http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/132.

trinityhi
story.html
History of the Trinity o!trine Study No. 132
The "Death by a Thousand Cuts"
Nashikuzushi is a hard-to-pronounce Japanese word. It aptly describes the actions of
Japan in its march to dominate the world. Their constitution forbids a large military. But,
unknown to most of the world, Japans navy and army rank among the best.
Nashikuzushi means that you do not suddenly announce any important change of policy.
You pretend that the original policy is still intact, but subect it to so many constant minor
changes and amendments that eventually it ceases to e!ist and has to be replaced by the
policy you wanted all along. "ne way to translate nashikuzushi is #death by a thousand
cuts# $%regory &lark in The Australian, 'ugust (), )**+,. Those who have to compete
with the Japanese economically, sooner or later face the fact that they are not competing
on a level field.
-ikewise, in the field of religion, there are many who change doctrine by a thousand little
cutting ways. .embers of the early /ew Testament &hurch did not wake up one morning
to find themselves keeping 0unday, 1aster, and believing in the Trinity, when prior to this
they had been keeping 0abbath, 2assover, and believed in one %od instead of three.
3octrinal departure occurs in many tiny stages, not often noticed.
Through the courtesy of 1lder John 4ies5 of the &hurch of %od $6th 3ay,, here is a
documented progression of doctrinal change among 0eventh-day 'dventists concerning
the doctrine of the Trinity. This brief history illustrates doctrinal nashikuzushi.
History of Trinity Doctrine Among Adventists
i!!iam "i!!er, the founder of the 'dventist movement and promoter of the )788 end of
the world teaching, was a Trinitarian9 #I believe in one living and true %od, and that there
are three persons in the %odhead as there is in man, the body, soul, and spirit. 'nd if
anyone will tell me how these e!ist, I will tell him how the three persons of the Triune
%od are connected# $:uoted by James ;hite in Sketches of the Christian Life and Public
Labors of William Miller, Battle &reek, .ichigan9 0team 2ress of the 0eventh-day
'dventist 2ublishing 'ssociation, )76<, p. <*,.
'dventist leader #oshua $. Himes wrote about early 'dventists9 #'t first, they were
generally Trinitarians= subse:uently they have, almost unanimously, reected the
Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.# Their accepted statements regarding the %odhead
were, #That there is one living and true %od, the >ather 'lmighty, who is unoriginated,
independent, and eternal, the &reator and 0upporter of all worlds= and that this %od is one
spiritual intelligence, one infinite mind, ever the same, never varying. . . That &hrist is the
0on of %od, the promised .essiah and 0aviour of the world. . . .# $Joshua ?. @imes,
#&hristian &onnection#, Encyclopedia of eli!ious "no#led!e, edited by T. /ewton
Brown, Boston9 0hattuck A &o., )7(<, p. (BC,.
1lder #ose%h &ates, who introduced the 0abbath to the 'dventists via his meeting with
0eventh 3ay Baptists, became a staunch 'nti-Trinitarian9 #Despecting the Trinity, I
concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the -ord Jesus &hrist, the 0on of
the >ather, was also the 'lmighty %od, the >ather, one and the same being. I said to my
father, If you can convince me EweF are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I
your son, and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the
Trinity# . . . $Joseph Bates, The Autobio!raphy of Elder $oseph %ates, Battle &reek,
.ichigan9 0team 2ress of the 0eventh-day 'dventist 2ublishing 'ssociation, )7B7,.
1arly 'dventist leaders were all 'nti-Trinitarians. #ames hite referred to &hrist as the
#'ngel# who led the @ebrews, and was a lesser being than the eternal >ather $James
;hite, Christ in the &ld Testament, "akland, &alifornia9 2acific 2ress 2ublishing
'ssociation, )766, p. )),. #.". Ste%henson wrote that #The idea of >ather and 0on
supposes priority of the e!istence of the other. To say that the 0on is as old as his father,
is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the >ather to be as
young as the 0on, or the 0on to be as old as the >ather# $J... 0tephenson, #The
'tonement,# e'ie# and (erald, ?I, /ovember )8, )7<8, p. )C7,. These 'nti-Trinitarian
views are termed #'rianism.# 'rians believe that the 0on is not co-eternal or co-e:ual
with the >ather, as stated by the /icene &reed, but the .essiah was %ods first creation,
and hence less than the >ather. 'rians believe that Jesus was created by the >ather at the
very beginning of creation, before anything else was created, even before the worlds
began.
D.. Hu!! said, #The doctrine which we propose to e!amine EtrinitarianismF, was
established by the &ouncil of /ice, '.3. (C<, and ever since that period, persons not
believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous
heretics. It was for disbelief in this doctrine, that the 'rians were anathemati5ed in '.3.
<)(. 's we can trace this doctrine no farther back than the origin of the .an of 0in
and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force, than otherwise, we
claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of 0cripture on this
subect# $3.;. @ull, #Bible 3octrine of 3ivinity,# e'ie# and (erald, /ovember )+,
)7<*, p. )*(,.
'riah Smith, perhaps the most famous 'dventist writer of the )*th &entury, said, #But
respecting this 0pirit, the Bible uses e!pressions which cannot be harmoni5ed with the
idea that it is a person like the >ather and the 0on. Dather it is shown to be a divine
influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they
have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present# $Griah
0mith, #In the Huestion &hair,# e'ie# and (erald, -I?II, "ctober C7, )7*+, p. BB8,. In
commenting on (eve!ation 3)1*+22, 0mith wrote that he believed that the .essiah was
#the first created being# by %od the >ather $Griah 0mith, Thou!hts Critical and Practical
on the %ook of e'elation, Battle &reek, .ichigan9 0team 2ress of the 0eventh-day
'dventist 2ublishing 'ssociation, )7B<, p. <*,.
'dventist historian #.N. ,oughborough wrote, #;hat serious obection is there to the
doctrine of the TrinityJ There are many obections which we might urge, but on account
of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following9 ). It is contrary to
common sense. C. It is contrary to 0cripture. (. Its origin is 2agan and fabulous# $J./.
-oughborough, #Huestions for Bro. -oughborough,# e'ie# and (erald, I?III,
/ovember <, )7B), p. )78,.
#.H. aggoner wrote, #0urely, we say right, that the doctrine of the Trinity degrades the
'tonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of
0ocinianism Edenial of the divinity of JesusF. . . .the ;ord was %od, and also the ;ord
was with %od. /ow it needs no proofindeed it is self-evident that the ;ord as %od,
was not the %od whom he was with. 'nd as there is but one %od, the term must be
used in reference to the ;ord in a subordinate sense, which is e!plained by 2auls
calling the same pre-e!istent person the 0on of %od# $J.@. ;aggoner, The Atonement,
"akland, &alifornia9 2acific 2ress, )778, pp. )68, )<(,.
0ocinianism, another form of 'nti-Trinitarianism, says that Jesus did not pre-e!ist before
@is human birth, and had no part in the creation of man. 'dventist researcher #onathan
(oss says that the &hurch of %od, 6th 3ay $.eridian, Idaho group, is 0ocinian, as well
as the @ouse of Yahweh in "dessa, Te!as, and the &hurch of %od, 'brahamic >aith
$"regon, Illinois,.
The 0eventh-day 'dventist )**+ ,earbook, under the article, #The %odhead,# states,
#That there is one %od, a personal, spiritual Being, the &reator of all things, omnipotent,
omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, ustice, goodness, truth, and mercy=
unchangeable, and everywhere present by @is representative, the @oly 0pirit. That there
is one -ord Jesus &hrist, the 0on of the eternal >ather, the "ne by whom @e created all
things, and by whom they do e!ist.#
'ccording to #ohn -ies. $personal interview, 'pril )**),, 'dventist leader #ames
hite ridiculed the idea of the Trinity, but his wife, /!!en 0. hite, was a closet
Trinitarian. 'fter the )77+s, the 0eventh-day 'dventists underwent a doctrinal change
regarding the teaching of the Trinity. The )+-) ,earbook says something :uite different
from statements of the pioneers, who were by this time deceased9 #That the %odhead, or
Trinity, consists of the 1ternal >ather, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omniscient,
infinite in wisdom and love= The -ord Jesus &hrist, the 0on of the 1ternal >ather, through
whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will
be accomplished= The @oly 0pirit, the third person of the %odhead, the great regenerating
power in the work of redemption. That Jesus &hrist is very %od, being of the same nature
and essence as the 1ternal >ather.# 'nd in )*7+, the second point of the #>undamental
Beliefs of 0eventh-day 'dventists# states, #C. T@1 TDI/ITYThere is one %od9 >ather,
0on, and @oly 0pirit, a unity of three co-eternal 2ersons. %od is immortal, all-powerful,
all-knowing, above all, and ever present. @e is infinite and beyond human
comprehension, yet known through @is self-revelation. @e is forever worthy of worship,
adoration, and service by the whole creation.#
>rom ;illiam .iller to Griah 0mith to the late C+th &entury, 'dventist teaching
regarding the Trinity has gone a full circle. 0o important is the Trinity doctrine to most
professing &hristians, that the famous modern theologian, 3r. ;alter D. .artin,
recogni5es 0eventh-day 'dventists as &hristians and not an un-&hristian cult, because
they now believe in the Trinity $The "in!dom of the Cults, .inneapolis9 Bethany @ouse
2ublishers, )*7C, p. (6+,.
Church of 0od1 Seventh Day) Anti+Trinitarian
'round )*++, the "klahoma &onference of the &hurch of %od $6th 3ay, stated, #To us
there is but one %od, the >ather, who created us. @e is a person and has body and parts,
and created man in @is own image. Jesus &hrist is the 0on of %od, and mediator between
%od and man. Because the son is declared to be %od= not the invisible, 'lmighty and
self-e!istent %od, but the created and dependent %od, who has been seen many times.#
The %ible Students Assistant, published by the &hurch of %od 2ublishing @ouse, )*)),
says, #Titles of the >ather9 The eternal %od, ;hose name alone is Jehovah, The 'ncient
of 3ays, The only true %od, the 4ing eternal, immortal, invisible, %od the >ather, The
%od of our -ord Jesus &hrist. Titles of the 0on9 The only begotten of the >ather, The 0on
of the living %od. Jesus &hrists person was the e!press image or likeness of %ods
person. @e was made in the likeness of men and was a man.#
' )*C+s issue of The %ible Ad'ocate states, #The creed of the &hurch of %od being the
commandments of %od and the testimonies of Jesus &hrist, and 'nti-'rianism being
2apalism is directly against the testimonies of Jesus on this :uestion= therefore ministerial
license or credentials will not be issued to any person by the &hurch of %od that teaches
the doctrines of &onstantine and the 2apacy, on the subect of the %odhead.#
%enerally, the &hurch of %od, 0eventh 3ay has been 'nti-Trinitarian in the 'rian sense.
Decently, there has been considerable discussion on this topic among &hurch of %od
ministers. #ohn -ies. appears to be a leader of the effort to maintain 'nti-Trinitarianism.
or!d2ide Church of 0od and Trinity Teaching
The ;orldwide &hurch of %od, in its )*(+s #>undamentals of Belief,# 'rticle ), states,
#;e believe in 3N/ 03D1 eternally e!isting in the heavens, who is a 0pirit, a personal
Being of supreme intelligence, knowledge, love, ustice, power, and authority, the &reator
of the heavens and the earth and all that in them is, and the source of life.#
3uring most of its history, the ;orldwide &hurch of %od was 'nti-Trinitarian, but not
'rian. They believed that the >ather and 0on are eternal, and e:ual in nature but not in
rank. %od is not a Trinity, but a >amily. %od the >ather is the leader of Jesus &hrist, ust
as the husband is the leader of the wife. Jesus is the 'lmighty %od of the "ld Testament.
The @oly 0pirit is not a person. 0ome have derided this teaching as #3ualism,# but this in
an inaccurate assessment. Theologians and #@igher &ritics# have blindly accepted the
heretical and false doctrine adapted from pagans who crept into the church, that the @oly
0pirit is a third person. #This limits %od to Three 2ersons. This denies that &hrist,
through @is @oly 0pirit, actually comes now into the converted &hristian and does @is
saving work on the inside &hrist in you the @ope of %lory $&olossians
)9C6, . . . That heresy denies the true born.a!ain e!perienceK# $@erbert ;. 'rmstrong,
#Just ;hat 3o You .ean Born 'gainJ#, pp. )6,)*,. 't baptism and the laying on of
hands, true believers are be!otten of %ods @oly 0pirit. 'fter a life of overcoming, at
the resurrection at .essiahs return, they are #born again# when they become spirit,
#ohn 3)1+4.
0eorge ,. #ohnson wrote the definitive ;orldwide &hurch of %od booklet on the
Trinity, #Is %od a TDI/ITYJ# $2asadena, &alifornia9 'mbassador &ollege 2ress, )*6(,.
Johnson shows how the Trinity is a central doctrine of most 2rotestant and &atholic
churches. Yet they are unable to e!plain this non-Biblical teaching. -indsell and
;oodbridge, in A (andbook of Christian Truth, page <), state, #The mind of man cannot
fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. @e who would try to understand the mystery
fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul.#
'thanasius, a deacon of the $apostate, church in 'le!andria, 1gypt, who was steeped in
the philosophy of 2lato, borrowed the idea of the Trinity from the pagans and formulated
the statement adopted in the /icean &reed of (C< '.3., that the >ather, the 0on and the
@oly 0pirit are co-e:ual, and co-eternal, one %od in three persons. 't the &ouncil of
/icea, 'thanasius was confronted by 'rius, a priest of 'le!andria, who held that &hrist
was not a %od, but a created being. 1mperor &onstantine cared nothing for the
theological debate. @e only wanted a united kingdom. 'rius teaching was rightly
reected, and the views of 'thanasius prevailed, not because of their weight but because
there was no other viable position. 'nd so, Johnson concludes, the official dogma
accepted at /icea has been vociferously defended over the centuries by the state &atholic
church, and later by her 2rotestant daughters. Trinitarian believers persecuted 'rians, and
more were killed over the doctrine of the Trinity than by all the pagan emperors of Dome.
Yet both Trinitarians and 'rians were wrong Biblically $see our article on the Trinity,
#The >ather, The 0on and the @oly 0pirit,# contained in our book, %ible Studies,.
'bout )**C-*(, the ;orldwide &hurch of %od $;&%, changed its teaching relative to
the doctrine of the Trinity. In spite of denials, the new teaching was in fact trinitarian.
Because of the thousand little #cuts,# or doctrinal changes over the past )<-C+ years, most
of the membership did not stir themselves from slumber when this maor change
occurred.
"nce again, in an attempt to soft-pedal former spiritual understanding, the ;orldwide
&hurch of %od $;&%, stated that the doctrine of the Trinity did not come from
paganism. In the 'ugust C<, )**C World#ide Ne#s article, Joseph Tkach said, #the
doctrine of the Trinity did not originate in paganism, as we have traditionally taught.# The
new ;&% booklet, /od 0s111, said that #the @oly 0pirit is also %od,# and, #the >ather, the
0on, and the @oly 0pirit are %od,# and #The Bible does reveal three entities within one
%odhead the >ather, the 0on, and the @oly 0pirit $page 8),.# >inally, they concluded
that #the Trinity doctrine has been accepted as a mystery part of the mystery of
godliness.# "n page 8*, the booklet says that #upon conversion, the &hristian is born
again into the kingdom of %od as one of the children of %od . . . . It is biblically
inaccurate, however, to say that %od is a family.# >urther ;&% literature said that %od is
not a person, nor is &hrist= that %od and &hrist dont have a body= that &hristians are
only adopted sons who will never become %od beings= that %od is not reproducing
@imself, etc.
The ;&% had now accepted three maor false 2rotestant doctrines9 Trinity, born again
now $not at the resurrection,, and %od is not a family.
Just where did the doctrine of the Trinity come fromJ 'le!ander @islop, in his famous
book, The T#o %abylons, clearly traces the trinity doctrine back to ancient Babylon. In
chapter two, #"bects of ;orship,# after *+ pages of historical evidence, @islop
concludes9
;ill any one after this say that the Doman &atholic &hurch must still be
called &hristian, because it holds the doctrine of the TrinityJ 0o did the
2agan Babylonians, so did the 1gyptians, so do the @indoos at this hour,
in the very same sense in which Dome Ethe &atholic &hurchF does $page
*+,.
The ;orldwide &hurch answer to @islop is to malign his scholarship. Yet other noted
scholars, such as >ra5er, confirm @islops accuracy. You are encouraged to read
@islops The T#o %abylons, available from %iving A 0haring.
Dr. a!ter (. "artin and the or!d2ide Church of 0od
The famous authority on cults, the late Dr. a!ter (. "artin $not to be confused with
3r. Ernest .artin, a former ;orldwide &hurch of %od minister who led many to leave
that organi5ation in the )*6+s with his #>oundation for Biblical Desearch# and attacks
on the doctrines of the ;&%,, had some interesting things to say about the ;orldwide
&hurch of %od. Indeed, he seemed almost prophetic.
'fter attacking the ;&%s 'nglo-Israel beliefs, .artin noted that almost all other
Identity $'nglo-Israel, groups are #orthodo!# relative to the nature of %od and the 2erson
and ;ork of Jesus &hrist. In .artins view, the Trinity doctrine is a maor test of a
religious cult. 0eventh-day 'dventists believe in the Trinity, so he does not term them a
cult. The ;orldwide &hurch of %od had been 'nti-Trinitarian, so .artin labeled them a
non-&hristian cult. #The ;orldwide &hurch of %od,# .artin said, #is outside the historic
&hristian &hurch because it denies foundational &hristian truth.# By this, .artin means
Trinity and #born again# doctrine $"in!dom of the Cults, p. C*6,. .artin was so incensed
at the ;&%s radical 'nti-Trinitarianism that he said their #depersonali5ation of the
@oly 0pirit strikes at the very heart of the &hristian %ospel, for it is through the agency of
the third person of the Trinity that %od regenerates men to eternal life . . . . By denying
the personality of the 0pirit, i.e., that the 0pirit is. . .one of the persons of the @oly
Trinity, 'rmstrong invalidates the only means whereby a man can be saved# $0bid12 p1
-)341
.artin ridiculed 'rmstrongs teaching against the #born again# doctrine as #one of the
strangest doctrines in the area of cultism# $p. ()B,. .artin also showed that there is,
according to the &atholicL2rotestant #"rthodo!# position, a close link between the Trinity
and the doctrine of 0piritual Degeneration, i.e., #born again# $pp. ()B, ()6,. ;ith the
)**) ;orldwide &hurch of %od doctrinal change relative to #born again,# one of the two
positions which .artin uses to brand the ;&% as a non-&hristian cult was removed.
%iven the fact that the ;&% had for the last several years been attempting to make itself
more presentable and #respectable# to the world, could it be that .artin unknowingly
predicted the #born again# doctrinal change, and the Trinity change as wellJ ;hen the
;orldwide &hurch %od fully accepted the Trinity doctrine, they escaped from being
labeled a cult by the worlds most renowned authority on cults, 3r. ;alter .artin.
5s ""ainstream" Christianity a Cu!t6
'n article by 2astor @atch in %rief %ible Studies for July-0eptember, )*78, presented
some interesting views on the trinity and cults. @ere are e!cerpts from this article9
#;hat is a cultJ In order to understand the nature of a cult, we must recogni5e first that
there are two great principles of revealed truth9 The unity of %od, and the mortality of
man.
#.oses, Jesus, and 2aul unite in their testimony that #%od is "ne.# There is one %od who
is one in person and being $3eut. B98= .k. ))9C*= %al. (9C+= I &or. 79B, 1ph. 89B,. 'nd
%enesis C96 and (9)* tell us clearly that man is a material and mortal being. #The first
man is of the earth,# 2aul says. @e is #corruptible# and #mortal# $I &or. )<986, <(-<8,.
#Yet traditional &hristianity speaks of trinitarian monotheism and would have us
believe that %od is a three-in-one being . . . . 0o also, we are told that man is
dichotomous. That is, he is two parts. "ne part, his body, is mortal and returns to
dust. But the other part, his soul, is immaterial, and lives on after death.
#But this is to attribute to man a form of natural immortality. It violates the second great
principle of revealed truth, the mortality of man, and has no 0criptural basis e!cept the
words of the serpent, ye shall not surely die $%en. (98,. . . . Todays historic
or mainstream religion came from the days of &onstantine. >or political reasons, and
the unity of the empire, this fourth century Doman ruler metamorphosed &hristianity. @e
took it over, and changed all its standards.
#&onstantine and his successors could not have accomplished this feat, of course, had it
not been for the intrusion of false doctrine into the church. The so-called 'pologists
arose, men whose goal was to blend &hristianity and %reek philosophy. They said that
although %od was one, @e was also three persons. They taught also that soul and
body were separate things, the soul being immortal. Thus &hristianity became
virtually a &hristiani5ed %reek philosophy.
#. . . . In the si!th century, the emperor Justinian made it a crime to deny the doctrine of
the trinity, and also the doctrine of infant baptism. To deny either one was a capital
offense a crime punishable by deathK
#Thus was established the cult of &onstantineK It retained the name &hristian, but it
was a far cry from the clear monotheism of the /ew Testament9 "ne %od, and Jesus the
.essiah, the virgin-born 0on of %od. $&ompare I &orinthians 79B where 2aul says, But
to us E&hristiansF there is but one %od, the >ather. . . . .
#' cult, then, is any movement or system of teaching that denies the unity of %ods
nature and the mortality of mans nature. %od is "ne and man is mortal. These are the
two basic principles of Biblical revelation. They transcend all other truth, and all other
truth is related to them in some way. >or e!ample, the man &hrist Jesus is, as 2aul
says, the one mediator between %od and men $I Tim. C9<,.
#I have observed that much of todays anti-cult material is produced by people who
believe that %od is three and man is dichotomous $or trichotomous,. It never seems to
occur to such people that they may be a cultthe oldest and biggest cult of all, that cult
whose influence penetrates the farthest reaches of &hristendom.#
Trinity the 7oundation of Catho!ic Teaching
>ew of us who are anti-Trinitarian reali5e ust how central the belief in the Trinity is to
&atholic and 2rotestant teaching. &atholic priest >rancis I. ;eiser, in his book
(andbook of Christian 5easts and Customs $/ew York, @arcourt, Brace and &ompany,
)*<7,, page C<8, states9 #The greatest dogma of the &hristian faith is the mystery of the
@oly Trinity.# The Trinity is the central teaching of the great false church. ;eiser notes
that the >east of the @oly Trinity, one of the annual man made festivals of the &atholic
&hurch, falls on the 0unday after 2entecost. The Trinity doctrine is stated in the Ne#
0nternational Encyclopedia, vol. CC, page 86B9 #;e worship one %od in Trinity, but there
is one person of the >ather, another of the 0on, and another of the @oly %host. The glory
e:ual, the maesty co-eternal.# Tertullian coined the word #Trinity# in )7+ '.3.
The Trinity doctrine has a profound effect on belief and practice in the &hurch. The
&ouncil of /icea insisted that the Trinitarian formula $#in the name of the >ather, the 0on
and the @oly %host#, be used in ba%tism. 1ven earlier, as the Encyclopedia %ritannica
$))th 1dition, ?olume (, pages (B<-(BB, reports, #The baptismal formula was changed by
the &atholic &hurch from the name of Jesus &hrist, to >ather, 0on, and @oly %host, in the
second century.# 'lso, #1verything in the oldest sources states that baptism took place in
the /ame of Jesus &hrist.# $0bid., page 7C,. The (astin!s Encyclopedia of eli!ion,
?olume C, pages (66-(7*, states #The &hristian baptism was administered using the
/ame of Jesus. The Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early &hurch
history. Baptism was always in the /ame of the -ord Jesus, until the time of Justin
.artyr, when the Trinity formula was used.#
@ow did the early church interpret the .essiahs command in "atthe2 24)18J It is
easy to see in Acts 2)341 4)191 1:)*41 18); that they believed that "atthe2 24)18 is not a
baptismal formula or a supporting scripture for the Trinity. The early church always
bapti5ed in the name of Jesus. They understood, as we do, that this verse really means
#immersing them into the name# $as correctly translated by the J. B. Dotherham
Emphasized %ible,, that is, baptism is a sign that we have entered into the >amily of %od,
that we are now have %ods name, (eve!ation 3)121 1*)1.
The doctrine of the nature of %od directly affects our understanding of baptism, the
relationship we have with %od, and the salvation of man. 4.J. 0tavrinides, ;orldwide
&hurch of %od scholar, has attempted to downplay the importance of the theological
implications of the Trinity doctrine $article, #The Trinity# in January->ebruary )**)
e'ie#s ,ou Can 6se, a publication for the ;&% ministry,. @e said we should leave
such #deep# theological and philosophical :uestions to the #e!perts.# @owever, 2rotestant
watchers of doctrinal change in the ;&% will continue to hold the ;&%s feet to the
fire. The ;&% may waffle on peripheral issues relating to the Trinity, and attempt to
downgrade its importance. But unless they accept the orthodo! heresy that the @oly 0pirit
is the third person of the Trinity, orthodo! &atholic and 2rotestant believers will continue
to label them a non-&hristian cult. 'nd if the ;&% does openly change its teaching
$which is possible,, they will have #gone off the deep end# in the mind of many of their
followers.
Conc!usion
1ach time we hear of clever doctrinal changes, or rumors of doctrinal change, by
0abbath-keeping organi5ations, we return once more to the scriptures. The #faith once
delivered# becomes more firm and sure in our minds. ;e are forced to study the issue
more thoroughly and allow %ods ;ord to enlighten us.
I have observed that #/ew Truth# doesnt come to those who have long ago thrown out
what truth they had. It is sad that the masses are indeed like #dumb sheep# in that they
seemingly accept whatever comes from the head:uarters of their #true church.# /ow I
can see more clearly how the early church became corrupted.
There is a natural human inclination to be accepted by the maority. 'fter all, who wants
to be labeled as a weird cultJ ;ho wants to be persecuted and malignedJ But, the Bible
tells us to seek %ods ways and not be concerned about what others think of us. -et
them call us a cult since we utterly reect the Trinity doctrine.
In the past, many have died rather than accept the bapti5ed pagan doctrine of the Trinity.
Today, some would like to convince us that it is merely a philosophical :uestion for the
learned theologians. Is there nothing sacred anymoreJ Is there no doctrine worth holding
steadfast to, because the Bible simply says soJ
.en concerned with public image, rather than what the Bible says, have used
Nashikuzushi, death by a thousand cuts, tactics to push their agenda.
Now they are bold enough to say that every doctrinal teaching of the
church is on the table for examination and picking and choosing by the
leadership. As one man told me, since the ministers told him all the
doctrines were now on the table, he put the church organization on the
table, and he has found it severely lacking. Any church organization
that desires acceptance by the worlds false religions more than acceptance
by the %od of the Bible has long ago gone astray.
.y friends, . . . Eit isF urgently necessary to write at once and appeal to
you to oin the struggle in defence of the faith, the faith which %od
entrusted to @is people once and for all. It is in danger from certain
persons who have wormed their way in, . . . . They are enemies of EtrueF
religion= they pervert the free favour of our %od into licentiousness,
disowning Jesus &hrist, our only .aster and -ord. #ude 3+*, Ne# En!lish
%ible.
.ay the 1ternal deliver us from the #death of a thousand cuts.#