Login
Registration gives you access to all articles,videos,library and resources plus community benefits.
World Map
Home Category Christian History

Maranatha Media Blog

A Place to Share my Journey with the Father and His Son
Category >> Christian History

When most of us mention nominal Christianity, we have in our minds especially the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant Churches (sometimes also Orthodox Churches). Ellen White's "Great Controversy" and her other works largely speak against these communities as either making up the Great Apostasy/Great Babylon or as being largely swept into it. But there exist communities, which are not considered Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, yet they aren't also part of the Adventist movement. These communities or movements constitute themselves Remnants, which were supposedly risen by God Himself to counter the worldwide Apostasy of false religions, in very similar way like the Advent movement was brought up around 1844. These movements came to existence in the XIX century, largely around the time, when Adventism was born.

Right now I can name four such movements: Latter-day Saints, Bible Students, Christian Science and Christadelphians. Most of mainstream Christians view them as cults, from the time of their appearance. We must also remember, that Seventh-day Adventist Church was once also considered as cult, and named next to these communities. The following comparative analysis will try to focus on the two former communities: Latter-day Saints and Bible Students, and their role in the world.

One thing I would like to excuse for, is not making any quotes, neither from the Bible, nor from other books or articles on the given topic. I actually even do not like giving quotes from other articles. Yet I believe, that more information about these movements can be found on Wikipedia (especially on the Latter-day Saints) and some information can also be googled-out. I have taken all this information mostly from Wikipedia and I believe they can be easily found. I tried to provide appropriate terms, so I believe this will not be difficult.

In case someone is not sure about what movements we are talking about, I'll give a brief explanation:

- The Latter-day Saints movement - was founded by Joseph Smith Jr., and after his death the denomination split into few branches. The most known branch is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is popularily called the Mormon Church, with its adherents called Mormons.

- The Bible Students movement - was founded by Charles Taze Russell, who also founded Watchtower Society. After his death the movement split into few factions, leaving Watchtower Society associated with the largest one. Over time, this faction came to be known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

So what's so special about these two communities? Many things! We can name a variety if things we as Adventists have in common with them and many of which are seen as non-orthodox by the rest of Christianity. We will list these issues below.

1. The beginnings of all three movements are in the north-eastern part of United States. Joseph Smith of the Mormons was active in western New York state, near Palmyra, before they ventured far west. It was very near the place, where Hiram Edson lived (about 4-6 miles)! As for Charles T. Russell, two most notable places associated with him and his Watchtower Society are Pittsburg in Pennsylvania and New York City.

2. Some events connected to the founders of these movements happened relatively simultaneously with events within Adventism. For example, Joseph Smith died (was murdered) in year 1844! He received his first vision in 1820, two years after William Miller became fully convinced about the Second Coming. So both men worked at the same time. And after 1844 both movements experienced changes and splits. A very similar case is with Charles Taze Russell and Ellen White. Russell died in year 1916, just a year after death of Ellen White! And again, both movements started to experience changes, especially doctrinal. Coincidence?

3. Let's move to some doctrinal issues. All three movements believe, that they are true Remnants of the Apostolic Church. In Mormonism, this is seen in their name Latter-day Saints. Next, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a literal 144000 from Rev. 14:1-3, which they apply to their top leaders. Of course we also have a doctrine about the Remnant people. All this is in conjunction with the idea, that the rest of Christianity became part of the Great Apostasy and that people need to be drawn out of it. So all these movement have a kind of a zeal for evangelism within Christendom.

4. All three movements (at least in their beginnings) were non-Trinitarian, as opposed to the mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is generally considered tritheist (although they don't like the term) with many strange views on the Godhead as a whole (like that God the Father was once a human on another planet). Jehovah's Witnesses of course believe, that Christ is inferior to God (Jehovah), therefore not fully divine. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was also a non-Trinitarian movement before, therefore was put in line with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult.

5. This may be a little controversial issue - all these movements have been speculating in regard to the location of God's Throne in the Universe. Some or many Adventists believe, that it is located behind the Orion Nebula (we will not go into details here). Likewise, the Mormons believe, that God's Throne is located near a star named Kolob, yet they don't know, where it is exactly (the most popular explanation is that of the Galactic Core of Milky Way). Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe, but once they believed that the Throne of God is near star Alcyone of the Pleiades cluster. Both counterfeit ideas have supposed Egyptian origin (we will go into this later on). Such ideas (true or false) are in no way the case of mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.

6. Some elements seem to be taken from the Jewish religion. We Seventh-day Adventists have the Sabbath, which is part of the Ten Commandments. We also believe the Jewish temple system to be the type of what takes place in Heaven. On the contrary, the Mormons have it different. They have experienced their own exodus, this time to Utah state. They also have set up their own priesthoods: of Melchizedek and Aaron. Also, Jehovah's Witnesses try to be faithful to Jewish strict monotheism and use the name Jehovah for God.

7. When it comes to sacred places, Mormons' most sacred place is the Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. Interestingly, this temple has something described as The Most Holy Place, or Holy of Holies. Of course we immediately shift our minds towards the Jewish Tabernacle or the Heavenly Sanctuary, also with The Most Holy Place.

8. The next issue is about setting dates for the Second Coming. William Miller believed Christ to return in 1843-1844 - we know, that something different happened back then and do not need to set up new dates. On the contrary, Jehovah's Witnesses (also as Bible Students) have set up many such dates, like 1874, 1914 or 1975. Many of these dates were for different events, not just the Second Coming.

9. All three movements have their own prophets and revelations, different from that of the Bible alone. We have Ellen White and her works, which lead us to the Bible. In Mormonism, Joseph Smith was a prophet, who had visions, wrote and translated many works, supposedly ancient. So Mormonism recognises not only the Bible, but also the "Book of Mormon", "Pearl of Great Price" and some other works collectively termed sacred scriptures. Charles Taze Russell, although not having visions and not recognized as a prophet, was mostly working on biblical prophecies. And while he didn't want to make his "Studies in the Scriptures" to become equal with the Bible, once he stated, that his work is the only means, through which one can approach the Bible without falling in error. What's more, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe in prophets living today. Mormons believe, that their First Presidency is their prophet, seer and revelator, while Jehovah's Witnesses see their Governing Body as a prophet and channel of God.

10. There are also differences, when it comes to the understanding of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. As Adventists we believe, that He and the whole humanity in Him died for our sins, so that we could be drawn back and reconciliated with our Father in Heaven. Unfortunately, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have much more legalist explanations. What's more, Mormons actually believe, that Jesus died, so that people may become exalted to become gods themselves in far future. As for Jehovah's Witnesses, they believe in a ransom soteriology, teaching that Jesus died mostly for the sin of Adam, or for the whole Adamic humanity, so that there is no need for personal conviction. Again all of them are outside mainstream Christianity.

I believe we can name many other similarities, or actually differences, that put these movements outside of mainstream Christianity. Let's take the teachings on the Second Coming of Christ: in Mormonism it's angel Moroni as a symbol, who proclaimes a restored Gospel and the Second Coming; Jehovah's Witnesses actually focus mostly on the Armageddon and the future Kingdom of God; and we as Adventists have the Three Angels' Message, the Investigative Judgment, and even the name Adventists. Also teachings about death, health issues and many of future events are very different (Mormon eschatology being the richest), than those in mainstream Christianity.

So basically, it's no wonder that many Christians see us the same way, as they see Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses - outside of mainstream Christianity, outside of Protestantism, and even as a cult similar to these two. Even though it must be also said, that both counterfeit Remnant movements have some things in common, which are not the case in Adventism. So let's discuss them now.

1. The false Remnant movements have some theological connections with ancient Egypt. In Mormonism, one of the books from "Pearl of Great Price" is the Book of Abraham. It is believed to be written by Abraham, and translated from reformed Egyptian by Joseph Smith. This book was initially in a form of a set of, supposedly ancient, papyri and facsimiles - one of these facsimiles contained information about star Kolob, mentioned earlier. As for the Bible Students, Charles Taze Russell was very fascinated with the Great Pyramid. He believed, that it is a "Bible in a stone" and set up a whole set of prophecies based upon pyramidology. He also believed the Great Pyramid to point towards the star Alcyone of Pleiades (JW no longer believe in pyramidology and Alcyone). Adventists, including Seventh-day Adventists, did not have such connections with ancient Egypt, as far as I know.

This one issue is a very interesting one in my opinion, since I believe, that ancient Egypt (not ancient Babylonia) is the greatest heir of Tower of Babel. The native name of Egypt is Kemet, and it is suggested, that this word means not only "black land", but also "the land of Ham". We know, that Egypt was founded by Ham's son, Misraim. I think that most of ancient knowledge from Babel fled to Egypt, that's why they could build the Great Pyramid. Not to mention the occult religion and a theocratic government. So it is strange for me, that these false Remnants (therefore describing themselves as Christians) have something to do with Egypt. Although if we read on, this may become less strange.

2. The founders of false Remnants were in some way involved in the occult, gnosis and Freemasonry. Joseph Smith, when he had visions and when he was translating his works, was using a pair of "seer stones" named Urim and Thummim (or the Interpreters). Not long before his death, in March 1842 he also joined Freemasonry - it is suggested, that the Mormon ceremony of Endowment was taken directly from Masons (see "Mormonism and Freemasonry" article on Wikipedia for details). Charles Taze Russell, although never being a Freemason, had many contacts with them and on many occasions liked to compare Bible Students with Freemasonry, and even their teachings. His sermon "The Temple of God" given in 1913 serves as a prime example. Finally, when it comes to the founder of true Remnants, William Miller, we know that he was a Freemason for some time. But in 1831, the same year he began to preach his message, he left Freemasonry and started to express his criticism towards them. It is also sometimes alleged by our opponents, that Ellen White was a Freemason, but we have no true evidence of that. Furthermore, she was always critical of Freemasonry in her writings.

3. Finally, the hierarchy and organisational structure of false Remnants has a very strong theocratic character. As was stated before, the First Presidency of Mormons and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are considered to be contemporary prophets, channels, and revelators of God Himself. Mormons have a hierarchy of priesthoods: a priesthood of Melchizedek and of Aaron. And most of their religious institutions (named quorums or callings, including First Presidency) are set up according to these priesthoods. They also have a political doctrine, theodemocracy, which was historically applied to their provisional state of Deseret. Next, Jehovah's Witnesses may have a simplified organisation, yet they have a class of the so-called anointed (about 11000 people), who are to be part of 144000 (being the only converted people in the world!). The Governing Body is part of the anointed class, and is also named faithful and discreet slave, having also power over Watchtower Society. And the whole system is being described as theocratic. Now, as Seventh-day Adventists we have the General Conference, but we do not see it as a theocratic system the same way, as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. We believe they have a God given authority, but we also acknowledge, that they are only humans, prone to error. And when faced with error, we need to act according to the hierarchy God has set up and pray for our leaders.

So, from the above facts, can mainstream Christianity consider the Seventh-day Adventist Church a cult? Apart from the notion of the word cult, there is actually nothing in organisation or teachings - especially no teachings of pagan origin - that can give a clue, that we are a cult similar to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (whether these two are cults or not is a different topic).

The conclusion which I can draw from the above facts is that these false Remnant movements served and still serve a purpose. The purpose is to create more confusion, when it comes to the belief, which Church is the true Church. Adventism, Mormonism and other such movements emerged in the so called Second Great Awakening in the first half of XIX century - of course, other movements followed. If mainstream Christianity sees all of these movements to be false, like a religious pandemonium, it becomes more confident that they are the true Christian body. And probably this will serve a purpose in the events to come. I believe it was the work of Satan, who wanted to bring a great confusion in the first half of XIX century, so that people could not recognize the true God's people. And this still works. And... if Satan has made so much effort in raising counterfeit Remnant movements to make truth even more unpopular, then this gives me one more reason, why Seventh-day Adventism is a true God's movement.

Ending this entry, I hope you have read this to the end (a long entry, I know :) ). I have included here lots of information and dry facts. Basically I wanted to show, that we have much in common with the mentioned movements, and that when God has a great work to do among His people, Satan is always present to produce his counterfeits. For me this issue is another evidence, that the Seventh-day Adventists Church is a true Remnant Church.

Blessings!


TJ1Thomas Jefferson, 1743 – 1826, Husband, Father, Farmer, Inventor, Architect, Lawyer; Author of the Declaration of Independence; Author of the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom passed in the Assembly of Virginia, 1786; Third President of the United States; the Mentor and the Mind behind Madison in the drafting of the Constitution and especially the "Bill of Rights" is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs. (Lewis Loflin and Wikipedia)

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and America—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one God, but found fault with organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.” (Diesm, Wikipedia)

"Unitarianism is a religious theological movement, named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being. Thus, Unitarians contend that main-line Christianity does not adhere to strict monotheism as they do, maintaining that Jesus was a prophet, and in some sense the "son" of God, but not God himself. (Unitarianism, Wikipedia)

For most of its history, Unitarianism has been known for the rejection of several conventional Protestant doctrines besides the Trinity, including the soteriological doctrines of original sin and predestination…" (Ibid)

Below are excerpts of letters Jefferson wrote to individuals throughout his life compiled by Lewis Loflin. While we would not agree with all his thoughts about religion and Scripture it is interesting to discover that he had an insight into the origins of the trinity and what was wrong with the doctrine.

To S. Kercheval, 1810

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves: that rational men, not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

To John Adams, 1813

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one; to divide mankind by a single letter into ομοysians and ομοιysians. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

To Dr. Waterhouse, 1815

"The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus."

To Van der Kemp, 1816

"Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro' the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk."

To E. Styles, 1819

"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. I am not a Jew, and therefore do not adopt their theology, which supposes the God of infinite justice to punish the sins of the fathers upon their children, unto the third and fourth generation; and the benevolent and sublime reformer of that religion has told us only that God is good and perfect, but has not defined him. I am, therefore, of his theology, believing that we have neither words nor ideas adequate to that definition. And if we could all, after this example, leave the subject as undefinable, we should all be of one sect, doers of good, and eschewers of evil. No doctrines of his lead to schism. It is the speculations of crazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral and sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to create differences. These religious animosities I impute to those who call themselves his ministers, and who engraft their casuistries on the stock of his simple precepts. I am sometimes more angry with them than is authorized by the blessed charities which he preaches."

To Van der Kemp, 1820

"The genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. Very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye. To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education."

To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822

"Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian (Trinitarian) that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.

But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect."

An additional letter to theologian James Smith -- December 8, 1822 -- further elaborates Jefferson's views on the subject.

"Sir, -- I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter.

No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.

I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to. Although this mutual freedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be brought in question before the public on this or any other subject, and I pray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no part in controversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquility is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of dying in the good will of all mankind. And with the assurance of all my good will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig and Tory, accept for yourself that of my entire respect."


St. Nick2

“He approaches Arius, fist raised menacingly. There are gasps. Would he dare? He would. Fist strikes face. Arius goes down. He will have a shiner.” (1)

Who was the man who struck Arius at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea and what became of him? In studying church history as it relates to the truth about the Father and Son when it came to the Council of Nicaea I had focused on what I thought were the key players. We have an emperor, Sunday sacredness advocate Constantine, who assembled the Council, Arius, the man the church calls the ‘bad guy’, and Athanasios, bishop of Alexandria who, according to namesake Athanasios Paul Thompson, “stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius…It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.” (2)

With that and other glowing recommendations Athanasios is touted as the one who single-handedly saved the day at Nicaea and rescued the church from error. Thanks to COGwriter Bob Thiel I discovered a new person has taken the spotlight. He is being touted as the person who really saved Christendom from the Arians.

A variety of sources tell the story, which is accounted below. References follow the account.

In AD 325 Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, the very first ecumenical council. More than 300 bishops came from all over the Christian world to debate the nature of the Holy Trinity. It was one of the early church's most intense theological questions. Arius, from Egypt, was teaching that Jesus the Son was not equal to God the Father. The bishops listened respectfully.

As Arius forcefully argued his position at length, a man arose suddenly to his feet, an obscure, cantankerous bishop named Nicholas. He approaches Arius, fist raised menacingly. There are gasps. Would he dare? He would. Fist strikes face. Arius goes down. He will have a shiner.

Some accounts say Nicholas simply slapped Arius. Either way the bishops were shocked. It was unbelievable that a bishop would lose control and be so hotheaded in such a solemn assembly. Constantine said even though it was illegal for anyone to strike another in his presence, in this case, the bishops themselves must determine the punishment.

The bishops stripped Nicholas of his bishop's garments, chained him, and threw him into a dungeon. Peer down through the bars. Behold the simmering zealot sitting there, scowling, defiant, imprisoned for his uncompromising piety. Recognize his sallow face? No? Well, no reason you should. But he knows you. He’s been to your house many times.

Nicholas was born in Patara, a small town on the Mediterranean coast, 280 years after the birth of Christ. He became bishop of a small town in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) called Myra. Beyond that, details of his life are more legend than fact.

He’s been to your house many times because somehow he transmogrified into Santa Claus, who has become for many people the secular Christmas alternative to Jesus Christ.

St. Nicholas of Myra was nothing close to the Santa Claus of the modern age. Paintings show a thin man. He was spare of frame, flinty of eye, pugnacious of spirit. In the Middle Ages, he was known as a brawling saint. He had no particular sense of humor that we know of. As we’ve seen him demonstrate at the Council, he could be vengeful, and wrathful. He was a curmudgeonly man with a zeal for the Lord that caused flairs of anger. Compromise was unknown to him. The slow transformation of him into “Jolly ole’ Saint Nicholas” is a remarkable recasting of him centuries in the making.

Nicholas was ashamed of his outburst at the Council. In his dungeon cell he prayed for forgiveness, though he did not waver in his belief. Legend has it that during the night, Jesus and the Virgin Mary appeared asking, "Why are you in jail?" "Because of my love for you," Nicholas replied. Jesus then gave the Book of the Gospels to Nicholas. Mary gave him an omophorion, so Nicholas would again be dressed as a bishop. Now at peace, Nicholas studied the Scriptures for the rest of the night.

You can commemorate the event by purchasing a variety of items like this cross with 5 Orthodox icons of Trinity, Jesus, Virgin Mary, St Nicholas, and Guardian Angel.

MaryNick

When the jailer came in the morning, he found the chains loose on the floor and Nicholas dressed in bishop's robes, quietly reading the Scriptures. When Constantine was told of this ‘miracle’, Nicholas was forgiven for punching Arius, and the emperor asked that Nicholas be freed. Nicholas was then fully reinstated as the Bishop of Myra.

Not surprisingly, the council ended up siding with Nicholas and against Arius. His views on the Trinity were vindicated by the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which declares Christ divine. Arius and the bishops unwilling to agree with the Emperor's theology were excommunicated and exiled. Constantine was playing for keeps! A few years later he ordered the burning of the works of Arius and made the mere possession of them a crime punishable by death.

St. Nick died on December 6, thus his feast day is celebrated on that date. With his reincarnation as Santa Claus some today want to give him a new role, that of a theological enforcer because as the original Santa he was someone who flew off the handle when he heard someone minimizing Christ. They say the St. Nicholas slap should become part of today’s Christmas imagery.

Not a violent hit of the kind that got the good bishop in trouble, just a gentle, admonitory tap on the cheek. This should be reserved not for out-and-out nonbelievers, but for heretics (that is, people in the church who deny its teachings), Christians who forget about Jesus, and people who try to take Christ out of Christmas.

This will take a little tweaking of the mythology. Santa and his elves live at the North Pole where they compile a list of who is naughty, who is nice, and who is Nicean. On Christmas Eve, flying reindeer pull his sleigh full of gifts. And after he comes down the chimney, he will steal into the rooms of people dreaming of sugarplums who think they can do without Christ and slap them awake.

And we'll need new songs and TV specials ("Santa Claus Is Coming to Slap," "Deck the Apollinarian with Bats of Holly," "Frosty the Gnostic," "How the Arian Stole Christmas," "Rudolph the Red Knows Jesus").

Here’s one sung to the tune of "Jolly Old St. Nicholas"

Jolly old St. Nicholas,
Lean your ear this way,
Don't you tell a single soul
What I'm gonna say,

We know you were really ticked,
But, you dear old man,
Shouldn't hit the heretic,
Even if you can—

(say sorry, Santa please say sorry)

Arius is gonna know
Why he's teaching wrong,
Nicene council's gonna show
Him a better song.

Here’s one more story from the Council.

When all the bishops were gathered together in Nicaea to decide the great question threatening to split the early church, there were many long speeches. Such meetings can be very tiring. Once during dinner, it looked as if Bishop Nicholas had dozed off, weary of the whole thing and unable to stay awake.

As he slept, Nicholas heard voices calling his name, and, leaving his sleeping body leaning on the table, he followed the voices. After traveling a long way, he came to a place in the middle of the sea. A mighty storm raged, putting a ship in great danger. The sails were shredded and the masts broken as if they were toothpicks. Sailors, clinging to the ship, cried to Nicholas for help.

Nicholas raised his hands" the waves calmed and thunder and lightning stopped. The sun came out over a sea once again calm. The grateful sailors thanked God for their rescue. Nicholas blessed the sailors and, returned.

In Nicaea, awakened at table, Nicholas yawned and rubbed his eyes. Seeing he was now awake, the other bishops said, "So much has happened while you slept, Nicholas. We have missed you, our Brother." "Yes indeed," said Nicholas. "A ship has been saved and many sailors rescued." The bishops, completely unaware of what had happened, thought Nicholas meant that the church was a ship and that the Council had saved the church and its people.

What a triumph for the church. The painting at the beginning of this article, and the cartoon below glorifies the assault of Arius. Its story and the legends around it were presented to subsequent generations as an example to follow.

St.Nick3

So, the real meaning of the Council of Nicaea for the Church is found in the little story of Nicholas and Arius: the people with the right doctrine would strike down the people with the wrong doctrine. The Church would never forget this lesson!

What an interesting commentary on a piece of history that still has ramifications for us today. Many reading this know that neither Constantine, Athanasios, St. Nick nor Santa has been able to strike down the faith once delivered to the saints.

Athanasios Paul Thompson laments, “It is indeed a sad reality today that so many anti-trinitarian heresies have resurfaced. Popular religious groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the renegade members and splinter sects of the Seventh Day Adventist church proclaim some form of the Arian heresy so aptly defeated by St. Athanasios.

Surely the legacy of Athanasios lives on within the heart of our Christian faith. It seems to me that earnest believers must better equip themselves to counter those who deny that Jesus is both God and man or that the trinitarian doctrine is not necessary for one to be identified as a Christian. They are very wrong! We must champion the essential truths of Christianity that reveal the nature of God and the nature of man. It seems to me that both religious and social problems within the church could be more easily corrected if we get it right on who God is and what He has done through the doing and dying of the God/Man Jesus on the cross.

Those who toy with historic Christian convictions and entertain "new" theories about God are simply echoing the troubled past of early Christian heresies. Beware all anti-trinitarian believers, your ideas are old and rejected.

One last chorus of a song:

For Arians you can pray now
And hope that they’ll see
That God, who is One,
Is the Trinity.

Though I have rejected the trinity and all it stands for because of the study of Scripture, spirit of prophecy, and church history, my intention in posting this article was to bring to light an event that took place at the Council of Nicaea that I was unaware of, and share what others wrote about that incident.

While some of the imaginations posted here are, I believe, a mockery to God, I wanted to include them to see what our reaction would be. Did anger well up inside to the point that you wanted to defend God by slapping, punching, or telling someone off? Or did you feel a sense of sadness knowing that because of the decrees at the Council it wasn’t long until the church was plunged into the dark ages. Did you want to weep between the porch and the altar sighing and crying for the abominations? Did you, like Jesus, want to cry out to our Father to, “Forgive them for they know not what they do?"

You see I have been guilty of using my tongue to verbally strike down the church and those within it whom I disagree with on the topic of who God is. It is something I have had to repent of. Instead of the virgin Mary visiting me in the prison I had created for myself, the Father and Son opened the doors to a better way by blessing me with the truths found in the pages of Scripture and ministries like Maranatha Media.

Just this morning before posting this I discovered another timely blessing from our Father, “History Repeats – Lessons for us” where brother Adrian states, “We need to exercise care in how we apply past experiences to our own experience. It can be very easy to simple imagine ourselves as one of God’s faithful braving the persecution and trial of those against us when it is possible that we bring a time of trouble upon ourselves by our over confidence in our righteous actions in correcting our brethren.”

My prayer now is that each of us will reflect on our own lives and repent for the part we played, not only in accepting false doctrine, but in our attitude towards the church and others. I want to take brother Adrian’s plea to heart, “Let us learn the lessons of history and realise that no man will go through the final scenes without need for deep repentance and a realisation that his life to that point has been full of mistakes, failures and self-interest.”

I want to come together with my brothers and sisters in humility and pray prayers of repentance like Daniel and Nehemiah. I want to follow the council in 2 Timothy 2:24-25, “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;”

1 - Danny Hakim, Washington Post, Poles Apart: Nicholas of Myra; How a 4th-Century Bishop Achieved Fame 1,500 Years Later, With a Whole New Attitude.

2 – Athanasios Paul Thompson was quoting C.S. Lewis in his introduction to the book St. Athanasius on the Incarnation.

References:

Monsignor Charles Pope, The Real St. Nicholas – Not Fat and Not Very Jolly Either

Bishop Nicholas Loses His Cool (At The Council of Nicaea)

Saint Nicholas Strikes Arius

Gene Edward Veith, Slappy Holiday

Parodies inspired by "Slappy Holiday"

Where Was Nicholas?

Athanasios Paul Thompson says

Athanasios Paul Thompson, Ancient Truth Brings Wisdom For Today

St. Nicholas versus Arius by cartoonist George Tautkus


Some accounts list Nicholas as present at the Council of Nicaea and some do not. Some say that his name was not on some lists because he was thrown in jail. Others say his name is missing because he was sleeping and missed some of the Council's deliberations.


Brother Thiel, who goes by the moniker COGwriter, maintains a website at www.cogwriter.com that reports on news, prophecy, and doctrinal matters of interest to those who believe the Bible. “COGwriter is an abbreviation for Church of God (COG) writer. The term Church of God is used here to include those Sabbatarian (sabbath-keeping) churches that are faithful to apostolic Christianity (most generally, but not exclusively, those who came out of the pre-1986 Worldwide Church of God, and hold similar beliefs).”

Though I do not endorse all the content on his website, I found the following article interesting, especially the connection between Christmas and the trinity.  (Frank Klin)

Protestantism the ‘Tannenbaum religion’?

Tanen

The Wall Street Journal ran an article that contained the following:

The Stranger in the House

Christmas trees arrived in England and America only in the mid-19th century…

The Tannenbaum (which simply means “fir tree”) came to be associated, apocryphally or not, with Martin Luther. Because of that, many Catholics in Germany once disdained it. The “aversion of many Catholics went so far,” Mr. Brunner writes, “that at the end of the nineteenth century many simply called Protestantism the ‘Tannenbaum religion.’ ” As late as the 1930s, the Vatican was recommending manger scenes instead of Christmas trees as a more theologically sound sort of decoration. But the church today no longer sees a conflict—Christmas Eve at the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square now features both a life-size Nativity and a towering Christmas tree.

It wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century that the tradition began to spread outside Germany. Christmas trees were a novelty in England by 1850, thanks to a royal example set by the German-born Prince Albert…In the mid-19th century, the Christmas tree made inroads in America, too….

It has often been suggested that the Christmas tree is a pagan custom co-opted long ago by pragmatic Christian evangelists…Yes, candlelight featured in pre-Christian solstice festivals.  And no doubt one can find some misty antecedents involving tree worship. 

There are a lot of non-Christian symbols associated with the celebration of what is now called Christmas.  Tannenbaum literally means “fir tree” and is the German term for Christmas tree.

Most who have looked into the subject of Christmas trees are familiar with the passages in Jeremiah 10 that clearly seem to condemn pagan tree practices:

2″Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.” (Jeremiah 10:2-5, NIV).

While the trees themselves cannot harm us, God says that they cannot do any good.

Even though there is nothing in the Bible to encourage putting a tree in one’s house to honor Jesus or the Father, both Catholics and Protestants believe that they have a legitimate reason.

Even though they condemned the fir trees when once calling Protestantism the “Tannebaum religion,” Catholics claim a prior use.  In the 7-8th century, their St. Boniface chopped down an oak dedicated to Thor and a fir tree grew at the same place.  After that happened Boniface was said to have stated, “Its leaves remain evergreen in the darkest days: let Christ be your constant light” (Christmas Tree. Wikipedia, 12/22/07).  But the truth is that the evergreen tree had long been a pagan religious symbol in northern Europe.

According to the Historic Trinity Lutheran Church of Detroit:

Dr. Martin Luther is credited with originating the use of lighted pine trees in the home for Christmas.

Here is one account of how Catholics and Protestants got the tree:

Why do we have a decorated Christmas Tree? In the 7th century a monk from Crediton, Devonshire, went to Germany to teach the Word of God. He did many good works there, and spent much time in Thuringia, an area which was to become the cradle of the Christmas Decoration Industry.

Legend has it that he used the triangular shape of the Fir Tree to describe the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The converted people began to revere the Fir tree as God’s Tree, as they had previously revered the Oak. By the 12th century it was being hung, upside-down, from ceilings at Christmastime in Central Europe, as a symbol of Christianity.

The first decorated tree was at Riga in Latvia, in 1510. In the early 16th century, Martin Luther is said to have decorated a small Christmas Tree with candles, to show his children how the stars twinkled through the dark night (The Chronological History of the Christmas Tree Copyright © 1998-2007 Maria Hubert von Staufer, viewed 12/22/07).

Of course, that once again is one of the problems of Christmas, it substitutes pagan symbols for that of the true God.

And if you are asking yourself, doesn’t the trinity represent God, you may wish to study more into the Bible and the History of Christianity and also read the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?  Another aspect of history is that the early Church condemned winter celebrations like modern Christmas–Christmas was not observed by the early true church. This is documented in the article What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Christmas and the Holy Days?

Now, getting back to the accusation of Catholics about Protestants being the “Tannenbaum religion,”  basically the Protestants condemned the Church of Rome for many practices, including idolatry. The Catholics considered that having a decorated fir tree in one’s house, which of course is not a symbol associated with the birth of Jesus in the Bible, during the Christmas season was a form of idolatry.

However, over time, as the use of trees gained more universal acceptance, those of the Catholic faith decided to no longer decry their use, but instead found a legend in their own history to suggest that they had the idea originally.

All of this may seem to be bizarre, but a lot of the doctrinal history of the Catholics and Protestants is.


This is an Article in the Signs of the Times (November 6, 1879)  about the Church not being a Playhouse. I found the analogy of the Ship in the Ocean a good way of looking at it. 

Not a Playhouse

   A Church turned into a hall, where actors, with disfigured faces and strange apparel, play for the amusement of the crowd! Is this right? What says every enlightened conscience?

    "The church in the world, "says a recent writer, "is like a ship in the ocean. The ship is safe enough in the ocean so long as the ocean is not in the ship. The church is safe enough in the world so long as the world is not in the church."

    This is evidently sound doctrine. The church is safe so long as she remains true to her mission, but is she safe when her doors are thrown wide open to give an entertainment which, from beginning to end, savors more of the theater and the ballroom than it does of any other place or institution? Every student of sacred history knows that one of the main reasons why the Church became so corrupt during the Dark Ages was that she lowered the standard of purity and invited the world to come in and assist her. Are we not in a measure in danger of the same catastrophe? Are we not by these theatrical entertainments, given in our churches, inviting the world to come in and lend us the aid of its unsanctified talents and wealth? It may be pleasing to the natural man to have an enthusiastic gathering in the church; it may call forth the loud applause of the multitude, and help materially to defray the current expenses; but can God's house be desecrated with impunity? Can it be made a theater instead of a Bethel, without our sooner or later reaping the consequences?—N. Y. Observer.

 Source: http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18791106-V05-42__B.pdf#Page=2

 

 


My recent thoughts were driven to a time, when Christianity was in its beginnings. I'm trying to study out, what kinds of processes led, on the one hand, to the formation of the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, to some heresies which were rejected by this Church. While venturing through the themes of two rival theological schools (of Alexandria and Antioch, respectively), I reminded myself of Ulfilas.

Maybe some of you know, who Ulfilas was. He lived in the IV century, he is considered to be a disciple of Arius, who went on to evangelize Gothic tribes, north of the Roman Empire. Since he was a disciple of Arius, he is considered to be a follower of Arianism. Yet, he has left us his creed, which I believe is very meaningful in its message. It tells us much about his beliefs.

This is his personal confession of faith (from Wikipedia under "Ulfilas", this is a quote from Heather and Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, p. 143. - with added paragraphs for a better reading):

"I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord;

I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles:

"And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49)

and again

"But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8);

being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father ... (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ."

He seems to consequently name Christ his Lord and his God, of Whom he is a follower. He doesn't use the "created" language, when refering to Christ - only that He is the "only-begotten" of the Father. He also states, that Christ is the maker of all creation, puting Him outside it - regardless of what Arius believed (or is thought to have believed).

I don't know how about you, but I believe I would be able to subscribe to this creed. If someone would like to study out the theme, Benjamin Wilkinson's "Truth Triumphant" has a whole chapter on Ulfilas and the Goths.

Blessings!


So often we don't understand events that are happening in the world. I have often wondered why people, churches, governments and nations make the decisions they do. It was not until I began to look at the historical foundations of the different nations of the world that suddenly I saw a frame work, a filter, by which I could interpret the events I was seeing.

Today, all eyes are on the European Community. Economic woes are just one of the issues confronting them. I see that the events there are all connected, and that someone, somewhere has an agenda. That agenda is built on a foundation that goes back centuries into the past, and once you see the foundation, you will understand where the events are leading. The following short article will help you bring prophecy and world events into focus, and give some insights into the future.

Much more could be said, but if you are an Adventist, you will get the picture.

Blessings,

Blair

Nicea and Its After Effects


What happened from after Christ's ascension till Christ comes back again? We take a look at how Christianity developed from its pure teachings till it got mixed up with paganism. What was prophesied and what was fulfilled?

 

The beast and its mark: English
The beast and its mark: Turkish


On March 17, 2012 a friend hosted a fellowship dinner after church.  Because March 17th is often observed as St. Patrick’s Day, was asked to share something about Patrick. I knew a little from reading “Truth Triumphant, the Church in the Wilderness” by B.G. Wilkinson.  My friend Philip recommend “The Celtic Church in Britain” by Leslie Hardinge.” Both these sources make up the majority of this presentation.  Was also blessed with the article “Should You Wear Green on St. Patrick's Day?” by B. Thiel.  Encyclopedia excerpts and some text were taken from that article.

Some see this day of wearing the green, drunkenness, revelry, pinching, corned beef and cabbage, etc. as a Catholic holiday, while others mainly an Irish holiday. It became a feast day in the Catholic church due to the influence of Franciscan scholar Luke Wadding in the early part of the 17th century.

One traditional icon of the day is the shamrock. This stems from a more bona fide Irish tale that tells how Patrick used the three-leafed shamrock to explain the Trinity. He used it in his sermons to represent how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit could all exist as separate elements of the same entity. His followers adopted the custom of wearing a shamrock on his feast day. (Saint Patrick's Day, wikipedia).

Aside from its non-biblical origins, what can we learn about the man behind the day? Can Rome really claim him as one of their own or does he belong to another?

Patrick was born in Scotland around 387. When he was sixteen, he was carried off into captivity by Irish marauders and sold as a slave to a chieftan in Ireland, where for six years he tended his master's flocks.

From there some sources tell us:

“PATRICK...SAINT is the patron of Ireland and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church...he came to be known as one who "found Ireland all heathen and left it all Christian. Saint Patrick founded over 300 churches...Many relics of this saint were held sacred for a thousand years, but some of them were destroyed by the Reformers.” (Patrick. World Book Encyclopedia, 50th Anniversary Edition, Volume 15. Chicago, 1966 p. 174)

Thus, St. Patrick's Day is in honor of one who is claimed to have turned Ireland Roman Catholic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports some additional details about Patrick:

Pope St. Celestine I, who rendered immortal service to the Church by the overthrow of the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies…crowned his pontificate by an act of the most far-reaching consequences for the spread of Christianity and civilization, when he entrusted St. Patrick with the mission of gathering the Irish race into the one fold...

"…St. Patrick's Breast-Plate", is supposed to have been composed by him in preparation for this victory over Paganism. The following is a literal translation from the old Irish text:

I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity:

I believe the Trinity in the Unity

The Creator of the Universe…

When not engaged in the work of the sacred ministry, his whole time was spent in prayer. Many times in the day he armed himself with the sign of the Cross. He never relaxed his penitential exercises. Clothed in a rough hair-shirt, he made the hard rock his bed. His disinterestedness is specially commemorated. Countless converts of high rank would cast their precious ornaments at his feet, but all were restored to them. He had not come to Erin in search of material wealth, but to enrich her with the priceless treasures of the Catholic Faith.

[During a mountaintop experience] the saint…would…wrestle with God Himself, like Jacob of old, to secure the spiritual interests of his people. [His guardian] angel had announced to him that, to reward his fidelity in prayer and penance, as many of his people would be gathered into heaven as would cover the land and sea as far as his vision could reach. Far more ample, however, were the aspirations of the saint, and he resolved to persevere in fasting and prayer until the fullest measure of his petition was granted. Again and again the angel came to comfort him, announcing new concessions; but all these would not suffice. He would not relinquish his post on the mountain, or relax his penance, until all were granted. At length the message came that his prayers were heard:

  • many souls would be free from the pains of purgatory through his intercession
  • whoever in the spirit of penance would recite his hymn before death would attain the heavenly reward;
  • barbarian hordes would never obtain sway in his Church;
  • seven years before the Judgement Day, the sea would spread over Ireland to save its people from the temptations and terrors of the Antichrist; and
  • greatest blessing of all, Patrick himself should be deputed to judge the whole Irish race on the last day.,

Such were the extraordinary favors which St. Patrick, with his wrestling with the Most High, his unceasing prayers, his unconquerable love of heavenly things, and his unremitting penitential deeds, obtained for the people whom he evangelized. (Cardinal Moran, Patrick Francis. Transcribed by Mary Doorley. St. Patrick. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)

Who was the “real” Patrick?

The heroic figure of Patrick, taken captive as a boy into slavery, stands out as a creator of civilization. He was not only an architect of European society and the father of Irish Christianity, but he raised up a standard against spiritual wolves entering the fold in sheep's clothing. So much legend and fiction has been written about him that one is almost led to believe that there were two individuals - the real Patrick and the fictitious Patrick. The statement may come as a surprise to many, yet it is a fact that the actual Patrick belonged to the Church in the Wilderness. He should not be placed where certain historians seem determined to assign him. The facts presented [here]…will no doubt be a revelation to many, who, misled by wrong representations, have not realized of what church Patrick was a child and an apostle…[H]e was of that early church which was brought to Ireland from Syria. He was in no way connected with the type of Christianity which developed in Italy and which was ever at war with the church organized by Patrick. [1]

Fortunately, two of Patrick's writings, his Confession and the Letter against Coroticus, a nearby British king, survive and may be found readily. In the Letter Patrick tells how he surrendered his high privileges to become a slave for Christ. Of his faith and his dedication to God, he says: I was a free man according to the flesh. I was born of a father who was a decurion. For I sold my nobility for the good of others, and I do not blush or grieve about it. Finally, I am a servant in Christ delivered to a foreign nation on account of the unspeakable glory of an everlasting life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. [1]

Patrick, like his Master of Galilee, was to learn obedience through suffering. A great task awaited him. The apostolic church had won a comparatively easy victory in her struggle with a pagan world for three centuries. But an almost impossible task awaited her when a compromising Christianity, enforcing its doctrines at the point of the sword, had become the state religion of the Roman Empire. It was an hour when a new line of leaders was needed. As the struggle of free churches to live their lives without the domination of a state clergy began, God was training Patrick. [1]

Shortly before Patrick's time the empire at Constantinople had been under the rule of Constantius II, who recoiled from accepting the extreme views on the Godhead, which had won the vote under his father, Constantine the Great, in the first Council of Nicaea. [S]imilar opposition to those extreme views prevailed all over Europe. Patrick's belief was that of the opposition. [1]

At the age of sixteen, Patrick was carried captive to Ireland by freebooters…Of this he writes in this Confession:

I, Patrick, a sinner, the rudest and least of all the faithful, and most contemptible to great numbers, had Calpurnius for my father, a deacon, son of the late Potitus, the presbyter, who dwelt in the village of Banavan, Tiberniae, for he had a small farm at hand with the place where I was captured. I was then almost sixteen years of age. I did not know the true God; and was taken to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men in accordance with our deserts, because we walked at a distance from God and did not observe His commandments. [1]

[At the age of 22 Patrick escaped from his slave master]. What Patrick did between the time of his escape from slavery…and his return [to Ireland] as a missionary to that land is not known. Every effort has been made by pro-papal writers to place him, in this interval, at Rome. On one such fictitious visit it is said that Patrick with the help of an angel performed the questionable feat of stealing many relics from the pope among which was supposed to have been the bloodstained towel of our Saviour and some hair from the Virgin Mary. One writer exclaims: “ ‘0 wondrous deed! 0 rare theft of a vast treasure of holy things, committed without sacrilege, the plunder of the most holy place in the world!’” (Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church, page 93) [1]

The words of Patrick himself reveal his unrest of soul after his escape from slavery until he submitted to the call of God to proclaim the news of salvation to the Irish. He had continually heard voices from the woods of Hibernia, begging him, as did the man in the night vision of Paul, “Come over.... and help us.” Neither the tears of his parents nor the reasonings of his friends could restrain him. He determined, whatever the cost, to turn his back upon the allurements of home and friends and to give his life for the Emerald Isle. [1]

Patrick preached the Bible. He appealed to it as the sole authority for founding the Irish Church. He gave credit to no other worldly authority; he recited no creed. Several official creeds of the church at Rome had by that time been ratified and commanded, but Patrick mentions none. In his Confession he makes a brief statement of his beliefs, but he does not refer to any church council or creed as authority. The training centers he founded, which later grew into colleges and large universities, were all Bible schools. Famous students of these schools - Columba, who brought Scotland to Christ, Aidan, who won pagan England to the gospel, and Columbanus with his successors, who brought Christianity to Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy - took the Bible as their only authority, and founded renowned Bible training centers for the Christian believers. [1]

Patrick, like his example, Jesus, put the words of Scripture above the teachings of men. He differed from the papacy, which puts church tradition above the Bible. In his writings he nowhere appeals to the church at Rome for the authorization of his mission. Whenever he speaks in defense of his mission, he refers to God alone, and declares that he received his call direct from heaven. [1]

Patrick believed that Christianity should be founded with the home and the family as its strength. Too often the Christian organizations of that age were centered in celibacy. This was not true of the Irish Church and its Celtic daughters in Great Britain, Scotland, and on the Continent. The Celtic Church, as organized and developed under Patrick, permitted its clergy to marry. [1]

The absence of celibacy in the Celtic Church gives added proof to the fact that the believers had no connection with the church at Rome. Thus Dr. J. H. Todd writes: “He [Patrick] says nothing of Rome, or of having been commissioned by Pope Celestine. He attributed his Irish apostleship altogether to an inward call, which he regarded as a divine command.” [1]

One of the strongest proofs that Patrick did not belong to papal Christianity is found in the historical fact that for centuries Rome made every effort to destroy the church Patrick had founded. Jules Michelet writes of Boniface, who was the pope's apostle to the Germans about two hundred years after Patrick: “His chief hatred is to the Scots [the name equally given to the Scotch and Irish], and he especially condemns their allowing priests to marry.” [1]

Patrick sought two goals in his effort to make truth triumphant. First, he sought the conversion of those among whom he had been a slave, and, secondly, he longed to capture Tara, the central capital of Ireland, for Christ. Therefore he proceeded immediately to County Antrim in the northwest, where he had endured slavery. While he failed to win his former slave master, he was successful in converting the master's household. This threw open a door to further missionary labors not only to this region but also across the adjacent waters into nearby Scotland. [1]

He did not enter the capital because he felt that God's work needed the help of the state. Patrick rejected the union of church and state. More than one hundred years had passed since the first world council at Nicaea had united the church with the empire. Patrick rejected this model. He followed the lesson taught in John's Gospel when Christ refused to be made a king. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Not only the Irish apostle but his famous successors, Columba in Scotland, and Columbanus on the Continent, ignored the supremacy of the papal pontiff. They never would have agreed to making the pope a king. Although the Roman Empire after the fourth century had favored that supremacy, there was still great discontent throughout Europe against this encroachment of civil power into the church. [1]

Many miracles have been ascribed to Patrick by the traditional stories which grew up. Two or three will suffice to show the difference between the miraculous hero of the fanatical fiction and the real Patrick. The Celtic Patrick reached Ireland in an ordinary way. The fictitious Patrick, in order to provide passage for a leper when there was no place on the boat, threw his portable stone altar into the sea. The stone did not go to the bottom, nor was it outdistanced by the boat, but it floated around the boat with the leper on it until it reached Ireland. [1]

In order to connect this great man with the papal see, it was related: “Sleep came over the inhabitants of Rome, so that Patrick brought away as much as he wanted of the relics. Afterward those relics were taken to Armagh by the counsel of God and the counsel of the men of Ireland. What was brought then was three hundred and threescore and five relics, together with the relics of Paul and Peter and Lawrence and Stephen, and many others. And a sheet was there with Christ's blood [thereon] and with the hair of Mary the Virgin.” [1]

But Dr. Killen refutes this story by declaring:

He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God ... When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [Pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stouthearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage.” [1]

About two hundred years after Patrick, papal authors began to tell of a certain Palladius, who was sent in 430 by this same Pope Celestine as a bishop to the Irish. They all admit, however, that he stayed only a short time in Ireland and was compelled to withdraw because of the disrespect which was shown him. [1]

One more of the many legendary miracles which sprang from the credulity and tradition of Rome is here repeated. “He went to Rome to have [ecclesiastical] orders given him…And when the orders were a reading out, the three choirs mutually responded, namely, the choir of the household of heaven, and the choir of the Romans, and the choir of the children from the wood of Fochlad. This is what all sang: ‘All we Irish beseech thee, holy Patrick, to come and walk among us and to free us.’” [1]

The growing coldness between the Celtic and the Roman Churches…did not originate in a hostile attitude of mind in the Celtic clergy. It arose because they considered that the papacy was moving farther and farther away from the apostolic system of the New Testament. No pope ever passed on to the leading bishops of the church the news of the great transformation from heathenism to Christianity wrought by Patrick. This they certainly would have done, as was done in other cases, had he been an agent of the Roman pontiff. [1]

One is struck by the absence of any reference to Patrick in the Ecclesiastical History of England written by that fervent follower of the Vatican, the Englishman Bede, who lived about two hundred years after the death of the apostle to Ireland...Though a great collector of facts, Bede makes no reference whatever to Patrick. The reason apparently is that, when this historian wrote, the papacy had not yet made up its mind to claim Patrick. [1]

Patrick, while manifesting all the graces of an apostolic character, also possessed the sterner virtues. Like Moses, he was one of the humblest of men. He revealed that steadfastness of purpose required to accomplish a great task. His splendid ability to organize and execute his Christian enterprises revealed his successful ability to lead. He was frank and honest. He drew men to him, and he was surrounded by a band of men whose hearts God had touched. Such a leader was needed to revive the flickering flames of New Testament faith in the West, to raise up old foundations, and to lay the groundwork for a mighty Christian future. [1]

To guide new converts, Patrick ordained overseers or bishops in charge of the local churches. Wherever he went, new churches sprang up, and to strengthen them he also founded schools. These two organizations were so closely united that some writers have mistakenly called them monasteries. The scholarly and missionary groups created by Patrick were very different from those ascetic and celibate centers which the papacy strove to multiply. [1]

The marvelous educational system of the Celtic Church, revised and better organized by Patrick, spread successfully over Europe until the Benedictine system, favored by the papacy and reinforced by the state, robbed the Celtic Church of its renown and sought to destroy all the records of its educational system. [1]

In the years preceding the birth of Patrick new and strange doctrines flooded Europe like the billows of the ocean. Gospel truths, stimulating the minds of men, had opened up so many areas of influence that counterfeiting doctrines had been brought in by designing clergy who strove for the crown while shunning the cross. Patrick was obliged to take his stand against these teachings. [1]

The Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 by Emperor Constantine, started the religious controversy which has never ceased. Assembling under the sanction of a united church and state, that famous gathering commanded the submission of believers to new doctrines… (Most prominent was the doctrine of the Trinity). The council had decided, and the papacy had appropriated the decision as its own…Then the papal party proceeded to call those who would not subscribe to this teaching, Arians, while they took to themselves the title of Trinitarians. An erroneous charge was circulated that all who were called Arians believed that Christ was a created being.,, [1]

It is doubtful if many believed Christ to be a created being. Generally, those evangelical bodies who opposed the papacy and who were branded as Arians confessed both the divinity of Christ and that He was begotten, not created, by the Father. They recoiled from other extreme deductions and speculations concerning the Godhead… [1]

This stirred up the indignation of those who were not guilty of the charge. During the youth of Patrick and for half a century preceding, forty-five church councils and synods had assembled in various parts of Europe. Of these Samuel Edgar says:

The boasted unity of Romanism was gloriously displayed, by the diversified councils and confessions of the fourth century. Popery, on that as on every other occasion, eclipsed Protestantism in the manufacture of creeds. Forty-five councils, says Jortin, were held in the fourth century. Of these, thirteen were against Arianism, fifteen for that heresy, and seventeen for Semi-Arianism. The roads were crowded with bishops thronging to synods, and the traveling expenses, which were defrayed by the emperor, exhausted the public funds. These exhibitions became the sneer of the heathen, who were amused to behold men, who, from infancy, had been educated in Christianity, and appointed to instruct others in that religion, hastening, in this manner, to distant places and conventions for the purpose of ascertaining their belief. [1]

[These councils and synods had] such profound effect upon other doctrines relating to the plan of salvation and upon outward acts of worship that a gulf was created between the papacy and the institutions of the church which Patrick had founded in Ireland. [1]

The Celt was absorbed in Christ's character and ministry,…but made no attempt to deal with the mystery of his nature. Patrick, [while using the word “trinity” in his writings], affirmed that while Christ "always existed with the Father", He was also "begotten before the beginning of anything"…"Today have I begotten thee" [is] referred to "the day of the existence of God". Christ's coming into being was thus definitely stated as following God's.... Yet the Deity "gives equal honour with himself and with the Godhead of the Son to the Manhood of the Son", for Christ was equal with the Father in might and majesty. But with uncritical statements such as these the Celt ceased to discuss the matter, terming it a "mystery"," and leaving it at that. [2]

[T]here is no other God, nor will there ever be, nor was there ever, except God the Father. He is the one who was not begotten, the one without a beginning, the one from whom all beginnings come, the one who holds all things in being – this is our teaching. And his son, Jesus Christ, whom we testify has always been, since before the beginning of this age, with the father in a spiritual way. He was begotten in an indescribable way before every beginning. Everything we can see, and everything beyond our sight, was made through him. He became a human being; and, having overcome death, was welcomed to the heavens to the Father. The Father gave him all power over every being, both heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth. Let every tongue confess that Jesus Christ, in whom we believe and whom we await to come back to us in the near future, is Lord and God. He is judge of the living and of the dead; he rewards every person according to their deeds. He has generously poured on us the Holy Spirit, the gift and promise of immortality, who makes believers and those who listen to be children of God and co-heirs with Christ. This is the one we acknowledge and adore – one God in a trinity of the sacred name. (English translation of Patrick’s “Confession”)

Patrick beheld Jesus as his substitute on the cross. He took his stand for the Ten Commandments. He says in his Confession: “I was taken to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men, in accordance with our deserts because we walked at a distance from God, and did not observe His commandments.” Those who recoiled from the extreme speculations and conclusions of the so-called Trinitarians believed Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.” [1]

One of the reasons, no doubt, why the papacy for many years did not mention Patrick's name or his success was the position of the Irish Church respecting the decrees of Nicaea. Centuries were to pass before the papacy discovered that his merits were too firmly established to be overlooked. It labored to gather Patrick into its fold by inventing all kinds of history and fables to make him a papal hero. [1]

The binding obligation of the Decalogue was a burning issue in Patrick's age… Thus, the Celtic Church upheld the sacredness of the Ten Commandments. They accepted the prophecy of Isaiah that Christ came to magnify the law and make it honorable. They preached, as Jeremiah and Paul did, that the purpose of the new covenant was to write God's law in the heart. God could be just and justify the sinner who had fled to Christ. No wonder that the Celtic, the Gothic, the Waldensian, the Armenian Churches, and the great Church of the East, as well as other bodies, differed profoundly from the papacy in its metaphysical conceptions of the Trinity and consequently in the importance of the Ten Commandments. [1]

There is no hint of any other intermediary--angel, saint, or priest - between God and fallen man in the writings of Patrick and for three centuries after his day. [2]

Not overlooking the adoption of images by the Roman Catholic Church - contrary to the second commandment - and other violations of the moral law which the other bodies refused to condone, one of the principal causes of separation was the observance of the Sabbath.,,[T]he Gothic, Waldensian, Armenian, and Syrian Churches, and the Church of the East, as well as the church organization which Patrick founded, largely sanctified Saturday, the seventh day of the week, as the sacred twenty-four-hour period on which God rested after creation. Many also had sacred assemblies on Sunday, even as many churches today have prayer meeting on Wednesday. [1]

Gradually, concurrently with the Romanizing of the Celtic Church, the observance of Sunday became more and more sabbatical, and the observance of the Sabbath fell into disuse. When Queen Margaret of Scotland (1045-1093) summoned the remnants of Celtic Christian clerics to her synods to discuss doctrine with a view to their uniting with the Roman Church, she found that:

They were accustomed also to neglect reverence for the Lord's days; and thus to continue upon them as upon other days all the labours of earthly work. But she showed, both by reason and by authority, that this was not permitted. She said: "Let us hold the Lord's day in veneration because of the Lord's resurrection, which took place upon it; and let us not do servile labours upon [the day] in which we know that we were redeemed from the devil's servitude." [2]

Besides weekly celebrations Christians also had regular annual feasts. The earliest one was the observance of Easter [Passover]. This festival attracted a great amount of attention through the centuries, and during the seventh proved to be one of the major bones of contention between the Celtic and Roman Christian parties… Christ was a Jew and lived according to Hebrew ceremonial regulations. He died during the Hebrew Passover. The earliest Christians, converts from Judaism, also followed Hebrew customs. They early recognized that Christ had fulfilled the Paschal types by his death. His resurrection, they believed, was typified by the wave sheaf of barley. These Christians looked upon the fourteenth of Nisan as the anniversary of the crucifixion and carefully kept it in remembrance of Christ's death. With the spread of Christianity among the Gentile peoples and the rise of anti-Semitism the Paschal season lost much of its flavour. Emphasis moved from an honouring of the crucifixion to a celebration of the resurrection. Those Christians who continued to observe Easter at the same time as the Passover were stigmatized as "Quartodecimans". [2]

In the same way as the Jewish Sabbath gave place before the pagan Sunday, the Passover was displaced by the feast of the resurrection, Easter. Not satisfied with this partial departure from Jewish usages, a party in the Church sought to arrange that Easter should never fall on the same day as the Jewish Passover, even once in seven years…There followed a period of considerable disagreement and dissension…When they [Celtic Christians] eventually relinquished…in favour of Rome, they surrendered their independence on all points and soon became fused with Roman Christianity. [2]

There is nothing in Patrick’s works which indicates his acceptance of the teachings of the [Catholic] church fathers or the canons of councils. He appealed solely to the Scriptures in support of what he believed, practiced and propagated: “The words are not mine, but of God, and the apostles and prophets, who have never lied, which I have set forth in Latin. He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. God hath spoken.” This attitude…is typical of the Celtic teacher.  He took for granted that the Bible was God’s word and could and should be understood by all, and carefully obeyed. [2]

The Scriptures were supreme. Literally interpreted, rigidly obeyed, biblical regulations lay at the foundation of Celtic Christian belief and life. No differences were made between the ethics and morality, the legal system and theology of the Old and New Testaments. The individual exegete felt himself competent to explain and apply the message of the Bible, and he used his own rules to interpret its words literally. Whatever he considered usable he incorporated into the life and organization of the people. Any belief or practice which was thought to be at variance with the Scriptures was rejected. Hence patristic or papal notions and judgements held little weight with Celtic theologians. No appeal was made to the Apocrypha. The sole use to which it was put was to supply phrases and imagery for expressing any thoughts the Celtic writers desired. Various interpretations and differing points of view among the Celtic theologians themselves finally led to the weakening of their position and eased the conformity of Celtic with Catholic usages, and contributed to the ultimate disappearance of Celtic Christianity as such. [2]

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. - (Revelation 12:17 KJV)

As part of the church in the wilderness Patrick did his best to keep the commandments of God, and gave the testimony of Jesus to a beloved people who had once enslaved him. It is sad to realize that the church of Rome has attempted to remove any semblance of his true faith, rewritten his story, and claimed him for themselves. They even established a feast on March 17 to commemorate their “Saint.” Should we participate in any way shape or form in a day instituted to celebrate lies?

Who does our allegiance belong to, God or Rome?  When given the power of choice, which do we chose? Scripture or Tradition? Literal interpretation of the Word or allegorical, metaphysical and metaphoric interpretation? God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, or Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three co-equal beings who are called He/They? Seventh-day Sabbath or Sunday worship? Passover or Easter? Married ministers or celibate priests? Monasteries or Bible Schools and Colleges? Jesus the only intercessor between God and man or intermediary Spirit, angel, saint, and/or priest plus Jesus? sola scriptura or creeds? Revelation of salvation or relics of dead saints?

From all that can be learned of him (Patrick), there never was a nobler Christian missionary . . . He went to Ireland from love to Christ, and love to the souls of men. . . . Strange that a people who owed Rome nothing in connection with their conversion to Christ, and who long struggled against her pretensions, should be now ranked among her most devoted adherents. (Maclauchlan, Early Scottish Church, pages 97, 98)

[1] Truth Triumphant, the Church in the Wilderness, B.G. Wilkinson, Teach Services

[2] The Celtic Church in Britain, Leslie Hardinge, 1972 Teach Services

For another excellent study on Patrick read What's the real story behind ST. PATRICK DAY?

 


Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. - (Psalm 119:105 KJV)

Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. - (Psalm 119:140 KJV)

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. - (Psalm 119:160 KJV)

For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven. - (Psalm 119:89 KJV)

The Scripture truly is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.  "A Lamp in the Dark" is an exciting documentary that unfolds the fascinating history of the Bible, revealing critical information often overlooked in modern histories.

I post this here in honour of the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible. It came down to us from the apostolic church by way of the church in the wilderness. Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins and wolves in sheep's clothing.

Sanctify them through Thy Truth: Thy Word is Truth. - (John 17:17 KJV)

Clicke Here if the video screen is not visible.

{youtube}GNZ-sOzXWEk|500|280|0?rel=0{/youtube}

 


<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Enter Amount:

Site Search

Heb 1:1-4  God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


“The Saviour is our Comforter. This I have proved Him to be.” 8MR p. 49

 


You ask what we teach about the Trinity. Inasmuch as we find no such expression in the Scriptures, we do not teach anything about it. But as to the Being of God,-the Godhead,-Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, we believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else. No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity. Therefore, in discussions about the Trinity, about the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are manifestations of gross presumption. E.J Waggoner Present Truth Feb 6 1902