles. Man’s lasting achievements
are institutions given by God. Consequently, the sixteenth, seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries saw great strides of reform in the areas of civil
government, law, the study of history, literature, the arts and sciences.
The Reformed models of these great institutions have since been imi-
tated all over the world.
The world is clamoring for answers. What have we to offer? There is
much “preaching of the Gospel” today, but too often there is no frame-
work, no undergirding, no consistent biblical worldview, no sense that
the preacher is sure where he is taking us. Thus the average Christian is
not trained to be discerning of what he hears and is tossed to and fro by
every wind of doctrine
But this is changing. Throughout the world, there is a reemergence of
the Reformation paradigm. We are hearing a clear trumpet sound. God
is marshalling His troops! The call to battle is being clearly heard and
understood!
This chapter will give you the basics of the Reformation Paradigm
and point you in the right direction so that you may be used of God
134
Chapter 6: Protestants and Roman Catholics
to lead your church and nation in the direction of revival and spiritual
awakening.
Where Protestants and Roman Catholics Must Agree
It may seem ironic, but the strongest argument that Protestants have
against the Roman Catholic Church, stems from where we must agree
the most with the Catholic Church.
Protestants must begin by affirming two truths: (1) sola scriptura:
that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of the living God, the
only objective rule of faith and worship; that the Bible alone — not the
Roman Catholic Church, the pope, nor church dogma — is infallible;
and (2) catholic orthodoxy: that the God who inspired the Bible has pre-
served of the correct understanding of His Word in history by means of
catholic orthodoxy. By catholic orthodoxy we mean the unifying truths
of the Church that are found in the four ecumenical creeds of the patristic
Church (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian).
Catholicity means literally “unity” or “universality.” The term Catho-
lic with an upper-case “C” is used to denote the Roman Catholic Church,
while catholic with a lower-case “c” is used in creeds and confessions to
denote all Christians. All true believers in Jesus Christ are, in this sense,
catholic, because they hold to the universal faith.
Orthodoxy means literally, “right opinion,” and is expressed by the
body of biblical doctrines systematized by the creeds of the early Church.
Orthodoxy is the basis for unity among Christians of widely different be-
liefs and practices.
Affirming both sola scriptura and historic orthodoxy at once may
seem contradictory, but in actuality, we cannot have one without the oth-
er. The Bible itself would not have been passed down to us today had the
Church not faithfully preserved the texts written by God’s apostles and
prophets. We cannot accept the canon of the Bible unless we accept the
authority of the patristic Church that received and preserved the canon.
Modern evangelicals are accustomed to hearing that the creeds are
“Roman Catholic” and therefore bad. Therefore, the creeds are often
neglected and not taught. But if we consider ourselves true Christians,
then we must accept the creeds. We must also believe that certain bibli-
cal doctrines were faithfully preserved throughout the centuries by the
Catholic Church, such as — original sin; the Trinity; the human and di-
vine natures of Christ; the virgin birth, the death burial and resurrection
of Jesus; the Second Coming of Christ; the resurrection and judgment of
135
the dead; and eternal heaven and hell. In short, Protestants must agree
with Roman Catholics in the area of patristic orthodoxy.
Doctrines of the Protestant Reformation
Too often discussions on the Reformation between Protestants and

Roman Catholics generate more heat than light. Two things that should
concern us from the outset are being fair in characterizing the views
of Roman Catholics that are different from ours; and the spirit that we
manifest when we disagree with these views. The leaders of the Protes-
tant Reformation of the 1500s were attacked viciously and unjustly by
the Roman Catholic Church, and sometimes Protestants responded in
the same spirit. Yet the majority of the Protestants throughout history
showed their spirituality and close walk with God in the way in which
they disagreed. We need to be careful to exhibit this same spirit today.
R.J. Rushdoony, Christian author and theologian, said in a panel discus-
sion in 1998:
When we are Christians, to the extent to any degree we

are faithful to the gospel, we are bigger than ourselves.
And that is why whether they are Arminian, Roman
Catholic or Calvinist, people who are truly serving the
Lord are bigger than their own thinking, bigger than their
own faith. We transcend ourselves. And that is the glory
of the Gospel. It enables us to do more than we can do.
It is the grace of God working through us. It is not that
we teach different Gospels; we are trying to teach the
same Gospel even though at times our emphasis will be
a warped one, a limited one, a partial one. All the same,
God can use it (Jesus Christ: Lord of All of Life, video
series).
We should keep this in mind as we study the history of the Church

and the dividing lines that have separated Christians over the centuries.
When the Protestant Reformers of the 1500s began to emphasize justi-
fication by faith alone, the universal priesthood of the believer and the
authority of Scripture alone, they did not mean that individual Chris-
tians should overthrow the faith once delivered to the saints through the
Catholic Church. On the contrary, Reformers such as Luther and Calvin
discovered these doctrines through reading both the Bible and the writ-
136
ings of the Church Fathers. They found that in Augustinian Christianity

— sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura — were well known doctrines.
In their study of historic Church documents, they found that there had
been so many additions to orthodoxy in the Catholic Church that a once
a vibrant Biblical faith had been polluted. The Protestant Reformers set
out to do exactly what their name implies — to reform the Church — to
turn back to the form of doctrine the Church had in the early centuries.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Tyndale and the Puritans saw the Refor-
mation not as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, but as a break with
Rome in order to return their nations’ churches to the true catholic faith.
Protestants maintained through careful argument, using appeal to
both Scripture and historic orthodoxy, that their Reformed doctrine
constituted a recovery of correct biblical doctrine. Protestants held to
the first four ecumenical creeds of the early church, the teachings of St.
Augustine, the Council of Orange, the Councils of Second and Third
Constantinople (which further clarified the Chalcedonian Creed) and the
Synod of Constantinople (which dealt with the iconoclast controversy).
Augustine
Protestants owe a great deal to Augustine. The Reformers were Au-

gustinian in their theology, especially in terms of their soteriology. Mar-
tin Luther was an Augustinian monk prior to his conversion. Luther and
John Calvin took their view of the bondage of the will, election, predes-
tination and justification by faith alone directly from Augustine who em-
phasized that man can do nothing to please God outside of His sovereign
grace that regenerates and justifies man who is a fallen sinner.
Augustine elaborated on the writings of third and fourth century apol-
ogists, Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose who taught the doctrine of origi-
nal sin: that through the sin of the first man, Adam, all his descendants
come into the world tainted with sin. This sin originated with pride, the
desire to put man’s will in the center rather than the desire to serve the
will of God. The penalty for the sin of pride was death. Adam perished
and in him we all perished.
This choice was made deliberately since God created man with free
will. However, man’s free will was marred by original sin and he cannot
recover a right standing with God by his own effort. Man cannot raise
himself up by his own bootstraps.
Augustine wrote: “The entire mass of our nature was ruined and fell
into the possession of its destroyer [the devil]. And from him no one —
137
no, not one — has been delivered, or ever will be delivered, except by
the grace of the Redeemer.”
Augustine did not teach a total obliteration of free will by man’s sin.
Man is still free, but free only to sin. This is the doctrine of the bondage
of the will. By Adam’s sin, the wills of all of Adam’s descendants have
been in bondage to sin and death. The bondage of the will refers to our
inability to turn wholly to God. Though man may try to reform himself,
he cannot choose eternal life. Although man’s will is free in other re-
spects, he is unable to choose to serve the will of God and will always
choose the way of rebellion and death. In His great mercy, however,
God predestined some to salvation and eternal life. We can be rescued
from eternal damnation only by an act of God — a sovereign rebirth or
a “born-again” experience.
Augustine strongly believed in the doctrine of election, that only
those who were predestined can be saved. Only the elect will be saved.
Even though they may fall into sin, the elect will repent and persevere in
their faith in the end. Augustine believed just as strongly in the doctrine
of reprobation, that God has predestined some to the punishment in hell
that they rightfully deserve. This is consistent with the Reformed doc-
trine of Luther and Calvin.
From Augustine’s City of God (AD 410)
This race we have distributed into two parts, the one

consisting of those who live according to man, the other
of those who live according to God. And these we also
mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of
men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally
with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment
with the devil…. Of these two first parents of the human
race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to
the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged
to the city of God….
When these two cities began to run their course by a se-

ries of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the
first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the
citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected
by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citi-
zen above. By grace, — for so far as regards himself he
138
is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned

in its origin: but God, like a potter (for this comparison
is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without
thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor,
another to dishonor….
For the Church predestined and elected before the foun-

dation of the world, the Church of which it is said, ‘The
Lord knoweth them that are His,’ shall never be seduced
by [the devil]…. Both those of the Gentiles and those of
the Jews whom He predestinated, called, justified, glori-
fied: none of these will be condemned by Him; but we
cannot say none of all men whatever….
What will He give to those whom He has predestined to

life, who has given such things even to those whom He
has predestined to death?
The Council of Orange
Protestants see in the Council of Orange of 529 exactly how much the
Catholic Church of that era believed the doctrines later preached by Lu-
ther and Calvin. The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the contro-
versy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with
degree to which a human being is responsible for his own salvation, and
the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians
held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is
no such thing as a sinful nature nor original sin.
As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection
was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the semi-
Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a
sinful nature, is still “good” enough to able to lay hold of the grace of
God through an act of unredeemed human will. The Canons of the Coun-
cil of Orange differed with Augustine, however, in refuting the doctrine
of reprobation.
Nevertheless, as you read the Canons of the Council of Orange, you
will be able to see where John Calvin and Martin Luther derived their
views of the total depravity of man, the bondage of the will and justifica-
tion by faith alone.
139
The Canons of the Council of Orange (AD 529)
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man,

that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the
worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes
that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that
only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by
the error of Pelagius and contradicts the Scripture which
says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and,
“Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone
as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom
you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes
a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected

him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he
declares that it is only the death of the body which is the
punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the
death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole
human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the
Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world
through one man and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be

conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not
grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts
the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same
thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me”
(Rom. 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will

to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even
our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion
and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit
himself who says through Solomon, “The will is pre-
pared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, Septuagint), and the salu-
tary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both
to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
140
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of

faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith,
by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly
and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if any-
one says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a
gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith
and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is
opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul
says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work
in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus
Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have
been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing,
it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that
the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all
who are separated from the Church of Christ by defini-
tion in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon

us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire,
strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but
does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration
of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the
will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought;
or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the
humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is
a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he
contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that
you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace
of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right

opinion or make any right choice which relates to the
salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we
can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gos-
pel through our natural powers without the illumination
and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men
gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray
by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of
God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can
141
do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle,

“Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim any-
thing as coming from us; our competence is from God”
(2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able

to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others
through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted
in all those who have been born after the transgression of
the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true
faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been
weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least
holds that it has been affected in such a way that they
have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salva-
tion by themselves without the revelation of God. The
Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declar-
ing that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father
who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to
Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and
blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is
in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No
one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1
Cor. 12:3).
CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of

divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our
feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as
we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order
that we may do so.
CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor

of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and con-
verted also, so that they may be able to come to a suc-
cessful end or persevere in good works.
CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would

make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received
from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, “Of thy
own have we given thee” (1 Chron. 29:14).
142
CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God

loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our
own deserving.
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The

freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can
be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost
can be returned only by the one who was able to give it.
Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you
free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful

state, however great it may be, save the one who is an-
ticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, “Let
thy compassion come speedily to meet us” (Ps. 79:8),
and again, “My God in his steadfast love will meet me”
(Ps. 59:10).
CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse,

through his own iniquity from what God made him.
Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for
the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The
one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first
sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change
of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).
CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming at-

tainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he
has received it because a missive from without stated it
in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, “For
if justification were through the law, then Christ died to
no purpose” (Gal. 2:21); and “When he ascended on high
he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph.
4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any
man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has
it from this source either does not truly have it, or else
“even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).
CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage

of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the cour-
143
age of Christians by the love of God which “has been

poured into our hearts” not by freedom of will from our
own side but “through the Holy Spirit which has been
given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Rec-

ompense is due to good works if they are performed; but
grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to en-
able them to be done.
CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God

shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained
in that sound state in which it was created, could be no
means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator;
hence since man cannot safeguard his salvation without
the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to
restore what he has lost without the grace of God?
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God.

God does much that is good in a man that the man does
not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is
not responsible, so as to let him do it.
CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apos-

tle most truly says to those who would be justified by
the law and have fallen from grace, “If justification were
through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal.
2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine
that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold
of, is nature: “If justification were through nature, then
Christ died to no purpose.” Now there was indeed the
law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature,
but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die,
so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, “I
have come not to abolish them [the law and prophets] but
to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which
had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him
who said that he had come “to seek and to save the lost”
(Luke 19:10).
144
CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to

man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and
sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from
that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so
that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and
not faint on the way.
CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man.

Men do their own will and not the will of God when they
do what displeases him; but when they follow their own
will and comply with the will of God, however willingly
they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is
both prepared and instructed.
CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The

branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but re-
ceive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches
in such a way that it supplies them with what they need
to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the
advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ
abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is
cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one
who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root
(John 15:5ff).
CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love

God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who
loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to
be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so
that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit,
whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured
into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom.
5:5).
CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages

of holy Scripture quoted above or the interpretations
of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of
God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first
man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one
thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in
145
God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of di-

vine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that
the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous,
and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all
the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends
in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natu-
ral goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed
by the grace of God.
And we know and also believe that even after the coming
of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will
of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the
kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated
and as the Apostle Paul declares, “For it has been granted
to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only
believe in him but also suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29).
And again, “He who began a good work in you will bring
it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).
And again, “For by grace you have been saved through
faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God”
(Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, “I have
obtained mercy to be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim.
1:13). He did not say, “because I was faithful,” but “to
be faithful.” And again, “What have you that you did not
receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, “Every good endow-
ment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down
from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). And again, “No
one can receive anything except what is given him from
heaven” (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of
holy Scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for
grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity,
because further examples will not really be of use where
few are deemed sufficient.
According to the catholic faith we also believe that af-

ter grace has been received through baptism, all baptized
persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire
to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and coopera-
tion of Christ what is of essential importance in regard
to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe
146
that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God,

but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those
who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema [a
term meaning: damned]. We also believe and confess to
our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take
the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of
God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him
and love for him without any previous good works of our
own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully
seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able
by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must there-
fore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of
the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise,
and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the
Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to
receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment
but a gift of God’s kindness.
The Iconoclast Controversy
Another controversy addressed by the Reformation is whether or

not the saints, and especially images, statues and icons, should be wor-
shipped. I have included the following two documents to show that the
debate over the use of images in worship is not new. It is part of an on-
going debate throughout Church history over what is to be worshipped.
There were various branches of the Catholic Church that opposed or
supported the iconoclast position to varying degrees, and the documents
produced by the iconoclasts of the eighth and ninth centuries were the
basis of the position taken by the Reformers in the 16th century.
At the beginning of the 8th century, Leo III, emperor of the Eastern
Roman empire, attacked the use of images as aids in worship. He was
the first leader of the iconoclasts (image breakers). Statues and icons of
Jesus, Mary, and various holy men and women were being used as aids
in worship, and many ordinary Christians were failing to distinguish be-
tween the spiritual reality represented by the image and the image itself.
Leo III came into power after a series of military defeats. There was
also a major earthquake at the beginning of his reign. Leo launched his
attack on the use of images because he felt that these disasters were the
result of God’s judgment. Leo believed that Christians were no longer
obeying the commandment against idolatry. In any case, Leo and his
147
successors, for the next century or so, fought against the use of images
in worship. In 753, Constantine V, Leo’s son, called a synod at which a
gathering of 338 bishops produced the statement below:
The Synod of Constantinople (Hiera, AD 753)
When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to de-

pict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be de-
picted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only
the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But
that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that
that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without
any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature
and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated
and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of
Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son
and the dullness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the
same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul
also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the
soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead
remained undivided even in the separation of the soul
from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the
soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the
body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead.
If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable

from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh
from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the im-
age of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety,
since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe
to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own,
which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person
into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being
made divine, that which has been made divine by being
assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an im-
age of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot
be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the
Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not
made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the
Nestorians. The only admissible figure of the humanity
148
of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper.

This and no other form, this and no other type, has he
chosen to represent his incarnation …
Thirty-five years later, Irene, the regent for Constantine VI, called an-
other council at which 350 bishops repudiated the decision documented
above. The result of their deliberations is given below:
Council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical, AD 787)
To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all

the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, wheth-
er in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of
pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the
preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many re-
spects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of
the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely
fantastic, for these have mutual indications and without
doubt have also mutual significations.
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the di-

vinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the
traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know,
the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude
and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and
life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images,
as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials,
should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on
the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings
and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit,
the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of
our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable
Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so
much more frequently as they are seen in artistic repre-
sentation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to
the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after
them; and to these should be given due salutation and
honorable reverence not indeed that true worship of faith
which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these,
as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and
149
to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects,

incense and lights may be offered according to ancient
pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image
passes on to that which the image represents, and he who
reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented …
Protestants did not agree with the “Seventh Ecumenical Council of

Nicea” which contradicted the previous Synod of Constantinople by
stating that statues and icons of Mary, the saints and the angels are to be
reverenced. The Reformers viewed this council as one of the departures
from the Catholic faith. This council was, in the view of the 16th century
Protestants, one of the positions of the Catholic Church that needed to
be reformed.
Medieval Catholics
One may wonder at this point: If there was such a strong tradition of
orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, where did Rome go wrong? For the
sake of both clarification and brevity, we should recognize two things:
We should recognize that the historic Church was never perfectly uni-
form in doctrine. There were heresies in the Church even from the first
century. The existence of heresy is not our main concern, because God
always raised up those — as “Athanasius against the world” — who
were able to stand and prevail against error even when they were in the
minority. Our main concern is not with the prevalence of heresy, since
the Catholic Church maintained orthodoxy through the early creeds.
We should also recognize that the government structure of the Catho-
lic Church, since the time of the conversion of the Roman Emperor Con-
stantine in AD 325, began to progressively center on the city of Rome.
This is also not a great concern, since God allowed for several different
styles of government of Israel in the Bible. The Protestant Reformers
themselves settled on various forms of Church government: Episcopal,
Presbyterian, or Congregational, but stressed that the individual alone
was accountable to God in terms of his salvation.
The main concern of Protestants is what the Roman Catholic Church
teaches on salvation. Here we must stand for the total depravity of man,
the bondage of the will, and justification by faith alone. These are un-
changing biblical doctrines. We must also contend for sola scriptura as
the means by which God has chosen to reveal the truth. Protestants ac-
cept the counsel of the historic catholic Church in interpreting Scripture.
150
However, where the Roman Catholic Church has contradicted the Bible,
we protest.
Thomas Aquinas
The great dividing wall between Protestants and Roman Catholics

can be seen clearly in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Although Thom-
as was a great biblical scholar, he relied heavily on Greek philosophy
and metaphysics. He began a scholastic tradition which then began to
erode biblical truth in terms of salvation.
The Reformers of the 1500s discovered that the Roman Catholic
Church, circa 1100 to 1500, was influenced more heavily by Thomas
Aquinas and medieval mysticism than by Augustine. Thomas Aquinas
was more influenced by Aristotle’s philosophical constructs. Although
Thomas admired and drew from Augustine’s theology, he departed from
Augustine’s theology of salvation by emphasizing natural law theology.
During the Middle Ages Christianity did not cease to spread. The
Church was the great civilizing force of the Western world. However,
the doctrine of the Church of the Middle Ages was far removed from that
of the Church Fathers. Despite the emphasis on extra-biblical doctrine,
some Catholics of the Medieval period worked for moral and theological
reform, among these were Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi,
and Girolamo Savonarola.
Bernard of Clairvaux
A great saint of the pre-Reformation period who sought to promote

orthodoxy was Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century who stressed,
among other things, the bondage of the will and justification by faith
alone.
Bernard’s sermon “On Conversion” was given in a public setting in
Paris to a group of people who had not yet been converted. This was a
departure, in that the term “conversion” was usually reserved for an al-
ready devout person deciding to join a monastic order. Bernard was now
speaking of the conversion of the heart by the grace of God. As a result
of this, several of his hearers (about 23 in number) were converted to
Christ. Their profession of faith proved lasting a year later.
Bernard preached that no one can be converted unless the Lord wills
it first. He presented conversion as a sovereign act of God, not a work of
the human will. The voice of God speaks to all, even those who do not
151
want to hear. God reveals his righteousness though the Son of God, the
Word of the Father, who is the expressed image of His glory. Man in his
depravity can only respond by doing works of sin. All good works done
before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins.
The more zealously one strives to justify himself, the more he will see
that he sins. Works of penance, fastings, strivings, and the making of
laws and decrees designed to subdue the flesh are likened to the efforts
of a paralytic trying to walk on his own. The more discipline we apply
to reform ourselves, the more the sinful nature of Adam will war against
our efforts.
“You foolish sons of Adam!” preached Bernard, “In devouring the
husks meant for pigs, you are not feeding your hungry souls but only
the hunger itself. Indeed, we continue to lack food when we sit at this
banquet.” The promises of the Sermon on the Mount, “blessed are those
who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled,” (Matt.
5:6) can only be received by grace. A simple faith, which is hidden from
the wise and strong but revealed to little children, is what justifies us in
the sight of God.
Bernard railed against the Catholic clergy who presumed to bring
salvation to others, before their hearts were pure through faith. “The
Church seems to have grown. Even the most holy order of the clergy is
multiplied beyond counting … Everywhere people are rushing to join
sacred orders, and they seize with neither reverence nor consideration
upon ministries which the angels themselves regard with awe.” Bernard
warned that true conversion was not to be had by the seeker of high posi-
tion in the Church, but by the repentant and lowly seeker after Christ’s
righteousness. Conversion could not be had through our own works, but
it is the gift of God to the child with simple faith.
Francis of Assisi, Savonarola, John Hus, Johannes Gutenburg
Time and again, preachers of reform would appear to preach salva-

tion to the common people and condemn the excesses of the Roman
Catholic Church hierarchy. Sporadically, powerful preachers would ap-
pear and the common people of Europe would once again receive the
power of the Lord’s testimony.
St. Francis of Assisi, founded an order in the 13th century that would
go and preach evangelistically among the people rather than stay shut up
in cloistered monasteries. They lived simple lives and preached repen-
tance and the love of God. Throngs flocked to hear them preach.
152
Girolamo Savonarola, a fifteenth century Italian friar, charged the

church of his day with idolatry in sermon after sermon: “In the primitive
Church the chalices were of wood, the prelates of gold; in these days the
Church has chalices of gold and prelates of wood.” With fiery oratory,
Savonarola likened the Roman hierarchy to a building “wood, hay and
stubble” which the Apostle Paul had warned against: “This is the new
church, no longer built of living stones; but of sticks, namely, of Chris-
tians dry as tinder for the fires of hell.”
But the battle to restore the doctrine and experience of the Church
Fathers was most often lost. Preachers of reform, such as Savonarola
and the Bohemian preacher John Hus, were often put to death by church
authorities. It became evident even to the common people that the Ro-
man church was corrupt; the deaths of the martyrs only rallied sympathy
for their cries for reform.
For the people of the Middle Ages, the Reformation had lacked one
essential ingredient: the written Word of God. Since the time of St. Je-
rome had passed, the fifth century monk who translated the Greek Sep-
tuagint and the Greek New Testament into vulgar Latin, the Word of God
had remained obscured from the common people. It wasn’t until the in-
vention of moveable type by Johannes Gutenberg in the late 15th century
that the Bible became available in mass quantities. The invention of the
printing press now set off a revolution in Germany. Now, every scholar
could own a copy of a book or some type of printed material. The Latin
editions of the Gutenberg Bible proliferated among the nobility and the
church leaders of northern Europe.
Ironically, Gutenberg’s livelihood came mainly from the printing of
indulgences: one page documents that were paid for by Catholic parish-
ioners in order to obtain pardon for their sins after receiving the sacra-
ment of penance. The doctrine of purgatory appeared in the Church as
early as the late sixth century, but did not become part of the official
dogma of the Catholic Church until the Council of Florence in 1439. The
sale of indulgences also guaranteed that the holder could be pardoned
from punishment in purgatory for his sins. Some German priests grew
rich from the sales of these indulgences.
Only the intellectual elite could benefit from the printing of the Guten-
burg Bibles since they were only available in Latin. If you happened to
be a scholar or a nobleman, the print revolution might have affected you
spiritually; but as for the common people of the fifteenth century — the
masses — there was little benefit. Reform was a slow process occurring
over the space of centuries. The Bible was painstakingly translated into
153
the common tongue of each nation. The common people of Europe had
to become literate before mass revival was to take place. This was a long
struggle won with the blood of the martyrs.
The Reformation Period
The Reformation of the Church in the 16th century marked the end
of the Middle Ages, a time in which the Church had been mired in every
vile depravity known to man. Under the weight of papal abominations,
sexual promiscuity, financial scandal and sweeping ignorance of God’s
Word, the Church had lost the testimony of Christ’s character. In the
midst of such carnal chaos, the Lord began a process of restoring truth,
order, and vitality to the Church.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Knox were
used of the Lord to recover foundational truths of the Christian faith that
had been lost for nearly a millennium. God chose rough hewn men of
conviction, intelligence, and spiritual depth to carry the day, and win the
fight for Christ’s testimony in their generation.
Martin Luther championed a rising dissent coming from every po-
litical, social and religious sphere in Europe. Luther protested the many
abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. Having been one of the few who
had studied the Latin Bible, Luther realized that there were areas of
church dogma that did not align with the teachings of the Word of God.
Luther wrote that he was shocked in reading Erasmus’ newly pub-
lished Greek New Testament, that the frequent command of Jesus and
the Apostles was to repent — not do penance — as had been translated
in the Latin Vulgate read in the Roman Catholic Church. The difference
here is that to repent implies a change of heart as a result of hearing the
Gospel and to do penance implies that the sinner can do works in order
to prepare himself to receive salvation.
When Luther posted his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenburg
in 1517, he was merely calling his colleagues to a theological debate
over the sacrament of penance, the existence of purgatory, and the sale of
indulgences. In the controversy that ensued, church officials demanded
that Luther recant his theses.. The soldiers who came to arrest Luther
did so only after Luther refused to recant his theses. His immortal words
were the galvanizing force of Protestant Reformation of the 16th cen-
tury: “Here I stand; I can do no other; God help me. Amen.” It was only
the assistance of the armies of Frederick the Wise that kept Luther from
the same fate as prior reformers.
154
Meanwhile in Zürich, Switzerland, a young priest named Ulrich

Zwingli began to push for reforms that went beyond those of Luther.
In 1523, Zwingli, with the full support of the civil authorities, came out
against monastic vows, clerical celibacy, the veneration of the saints,
the existence of purgatory, the sacrificial character of the mass, and the
teaching that salvation can be obtained by good works.
In 1536, in Geneva, Switzerland, John Calvin first published his
Institutes of the Christian Religion. In it, he outlined a comprehensive
theology for Protestant Christianity, something Luther had failed to do.
He articulated and implemented a plan of church government separate
from the rule of bishops and popes. Calvinist theology emphasized the
ultimate sovereignty of God and the idea of divine election as being the
necessary prerequisite for salvation.
The Protestants began the Reformation, not as a revolt against the
catholic faith, but as a reemphasis of orthodoxy and doctrines of salva-
tion outlined by Augustine, the Council of Orange and the Synod of Con-
stantinople. The Protestants saw clearly that their doctrines were consis-
tent with historic orthodoxy and had precedence in the early centuries
of Christianity and among some Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages.
Rome’s Response to the Reformation
Rome responded to Luther and Calvin’s reformation with great feroc-

ity. One of the most noteworthy examples is their reaction to the Prot-
estant reformer, William Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English
and was martyred for his faith. Although the actual trial and execution of
Tyndale took place after King Henry VIII’s break with Rome, the arrest
warrant was issued prior to this time. The following charges were lev-
eled at Tyndale by Sir Thomas More, a Roman Catholic prelate acting
on behalf of Rome:
1. He maintained that faith alone justifies;

2. He maintained that belief in Christ’s atonement was
enough for salvation;
3. He said that human traditions cannot bind the conscience;
4. He denied the freedom of the will;
5. He denied that purgatory exists;
6. He said that neither Mary nor the saints may pray for us;
7. He said that neither Mary nor the saints should be in-
voked by us.
155
The beliefs of Tyndale were nothing more than the assertions of the
historic, orthodox Christian faith to which many Catholics had long held.
Protestants must hold to these truths uncompromisingly today. The Ro-
man Catholic Church responded that those who believe and teach these
things are damned.
The Council of Trent
The Council of Trent, or the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman

Catholic Church, was held at Trent in northern Italy between 1545 and
1563. It marked a major turning point in the efforts of the Catholic church
to respond to the challenge of the Protestant Reformation and formed a
key part of the Counter-Reformation.
The Council of Trent refused any concessions to the Protestants and
codified Roman Catholic dogma far more than ever before. Tradition
was declared coequal to Scripture as a source of spiritual knowledge, and
the Roman Catholic Church claimed the sole right to interpret the Bible.
The council directly opposed Protestantism by reaffirming the existence
of seven sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory, clerical celibacy, the
necessity of the priesthood, justification by works as well as by faith, the
efficacy of relics, indulgences, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and
the saints.
Most importantly, the Roman Catholic Church set down its views on
justification. In doing so, Rome officially rejected justification by faith
alone (sola fide) and excommunicated the Reformers who had begun to
articulate this historic doctrine. The Council of Trent gave an unalterable
decree that all Protestants are damned:
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,

meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in or-
der to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in
any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by
the action of his own will, let him be anathema [a term
meaning: damned].
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole

imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remis-
sion of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity
which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,
and remains in them, or also that the grace by which
156
we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be

anathema.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than

confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s
sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let
him be anathema.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of

sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certain-
ty and without any hesitation arising from his own weak-
ness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let
him be anathema.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and

justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved
and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him
who believes himself justified, and that by this faith
alone absolution and justification are effected, let him
be anathema.
These statements by Rome were far more than a theological treatise

— they served as a political declaration of war on the Protestant world.
The Thirty Years War, the Battle of the Spanish Armada, the St. Bar-
tholomew’s Day Massacre, and many other political persecutions were
the result of Rome’s decree that Protestants were “anathema.”
Roman Catholics and Protestants in the 20th Century
The First Vatican Council of 1870, decreed the doctrine of infallibil-

ity of the pope in matters of faith and morals. This statement affirmed the
belief that the Council of Trent was correct and unchanging. Papal infal-
libility set a wedge between any serious dialogue for unity between Prot-
estants and Roman Catholics in the 20th century. Protestants may accept
the pope as the “bishop of Rome” but cannot accept Rome’s “infallible”
decrees when they are in contradiction to Scripture. Our unity with the
Roman Catholic Church can come only when the pope will agree that
he cannot make this claim. Until that day comes, there will always be
Protestants and Roman Catholics in separate churches.
The Council of Trent was reaffirmed as recently as Vatican Council
157
II (1962-1965). Roman Catholics, as their name implies, claim to be

concerned with unity in the Body of Christ. Since Vatican Council II,
the pope and his bishops have been willing to promote dialogue between
Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Roman Catholic Church prays
each day in its masses that the Church would be one. They are continu-
ally imploring God to return their “separated brethren” (a term meaning:
Protestants) to the fold of the “one true Church.” This does little to soften
the Canons of the Council of Trent (which is supposedly unalterable)
that declare all Protestants “anathema.”
Protestants can respond to this challenge by saying that we admire
the Catholic Church’s defense of historic orthodoxy, its tradition of Au-
gustinian theology, the creeds of the patristic church, and those Catholic
saints who preached the Gospel of justification by faith alone. We view
our faith as “catholic” and believe that all who are under the Lordship of
Jesus Christ are “catholic” in the truest sense of the word; that is, we are
part of the universal Body of Christ. Although Protestants are “catholic,”
we are not Roman Catholic because we do not recognize the authority of
the Bishop of Rome (the pope) over the universal church.
In our zeal to promote the unity of the faith (for which Jesus prayed
in John 17:20-23) we must continue to contend for the faith of the great
Protestants such as Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Knox, the Puritans, Ed-
wards, Whitefield, Wesley, Hodge, Spurgeon, etc. In doing so, we will
be promoting the historic “catholic” faith.
We can also respond by recognizing that there are many true believ-
ers within the Roman Catholic Church who do not agree with us on cer-
tain issues, but who are nevertheless orthodox on the central doctrines of
the Christian faith. We must recognize that if Roman Catholic believers
are orthodox and have been born-again, then they are our brothers and
sisters in Christ and we must seek unity with them. As the apostles stated
at the first Church Council at Jerusalem in AD 50, “But we believe that
through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same
manner as they” (Acts 15:11).
However, we cannot agree with Roman Catholics on doctrines such
as the veneration of the saints, purgatory, transubstantiation and pen-
ance. We cannot enter into worship with Roman Catholics when these
doctrines are being promoted simply because we desire “unity.” There-
fore, our purpose cannot be to promote unity between Roman Catholics
and Protestants for unity’s sake. To do so would be to compromise our
faith.
We can also implore the Roman Catholic Church to renounce their
158
persecution of the Protestant Reformers and agree with today’s Protes-

tants that Reformed doctrine is consistent with the historic catholic faith.
The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church rest on the idea of
“rightful, Catholic authority.” Protestants believe that there is a right-
ful catholic authority, but we do not believe that it rests with the Roman
Catholic Church. We believe that it rests rather on the infallible Word
of God and the teachings of historic orthodoxy. This “rightful catholic
authority” was thankfully recovered by the Protestant Reformation.
A Guide for Further Study
• Bible Creeds
• Apostles’ Creed
• Nicene Creed (AD 325)
• Athanasian Creed (AD 361)
• First Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
• Council of Ephesus (AD 431)
• Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
• Council of Orange (AD 529)
• Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553)
• Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680)
• Later Creeds (AD 735, 787)
Due to their sheer length, the entire text of the confessions in the fol-
lowing list cannot be included in this book. However, they may be found
at www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/creeds.html.
• Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530)

• Belgic Confession (1561)
• Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571)
• Canons of the Synod of Dordt (1619)
• Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
• Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
• Council of Trent (1564)
159

1. On which points must Roman Catholics and Protestants
agree?
2. On which points must Protestants disagree with Roman

Catholic Church?
3. In which ways are Protestants “catholic”? In which ways

are Protestants “orthodox”?
4. Would you make a distinction between Roman Catholics,

Roman Catholic theology and the Roman Catholic Church or
are they inseparable? Explain why.
160
Chapter 7
Christianity and the Cults
There are no new heresies, only old wolves dressed up in new sheep’s
clothing. When we view the heresies of the first five centuries of Chris-
tianity, we see that all of the modern “cults” that threaten the Christian
Church are based on one or more of these ancient heresies.
Heresiology, or the study of heresies, is useful to Christians. The
study of false doctrine can give us a fresh and succinct understanding of
Truth. The primary level of heresy includes deviations from the essential
truths defined by the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian
Creeds.
The secondary level of heresy includes other doctrinal errors, which
do not necessarily result in damnation. So “heresy” and “heretic” are
not words to be used loosely. A heretic is literally a “divisive man.” We
should not always use the word “heresy” for these secondary disputes
over the non-essentials, but should simply say: “I believe this is error.”
We should use the following rule: “In essentials unity; in non-essen-
tials liberty; and in all things charity.” In other words, we must agree on
the essentials as defined by creedal orthodoxy; but we may disagree over
the non-essentials; and in all things we must act out of love even towards
those who are guilty of denying Christ. This was a phrase coined by the
Lutherans in the early 1600s.
During the Apostle Paul’s ministry, the Corinthian church was in
danger of being corrupted by heresies and receiving a spirit other than
Christ. Paul warned the Corinthians that Satan was able to appear as “an
angel of light” (1 Cor. 11:14). In other words, a heresy may contain a
partial truth, but be false at its core. Paul taught that heresies, although
wicked and of the devil, had a purpose in God’s overall plan.
For first of all, when you come together in the church, I

hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly be-
161
lieve it. For there must be also heresies among you, that
they which are approved may be made manifest among
you (1 Cor. 11:18,19).
Wherever there has been the Church, there have always been divi-
sions and heresies. Divisiveness is of the devil, but Paul says, “there
must be heresies.” Paul does not mean to say that divisive spirits are
good, or that they should be esteemed. He means to teach that heresies
serve God’s purpose. God allows Satan to bring a faction or a heresy into
a church as the antithesis to the Truth. God’s purpose is to approve in the
eyes of men those who hold to the true Gospel.
No individual can claim to know perfect truth, but a Christian may
purpose in his heart to persevere through all false accusations or divisive
spirits that attack him and stand as “Athanasius against the world,” as
one who will never compromise the Gospel. If he maintains a right spirit,
then God will use the opposition to approve him.
Three Primary Heresies
After the destruction of the pagan Roman Empire, Satan infested the
Church with heresies. In the early centuries AD, there had been a glori-
ous work of God in delivering the Church from her heathen persecutors,
and overthrowing the pagan empire. After the time of Constantine, there
was a time of peace. But the days of the Church’s persecution were not
ended. The Church was then attacked from within through the infesta-
tion of heresies.
In the first five centuries of the Church, there were three broad cate-
gories of primary heresies. These were the Gnostic, Arian, and Pelagian
heresies. I will give three brief definitions of these heresies; I will then
show how all heresies and errors are related to one of these primary her-
esies; and finally, I will show how all modern cults and false ideologies
reproduce one or more of these ancient heresies.
The Gnostics appeared in the first century and are represented by the
numerous mystery religions that came out of the East. According to the
Apostle John, these “mysteries” came out of “Babylon” (Rev. 17:5). By
the end of the first century, Gnosticism had infected not only the New
Testament Church, but also Judaism. Gnosticism adopted many Chris-
tian and Jewish elements, and had become a major threat to Christianity.
Gnosticism held that spirit is good, matter is evil, salvation consists in
162
Chapter 7: Christianity and the Cults
deliverance of the spirit from matter, and salvation is achieved by means

of a secret or higher “knowledge” (Greek: gnosis). The Gnostics taught
that the Supreme God was transcendent and unapproachable, but from
Him came a series of progressively more inferior emanations called ae-
ons. The lowest of these aeons was “Jehovah.” Christ is one of the high-
est aeons. Since all matter is evil, they taught that Christ was a spirit
being only and had only an apparent body, or the doctrine of Docetism.
Some taught that Christ was a spirit, being temporarily associated with
the man Jesus who died, or the doctrine of Cerinthianism. Gnostic views
of the Godhead were opposed by John in his writings, by Paul in Colos-
sians, and by the writings of the Church Fathers and apologists.
The Arians arose soon after the Emperor Constantine came to the
throne. Arius was a priest at Alexandria in the early fourth century. He
denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Arius maintained that Christ and the Holy Spirit were “lesser
gods” and creations of the Father. Arianism combines elements of both
Gnosticism and Pelagianism. This heresy has been compared to the
flood out of the mouth of the serpent, which threatened to carry away
the woman (Rev. 12:15). This heresy arose in the Church, and prevailed
like a flood, threatening to carry away the Church, so much so that before
the fourth century was finished, the greater part of the Christian Church
had become Arian. There were even some emperors, successors of Con-
stantine, who were Arians. So the Arians, being the prevailing party, had
the civil authority on their side to persecute the true Church. They were
opposed by Athanasius and finally defeated in the fifth century.
The Pelagians arose in the beginning of the fifth century. This heresy
was begun by Pelagius, who was born somewhere in Britain. His British
name was “Morgan.” Pelagius denied original sin and the influence of
the Spirit of God in conversion. He taught that the human will had the
power to obtain salvation. This heresy greatly infested the church for
a time. Pelagius’ principal antagonist was Augustine, the fifth century
Bishop of Hippo, who wrote in defense of the orthodox faith. The Coun-
cil of Orange was convened in 529, which condemned Pelagianism, and
essentially confirmed Augustinian doctrine with some modifications as
being the true catholic faith.
Babylon, Alexandria and Britain stand as symbols of the Eastern,

Middle, and Western worlds. Although it is a great generalization, it is
163
useful for our study of heresies. We may associate man-centered her-

esies with the West, God-centered heresies with the East, while Arianism
combines errors of both Eastern and Western thinking.
Prior to the time of Pelagius, Gnosticism and Arianism were the main
threats to the Church. In the early centuries, the schools of theology cen-
tered around Antioch, Alexandria and other cities in the East. Most of the
heresies during this time dealt with a wrong understanding of the nature
of God and Christ — or with theology and Christology. By the fifth cen-
tury, Rome had become the hub of Western Christianity. After this time,
Christian theology began to settle more on answering questions about
man and salvation — or anthropology and soteriology. In the East, the-
ology has changed little, because Eastern heresies were answered early
by the Church. But in the West, theology has developed more strongly
along the lines of soteriology, because of a Pelagian tendency in Western
thought. Pelagianism is considered a primary heresy by all Christians. If
anyone teaches that man is basically good and we are saved by our own
works, then that is a primary heresy, because it denies the atoning work
of Christ on the cross. True Christianity does not teach this.
The Seed of the Serpent
From the writings of Paul, John and other Apostles, we see that not
only are our 20th century heresies similar to those of the early Church,
but that Satan has been a liar from the beginning, and has used the same
strategy to turn man’s heart from God.
“As the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
We are not born into this world divorced from Truth; but Truth is
obscured in our minds through the sin of Adam. In Paul’s letter to the Ro-
mans, the Apostle writes of the “natural revelation” that is made known
to all men.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodli-
ness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteous-
ness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God
has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor
were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).
164
Original sin is the “unrighteousness of men” spoken of in this passage

of Scripture. All of us inherited sin nature from the original sin of Adam
and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Original sin is not our indi-
vidual acts of sin, but the sin nature (or the flesh) that all people are born
with. Thus all wrong thinking about God and man is traceable to original
sin. In fact, all wrong thinking about everything is due to man being out
of right relationship with God. All heresies are a replay of deception that
was carefully orchestrated by a subtle enemy.
The pattern of original sin, or “four steps to apostasy,” is found in
Genesis 3:1-5: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild
animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God re-
ally say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden?” … ‘You will
not surely die,’ the serpent said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when
you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, know-
ing both good and evil.’”
Likewise, there is a four-stage process by which a culture is emptied
of Christian orthodoxy and ethics and is filled with heresies and doctrinal
errors that provide a counterfeit spirituality. The following are the four
steps to apostasy.
Step #1: Forget about God — “Did God really say …?”
Step # 2: Forget God’s laws — “You must not eat from

any tree in the garden?”
Step # 3: Make up new gods — “You will not surely die

… your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God
…” (the god of SELF).
Step #4: Make up new laws — “… knowing both good

and evil.”
God created man for relationship with Him. After the sin of Adam
and Eve, God sent His only Son to pay the price for our sins so that
fellowship with Him may be restored and maintained. The message of
salvation is readily received by a person who sees clearly his need for re-
demption. A person who is in right relationship with God sees the world
around him in correct perspective. Christian orthodoxy and correct opin-
ions on all things come from this right relationship with God and reli-
ance on the Word of God as the standard for all truth.
165
Because God created man for relationship with Him, there is in all
unsaved people a realization of a “God-shaped void.” Those who reject
faith in Jesus Christ will always create a heretical theology which either
emphasizes the spiritual and perverts the divine aspect of reality, or em-
phasizes the material and exalts the human side of reality.
We commonly see a paradigm shift that can move entire culture in
just one generation from a tendency to Adoptionism and Pelagianism
towards Docetism and Gnosticism. At the beginning of the twentieth
century, Adoptionist heresies were more common than they are today.
We see in the “higher critics” search for the “historical Jesus” (and in
rationalism, naturalism, nihilism and existentialism) a strong tendency
toward Pelagian error — the idea that man can perfect himself. This
tendency toward man-centered error originated in the 18th century En-
lightenment and continued for about 200 years in full force.
Thirty or more years ago in the United States and in other Western
nations, we began to see a shift. In one generation, we forgot about God
and God’s laws. Christian ethics were scorned and discarded by the
younger generation. The end result of the 1960s was symbolized by the
“Woodstock Nation” — a drug induced orgy of rock music celebrating
rebellion. But the absence of God and His laws created a spiritual vacu-
um. After the emergence of the “flower child” generation, new religions,
such as Transcendental Meditation and a variety of cults, made inroads
into our culture. The most popular of these new gods was, of course,
SELF. The children of the 1970s became known as the “Me” genera-
tion. By the 1980s, the West had made up new laws. A society had been
formed without Christian ethics. A mass amnesia had set in and most
were unaware that they lived in what was once a Christian culture. By
the end of the 1980s, the West had become a post-modern society, free of
absolute values and Christian ethics. The revolution had been completed.
Most of the youth of Western culture today are truly rebelling against
the God of the Bible. But in their minds, they despise the caricature of
God offered by Pelagian and Adoptionist heresies. As C. FitzSimons Al-
lison has pointed out in The Cruelty of Heresy, most modern nihilistic
rage against the Christian faith is in reality a rebellion against a heretical
conception of God. This is how this generation’s rebellion came to full
fruition.
As we enter the 21st century, astrology, witch covens, paganism,
vampire cults, and strange religions practicing bizarre rites are thriving
as we have not seen since the 17th century. For 200 years, Adoptionist
tendencies were the main threat to Christian orthodoxy in the West. But
166
today, the Christian Church must be prepared to meet an even more dan-
gerous distortion in the Gnostic and Docetic direction.
The following is primer on modern cults. You cannot fight what you
do not know. Recognize the signs of the times and educate yourself to
Arian cults, Gnosticism and the New Age movement. Educate yourself
about Wiccan, Pagan, satanic, and Gothic vampire cults. Educate your-
self as to what young people are learning in the public schools and on
college campuses. The enemy is gathering his army and even now is on
the attack. This is your call to prepare for all out war.
Modern Pelagian Cults
There has always been a strong Pelagian tendency in the West. Man-
centered heresies have most often taken the form of the religion of mod-
ernism or humanism. Over the centuries, Roman Catholicism, Eastern
Orthodoxy, and many Protestant Churches have succumbed to varying
degrees of semi-Pelagianism.
At first glance, humanism does not seem like a religion, because it ei-
ther denies God or sees God as unimportant to man’s success and happi-
ness in the world. But humanism is a cult, and the culture that springs out
of humanism has now dominated the West for the past 200 years. Deism,
rationalism, naturalism, Freudianism, Marxism, Darwinism, nihilism,
and existentialism are each expressions of humanism. On the base level,
they are Pelagian heresies. They each express the idea that man can save
himself either through human progress, science, social engineering, evo-
lution, psychology or philosophy. They each teach that man’s efforts can
create a better world.
Although humanistic worldviews have been in vogue since the 1700s,
humanism is now collapsing upon itself. In the 1990s, we have seen the
collapse of Marxist communism in the world. Now we are seeing the
beginnings of the death throws of Western humanism. Few people still
believe that science has the ability to create a utopian world. According
to a 1996 poll by John F. Kennedy Jr.’s George magazine, fewer Ameri-
cans believed Darwin’s theory of evolution than when it first became
popular. What we are seeing now in the West is a reaction against ratio-
nalism, materialism and modernism. Nihilism and existentialism have
given way to postmodernism, which is essentially a philosophy that says:
“We can’t go any further without starting over. What is left? It’s all been
done before and thought of before.”
Today more and more people are willing to grope for a spiritual solu-
167
tion to their problems. Therefore, we have seen a growing fascination

with the East and the emergence of many Arian and Gnostic cults as a
response to the failure of Western rationalism to provide the answers.
Modern Arian Cults
Many Arian cults reemerged in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The root of Arianism can be found in the serpent’s subtle questioning of
God’s authority. “Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in
the garden?” (Gen. 3:1). Arian cults begin by questioning the authority
of the Word of God and the most vital doctrines of the orthodox catho-
lic faith. Through skillful Scripture twisting, the devil has promoted the
same old lie, telling modern seekers of truth, “You will not die, for God
knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you
will be like God knowing both good and evil” (Gen. 3:4,5). This is how
Satan always contradicts the Word of God, by denying the punishment
of eternal hell for unrepentant sinners, and by promising God-like status
to those who depart from Truth.
The most successful cults that have promoted Arianism are Mormon-
ism, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way, and the Unifi-
cation Church. Each of these cults claims to be the one true church of
Jesus Christ. Each uses the Bible, and calls Jesus “the Son of God.” Yet
a brief examination of each will show that they are Arian cults, combin-
ing elements of Gnosticism and Adoptionism, yet denying the full deity
of Jesus Christ, His atoning work of death on the Cross, and salvation
by faith in Christ alone. These cults also have an unorthodox view of the
Second Coming of Christ and eternal judgment.
Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, founded

by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) — Believes the Bible to be the
Word of God as far as it is translated correctly; they also believe the Book
of Mormon to be the word of God. They accept the divinity of Jesus, but
also the divinity of all “latter day saints” (i.e. Mormons). Jesus was the
first of many “sons of God” who can be recognized as “manifestations of
the Divine.” The true identity of Jesus Christ is not the Father God, but
the father of spirits who have taken bodies upon this earth; He is one of
them. He is the Son just as all “latter day saints” are sons or daughters
of Elohim.
On the atonement, Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so
grievous that those who commit them will be beyond the power of the
168
atonement of Christ. If these “grievous offenses” are committed, then the

blood of Christ will not cleanse men from their sins even if they repent.
Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far
as possible, on their own behalf.
On the conditions for salvation, Mormonism teaches that through the
Atonement of Christ and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the
Gospel, all mankind may be saved. Mormons believe that the ordinances
of the Gospel are: (1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Repentance; (3)
Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; (4) Laying on of hands
for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
On the final state of non-believers, the teaching of Mormonism is
somewhat complicated. First, all creation will be restored from a mortal
state to an immortal state. This transformation comes to all mankind, but
also to animals. All creatures are spiritual and are to be redeemed. Sec-
ond, the “Sons of Perdition” are only human members, and are thought
to be a very small portion of the human race. They will be permanently
consigned to hell and will suffer the wrath of God for all eternity together
with the devil and his angels. Third, the “Celestial Kingdom” is prepared
for the righteous, those who have been faithful in keeping the command-
ments of the Lord, and have been cleansed of all their sins. Fourth, the
“Terrestrial Kingdom” will be located on some sphere other than the
earth (presumably another planet). Into this kingdom the following will
go: (1) Accountable persons who die without law; (2) Those who reject
the gospel in this life but who repent and accept it in the spirit world; (3)
Honorable men of the earth who are blinded by the craftiness of men and
who therefore do not accept and live the gospel law; (4) Members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are lukewarm in their
devotion to the Church and to righteousness.
Christian Science (Church of Christ Scientist, founded by Mary

Baker Eddy) — Teaches that the Bible is the only authority, and that the
Bible provides “scientific revelation.” Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and
Health with Key to the Scriptures, is believed to be “the voice of Truth to
this age.” They teach that the “spiritual Christ” was infallible, but hold
the Adoptionist view that Jesus, was born a mere man, and was not the
Christ. In healing the sick and sinners, Jesus demonstrates for us how
to follow the “Divine Principle” and the “Christ-spirit.” Christ is the
“ideal Truth,” who comes to heal sickness and sin through Christian Sci-
ence, and who attributes all power to God. Jesus is the name of a mere
man who, more than all other men, has imitated Christ, “the true idea of
169
God.” Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence the
duality of Jesus Christ. He is “the spiritual or true idea of God.”
On the atonement, Mary Baker Eddy taught that salvation was a
mental assent to truth. The real atonement is understood in the example
of Christ’s life. That God’s wrath should be vented upon His beloved
Son, or that God required human blood to satisfy His justice and bring
His mercy, is viewed as “divinely unnatural.” Christ’s sacrifice, how-
ever great, was insufficient to pay the debt of sin. According to Eddy,
“The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin
when it was shed upon the cross, than when it was flowing in his veins
as he went daily about his Father’s business.”
Salvation for Christian Science is to deny that sin has any reality, and
never to admit that sin can have any intelligence, power, pain or plea-
sure. Man conquers sin by denying its existence.
On the Second Coming of Christ, Christian Science teaches that this
event is synonymous with the advancement of the idea of God as taught
by Christian Science. In the 1800s, one expositor of Daniel chapter 9
fixed the year 1866 or 1867 for the return of Christ. Mary Baker Eddy
believed it was fitting that those were the first two years of her “discov-
ery” of Christian Science.
On the final state of non-believers, Christian Science teaches that
man enters into a period of probation after death, which is the neces-
sity of his immortality. Therefore evil is mortal and will be destroyed. If
man should not progress after death, but should remain in error, then he
would be eventually self-annihilated.
Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Tract and Bible Society) —

Teaches that the Bible is the standard by which to judge all religions.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible that
confirms their Arian doctrines. Some tracts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
refer to Arius as a forefather of the true faith. They teach that Jesus was
a “spirit person,” just as God is a Spirit. Jesus was a “mighty one,” al-
though not almighty as Jehovah God; that Jesus was the first “son of
God” that Jehovah God brought forth. Jesus is called “the only begot-
ten Son” of God because God had no partner in bringing forth his only
begotten Son. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
all creation.” Jesus is ranked with God’s creation, the first born, most
beloved, and most favored among them. He is not the author of creation;
but after God created him as his firstborn Son, God used him as His
working partner in creating all the rest of creation.
170
On the atonement, they teach that the Son of God came to earth to die
as a holy sacrifice to Jehovah God in order to cancel the sins of believing
men, and to free them from death’s condemnation, that they might gain
eternal life in the righteous new world that God has promised to create.
On the conditions of salvation, all who by reason of faith in Jehovah
God and in Christ Jesus dedicate themselves to do God’s will and then
faithfully carry out their dedication will be rewarded with everlasting
life.
On the Second Coming of Christ, the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach a
general “parousia” that does not mean Jesus is on the way or has prom-
ised to come physically to earth, but that He has already arrived and
is here. Jesus Christ has already returned, not again as a human being,
but as a glorious “spirit person.” Some Jehovah’s Witnesses taught that
Christ returned to the earth spiritually in 1914, during the outbreak of
World War One. They saw the symbolism of Revelation chapter six as
speaking of this event.
On the final state on unbelievers after death, the Jehovah’s Witness
do not believe in the doctrine of an eternal hell where the wicked are
tortured eternally after death. They teach that hell is wholly unscriptural,
unreasonable, contrary to God’s love, and repugnant to justice.
The Way International — Teaches the integrity and accuracy of

the Word; that the Word must speak; members must accordingly harmo-
nize their beliefs, actions and living according to the Word of God. They
teach that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, not “God the Son” or “God
Himself.” They teach that Jesus Christ was a man conceived by the Holy
Spirit, God, whose life was without sin. He was the perfect sacrifice and
became the redeemer.
On the atonement, they teach that Christ’s death on the cross indi-
cates He was not one with God the Father. “Separating the Father from
the Son does not at all discredit the Son. Rather, Trinitarian dogma de-
grades God from His elevated, unparalleled position; besides, it leaves
man unredeemed. If Jesus Christ is God and not the Son of God, we have
not yet been redeemed.”
The Way teaches that salvation comes when a person changes lord-
ships when he confesses with his mouth a new Lord — Jesus Christ.
The Way teaches that the only visible and audible proof that a man
has been born again and filled with the gift of salvation from the Holy
Spirit is always that he speaks in a tongue or tongues.
171
The Unification Church (founded by the Reverend Sun Myung

Moon) — Also known as the “Moonies,” the Unification Church teaches
that until their “mission with the Christian church” is over, they must use
the Bible to explain the “Divine Principle.” They believe that after they
“receive the inheritance of the Christian church,” then they will be free
to teach without the Bible. They believe that the Bible will be eclipsed
by a greater revelation to come. They teach that historically, Jesus the
Messiah came in Adam’s place to restore mankind; that He was not God
himself; but that Jesus on earth was a man no different from us except for
the fact that He was born without original sin.
On the atonement, they teach that Jesus failed in His mission, because
He was crucified before He could marry. It was never God’s predeter-
mined purpose that He die. The cross has been unable to establish the
Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by removing our original sin.
On salvation, the Unification Church teaches that after Jesus’ death
on the cross, God could claim the souls of men, but could not give re-
demption to the body. Jesus failed to redeem man physically. Therefore,
physical restoration is still to be accomplished by another Messiah at the
Second Advent.
On the Second Coming of Christ, the Unification Church teaches that
the Lord of the Second Advent is to be born on the earth as the King of
Kings. They do not expect the return of Jesus himself, but another Mes-
siah — a man to be born in Korea. He will be confirmed as the Messiah
throughout the world.
On the final state of unbelievers after death, the Unification Church
believes that the life spirits of those who have lived before will join the
followers of Rev. Moon and will develop into divine spirits. Evil people
will go through a similar reincarnation procedure. The law of “karma” is
operative in this procedure. If any arrive in the spirit world with unpaid
debts, they will have to work to pay what they owe to those they have
sinned against.
Some Guidelines for Witnessing to Arian Cultists
In dealing with Arian cultists, it is not enough for the Christian to

able to discern heresy and defend orthodoxy. It is also necessary to be
able to discuss these issues in a way that helps the other person to come
to the Truth. The following guidelines have been found to be important
considerations.
172
1. Treat the other person with love and respect. One of the most
common mistakes in dealing with cult-members is to regard them as the
enemy to be defeated. It is important to remember that it is the heresy
itself, not the adherent to it, that is to be defeated (2 Corinthians 10:3-
5). The person involved in the cult is to be rescued from heresy as one
“snatched from the fire” (Jude 22,23). A sincere attitude of love and re-
spect for the person is necessary in order for this to happen. Avoid heated
argumentation and any form of abusive speech.
2. Stay focused on essential doctrines. The focus should stay on the

essential doctrines of Scripture and how the teaching of the cult denies
them. Avoid getting into many of the particulars of the cult. They may
be interesting, but tend to move the focus of the discussion away from
essential scriptural doctrine. Also avoid attacking the founder or history
of the cult. This kind of argumentation is fallacious: the behavior of the
followers can neither verify nor falsify the cult’s doctrines. Christianity
would fall prey to the same kind of attack, as any experienced cult mem-
ber will be quick to point out!
3. Be prepared to ask specific and repeated questions about the

cult’s stand on essential doctrines. Some cults school their people to
avoid discussing concrete areas of doctrine. When this is the case, the
Christian should insist that a clear answer be given to the doctrine in
question.
4. Be prepared to discuss methods of biblical interpretation. Cult

members are usually aware of the biblical passages that contradict their
doctrines as well as the ones that supposedly support them. Because of
this fact, the discussion will often center around the interpretation of the
given texts. The Christian should be able to defend his interpretation of
texts that support essential doctrines, and refute the wrong interpretation
of the texts used by the cult member.
5. Respond to people according their degree of openness. It is un-

wise to have the same immediate goals for all people involved in a cult.
Several factors should be considered in forming a realistic goal for the
discussion.
If the person is a highly committed member, one engaged in evange-
lism, then it is less probable that any significant change of mind will be
seen in one discussion. It is usually best in this situation to give a clear
173
and strong defense of the Christian position, coupled with an exposure

of the key weak areas of the cult’s doctrine. If there is no willingness to
deal honestly with the passages brought up, it is best to politely end the
discussion on a friendly note.
If the person is a “second-generation” member of the cult, then a
greater degree of openness may be present. Stress the grace of God with
this person.
If the person is not a cult member, or if he is a new member, a high
degree of openness is often present. The person is usually interested in
spiritual things and the Bible, but has perhaps had exposure only to he-
retical doctrine or orthodox doctrine without proper defense. Stress the
deity of Christ and the grace of God with this person, and show how the
cult has misinterpreted passages to support its position.
Modern Gnostic Cults
Gnosticism has its roots in Eastern Monist religions that teach “All is
God.” This deception can be found in the serpent’s false promise to the
woman in the Garden, “Your eyes will be opened and you will be like
God” (Gen. 3:5). Eastern Mysticism promises enlightenment and the at-
tainment of God-like consciousness in the after life.
There are literally thousands of sects of Eastern religions teaching
some form of Monism, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto-
ism, Shamanism and Animism. There is not the space here to cover all
these religions, which are not properly termed “cults,” but “world re-
ligions” with millions of adherents in the East. Instead, here is a brief
listing of some of the modern Monist cults that have become popular the
West during the 20th century.
Baha’i Faith — The Baha’i World Faith developed out of mono-

theistic Islam, but soon gravitated toward a Monistic religious philoso-
phy of unity. Baha’i is named for a 19th century Persian follower of the
Shi’ite sect of Islam, Baha’u‘llah, who claimed to be an “emanation”
from God. Baha’u‘llah’s mission was to bring about the oneness of hu-
manity. He believed in equality of all people, and the setting aside of the
barriers of race, religion, and nationality, which have been the principle
causes of war. Baha’i is a religion of unity teaching that all the religions
of the world are evolving into one world religion.
Baha’u’llah wrote a series of books that he claimed replaced the Ko-
ran as the ultimate divine authority, just as the Muslims believe the Ko-
174
ran superseded the Christian Bible. This and his claim to be the “Mani-
festation of God” brought him into conflict with Muslim authorities in
Persia. He spent most of his life in exile. He called upon all religions to
unite, for every religion contains some truth because all prophets are wit-
nesses to the one Truth that Baha’i represents. Because of their view of
the evolutionary aspect of religion, Baha’is believe that every founder of
a world religion was an emanation from God, Baha’u’llah being the most
recent one. Therefore, Baha’is believe that every conceivable worldview
is true — Monotheism through Moses and Jesus, polytheism through
Krishna, Monism through Buddha, and dualism through Zoroaster —
and they insist that they are actually united in purpose and teaching. In
this way, Baha’i is similar to Eastern religions that teach “All Is One.”
Yet unlike Eastern Monism, the Baha’i Faith is essentially rationalis-
tic rather than mystical. To accept doctrines are difficult to human rea-
son is seen as superstitious and not true religion. Baha’is interpret alle-
gorically the biblical doctrines of the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ,
and the doctrines of heaven and hell. They hold that God is impersonal
and unknowable. Baha’is fail to recognize that man fell from his original
position with God. As a result, they believe that unregenerate man is
capable of keeping the commandments of God. Not realizing that man’s
problems stem from his heart, instead of the intellect, they think that
education is the ultimate answer. There are approximately five million
members worldwide.
Eckankar — Also known as the “Religion of Light and Sound,”

Eckankar was founded in 1965 by Paul Twitchell of Paducah, Kentucky
USA. Eckankar is essentially a sect of Hinduism. Twitchell studied Eck-
ankar under masters in the Himalayas and India. With his self-proclama-
tion as Eck master, Twitchell was considered to be God incarnate and the
sole authority of Eckankar doctrine. The official Scripture is Shariyal-
Ki-Sugmad, but primary writings concerning Eckankar doctrine were
authored by the current Eck master Harold Klemp, The Spiritual Ex-
ercises of Eck and The Dream Master. Other important books include
those authored by founder Paul Twitchell, The Key to Secret Worlds of
Eckankar and An Introduction to Eckankar.
Eckankar, means “co-worker” with God, believes in a God named
Sugmad who is perceived as neither male or female. All disciples of
Eckankar are connected to the heart of Sugmad through an Eck current.
This current expresses itself in one of two ways, “Inner Light” or “Inner
Sound.” Eckists believe that the body is separate from the more sacred
175
and immortal inner soul, which has no beginning or end. Through a pro-
cess called “Soul Travel,” a person can explore other planes of existence.
There are Twelve planes in which the soul must travel through in order
to get to the god, Sugmad.
Based on the Hindu tradition, Eckankar teaches a similar idea of kar-
ma. It is through attachment to any of the five passions (anger, greed,
lust, undue attachment to the physical world, and vanity) that one devel-
ops bad karma. Their whole idea of reincarnation is based on this “debt”
of karma, which accumulates in your current life, but can only be paid
off in your next life. Eckankar is seen by its followers as the best, but
not the only path to salvation or God-enlightenment. Because Christian-
ity is simply alternative path, Christians and others can join Eckankar
without renouncing their own beliefs. There are 164 Eckankar centers
in the United States and 367 worldwide, with 50,000 members in more
than 130 countries.
Hare Krishna — The International Society for Krishna Conscious-

ness (ISKCON) was founded by Srila Prabhupada of Calcutta, India in
July 1966. Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual master convinced him to dedicate
his life to the study of the Hindu Scriptures. After years of study and
teaching in India. He came to the United States. He gathered follow-
ers and through his lectures and outdoor chanting sessions, and founded
ISKCON on July 1966. He wanted his teachings to circle the globe, so
he traveled extensively to spread his religion.
The sacred texts of Hare Krishna include the Hindu Vedas, the
Bhagavad-Gita, and all of the books that Srila Prabhupada wrote, in-
cluding Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. The key belief of Hare Krishna is that
the Hindu god, Krishna, is the supreme Rama or “all-attractive” or “the
highest eternal pleasure.” When the Krishna chant, or mantra, is recited,
it is a way of putting oneself in harmony with Krishna. The mantra is the
repetition of God’s names: “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna
Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.”
Another core belief of Hare Krishnas is reincarnation. They believe
in the dualism of the body and spirit. They view death as a transition not
an end. How one acts in a current life will determine whether one moves
up or down or out of the cycle completely. The goal is to break away
from the endless repetitive reincarnations, called samsara, and return to
the kingdom of God. This can only be accomplished by sankirtana, con-
gressional singing of God’s names, leading to “Krishna Consciousness.”
Hell is a temporary destination for people who have sinned greatly on
176
earth. Sins include meat-eating, intoxication by drugs and alcohol, illicit

sex, and gambling. They practice a strict vegetarian lifestyle.
There are several distinguishing features of Hare Krishna that differ-
entiate it from traditional Hinduism. Hare Krishnas believe that Krishna
is the supreme lord, whereas Hinduism teaches that Krishna is the 8th
reincarnation of Vishnu. Jesus Christ is viewed as a direct representative
of Krishna. For Hare Krishnas, a spiritual master is needed for a devotee
to follow Krishna. This master must be in succession from the guru Cai-
tanya. There are 3,000 core members; 250,000 lay constituents in United
States; and 8,000 members worldwide.
New Age Movement — When we speak of the New Age movement,

we are not talking about one organization. The New Age movement is a
network of many different popular religions, teachers, authors and medi-
tators, who share some common beliefs based on Eastern mysticism and
Monism. The name comes from the common belief that the “New Age”
is dawning upon us: an age of peace and enlightenment. New Agers of-
ten use astrology to suggest that the Age of Pisces is passing (i.e., the
Christian age symbolized by the fish) and that the New Age of Aquarius
has begun (i.e., the age of Universalism symbolized by the woman who
carries water).
On the popular culture level, New Age has become quite visible in
recent years, especially since its “chief evangelist,” Hollywood actress
Shirley MacLaine, aired her prime time TV specials in the West in the
1980s. Through her influence, we received a quick education through
objects, such as “crystals,” which are purported to be “energy devices,”
and “channeling,” which is the supposed practice of learning truth and
ethics from spiritual beings who speak through human beings.
But New Age is not “new” in any sense of the word. All its core be-
liefs are taken from Hinduism and other occult or pagan religions and
traditions common to other ancient cultures: Egyptian mythology, Amer-
ican Indian paganism, medieval magic and witchcraft. Since New Age
is a Western phenomenon, there is also the strong scientific and practical
flavor.
In New Age philosophy, “God” is not considered to be a personal and
loving Being, but rather an impersonal “force.” All people are gods, hav-
ing already attained their divine nature, if only they would become aware
of it. But this means that we, as gods, create our own realities, moralities
and beliefs. There is no absolute Truth, because each person is his own
absolute truth. Communication with “God” is a meditation upon your
177
own divine Self.

Morality becomes subjective and determined by each person accord-
ing to what his inner self desires. Reincarnation, or the notion that hu-
man souls are locked into an endless cycle of life and death in the world,
comes directly from Buddhism and is universally accepted within the
New Age movement. Ironically, within Eastern religions, reincarnation
has always been seen as a horrible thing, a bondage or punishment that
one should try to escape by meditating into the state of Nirvana (nothing-
ness).
New Age “channeling” is another old phenomenon in world reli-
gions, known as spiritism: communicating with spirits via human medi-
ums. But the question is: “When you channel a spirit, is it assuredly good
or deceptively evil?” Although spiritualist and animist religions would
question whether the spirits speaking are good or evil, New Age ignores
this question entirely and supposes all spiritual forces to be good.
In the popularity of the New Age movement, we are seeing a dra-
matic cultural shift taking place, a movement that has successfully influ-
enced every area or field of culture — education, psychology, econom-
ics, physics, medicine, art, sports, entertainment, politics, and business.
In liberal Christian churches, New Age philosophies are making inroads,
with many supposed “Christians” participating in channeling and pro-
fessing belief in reincarnation. New Age offers a spiritual basis for life,
filling the void created in our hearts and culture by materialism and hu-
manism. It purports to be on the leading edge science in physics and psy-
chology. It tolerates sex outside of marriage, adultery, homosexuality,
and the recreational use of drugs. If New Age philosophy speaks of sin at
all, rather than the eternal punishment of hell, reincarnation is presented
in a positive light as a second chance with no judgment, punishment or
reward from an eternal and holy God.
Rosicrucianism — The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC; Ancient Mys-

tical Order Rosae Crucis came about through the work of a number of
people around the globe, especially the French Rosicrucian societies that
have existed for centuries and strongly resemble Masonic societies. The
American founder is H. Spencer Lewis who started the current move-
ment in 1915 in San Jose, California. Lewis traveled extensively in the
years preceding the group’s founding to meet with scholars about intro-
ducing “the true Rosicrucian work” to America. This work was based on
the “advanced learning” and “secret mysteries” of the ancient Egyptians.
There are many texts of the Rosicrucian Order. The Rosicrucian Di-
178
gest is published monthly. Spencer Lewis wrote 19 volumes including

the Rosicrucian Manual and The Symbolic Prophecy of the Great Pyra-
mid.
Followers of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC learn weekly lessons
called “monographs” from the ancients and modern knowledge to lead to
enlightenment (broadening of the five senses and awakening one’s deeper
psychic sense). The lessons are arranged in nine level, called “Degrees,”
and take five years to complete. They learn from an eclectic blend of
the teachings of all existing religions covering Europe, Egypt, and the
Orient. The studies stress personal betterment through a broad survey of
human knowledge in science, mysticism, philosophy, and metaphysics.
Membership is hard to pinpoint, but they claim to have approximate-
ly 250,000 dues paying Rosicrucian students worldwide. There are also
a number of other Rosicrucian groups, which include The Ancient Rosae
Crucis, ARC and The Rosicrucian Fellowship.
Scientology — Also known as the Church of Scientology; Scien-

tology means “knowing about knowing,” from the Latin, scio, and the
Greek, logos. The religion was founded in 1954 by Lafayette Ronald
Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard) a famous science fiction writer from Tilden,
Nebraska USA. L. Ron Hubbard synthesized what he had learned of
Eastern philosophy and his understanding of nuclear physics. In 1950,
he published an article on “Dianetics” in Astounding Science Fiction
magazine, followed by Hubbard’s book Dianetics: The Modern Science
of Mental Health. He set up the Hubbard Dianetic Research Founda-
tion in late 1950, in part to cash in on the popularity of his self-help
philosophy. Dianetics centers opened in major cities across the country.
In 1954 the First Church of Scientology was opened in Los Angeles.
Subsequently, the Church spread throughout the world as it evolved its
highly-organized structure. Throughout its many stages, L. Ron Hubbard
guided Scientology’s development.
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, authored in 1950
by L. Ron Hubbard, is the fundamental sacred text of Scientology, but
the entire corpus of Hubbard’s writings and recorded spoken words are
considered by Church members to be sacred Scriptures. The Church of
Scientology is an innovative religious system that combines elements
of Eastern mysticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the occult, and L. Ron
Hubbard’s views on the universe.
Individuals can become Scientology “members” at vastly different
levels of the organization. Membership can involve attendance at a free
179
Dianetics lecture, enrollment in course work, even the pledging of eter-

nal service to the Church as a member of the elite organization. It is
difficult to establish a concrete size estimate for the Church of Scientol-
ogy. The Church of Scientology’s official current public size estimate is
around eight million active members. This number is undoubtedly rather
inflated, but the total would almost certainly be in the millions.
Without a doubt, Scientology is one of the most notorious new reli-
gious movements in the modern world. Few other groups have received
as much negative publicity as Scientology. Much of this negative pub-
licity has come from mainstream media outlets. Few other groups have
been investigated and accused of wrongdoing at various times by so
many government agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service,
the Food and Drug Administration, and the FBI). Few other movements
have as many vocal and angry ex-members and critics who seek to warn
the world of the evils of the Church of Scientology.
Much of the bad publicity has resulted from Scientology’s policy to
fight when the group thinks that it is being threatened. L. Ron Hubbard
taught an aggressive survival philosophy. Scientologists believe that any
actions or publicity against them are a threat to their existence and take
appropriate steps to counter attacks.
Theosophy — Theosophy; which is Greek for “Divine Wisdom” was

founded by Helen Petrovna Blavatsky in Russia on November 17, 1875.
Madame Blavatsky claimed to be the messenger of highly evolved “Ad-
epts and Masters,” who knew the Ancient Wisdom. This Ancient Wis-
dom is said to be the answer to the most basic questions of being, such as
“Why are we born?” “What’s life all about?” and “Is there some kind of
life after death?” In other words, it attempted to offer a philosophically
consistent worldview to the people of Eastern Europe who were, at that
time, experiencing social upheavals.
The purpose of the Theosophical Movement was “to form a nucleus
of universal brotherhood, regardless of race, creed, sex, caste or color.”
The sacred text of Theosophy is: The Secret Doctrine. Theosophy in-
cludes the idea of Monism, the belief that “All is One, and One is God,
thus All is God.” God is an all encompassing, impersonal principle of
force, similar to the gods of Eastern traditions. Theosophy also includes
the ideas of reincarnation and karma. The most unfamiliar aspect of this
religion is the occult philosophy presented in The Secret Doctrine and
Madame Blavatsky’s other novels. The fundamental principles in her
teachings include “the unity of life, the law of cycles, and the progressive
180
unfolding of consciousness in all kingdoms of nature.”

There are many Theosophical organizations around the world. The
Theosophical Society of America reported 5,200 members in the USA
and 34,000 members worldwide. Another branch called the Theosophi-
cal Society, with headquarters in Pasadena, California, has not reported
membership size.
Madame Blavatsky’s “truths” and her psychic abilities have been
challenged over the years. In the 19th century many of her teachings
were incomprehensible; however, today some of them have been con-
firmed by scholars and scientists. Recent developments in the field psy-
chology suggest that some of Blavatsky’s “supernatural powers” are
natural powers and abilities of the human psyche.
Transcendental Meditation — Transcendental Meditation (TM)

was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of Utter Kashi, India in 1956.
Maharishi was originally named Mehesh Prasad Varma. His spiritual life
developed under the guidance of Swami Krishanand Saraswati, the Guru
Dev. Guru Dev taught Maharishi Mehesh Yogi the meditation he had
discovered from the Hindu holy books. In 1956, (three years after Guru
Dev’s death) Maharishi felt a calling to experience the temples of South
India. While on his journey home, he was persuaded to give a talk on
Transcendental Meditation, which turned into a lecture series. Next, he
toured across India spreading his message eventually through Southeast
Asia to the West.
A wave of Indian teachings came to America after World War II. TM
is a highly simplified form of Hinduism adapted for Westerners who
would lack the cultural background to accept Hindu beliefs, symbols,
and practices. TM was distilled from the traditional Hindu practices in
order to appeal to a wider base. This was accomplished via grounding
the practice in science rather than religion. Maharishi argues that TM is
not a religious practice, but is founded on a unification of the objective
method of modern science and the subjective method of Vedic science.
Maharishi’s background in physics is used to verify this statement.
In India, TM is considered a sect of Hinduism; in America, it is con-
sidered to be a cult. Membership is not reported, but is likely in the tens
of thousands. TM grew slowly until the mid-1960s at which time celeb-
rity followers such as the Beatles, Mia Farrow, and Joe Namath caused
the movement to grow dramatically in the early 1970s. The college cir-
cuit also provided a large base for TM. By 1984, more than one million
people had taken basic TM courses, however, only a few of these people
181
are currently believed to be practicing the TM techniques. TM was a fad

for a time, and continues to be taught today by a movement that seeks
to confirm the effectiveness of it’s techniques by “scientific measures.”
In one sense, there are no sacred texts because the group claims not
to be a religion Nevertheless, several texts are highly valued including
the Vedic Scriptures and the Bhagavad-Gita. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s
book, The Science of Being and Art of Living and Yoga Sutras of Patan-
jali.
Meditation consists of sitting in a comfortable position with the eyes
closed for a period of 15 to 20 minutes a day (once in the morning and
again in the evening). It can be achieved through participation in daily
meditation using a mantra. A mantra is a word, usually the names of
deities or brief verses from Hindu Scriptures. Each person is given their
own gender and age appropriate mantra that suits their way of life at the
initiation service, or puja (a Hindu devotional service), by their teacher.
The practice is directed at attaining the Absolute or Divine.
TM has made many claims regarding the value of meditation. Through
meditation, group members hope to attain a developed consciousness
and human potential so that their lives may be lived in an enlightened
state. It is claimed that the process leads to life changes, increased intel-
ligence, rehabilitation of criminals, curbing drug and alcohol addiction,
higher levels of resistance to disease, better psychological health, and
better job performance.
Zen Buddhism — Also known as “the mystical school of Buddhism,”

Zen in Chinese, ch’an-na, transliterates the Sanskrit term dhyana, which
means “meditation.” The founder is considered to be Siddhartha Gau-
tama, the original founder of the school of Buddhism in 500 BC. At
the age of 29, Siddhartha was deeply troubled by the suffering he saw
around him, and he renounced his privileged life to seek understanding.
After 6 years of struggling as an ascetic, he finally “achieved Enlighten-
ment” at age 35. After this, he was known as the Buddha, “One who is
awake.” After all of these experiences, Gautama realized that everything
is subject to change and that suffering and discontentment are the result
of the attachment to circumstances and things which, by their nature, are
not permanent.
From that point on, the teachings of Buddhism have been passed
down from teacher to students. Buddhism has evolved into many dif-
ferent forms. One of these sects is Zen Buddhism. Around AD 475, a
teacher named Bodhidharma traveled from India to China and intro-
182
duced Buddhism there. Therefore, some references cite Bodhidharma as

the father of Zen Buddhism.
No approximation of the size of this particular group exists is because
so many schools of Buddhism exist, which are similar to Zen Buddhism.
There are no sacred texts of Zen Buddhism. Beliefs are passed orally
from teacher to student. The beliefs of the group focus primarily on “The
Four Noble Truths” and “The Noble Eightfold Path.”
Zen is not a religion in the sense that religion is generally understood.
Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites, no afterlife, no sys-
tem of eternal reward and punishment. Zen has no set of doctrines. Zen
teachings come out of one’s own mind and heart. The emphasis is on
experience and the “creative impulse.”
The different types of Buddhism all may seem very different, but
at the center of all of them are the Four Noble Truths and The Eight-
fold Path. All major world religions, Buddhism included, have split
into schools and sects. Zen Buddhism is very different among Chinese,
Americans, and Japanese. Since Zen Buddhism originated in the T’ang
dynasty of China, it is difficult for Americans and Japanese to absorb
anything quite so Chinese as Zen. The Chinese practices involves the
achievement and respect for a vision of a universal way of nature, where
in good and evil are both considered as parts of existence. Japanese Zen
promotes rigid self-discipline and was popular among the Samurai class.
Meanwhile, American Zen is self-conscious and subjective and is used
to justify life and one’s desires.
Modern Pagan Cults
Polytheism is the belief in more than one god (Greek: poly + theos,
“many gods”). The Bible strongly condemns polytheism. The Apostle
John writes that mystery religions had their origin in Babylon (Rev. 17).
This same region of the world was also the site of the Tower of Babel,
where ancient man built a tower reaching towards the heavens. This was
either an attempt to worship a false god or to attain god-like status for a
man. According to the Bible, the Lord confused the languages of man at
the Tower of Babel and “scattered them abroad from there over the face
of all the earth” (Gen. 11:8). The result of this judgment was paganism
or polytheism — the worship of many gods.
Paganism is a broad term for religions that worship more than one
god. After the time of the Tower of Babel, most ancient religions were
polytheistic, including those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Canaan, Greece,
183
Rome, Northern Europe, and aboriginal peoples throughout the world.

Together with the spread of Eastern Monism, we have seen a revival of
ancient pagan religions in our Western culture.
Druidism — A known as Celtic Pagans and Neo-Pagans, Druidism is

not really a movement with a single founder, but a modern collection of
the beliefs of various ancient European religions. Druidism can be traced
as far back as 4000 BC, but the religion did not come into the Celtic
tribal nations until around 200 BC.
The altered and more modern form of Druidic practice dates to that
of the “first” ceremony performed in 1792. Edward Williams changed
his name to the Welsh “Tolo Morganwg” and wrote an entire literature
based on some old manuscripts on the history, beliefs and practices of
the Druids. On September 23, 1792, he led a ceremony in London that is
still performed each year in a Welsh Festival by some neo-Druidic types.
A 20th century version of Druidism, “A Druid Fellowship” or ADF, was
started by P.E.I. (Isaac) Bonewits. No date is given for the founding of
ADF, but Bonewits has been a Neo-Pagan Druid for nearly twenty years.
Another group, The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, claims to trace
its origins to 1717, but gives little specifics about the surrounding cir-
cumstances.
Morganwg’s ceremony was conducted on the day of the autumnal
equinox on Primrose Hill in London. Morganwg made a circle of stones
described as a maen gorsedd or altar. The group then performed a cer-
emony of “placing.” The ceremony became an “immense success.” The
ADF describes it as an attempt to revive the best aspects of the Pagan
faith of the Celtic peoples within a modern scientific, artistic, and eco-
logical context.
Although the Celts (pronounced: Kelts) had a written language, their
religious and philosophical beliefs were preserved in oral form because
written records were distrusted and undermined the power of memory
which the Druids cherished. There was, however, some myth preserved
by Christian monks, though this was probably modified. These “Celtic
Myth cycles” included the Ulster Cycle, the Fenian Cycle, the Cycle of
Kings, the Invasion Cycle, and the Mabinogion (also called The Red
Book of Hergest). The British legend of King Arthur and the Knights of
the Round Table has its origin in Celtic mythology. The figure “Merlyn”
was undoubtedly a Druidic person that survived the legend’s retelling.
These myths and legends are the closest equivalent of “sacred texts.”
The Druids believed in establishing and cultivating a close relationship
184
with nature. They believed in the immortal soul, which could survive
either through reincarnation or transportation to the underworld.
Modern Druids consider themselves “polytheistic nature worshipers”
who preserve the beliefs and gods of their Celtic ancestors. Modern Dru-
idism is a loosely and ill-defined movement in which one can participate
without ever coming into contact with another Druid. The modern move-
ment is founded on a belief in the supremacy and power of nature and
spirituality. The philosophy of Druidism is found in role playing games,
Pagan Societies, and “The Society for Creative Anachronism,” which
are popular on college campuses.
The group definition seems to be very broad and inclusive. It would
be very difficult to estimate an accurate number. There are likely hun-
dreds of thousands of people with some connection to Druidic or Neo-
Pagan practices. Druids are highly romanticized in our culture. Much of
what we think we know is simply conjecture, or has been derived from
works of fantasy and fiction.
Kabbalah — Variously known as Qabalah (the modern “cultic”

spelling) and also as Hermetic Qabalah, Kabbalah (traditional Jewish
spelling), and Cabala (Christian spelling). All of these spellings are
transliterations of the word in Hebrew. Isaac the Blind, born in 12th cen-
tury Provence (which is now southern France), is considered the Fa-
ther of Kabbalah. Aspects of Kabbalah can be traced back to the first
century AD. It was formed as a scholarly group sometime during Isaac
the Blind’s lifetime (c. 1160-1236), but the exact year is unknown. The
first Kabbalistic ideas emerged in ancient times as an attempt by the
Merkabah mystics to reach what they called the “higher throne” of God.
Isaac the Blind was the first to name the Jewish mysticism: Kabbalah. He
formed a scholarly group based on the tradition.
Sacred texts include the Torah, Sepher Yetzirah, or the “Book of For-
mation” (c. first century AD), Bahir (12th Century), Sepher ha Zohar, or
the “Book of Splendour” by Moses de Leon of Spain (late 13th century),
and the Key of Solomon.
Kabbalah is often seen as an ancient sect of Judaism, however, it
should be noted that Orthodox Jewish Rabbis consider the group to be a
cult, which marries Gnosticism and paganism to esoteric strains of Jew-
ish theology. Kabbalah means “to receive” or “to accept.” It is believed
that when Moses brought the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai he
also brought with him the oral law, or Kabbalah. People who know this
secret oral tradition claim to know the true meaning of the Torah, which
185
has hidden messages. Therefore, the main principles of Kabbalah are

a belief in the divinity of the Torah and that by studying the Torah you
can understand the creation of the world. Kabbalists also believe that a
prophet was someone “chosen by God as a mouth-piece.”
Qabalah is the religion as practiced from the time of the Renaissance,
virtually all occult philosophers and magicians of note had a working
knowledge of some aspect of Qabalah. Groups that have practiced Qa-
balah are the Hermetics, the Gnostics, the Neoplatists, the Pythagorean-
ists, the Rosicrucianists, Tantra, the English Order of the Golden Dawn,
and the French magician Eliphas Levi. Some Qabalists practice ritual
magic, names of power, evocation of spirits, etc.
Cabala is the Christian sect that sees Cabala as a way to reveal hid-
den meaning in Scripture and others see it as a mechanism to be used
to convert Jews to Christianity. The main Christian Cabalist leader was
Giovanni Pico, Count of Mirandola. He claimed, “No science can better
convince us of the divinity of Jesus Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.”
Kabbalists of all kinds believe in hidden meanings in the Torah. Kab-
balists believe that every letter of the Hebrew Aleph Beth (alphabet)
has a hidden meaning. Qabalists expand that idea and give each letter a
tarot key and an affiliation with a constellation. The Cabalists say that
they know Jesus is the son of God because the Hebrew name for God is
spelled Yod Heh Vav Heh. By adding a fifth letter, Shin, the name of Jesus
in Hebrew is formed (Yod Heh Shin Vav Heh). To the Cabalists, Yod is
fire, Heh is Water, Vav is air, the final Heh is Earth, and the Shin is spirit.
The belief in the Torah as divine, the practice of conjuring spirits,
and belief in alchemy and astrology are just three of the deviations from
Judaism that put Kabbalah in the category of Paganism. One of the best
known Kabbalists of the 20th century is Aleister Crowley, who is popu-
larly considered to be a Satanist. Kabbalah has also made it into popular
culture through the Jewish legend of the Golem, the story of an evil spirit
summoned by a Rabbi to save a Jewish ghetto in Eastern Europe from a
pogrom. Elements of the Golem legend can be seen in the popularity of
monster films, such as Frankenstein.
Santeria — Also known as La Regla Lucmi, Santeria has no known

founder, but is a syncretism of West African religion and European Ca-
tholicism. There is no exact year for the formation of this religion. The
closest date available for the founding of Santeria is the years that the
slave trade occurred. Cuba, the “birthplace” of Santeria, imported Afri-
can slaves from the late 1700’s until roughly 1870.
186
Santeria is a blend of the West African religion primarily the religion

practiced by the Yoruba people and Roman Catholicism. When the Afri-
can slaves arrived to the New World, they continued to practice their re-
ligion, despite the attempts of European plantation owners and mission-
aries to convert the slaves to Roman Catholicism. As the consequences
(i.e. harsh beatings, etc.) of openly practicing Santeria increased, the
slaves incorporated Catholic elements into their religion. One factor that
aided in this syncretism was the fact that quite a few Santerian gods and
Catholic saints possess similar qualities. Consequently, the slaves would
appear to be practicing Catholicism when they were actually worship-
ping their African gods and goddesses. Santeria utilizes an oral tradition
and has no sacred books. Their myths are called patakis.
Santerians believe in orishas or “spirits.” The orishas are not as pow-
erful or as omnipotent as their more remote God Almighty, called Olodu-
mare. Instead, the orishas are the spirits or gods that interact with humans
by controlling nature and the attending to the daily needs of humanity.
In other words, they are the emissaries of God. Each orisha possesses a
distinct personality. Their personality differences are prominently dis-
played during ritual ceremonies. Depending on the particular orisha that
they want to please, Santerians use certain colors and certain animals
and play particular drum beats during their rituals. The music played
is of great importance because it helps to coax the orisha into “mount-
ing” or possessing the priest. As the orisha mounts the priest, the priest’s
body dances the particular dance of that orisha. Later in the ceremony,
people’s questions are answered, the orisha decrees that a particular
command will be obeyed, or animal sacrifice occurs. All of the formerly
mentioned ceremonial actions often depend on the type of ceremony be-
ing performed and the attitude of the orisha towards its worshippers.
The size of Santeria is difficult to determine but the number of peo-
ple who practice Santeria is believed to be growing globally. Roughly
300,000 Santerians are in New York. Some other places where people
practice Santeria are Cuba, Florida, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Mexico,
Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina, France, and the Netherlands. In the
early 1990s, Fidel Castro, perhaps trying to counter the Christian revival
in Cuba among Catholics and Protestants, made Santeria the official reli-
gion of Cuba. Santeria is easily the largest religion in Cuba.
Much controversy has surrounded Santeria and the practice of animal
sacrifice. Opposing groups contend that animal sacrifice is inhumane and
should be stopped. However, Santerians regard animal sacrifice to be an
essential part of their religion. Generally, small animals are sacrificed
187
during times of sickness and during initiation ceremonies for the priests.
This controversy escalated into a United States Supreme Court case,
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. The Santeri-
ans, Cuban immigrants to the city of Hialeah, Florida USA, won the case
with the Supreme Court’s decree that they should be free to practice their
religion as they see fit, including engaging in animal sacrifice.
Another confusion about Santeria is its connection to Voodoo. Al-
though both religions evolved in the New World from African faith tradi-
tions, Santeria and Voodoo are not the same religion. The fundamental
difference between the two religions is that a person practicing Santeria
sees no division between Santeria and Roman Catholicism. To a Sante-
rian, the Catholic saints and the orishas are interchangeable. When they
worship a Catholic saint, they are worshipping the compatible orisha.
Orthodox Christians view both Santeria and Voodoo as a form of Pagan-
ism, which can lead to demonic possession.
Wicca — Modern Wiccans draw their religious ideology from the
Mother Earth cults of the Celtic and Nordic peoples of pre-Christian
Europe. The word “Wiccan” first appears in an early manuscript of an
Anglo-Saxon scribe in the alliterative phrase: wyccan and wælcyrian,
“witches and valkyries.” The word in Old English has masculine and
feminine endings and denotes both men and women using magic arts.
The religion is traced to ancient Celtic and Northern German people.
Modern witches make reference to the pagan rituals of pre-Christian Eu-
rope in describing their religion. In a paper submitted to the Council for
a Parliament of the World’s Religions, Michael Thorn writes: “Modern
Witchcraft (or Wicca) is the most common expression of the religious
movement known as Neo-paganism…. Its practitioners are reviving an-
cient Pagan practices and beliefs of pre-Christian Europe and adapting
them to contemporary American life…. Wiccans focus their liturgy and
worship around a Goddess and a God. Rituals and services are timed to
the phases of the moon and to the Wheel of the Year (i.e., the solstices,
equinoxes, and the days falling midway between these such as May Day
and Halloween). Most witches treat their practice as a priesthood, some-
what akin to the mystery cults of classical Greece and Rome, involving
years of training and passage through life transforming initiatory rituals.
All witches agree on the ethical code, ‘If it harms none, do what you
will’; in other words, ‘Do what you believe is right, but let no one be
harmed by your actions.’”
According to a Ms. magazine article: “Witchcraft is about wholeness,
about celebrating one’s intimacy with the Goddess and the earth, who
188
are one and the same…. [T]here are 200,000 women and men practic-
ing the Old Religion in the United States. The Institute for the Study of
American Religion in Santa Barbara, California, claims that Witchcraft
and Paganism are the fastest growing religions in the country, countering
the rise of Christian fundamentalism.”
Modern witches deny that they are followers of Satan and claim that
their pagan concept of gods and goddesses does not match the Christian
concept of the devil. Although Wiccans deny their association with the
devil, they readily admit that they worship “a Horned God named Pan.”
The ancient cult of Pan involved rites of passage. In the rites of Pan,
music and sometimes drugs were used to entice spirits to possess the
ritual’s participants. Possession by Pan, from which we get the word
“panic,” often results in an obsession with sex and a need for immediate
gratification.
It is an inescapable fact that Pan is the universal symbol for Satan.
Half-human and half-goat, Pan remains one of the most enduring and
compelling symbols for the anti-Christ. Instead of God incarnate in man,
as with Jesus, we see man joined to animal — one that is historically
representative of the basest of animal and sexual passions. We see the
sociological manifestations of this anti-Christ spirit everywhere in to-
day’s society.
Satanism
The Church of Satan and the Temple of Set make up an organized

religion distinct from medieval Satanism, and modern popular supersti-
tions about Satanism. The two Satanic religions hold very similar be-
liefs. For example both stress the path to individual self-improvement,
and worship themselves as the highest being.
Church of Satan — Founded by Anton Szandor LaVey, High Priest

of Satan, on April 30, 1966 in San Francisco California. LaVey blamed
the senseless violence that he witnessed every day on organized reli-
gions’ suppression of natural behavior: indulgence in carnal pleasure. He
began studying and lecturing on occult teachings and ceremonial magic.
A weekly class held by LaVey, known as the Magic Circle, began as
a group of people who opposed the ideas of Christianity. Later LaVey
wrote The Satanic Bible, which contained the Nine Satanic Statements.
It was around these teachings that LaVey transformed this group into the
present day cult known as The Church of Satan.
189
Religious texts include: The Satanic Bible, The Satanic Witch, The
Satanic Rituals, The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks. The Church
of Satan does not release their membership numbers, but there are esti-
mated to be ten to twenty thousand members.
The Satanic Bible begins with the Nine Satanic Statements that sum-
marize the entire belief system of the cult. The Nine Statements: (1)
Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence! (2) Satan represents
vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams! (3) Satan represents un-
defiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit! (4) Satan represents
kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates! (5)
Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek! (6) Satan
represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psy-
chic vampires! (7) Satan represents man as just another animal, some-
times better, more often worse then those that walk on all fours, who be-
cause of his divine spiritual and intellectual development has become the
most vicious of all! (8) Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they
lead to physical or mental gratification! (9) Satan has been the best friend
the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!
Most Satanists claim that they do not believe in the devil. Satanists
deny the characterization of the Christian devil, but instead see Satan
as a force of nature. Satan is recognized as the bearer of light, the spirit
of the air, and the personification of enlightenment. It must also be not-
ed that Satanists do not engage in the worship of Satan. Instead, they
emulate him as a symbol because he was unwilling to worship God.
Members imitate Satan in his refusal to worship any gods and recognize
themselves as the highest embodiment of human life. For this reason,
self-gratification and selfish virtues are encouraged and the Satanist’s
own birthday is celebrated as the highest holiday.
Satanists deny the existence of external gods, heaven, and hell. They
believe that there is no afterlife. This belief is the root of their stress on
indulgence in carnal pleasure in the present rather than hope for rewards
after death. The Church of Satan believes that man is an animal and a be-
ing of carnality. It is through acceptance of human nature and embrace of
self-gratification that happiness is achieved. It is also important to note
that Satanists believe in the survival of the fittest and the idea that the
weaker elements of society should serve the stronger.
The Church of Satan believes that man needs ritual, dogma, fantasy
and enchantment. Rituals are a major focus of the religion. Practices
such as the black mass and satanic magic are used to vent emotional frus-
tration for a need that is unfulfilled. There exist three forms of rituals:
190
sexual, compassionate and destructive. Sexual rituals are performed to

fulfill a desire, compassionate rituals pose to help another, and destruc-
tive rituals are used for anger, annoyance and hate.
All of these beliefs and practices were invented by Anton LaVey. He
based the beliefs of the Church on his own personal experiences, his
opposition to Christianity, and his study of occult magic and teachings.
LaVey describes Satanism as the affirmation of indulgence over absti-
nence, vengeance over turning the other cheek, and this life over the
next.
The Temple of Set — Founded by Michael A. Aquino in 1975, the

Temple of Set developed as a schism from the Church of Satan found-
ed by LaVey. Michael A. Aquino, a former member of the Church of
Satan, left the organized religion claiming that LaVey was exploiting
the religion for personal gain. Aquino and a group of his followers, The
Council of Nine, left the Church of Satan in order to keep the religion
“pure.” Similar to LaVey, Aquino wrote a book, The Book Coming Forth
by Night, and it was around the specific teachings of this book that he
based the belief system of his new sectarian movement. The Temple was
incorporated in California as a non-profit church in 1975, receiving both
state and federal recognition.
Texts include The Book Coming Forth by Night, The Crystal Tablet
of Set, The Jeweled Tablets of Set, The Scroll of Set. Membership in the
Temple of Set is estimated to be around 2000.
The roots of the beliefs of the Temple are prehistoric originating from
the first sense of “self-consciousness” that sets humanity apart from all
other known life forms. The original Priesthood of Set survived in an-
cient Egypt through twenty-five recorded dynasties. However, the reli-
gion eventually died out and Set, the pre-satanic deity was later recast
as an evil principle. The present day sect, the Temple of Set, revives the
ancient ideals represented in Set. This entity, which stands separate and
apart from the forces of the natural universe, is often portrayed as a man
with the head of an animal, typically a hyena.
The Temple of Set stresses the role of the individual. Members of the
Temple desire the psyche to live, to experience and to continue. They
believe that consciousness can evolve towards its own divinity through
deliberate exercise of the intelligence and Will, a process through which
one may find their own roots. For these reasons the Temple is against
any actions that serve only to numb the mind such as drugs, masses, and
entertainment.
191
However, while the Church of Satan interpreted the worship of ones

self as the engagement in indulgence, the Temple stresses the worship
of individualism. The goal of each member is to recognize, appreciate
and actualize their own entire self or soul. This process is called Xeper.
Setians pursue Xeper through many different means but especially com-
munication with one another. Setians are also strongly advised to pursue
a wide variety of secular interests outside of the Church in order to fully
develop themselves as an individual.
A brief note on Satanism — Although Satanism disclaims the ex-

istence of the devil, Christians must recognize that the supreme law of
Satanism, to worship yourself and be your own god, is synonymous with
original sin and is the biblical essence of Satanism, whether the practitio-
ner believes that Satan literally exists or not. All false religions, includ-
ing humanism, are anti-Christ and satanic in origin.
“Do what you will” may seem right to those who have “been made
spiritually blind by the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). Yet this blinding de-
ception obscures one of life’s most elementary truths — that ultimately
there are two kingdoms and two types of people; those in God’s kingdom
who have been redeemed by God and those in Satan’s who are trying to
redeem themselves. In the same way that the Kingdom of God holds to
one supreme commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, mind, soul and strength” (Deut. 6:5; Mark 12:30), so Satan-
ism can also be reduced to one essential law, “Do what you will.”
Contrary to the stereotype, no black masses or wild sex rituals are
necessary to be a follower of Satan — simply deny the love and the
authority of God by living your life the way you want to. You can even
be religious, attend church regularly, tithe, perform good works. If it’s a
religion based upon your own terms, you are still comfortably fulfilling
the dictates of Satan’s most primary law: “Do what you will.”
How ironic that Satanists should understand better than most people
the true root of sin and the essential truth that divides the whole of man-
kind. There are only two paths upon which hang the weight of eternity.
We can go our own way and remain forever lost — or we can yield to the
One who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
192
More Ancient Heresies Revived
Other ancient heresies are discernible in modern movements within

the Christian Church. The following heresies are serious problems in
that they have spread to a large degree in Protestant churches throughout
the world.
Dynamic Monarchianism — Also known as Unitarianism, this is

the belief in only one person in the Godhead. In particular, this term usu-
ally describes a movement that emphasizes the unity of the Godhead, but
does so by denying the deity of Jesus Christ. It arose as an anti-Trinitarian
movement in Protestantism, and organized as a denomination now called
the Unitarian-Universalist Association. In addition to denying the deity
of Jesus Christ, Unitarianism denies a number of other orthodox beliefs
including the virgin birth of Jesus and the substitutionary atonement.
Modalistic Monarchianism — Also known as the “Oneness”

doctrine, taught by the United Pentecostal Church, also known as the
“Apostolic” church, modalism reappeared shortly after the Pentecostal
movement began in 1906. This is not a Unitarian sect, however, in that
Oneness believers affirm the full deity of Jesus, His virgin birth, and
the substitutionary atonement, unlike the modern Unitarian-Universalist
denomination. Modalism has also resurfaced among some independent
charismatic churches, founded after the 1950s. This is also known as
the “Jesus Only” doctrine. Healing evangelist William Branham and his
followers also promoted an extremely heretical version of Oneness doc-
trine.
Marcionism — Also known as the “two gods heresy,” Marcionism

has appeared repeatedly throughout history. A Marcionite is a dualist,
one who believes in two opposing gods or principles: generally, good vs.
evil (or spirit vs. matter). Under this category is Manicheanism, the me-
dieval Bogomils and their Western off-shoots the Paulicians and Cathars.
In our day, a milder form of this ancient heresy has appeared in the forms
of dispensationalism and antinomianism.
Dispensationalism is derived from the idea that God has worked in
different ways throughout history through different economies or dis-
pensations. A dispensationalist makes a severe division between the Old
and New Covenants, God acting with wrath and vengeance in the Old
Testament and with love and grace in the New Testament. Dispensation-
193
alism teaches the imminent “secret” rapture of the Church, divides the
end times into several dispensations, and teaches a conspiratorial view of
history with evil forces rivaling the forces of God.
John Nelson Darby, founder of a group called the Plymouth Brethren
in the 1830s, is the father of modern dispensationalism. Darby taught that
the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. He rejected the creeds of
the early Church and believed social reform to be useless. C.I. Scofield,
a Texas pastor, popularized the teachings of J.N. Darby in a systematic
theology known as dispensational premillennialism. C.I. Scofield first
compiled his reference Bible as a teaching aid for missionaries. It soon
became one of the most widely used tools for Bible study among entire
denominations such as Southern Baptists and Disciples of Christ.
Despite the fact that many of the early dispensationalists were ortho-
dox Christians, this shift in theology paved the way for an much greater
heresy, antinomianism, which means literally “anti-law.” Antinomian-
ism states that since man is saved by faith alone, and since faith frees the
Christian from the law, he no longer bound to obey the law. Antinomi-
anism creates a false theological system in which the laws of the Bible
cannot apply to governing the individual or society. Dispensationalism
promoted antinomian thinking by de-emphasizing the relationship of the
Old Testament law to the individual under the New Testament. In turn
this led to a waning influence of Christians in society, since most of the
laws pertaining to civil government are found in the Old Testament. To
the orthodox Christian, the unity of the covenants of Scripture and the
moral law of God are obvious foundations of Christian social order. The
orthodox ideas of God’s unchanging eternal covenant and a correspond-
ing high view the moral law of God, stand in stark contrast to dispensa-
tionalism and antinomianism.
Chiliasm — Also known as millennarianism or “millennium mad-

ness,” Chiliasm is derived from Greek word for “thousand,” chilias.
Chiliasm is an unscriptural preoccupation with date setting for the Sec-
ond Coming of Christ. Although not a primary heresy, in it’s most ex-
treme forms, this can be a serious error that can damage the faith of
Christians — especially those new to the Christian life — by promoting
false expectations of the Christ’s return. This error first appeared in the
first century in the Church of Thessalonica. Paul’s letters to the Thes-
salonians deal in part with this church’s obsessive speculations and false
teachings about the imminent return of Christ. Chiliasm was also con-
demned by the Church Fathers after around AD 200.
194
A Chiliast is one who teaches that the “thousand year” reign of Christ
depicted in Revelation 20, is an earthly, imminent kingdom. Chiliasts
like to make predictions as to the exact date of the premillennial return of
Jesus Christ. Chiliasts believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and
are orthodox in this sense, but they overemphasize the return of Christ
and hold to unbiblical doctrines relating to Christ’s kingdom. The Bible
teaches that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36); nor does
it consist of earthly things (Rom. 14:17). Jesus said to His disciples con-
cerning His Second Coming: “It is not for you to know the times or sea-
sons which the Father has put in His authority” (Acts 1:7).
The dispensational theory of premillennialism, advanced in 1830 by
John Nelson Darby, has gained popularity among modern evangelicals.
Most Roman Catholics and Protestants of past centuries have been ei-
ther amillennial or postmillennial in their end-times viewpoint, with a
fair representation of historical premillennialists. Although not a primary
heresy, the dispensational view of premillennialism, with its elaborate
conspiracy theories, time tables, charts and graphic scenarios, is essen-
tially a Chiliastic error.
The fascination with the exact date of the Second Coming always
appears as history approaches years with big round numbers. Chiliasm
reappeared shortly before AD 500, 1000 and 1500. Not surprisingly, we
saw a reemergence of this error in full force just prior to the year 2000.
Financially profitable publications advancing theories and speculations
on the Second Coming are appearing. In contrast to Christ’s biblical ad-
monition against predicting the time of the Second Coming (Matthew
25:13), many evangelical authors in recent years have predicted the ex-
act time of the Second Advent, such as Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet
Earth, Edgar Whisenant’s, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be In 1988,
and Harold Camping’s, 1994, which was a best seller in 1993. Recently,
2000, 2007 and 2012 were named by many well-meaning Christians as
the date for the return of Christ.
Critics of dispensationalism note a problem with the theory’s propo-
nents. Dispensationalists seem to ascribe biblical significance to almost
every new development in current world events. The locust plagues of
Revelation 9 become Cobra helicopters and the northern invader of Isra-
el described in Ezekiel 38 becomes the Soviet Union’s army. As we have
noted, bizarre eschatological theories are the hallmarks of many cults.
Aside from concerns about faulty interpretation, critics also worry that
some Christians may be getting so wrapped up in deciphering prophecy
and awaiting divine deliverance that they ignore other missions.
195
Hymenaeism — This heresy is named for the first century heretic,

Hymanaeus, who is named in Paul’s writings as one of those “who have
strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past”
(1 Tim. 2:17,18). Hymanaeism is known as “hyper-preterism” or “con-
sistent preterism.” Preterism means literally, “before.” Preterism is a
method of biblical interpretation that places the fulfillment of many bib-
lical prophecies in the context of biblical times, instead of placing every
biblical prophecy in the near future. Consistent preterism places every
biblical prophecy, including Christ’s Second Coming, during the time of
the Bible, hence the term: hyper-preterism.
This is the opposite of the Chiliastic heresy. Instead of being overly
preoccupied with the Second Coming of Christ, the hyper-preterist de-
nies that Christ is yet to return. Instead he spiritualizes the Second Com-
ing and claims that this event already occurred with the coming of the
Kingdom of God sometime in the first century. Hyper-preterists teach
that Christ’s Second Coming occurred soon after Christ’s resurrection,
either at Pentecost or at the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusa-
lem in AD 70.
Although not a large group, Hymanaeism is a grave threat to bibli-
cal orthodoxy. Hymenaeism is a primary heresy, far more serious than
Chiliasm or dispensationalism, as it completely denies one of the es-
sential tenets of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, that Christ will come
again, physically to the earth, to judge the living and the dead.
A brief note on eschatology
Eschatology is theology and doctrine relating to the “last things”

(Greek: eskaton) or the end of human history and the Second Coming of
Christ. The study of eschatology is divided into three major belief sys-
tems: premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. These
differing views of eschatology do not determine biblical orthodoxy. All
Christians believe in the literal, physical return of Jesus Christ. Christians
may differ in their opinions as to the nature of the millennium and the ex-
act sequence of end times events. However, Chiliasm and Hymanaeism
are clearly unbiblical errors, which must be avoided. The following are
brief definitions of the three major eschatological positions, all of which
fall into the realm of biblical orthodoxy.
Premillennialism: Literally, “before the thousand years,” the belief

that the actual, physical Second Coming of Christ must occur prior to the
196
beginning of the millennium, or a literal thousand year period. Premi-

llennialism places the Church in a position of an “evangelism-only” role
in the end times and tends to view the end of history with wickedness
on the increase and only a remnant of the Church surviving or escaping
tribulation.
Amillennialism: Literally, “no thousand years,” the belief that the

“thousand years” of Revelation chapter 20 is simply a metaphor for the
Church age; an amillennialist believes that history will continue until the
Second Coming of Christ with no major victories for either good or evil
in society, but sees equally both upward and downward movements of
righteousness and evil in the world throughout history.
Postmillennialism: Literally, “after the thousand years,” the belief

that Christ will physically return to the earth only after a non-literal
millennium is completed. Postmillennialism is optimistic about the end
times. Christ’s reign over the earth from heaven increases during the
millennium, which is though to be “a very long period of time.” Post-
millennialism places the Church in a role of transforming whole social
structures before the Second Coming and endeavoring to bring about a
“Golden Age” of peace and prosperity with great advances in education,
the arts, sciences and medicine.
Orthodoxy Matters
Orthodox, creedal Christianity is the basis for human freedom. In the

Christian faith, the idea of the Trinity — one God, three persons — is ul-
timately important. Each person of the Trinity is of equal importance, but
submission to the Father is always maintained and unity in the Godhead
is always preserved. Likewise, when the Christian is freed from sin, he
bows his knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. The old man dies, but a new free
man emerges. When both unity and individuality are in their proper God-
given roles, man transcends himself. He is in communion with God, free
from his own sinful state, free from the tyranny of the flesh, the devil and
the world.
Man’s freedom from sin is only realizable by faith in Christ alone.
Pelagianism, legalism and man’s effort to save himself result only in
frustration and the ultimate form of rebellion against God: apostasy, or
“the sin that leads to death” (1 John 5:16). Heretical notions of the na-
ture of God and the nature of man have been basic to the decline of the
197
Church in our century. What is true salvation? Is it by man’s effort or

God’s grace? Man needs a savior, and he will choose one or the other:
Christ or man. No man can choose the one without denying the other. All
attempts at compromise are a symptom of the delusional self.
Christianity made possible Western liberty. And now the absence of
this revelation form western culture has led us to the oppressive presence
of the state as the social order. Western liberty began when “No king but
Christ!” became the church’s battle cry. Blood was spilt as a result of the
early Church’s defiance of Caesar’s claim to be Lord. Whenever Christ
ceases to be fully both Savior and Lord, liberty perishes and fascism
— as a fully articulated pagan philosophy — arises promising a false
messiah. History is replete with man’s attempt to be his own savior. The
Roman Caesars, the medieval popes, Napoleon, Friedrich Nietzsche, and
Adolf Hitler have each sought to destroy Christianity and replace it with
an Antichrist religion. Man’s idea of the individual becoming his own
god, or a superman able to save himself, ultimately leads to the absolute
of totalitarianism.
Cults threaten more than salvation of individuals and the success of
the Church. The emergence of cults are a sign that Western liberty is
eroding. The battle against cults and heresy within the Church must be
taken seriously. It is as serious as if a Hitler or a Napoleon invaded your
country. The call to arms and our obedient response is a matter of life and
death — both in time and eternity.
198

1. How do the three primary heresies — Gnosticism,
Arianism and Pelagianism — each have their origin in the
Satanic deception recorded in Genesis 3:1-5.
2. Give three examples of modern Pelagian philosophies.

What do they each have in common?
3. Give three examples of modern Arian cults. What do they

each have in common?
4. Give three examples of modern Gnostic cults. What do they

each have in common?
199
Afterward
Protestantism:
Both Orthodox and Catholic!
Whenever a Protestant confesses that Jesus is Lord; that He is both
fully man and fully God, the only begotten Son of the Father; that God is
a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in one substance, he
is confessing the orthodox catholic faith!
It may seem ironic, but a new Reformation is needed among Protes-
tants today. God looks for a the coming of a new Martin Luther, who will
nail his ninety-five theses to the front door of your church. This is your
invitation to be that reformer.
Today’s evangelical Christian knows very little about how the Scrip-
tures were written nor about how the canon came into existence. The
modern believer’s understanding of the Bible depends on solely on his
freedom to interpret Scripture. The modern Christian often believes that
faith is an individual matter. Yet an infallible book is only useful if you
have a right interpretation. The Protestant Reformers agreed that every
individual believer ought to have a working knowledge of Scripture. Yet
who decides what the Bible means? Who gives the correct interpretation
of Scripture? If not the pope, then why you?
Modern evangelicalism upholds the idea that each man is free to ex-
plore for himself (with the leading of the Holy Spirit) all the Truth con-
tained in God’s Word, and not to be bound by any “meaningless creeds”
or “denominational confessions.”
Of course the slogan, “No creed but Christ,” is an oxymoron and an
impossibility, since this statement is a creed in itself. What evangeli-
cals and fundamentalists of the past 100 years hoped to avoid was the
dead orthodoxy that had led to theological liberalism in the late 1800s.
But a creed is only meaningless and dead when the faith of the person
who confesses it is so individualistic and independent from the Body of
200
Afterward: Protestantism – Both Orthodox and Catholic!
Christ that the words can be recited with no sense of awe, no inner con-
viction that this is what the Church has believed for 2000 years. Where
we find dead orthodoxy, it is not the creed that is dead, but the faith of
the person reciting it.
The question is not the sincere faith of the person reciting the creed,
but whether or not this is the faith of Christ and the Church. Modern
Christianity assumes the absolute autonomy of the individual and his
inalienable right to interpret the Bible for himself.
Modern evangelicalism is a “church” that has built its foundation on
the sand. It has promoted an individualistic Christianity that must be re-
invented every generation. In some Christian circles, we hear of a “new
move of God” every two years. The evangelical spurns “tradition” as
that which leads to spiritual death. Yet the Bible speaks of “the faith that
was delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3); “the pillar and ground of the
truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); and we are warned, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast,
and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or
our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).
When we hold to this faith, we hold not to our own personal con-
victions, but to the orthodox catholic faith; the faith based on tradition
which preceded and will outlast the material universe. As we reclaim our
spiritual ancestors, we will have face the fact that today’s individualistic
faith was foreign to most of the Church. Historical disconnectedness is
a phenomenon that has become widespread only in the 20th century. We
must do more than make a scholarly rediscovery of the historic faith; but
we must experience the actual recovery of the faith. There is a great dif-
ference between simply rediscovering Church history and in genuinely
becoming an heir of the Father — a living part of Christ’s Bride.
Church history is not a mere listing of names, places and dates, but
it is the life of the Holy Spirit in God’s family. The Church has the same
claim on our lives as Christians as the Gospel itself — and not simply
our local church — but what the universal Church has taught throughout
the ages. The change will come when we stop asking whether we agree
with Augustine, Athanasius, Tertullian, Irenaeus — and ask instead: “Do
the Church Fathers agree with us?” Instead of trying to judge and decide
whether we can agree with the historic Church, we should begin to ask
the historic Church to judge and evaluate us!
Although we may profess belief in the Trinity, do we really under-
stand what we mean when we say, “Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Three in
One”? The Trinity is rarely even mentioned in evangelical churches with
the notable exception of baptisms. If every reference to the Trinity were
201
removed from our choruses and hymns, who would notice? How often
do we ponder the question, “How can Jesus be God and at the same time
a different person from the Father?”
God is not an individual who claims the right to have His existence
recognized. God does not seek to be proven true by the Church. God
exists and He testifies of Himself. The Father eternally begets His Son
and the Holy Spirit is breathed forth by the Father and the Son into the
Church eternally. The Church testifies of God by our unbroken commu-
nion with God and the unconditional love He displays through us.
The Scriptures declare that, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). This de-
scribes more than an attribute of God, but defines His being. This “love”
we speak of is God himself. It is the communion of the Trinity that makes
all things be and without which nothing can exist.
The Church, the Bride of Christ, is bound together by the love of
God himself. Our communion with God is a reflection of His being.
The Church declares not simply that God exists and that He created us,
but that He lives in and among us. We do not simply declare the way of
salvation; but we profess to hold the keys to eternal life (Matt. 16:19).
In stark contrast, individualism has become the ultimate concern of
the modern evangelical Church. The prevailing idea is that the individual
stands alone before God in terms of salvation without any reference to
the faith of the historic Church. God becomes an individual endowed
with a host of imagined attributes. This idea of Christianity is a house
built on the sand and must be shaken to its foundation and destroyed.
R.C. Sproul Jr. has written that the greatest idol in modern evangelical-
ism is “God to me.”
You surely have heard folks say, “Well, God-to-me is

like an embracing, loving force” or “God-to-me wants
me to do what I think is best.” It should never surprise
us that the model for God-to-me, the form we seek to
copy when constructing him, is us. In fact, were our
unbelieving neighbors just a smidge more honest, they
would confess that the name of their god is “God-is-me”
(Tabletalk magazine).
When we discover the Trinity, we also discover the true nature of

man. Man was originally created in the image of God as a person, not
an individual. Man’s rebellion against God is found in his claim to be
autonomous and individualistic. Man chose to be an individual and in
202
doing so chose death and not life; the curse and not the blessing (Deut.
30:19). Sin is not just a dark spot on man’s record, but an act of spiritual
suicide. Sin is not merely individual acts of disobedience to God, but
nothing less than the total denial of love and therefore of life itself. The
individualistic world that springs from self-containment and isolation is
hell. Thus the Church Fathers understood evil as being the absence of
good; just as darkness is the absence of light.
Hell is not an escape from the reality that God exists. In hell, the
damned will be faced with the torment of God’s eternal presence, from
which they can never escape. God is truth, life and love itself. The Triune
God exists as the opposite of individual autonomy, which is the absence
of truth, life and love. The existence of a human autonomy is only a tem-
porary illusion of man’s depraved mind. In the judgment, the wicked will
have no place to hide. The love of God is also the fire of hell. “Therefore,
since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken let us let us
worship God acceptably with reverence and awe. For our God is a con-
suming fire” (Hebrews 12:28,29).
The Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian and other councilar
statements about the nature of the Triune Godhead, the person of Jesus
Christ, and the nature of man, threaten the existence of individual auton-
omy. They speak with authority of a faith that is not subject to individual
opinion. The patristic creeds speak of non-negotiable Truths not subject
to revision. The content of these creeds is a threat to the continued exis-
tence of individualistic Christianity.
The only possibility for the unity of the Church lies with our under-
standing of the life of the Trinity. The Church Fathers expounded on this
biblical doctrine. The Trinity is not three individuals in association with
one another; it is three Persons in holy communion in the Godhead. Even
so, the Church is not individuals in association with one another, it is
persons in communion with each other in God. The difference between
the two is the difference between life and death, heaven and hell.
This is why the Church Fathers taught, “Salvation is not found out-
side the Church.” The Church we speak of is not your local church or a
human institution, but the ecclesia, those called out of the world’s Babel
of individualism and human autonomy. The Church are those called out
of an illusory existence of self-rule into a universal Body that rules under
the authority of Almighty God.
The entire structure of the Church is an image of this Trinitarian way
of existence. The Church’s government, ministries, sacraments, evange-
lism, etc. must express the way that God exists. The orthodox standard of
203
the Trinity is the very Truth. The absolute sovereignty of the individual;
the freedom of the individual to choose God; and the intellectual ability
of the individual to discern Truth stand in opposition to the standard of
orthodoxy maintained by the universal Church.
In a theological democracy, each individual’s point of view is just as
valid as the next, even if that view is utterly heretical in view of the stan-
dard of orthodox Christianity. In a church that maintains the sovereignty
of the individual, members are accepted or rejected by the church body
on the mutual consensus of the group or its leadership. Membership in
the Church is not judged by the criteria of orthodox belief, nor by the
receiving of the sacraments of baptism and communion. Some church-
es do not even have membership requirements beyond attendance. The
creeds and confessions of the faith are considered non-binding. Pastors
and elders are accepted into their positions by the congregation or other
leaders, by other criteria in addition to, or even without reference to their
qualifications and calling. If a contingent within the local church decides
that they disagree with other members or leaders, they may move across
town to join another church or set-up their own. Everyone is “free” as
autonomous individuals to do as they please. This is not the Church that
Christ said would overcome the gates of hell.
The evangelical Church in the 19th century was created to put up a
defense against liberal apostasy. In refuting “dead orthodoxy” they did
away with all creeds and confessions, believing that the strict adher-
ence to a creed would negate the freedom of the individual to interpret
Scripture. They believed that Scripture was inerrant, but in doing away
with the standard of historic orthodoxy, what the Church has said about
Scripture, they opened the door to private interpretation.
Liberal theologians, since the 19th century (those groups who believe
that Christian faith, doctrine, and morals are subject to “change with the
times”) have made allowances for the ordination of homosexuals and
lesbians as ministers; for teaching on the “feminine gender” of God; and
for the possibility of reincarnation, abortion, artificial insemination, di-
vorce, same sex “marriage” and a slew of other abominations.
Yet many “conservative” evangelical churches are only a few years
away from this same apostasy. There are those members who tolerate all
of the above, but keep their opinions to themselves. They are only a short
time away from making the decision to come fully out of the closet with
their individualistic beliefs with a theology that proof-texts each abomi-
nation in twisted succession. “Conservative” evangelicals have tolerated
the woman Jezebel and are only a few years away from licensing and
204
ordaining her as a minister.

Evangelicals profess a belief in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin
Birth, the Resurrection, and other doctrines of biblical orthodoxy. But
this is merely a facade of the true Church — a superficial structure built
on a sandy foundation of subjectivity and individualism. Every one of
the Protestant denominations founded at the time of the Reformation
have already been swept away by the storm of liberalism. They are hard-
ly recognizable as being Christian. The same thing will happen to every
evangelical denomination, no matter how “conservative” they may seem
today.
Is there a way to avoid this? Yes, there is! By embracing a universal
Body that claims to be nothing less than the Church; by embracing the
biblical orthodoxy of the historic catholic faith.
Once we have been baptized and have received communion, we have
entered the Church. We have been sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit
and united to what the Church Fathers and other saints throughout the
centuries have confessed. We have received “the faith once delivered to
the saints” by God himself.
This is the Church that wrote the Bible; the Church that received the
canon of the Bible; and the Church that formulated essential statements
about Truth in the form of the early creeds. This is the Church that is the
object of the unceasing prayer of the holy Trinity, “that they may all be
one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You … that they may be one, even
as We are one” (John 17:21,22). The Trinity is the life of the Church; the
Church is the very reason why God became man. Authority is invested in
the Church, but there is no tyranny or threat to man because the Church
reflects the truth of man’s existence. The Church is only a threat to those
who prefer autonomy of self existence to the Truth.
This Church will endure until the end. This Body will preserve the
apostolic faith without error until the return of the Lord. Jesus Christ
himself promised us: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the
Church” (Matthew 16:18 ) and “Lo, I am with you always even until the
end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). Jesus’ prayer for His disciples was
that they might be one even as the Trinity is One. This unity with God
is only possible within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that
Christ himself founded.
* Editor’s note: Some of the ideas in this part have been gleaned from the article,
“From First Baptist to the First Century: A Spiritual Journey” by Clark Carlton.
205
About the Author
John Christopher (“Jay”) Rogers was the editor of The Forerunner, a
publication dealing with Christian worldview; the founder of the Russian
language newspaper, Predvestnik, in Kiev, Ukraine; producer of several
videos with Reel to Real Ministries; and president of Media House In-
ternational, an organization with a vision to fulfill the Great Commission
through the media.
Jay was born in Washington D.C. on June 24, 1962, the traditional
birthday of John the Baptist, the “Forerunner.” He grew up in Framing-
ham, Massachusetts, a town in the Boston metropolitan area. Jay is a
graduate of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, B.A. in Eng-
lish and Psychology. He became a certified high school English teach-
er shortly after his conversion to Christianity in 1985. He taught high
school English before becoming a full-time Christian publications editor
in 1989.
In 1993, Jay founded Media House International, a Christian founda-
tion that seeks to train university students world-wide to produce Chris-
tian media in their own nations. In 1995, Jay bought a house in Mel-
bourne, Florida directly across the street from one of America’s most
well-known and controversial abortion clinics. He has been involved
with pro-life ministries since 1988.
Jay’s vision for ministry is primarily for Revival and Reformation —
to restore the rich heritage of the New England Puritans to Christians in
America, and to revive the teaching of a victorious eschatology in the
Church worldwide. Since 2001, he has taught in various high schools
in Florida. Several of his students and interns are published authors and
media producers. He now lives in central Florida with his wife Kalia.
206
Bibliography
Media House International is a non-profit 501(c)3 educational foun-
dation. The sole purpose for this book is to provide educational resources
for use in Christian teaching, evangelism and edification. I have made
heavy use of materials from the following works in the sections where
noted. In all cases, the works have been paraphrased. I did not make
use of quotations, footnotes or traditional citations since the works were
most often used as a framework to present well-known ideas. All para-
phrasing has been done in compliance with copyright laws governing
using a small portion of another author’s work.
I highly recommend the following books as “must reads” for anyone
doing further study on the topics covered in the preceding chapters. I
hope that if you liked this book and want to know more, you will support
these authors and their publishers by purchasing the following books.
Allison, C. FitzSimmons. The Cruelty of Heresy.
Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. From God To Us Revised

and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible.
Lutzer, Erwin W. All One Body — Why Don’t We Agree?
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door.
207
Index
Adoptionism, 89, 118-119, 166, 168
Agnostic, 22
Albright, William Foxwell, 107
Allison, C. FitzSimmons, 2, 131, 166, 207
Amillennialism, 195-197
Anathema, 125-128, 146, 156-158
Antinomian, Antinomianism, 61, 193-194
Apocrypha, apocryphal writings (deuterocanonical books), 37, 42-43, 50
Apollinarianism, Apollinarius, 122, 126, 128, 131
Apostles’ Creed, 48-49, 62-64, 65, 69, 71, 77-78, 83, 117-118, 159, 196
Aquinas, Thomas (see: Thomas Aquinas)
Ascension of Christ, 82, 92, 94, 118,
Arian heresy, Arianism, 2, 62, 65-67, 71, 86, 121-122, 131, 162-164, 167-172, 199
Arius, 65-68, 86, 121, 128, 163, 170
Athanasius of Alexandria, 2, 66-67, 86-87, 89
Athanasian Creed, 72, 87-89, 123, 135, 159
Atheism, atheist, 3, 13, 23, 83-84
Athenagoras of Athens, 79, 82-83, 85, 115
Attributes of God, 7-10
Augustine of Hippo, 61, 98, 121, 137-139, 151, 155, 163, 201
Authenticity of Scripture, 35, 37
Authority of Scripture, 33-36
Baha’i Faith, 174-175

Barnabas (associate of the Apostle Paul in Acts), 105, 108
Barnabas, Epistle of, 52, 108
Beatles, 25, 181
Bernard of Clairvaux, 151-152
Bondage of the will (doctrine), 137-139, 150-151, 178
Buddha, 102, 175
Buddhism, Buddhist, 102-103, 121, 174, 178, 182-183
Calvin, John, 57, 61, 97, 137-139, 155, 158

Calvinism, Calvinist, 64, 136
Canon, canonicity, canonization, 35-38, 41-43, 48-59, 104, 108, 120, 135, 200, 205
Catholic, catholicity, 2, 49, 57, 63, 65, 70, 87-89, 128, 135, 137, 146-147,
149-150, 155, 158, 160, 163, 168, 200-201, 205
Chalcedon, Chalcedonian Creed (See Council of Chalcedon)
208
Index
Chiliasm (millenarianism, premillennialism), 194-196

Christian Science, 169-170
Christology, 102-132, 164
Clement of Alexandria, 56, 58
Clement of Rome, 48, 51, 54-58, 78, 80, 105, 110-111
Communism, communist, 3, 21, 29-30, 33
Council of Chalcedon, 123-124, 126-129, 131
Council of Constantinople, First (AD 381), 121, 131, 159
Council of Constantinople, Second (AD 553), 124-128, 131, 137, 159
Council of Constantinople, Third (AD 680), 128-131, 137, 159
Council of Nicea (AD 325), 66, 68-69, 79, 86-87, 115, 121, 131
Council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical, 787 AD), 149-150
Council of Orange (AD 529), 137, 139-147, 155, 159, 163
Council of Trent, 1, 62, 156-159
Cyprian of Carthage, 98, 137
Darby, John Nelson, 193-194

Darwin, Charles, 22
Darwinism, 20-21, 167
Dead orthodoxy, 60, 200-201, 204
Deism, 4, 16, 19-20, 167
Descartes, René, 19, 24
Descent (Christ’s descent into hell), 63, 88, 103, 117
Determinism, 20-21
Deuterocanonical books (see: Apocrypha)
Didache, 108
Dispensationalism, 193-196
Docetism, 118-120, 122, 163, 166
Druids, Druidism, 184-185
Dynamic monarchianism, 89-90, 193
Dynamic nature of Scripture, 35, 38-40, 42-43
Eastern mysticism, 4, 12, 16, 25-26, 174, 177, 179

Eastern Orthodox, 1, 3, 51, 53, 64, 133, 167
Ebionism, 118-119, 122
Eckankar, 175-176
Election (doctrine), 137-138, 155
Epistemology, 16
Epistle of Barnabas, 52, 105, 108
Eutyches, Eutychianism, 122-123, 126, 128, 131
Eschatology, 193-197, 206
Evidentialism, 33-34, 59,
Existentialism, 4, 16, 23-24, 166
Filioque controversy, 69-70

Francis of Assisi, 152
209
Freud, Sigmund, 21
Freudianism, 20-21, 167, 179
Fulgentius of Ruspe, 98-99
Gallup poll, 32
Gnosis, Gnosticism, 22, 53, 61-65, 71, 77-78, 94-95, 119-122, 162-164,
166-168, 174, 185-186, 199
Gutenburg, Johannes, 32, 152-153
Hare Krishna, 176-177

Heresy, 2, 85-87, 89-95, 97, 99, 118-123, 129, 131, 150, 161-164, 166,
172-173, 193-196, 198, 207
Heretic, heretical, 1-2, 46, 53, 58, 61-62, 77-78, 85-86, 90-91, 115, 117-119,
122, 128-129, 141, 161, 166, 174, 193, 195, 197, 203
History (definition, nature, purpose), 14-16
Hindu, Hinduism, 10, 102-103, 174-177, 181-182
Hippolytus of Rome, 82-83, 91, 97
Humanism, 10, 15, 20, 22, 26, 167, 178
Hymenaeism (see: Hyper-preter ism)
Hyper-preterism, 195-196
Icons, Iconoclasm, Icononcast controversy, 137, 147-150

Ignatius of Antioch, 48, 56, 58, 78-81, 105, 111-112
Incarnation (doctrine), 6, 88, 91-94, 116-118, 126, 132, 148-149
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 15, 81, 83, 112, 114, 120, 141, 147, 149
Inspiration of Scripture, 18, 35-38, 42-46, 49, 53, 83, 103, 112, 114, 135
Irenaeus of Lyons, 53, 56, 58, 78-79, 82-83, 85, 93, 97, 105, 115, 120,
122, 201
Islam, 10, 18-19
Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Tract and Bible Society), 170-171

Josephus (Flavius Josephus), 104-105, 115
Justification by faith alone (doctrine), 137, 139, 141, 143-144, 150-152,
155-158,
Justin Martyr, 13, 105, 113-115
Kabbalah (Qabalah, Cabala), 185-186

Kenosis, 116-117,
Kenyon, Sir Frederic, 107
Knox, John, 61, 137, 154
Latourette, Kenneth Scott, 31
Luther, Martin, 32, 50, 61, 136-139, 154
Lutheran Church, 64
Macedonianism, 121, 131
Mani, Manichaeism, 121
Manson, Charles, 25
Marcion, Marcionism, Marcionites, 62, 120, 122, 193
210
Index
Marxism, 10-11, 20-22, 167

Mathetes, 112
Medieval Catholics, 150-153
Modalistic monarchianism (Oneness or “Jesus-only” heresy), 61, 85-86,
89-100, 193
Modernism, 20, 167
Monarchianism (see: dynamic monarchianism)
Monism, Monist, 4, 16-17, 25-26, 174-175, 177, 180, 183
Monophysite, Monophysitism, 122, 129, 148
Monotheism, 16, 18, 75, 167
Mormonism, 168-169
Muratorian Canon, 58
Muslim, 18-19, 102, 174-175
Names of God, 5-7

Naturalism, 16, 20-23, 166-167
Nero Caesar (Roman Emperor), 55, 104, 106
Nestorius, Nestorians, Nestorianism, 122-123, 125-126, 128-129, 131, 148
New Age Movement (philosophy), 16-17, 26, 167, 177-178
Nicene Council, (see: Council of Nicea)
Nicene Creed, 49, 62, 64-71, 86-87, 118, 121, 123-124, 135, 159, 161, 196, 203
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 22, 198
Nihilism, 4, 16, 22-23, 25, 166-167
Orthodox, orthodoxy, 2, 19, 49, 51, 53, 60-63, 68, 73, 91, 93, 98, 118-119, 132,
135-137, 150-151, 155, 158, 160, 161, 163, 165-168,
172, 174, 188, 193-194, 196-197, 200-205
Papias of Heirapolis, 45, 48, 55-56, 58, 105, 109-110,

Paul, Apostle, 27, 34, 37-38, 41, 44-45, 54-57, 76-77, 79, 103, 107-110,
119-120, 141, 146, 153, 161-164, 194
Pelagius, Pelagianism, Pelagian heresy, 61, 139-140, 162-164, 166-168
Phillips, J.B., 106
Pliny the Younger, 104, 115
Polycarp of Smyrna, 48, 56, 58, 78-80, 82, 85
Polytheism, 16, 175, 183
Pontius Pilate, 63, 65, 69, 82, 103-104
Postmillennialism, 195-197
Postmodernism, 20, 25, 167
Praxeas, 85-86, 90-91, 98
Predestination (doctrine), 137-139
Premillennialism, 194-196
Presuppositions, presuppositionalism, 16, 18-21, 23-24, 26, 33-34, 59
Priscillian of Spain, 98
Prophetic authorship of Scripture, 35-37
Protestant Reformation, 1, 32, 93, 133-134, 136, 154
211
Pseudepigrapha, 37
Puritan, Puritans, 32, 61, 137, 158,
Ramm, Bernard, 30-31

Rationalism, 4, 22, 26, 123, 166-168
Reformation (see: Protestant Reformation)
Reformed theology, 1, 50-51, 134, 137-138, 150, 158
Resurrection (Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead), 82, 92-94, 104,
107-108, 111, 116-117, 132, 135-136, 175, 196, 204
Resurrection (general resurrection of the living and the dead) 64-65, 70, 83,
93, 195
Roman Catholic, 1, 30-31, 47, 51, 53, 62, 64, 93, 133-160, 167, 186-188, 195
Roman Empire, 12, 29, 87, 121, 147
Rosicrucianism, 178-179
Rule of Faith, 48-49, 53, 82, 85, 91, 135
Sabellianism, Sabellius, 61, 85-86, 89-92, 94

Santeria, 186-188
Satan (satanic origin of heresy, cults and occultism), 161-162, 164, 167-168, 189
Satanism, Satanists, 186, 189-192
Saul of Tarsus (see also: Apostle Paul), 107-108
Savonarola, Girolamo, 152-153
Schaff, Philip, 30
Scientism, 20-21
Scientology, 179-180
Scofield, C.I., 193-194
Second Advent (see: Second Coming of Christ)
Second Coming of Christ, 116, 118, 136, 168, 170-172, 193-197
Session (Christ is seated at the right hand of God), 94, 118
Shakespeare, William, 106
Shepherd of Hermas, 105, 108
Sola fide (see: justification by faith alone)
Sola scriptura, 46, 48, 50-51, 53, 135, 137, 150,
Soviet Union, 3, 29-30, 33, 195
Synod of Constantinople (Hiera, 753 AD), 137, 148, 150, 155
Tacitus, Cornelius, 104, 115

TANAK (Old Testament canon), 49-50, 54
Tertullian of Carthage, 53, 58, 68, 79, 82, 85, 91, 93, 98, 105, 115, 120, 122,
137, 201
Textus Receptus, 99
Thomas Aquinas, 151
Theosophy, 180-181
Thoreau, Henry David, 23
Tiberius Caesar (Roman Emperor), 71, 103
Trajan (Roman Emperor), 104
212
Index
Transcendental Meditation (TM), 181-182

Tyndale, William, 32, 137, 155, 158
Unification Church (“Moonies”), 172
Vatican Council, First (1870), 157,

Victor Vitensis, 98
Vigilius of Thapsus, 98
Voltaire, 29-30
Washington, George, 106

Way International, The, 171
Westminster Confession, 9, 134, 159
Wicca, Wiccan, witchcraft, 188-189
Wycliffe, John, 31-32
Worldview, 10-13, 15-20, 22, 24-28, 133-134, 167, 175, 180, 206
Zen Buddhism, 182-183

Zwingli, Ulrich, 137, 154
213
Scripture Index
Genesis Proverbs
1:26 74 8:35 140
3:1-5 165, 168, 199
11:7 74 Ecclesiastes 41
11:8 183
18:1-21 74 Song of Songs 41
2:15 2
Exodus
4:1-9 43 Isaiah
3:14 6, 7 7:14 6
8:10 6
Numbers 22:22 47
16 42 42:8 73
44:6 73
Deuteronomy 48:16 75
4:35 73 53 19
6:4 73 61:1,2 75
6:5 42 62:6 75
30:19 202 63:9-11 75
65:1 140
1 Kings
22:1-38 42 Jeremiah
22:6-8 41 5:2 41
14:14 41
1 Chronicles 15:16 39
29:14 142 30:21 40
Esther 36 Ezekiel
18:20 140
Psalms 38 195
1:1-3 40
22 19 Daniel
59:10 143 9 9, 170
68:18 143
77:10 143 Matthew
79:8 143 1:23 6
110 75, 118 3:16,17 76
119:148 40 4:4 38
214
Scripture Index
5:6 152 14:9 67

5:17 144 14:10-17 117
6:9-13 108 14:26 76
7:21-23 41 14:28 117
16:13-19 45, 47, 48 15:5 142, 145
16:17 142 15:26 76, 100
16:19 202 17:1-5 100
25:29 143 17:20-23 158
26:40 40 17:21,22 205
27:46 101 18:31-33 106
28:18 123 18:36 194
28:19 76, 77
Acts
Mark 1:7 195
12:30 192 1:9-11 118
17:11 37
Luke 17:23-31 34
2:1 103 17:28 37
3:1 103
3:22 100 Romans
3:23 104 1:18-21 164
19:10 144 1:20 34, 103
24:44,45 49, 54 3:4 34
4:25 117
John 5:5 144, 145
1:1 77 5:12 140
1:1-3 116 5:12-19 116
1:1,14 33, 76 6:4,5 117
1:3 68 6:16 140
1:8 76 9:5 116
1:14 66 10:14 38
1:18 116 10:20 140
2:19 117 14:17 194
3:16 76
3:27 146 1 Corinthians
4:4 117 3:11 12
5:19 117 4:7 141
5:30 117 8:5,6 76
6:14,18 33 11:14 161
6:44 142 11:18,19 162
7:38,39 118 12:3 77
8:32 41 13:12 27
8:36 143 15:3 117
8:40 116 15:3,4 69
10:30 97, 98, 99 15:4 117
14:2,3 118 15:5-8 107
14:6 192 15:10 141
215
15:17 117 2:9 116

15:18-23 117
1 Thessalonians
2 Corinthians 1:1 55
1:1 55 2:13 41
3:5 142
3:6 40 2 Thessalonians
3:10-15 118 1:1 55
4:4 192 2:2 37, 41
4:7 146 2:15 201
5:10 118
5:21 116 1 Timothy
7:25 146 1:13 146
10:3-5 173 2:5 116
10:4-6 40 2:17,18 195
10:5,6 27 3:15 201
11:3 164
12:3 142 2 Timothy
12:4 79 2:15 36
11:13 37 3:15 38
13:14 77 3:16 35
3:16,17 38, 44
Galatians 4:9-12 54
1:1 37
2:21 143, 144 Titus
1:12 37
Ephesians
1:19,20 117 Philemon
1:20,23 118 1:1 55
2:6 117
2:8 141, 146 Hebrews
4:5,6 77 1:1 36
4:8 143 1:1-3 116
4:9 117 1:10-12 116
5:26,27 39 2:14,17 116
6:10-17 40 2:17,18 116
4:12 38
Philippians 4:12,13 40
1:1 55 4:15 116, 117
1:6 141, 146 5:11-13 39
1:29 146 7:25 118
2:6,7 117 9:14 117, 118
2:13 140 10:22 39
11 146
Colossians 120, 163 13:23 55
1:1 55
1:16 15
216
Scripture Index
James
1:22-25 39
1 Peter
1:2 77
1:3 117
1:23-2:3 38
2:2 38
3:15 43
3:19 117
4:6 117
5:13 55
2 Peter
1:20 200
1:20,21 36
2:19 140
3:14-16 54, 57
3:16 41
1 John
2:1,2 118
2:18-19 37
2:27 27
3:5 116
4:1-3 37, 41, 62
4:16 101, 202
5:7 77, 90, 96-99
5:7-8 78, 95, 97
5:8 116
5:16 197
Jude
1,20,21 77
3 201
9,14 37
22,23 173
Revelation
1:17,18 47
3:7 48
6 171
9 195
12:15 163
17:5 162, 183
20 194, 196
21:1-4 118
217
Resources
The following resources can be ordered through our website
store at www.forerunner.com. These powerful teaching
tools can help you gain a covenantal understanding of the
great task that lies before us.
Videos
God’s Law and Society – Four hours of teaching in ten parts on
the Neo-Puritan worldview and a model for the reformation
of America.
Freedom – Picking up where God’s Law and Society leaves

off, this presentation gives practical applications for the
reformation of civil government and political action.
The Beast of Revelation: Identified – Ken Gentry’s masterful

presentation of a victorious eschatology that is needed as an
undergirding for revival and reformation.
The Real Jesus – This two hour presentation refutes the

lies and distortions of liberal theology and defends the
historicity and reliabilty of the Gospel accounts of Jesus.
The Abortion Matrix – This presentation will help you

understand the spiritual nature of the battle surrounding the
abortion holocaust – a three hour seminar in ten parts.
218
Literature
The United States of America 2.0: The Great Reset – A Second
American Revolution is coming with the Word of God
growing mightily and prevailing! (Acts 19:20). Order
additional copies and bulk copies of this booklet for
distribution and resale at: www.forerunner.com
The Four Keys to the Millennium – The four major

eschatological views are presented and critiqued by four
authors: www.forerunner.com
Coalition on Revival – Applying the Scriptures to every sphere

of life and thought, promoting the Biblical and Christian
worldview: www.reformation.net
The Magdesburg Confession – Expounds on the doctrines of

interpostion and nullification through lower magistrate,
a valuable resource for those engaged in all levels of
government: www.magdeburgconfession.com
The Apologetics Group

Presentations countering the homosexual politcal agenda
and dozens of books and videos covering a variety of
topics on Christian worldview can be ordered through The
Apologetics Group at: www.theapologeticsgroup.com
219
D
riving down a country road sometime, you might see
a church with a sign proudly proclaiming: “No book
but the Bible — No creed but Christ.”
The problem with this statement is that the word creed (from the Latin:
credo) simply means “belief.” All Christians have beliefs, regardless
of whether they are written. The creeds of the early Church were
nothing more than scriptural statements of faith put into a systematic
format. The emphasis on creeds and confessions suffered a blow at the
end of the 19th century, when conservative evangelicals did away with
most of the public reading of Scripture, creeds and confessions. De-
emphasizing the public reading of creeds was intentionally good, but it
had disastrous consequences.
Why a book on the creeds and confessions of the Church?
A single book containing the actual texts of the most important creeds
of the early Church will not often be found. Out of the multitude of
works on the evangelical Christian book market today, those dealing
with the creeds of the Church are scarce.
This book contains the full texts of the most important creeds of the
early Church. The purpose is to put into the reader’s hands a book
containing the creeds that all Christians throughout the ages — Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant — have believed. When we
come to the Reformation period, we will see that the matter of salvation
and church government became a matter of debate. However, there
has always been a continuous thread of teaching that all Christians
have held in common. This area of common ground for belief is called
biblical orthodoxy. The study of orthodoxy is the basis for promoting
unity since, by definition, this is what all Christians must agree upon.
Why Creeds and Confessions? provides a foundation of biblical

orthodoxy as a defense against the false and truly heretical doctrines
advanced by the spirit of this age.

Why Creeds and Confessions?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Creeds and Confessions?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media House International

P.O Box 138030, Clermont, FL 34713

Printed in the United States of America

Cover by Jay Rogers

All cover images are in the public domain.

About the Author .................................................................. 206

I asked myself this question while browsing through a Christian

It is hard to imagine a more profound and important question. It is a

What is God like? How does he exist?

Can we know absolute truth? Or is truth relative?

These are important questions because the correct answers determine

The Names of God

“Who is God?” To answer this question, it is logical to ask, “Who

Old Testament Names of God

’El or ’Elohim — “God” or “Gods.” ‘El is used as a prefix to many

’El-Shaddai — “Almighty” God. This names stresses divine great-

’El-Olam — “Everlasting” God. This is a seldom used name, how-

Yahweh or Jehovah — “I AM” God. This is the greatest name of

Jehovah Sabaoth — “God of Hosts.” This is a common form of the

Immanu’el or Emmanuel — “God with us.” The word is literally the

New Testament Names of God

Kurios — “Lord.” The name is applied to God and specifically Jesus

Father, Son and Holy Spirit — The Trinity is mentioned throughout

The Attributes of God

According to the Bible, God is infinite, personal, Triune, transcen-

God is infinite — He is everywhere. He cannot be measured or un-

God is personal — We refer to God as He not It. He is not simply a

God is Triune — He is not only personal, but actually three persons

God is transcendent — He is from another world outside our own.

God is immanent — He is also with us. God is everywhere. We can

God is omniscient — He is all-knowing. God sees the beginning

God is sovereign — He is all-powerful. This is a further aspect of

God is love — He is benevolent and good. God’s ultimate purpose

God is holy — He is absolute righteousness. There is nothing evil

God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of

is due from angels and men, and every other creature,

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one

To elaborate any further on each of these names and attributes of

A discussion on one’s worldview or “view of the world” may seem

(1) Worldview ———————————————— (3) Results

The chief elements in a Christian worldview are as follows:

1. Christian worldview must be based upon Jesus Christ

Christian Worldview Transforms Culture

The most important force that shaped Western culture is Christianity.

“Does philosophy produce happiness?” asked the old

Absolutely,” Justin replied, “and it alone.”

In an extended conversation, the old man suggested to Justin that

faith among the Roman rulers. He became a martyr in AD 167.

What is the true nature of history?

History must always be interpreted on the central principle of the

1. History is controlled by Jesus Christ. This eliminates

There will be great expansion of knowledge of God through Holy

War of the Worldviews

Worldview: Questions and Answers

The following are questions to be considered. These questions are

1. What is first cause? That is, who or what existed first

Here I have given answers that correspond to a Christian worldview.

1. In the beginning was God. He created the universe out of

into eternal life or heaven. Those who remain in sin enter

Christianity is the only epistemologically consistent worldview. That

Monotheism — Besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the

Deism — This is simply a belief in a God, or a Supreme Being of

Naturalism — The great inconsistency of Deism is that it agrees with

the natural course of human progress. Determinism is the philosophy