¹⁸I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. ¹⁹If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18–19)

This passage, and others, states the concept for our next rule.

Rule #3: The third rule is simply to “teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).

This is the “arithmetic” step in “reading, writing, and arithmetic.” The third rule simply means, don’t add to or take away from what the Bible says and Jesus and the apostles taught. This rule shouldn’t be at all hard to accept or understand or difficult to adhere to by any sincere Christian.

The word “doctrine,” in the passage above simply means “that which can be taught.” The root word for teach (didasko G#1321) includes the meaning, “to explain or expound” http://biblehub.com/greek/1321.htm.

To “explain” means “to make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.” Oxforddictionaries.com

To “expound” means “to present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail.”

So, 1 Timothy (heterodidaskaleó, G#2085) literally meansnot to, “explain in detail any other explanation” and not to “expound in detail any other expounding.”

Therefore, to explain or expound something other than what the Bible explains or expounds, which is what is required to explain in detail either the Oneness or the Trinity, is contrary to what 1 Timothy 1:3 commands. In other words, you simply can’t explain or expound the particular, distinctive principles of either the Oneness or Trinity theories in detail without going against 1 Timothy 1:3! You can’t quote Scriptures explaining that God is one essence in three persons, just as you can’t quote Scriptures that explain in detail how Jesus is God the Father incarnate. These types of distinctions have to be presumed and read back into the Scriptures.

To claim otherwise, that the Oneness or Trinity are explained or expounded in detail in the Bible, when they are not, is thus also to commit what the Bible calls “handling the word of God deceitfully” (3 Corinthians 4:2). That means a person must ultimately sacrifice their integrity to teach either Oneness or the Trinity.

This also means that the True Son of God doctrine (i.e., that Jesus is a male human approved of God) is the only Christology that is not contrary to biblical commands to preach (to openly and clearly proclaim) and/or teach (to explain and expound in detail) because the particular, distinctive principles of this teaching are precisely what the Bible does explain and expound on, quite thoroughly and consistently, in detail in the Bible.

Here’s another Scripture that presents this simple truth in a different way:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16–17; NKJV)

To be “thoroughly equipped” expresses the idea that we don’t need to add to the Bible’s teachings. Everything that is good is already provided in the Scriptures. This is why the apostle could say to teach no other doctrines. It is interesting how people claim to believe this but then find excuses why their pet doctrines aren’t clearly stated in the Bible.

Now note Peter’s phrase, “the present truth,” in the following:

Therefore I will not be negligent to remind you of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth… Knowing that the putting off of my tent comes swiftly… I will make every effort that you may always be able to remember things after my departure. (2 Peter 1:12–15)

There is a good reason Peter described the truth the apostles delivered as a “present truth” that he wanted to establish for future generations. One of his biggest concerns was that others would come and revise it, change it, and even pervert it. Think of truth as a rock that is unchangeable. How much sense would there be in creating a field of study called “the history of the unchanging rock”? If nothing had been done to change the rock, there would be no sense in creating a “history of the rock for the last 2,000 years,” right? That’s because the rock simply would have stayed the same throughout that time period. It may be interesting to consider the history that happened around that rock or what happened to or was done to that rock, but not directly about that unchangeable rock. The solid, unmovable, unchangeable rock of truth the apostles laid some 2,000 years ago was meant to be the same solid, unmovable, unchangeable rock of today. This is the only way that what was a present truth in Peter’s day would still be a present truth today.

What the apostles intended is not the case with “The History of Christian Doctrine,” which is a very interesting and involved study indeed. When historians talk about the “History of Christian Doctrine,” they are really talking about the historic record of the big and small changes that have been made over the years to the original teachings that the apostles left us in their writings.

When gnostic and philosophic theologians of the second and third centuries started adding and taking things away from what the Scriptures said and the apostles taught, they moved away from that rock of “present truth” that Peter was talking about. That is, they started revising basic Christian teachings into ideas the apostles would never have recognized. If American Indians of 500 years ago, who were familiar with Mount Rushmore in their day, were blindfolded and set in front of Mount Rushmore today, would they recognize it right away? It’s not likely, even though they might recognize some similarities to what it once looked like. Likewise, if the apostles were to rise from the dead and listen to the theologians of the 3rd and 4th centuries and beyond, up until today, would they recognize what is being taught as the same teachings they had left behind, or would it look all carved up to them, like Mount Rushmore would to our Indians? Undoubtedly the latter. In fact, if many of the ideas that are floating around Christianity these days are true, then our time-traveling apostles would have to become students of these later teachers to understand what they say, rather than the other way around!

If the Bible already thoroughly provides us with every good work, why would Christians want to change the truth? The answer, unfortunately, is because they actually believe they can improve it. Why do people Photoshop models? It’s because they think they can improve upon the image. It’s like saying that the old rock is ugly: let’s chisel here and there and take away what we need to make it into a shape like a statue of our heroes; then we can paint on a face and some clothes… there, now, isn’t that ole rock now a thing of beauty since we’ve redone it? In reality, that would only be the case if you didn’t think it was a thing of beauty and perfection before you started messing with it!

Theologians tend to do this with the Scriptures. They believe that they somehow know what the Bible “really” means or was “trying to say” but that they could improve the message by putting it better in their own words. The problem with that is, as the saying goes, don’t fix what’s not broken. The truth as handed down from the apostles in our Bibles is and was not broken—quite the contrary! Those who attempt to fix it are really trying to change it. The very desire to change or supplement the Bible is evidence they are not satisfied that it says what they think it should say; therefore, they feel the need to “correct” it until it does. Of course, no one can actually improve it by changing it. Any change is really an adding to or a taking away from. This is what Peter was concerned about. Onenessians understand this concept very clearly when it is directed at the Trinity, but they have an impossible task in attempting to hold their Oneness position to the same standard.

The apostle Paul clearly said that he left behind for us the whole counsel of God. He refers to Ezekiel’s exhortation (Ezek. 33:8) to speak to the wicked lest their blood be on his hands, and said:

²⁶I am clean from the blood of all men, ²⁷for I didn’t shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God… ²⁹For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock… ³²Now, brothers, I entrust you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build up, and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:26–32)

We can see from the words of these apostles that they believed what they had written was thorough. And they were concerned that false teachers would come later and pervert their words. This means that what latecomers view as improving the Bible, would look to the apostles like perversions of the truths they had delivered. We agree with the apostles, which is what being apostolic really means.

Let’s look at how the scriptural truth of not adding to or taking away can be shown through simple math. Below we have a simple numeric subtraction problem on the left and a similar word problem on the right. On the left we have three passages of Scripture; if we take away two, the difference is one. On the right, we have the three Scriptures we’re talking about (Luke 1:30–31, Rev. 19:10 and 22:9). If we take away two, we are left with one. In this case we are left with the one that says, effectively, “Mary will conceive Jesus.” If we take away the Scriptures that teach us not to worship at the feet of those who are our brothers, meaning our equals, then we are left with a high view of Mary but no constraints on what this could mean. It would be like we had the promise that we wouldn’t dash our feet without the limitation not to tempt the Lord God. Here’s how it looks mathematically:

This is how Catholics interpret the “Mary as mother of Jesus” statements and then read more into them than is meant: by taking away other biblical Scriptures that are there to help explain what is meant. Non-Catholics understand what we mean when we say that Catholics view the phrase “Mary, mother of Jesus” in a completely different way than the rest of us. Of course, Catholics will say they don’t really “worship” Mary like they do God; they just “venerate” her as the mother of God. But the point is, Jesus is the only human being who has been exalted by God above Christians (Hebrews 1:9). In this way, Catholics have added the unbiblical notion of venerating Mary and have negated the passages that teach not to do so.

Now let’s look at the way addition works.

The historical truth is that nowhere in the Scriptures do the apostles ever teach in words or by example to give any kind of veneration or prayers to dead saints such as Mary. However, this idea is found in paganism and certainly derives from it. So Catholics have allowed themselves to be influenced by pagan forms of religion. This is “adding to” the Scriptures. Of course, Catholics deny that they do this. They claim that Scriptures like Luke 1:30–31 give them justification for their conclusions; and that is our point. So do Trinitarians. Ultimately, so do Onenessians, by denying they have added the pagan idea of incarnation, which they adopted from Trinitarians, who adopted it from paganism. This “addition” and “subtraction” is the reason behind showing these as “math problems.”

Simple math shows what happens in adding to and subtracting from scriptural truth. As we’ve done with our previous rules, let’s first see how our graphic for this rule shows how Trinitarians fell off the tracks.

First, I will explain the “word problem,” then show it in the graphic. The high points of the Trinity’s development went like this: Christianity began with a very Jewish Messiah (Christ) and his Jewish apostles who believed in the Shema; namely, “the Lord our God is one Lord.” Just like all other Jews, they believed that meant that God was personally one. The Gnostic Christians and early Philosopher/Christians decided for themselves that the Jews did not know what Jews worshiped, so they subtracted or redefined Jesus’ words in John 4:24. This created a void, a big question mark, so the early Trinitarians added the pagan idea that a deity had come down to earth in the form of a man and added the gnostic inventions of both the Trinity and the Dual Natures in the person of Christ and the idea of “persons” in the godhead (which Gregory of Nyssa admitted came from Greek philosophy). This left the early Trinitarians, at the beginning of the third century, with a doctrine known as Subordinationism, wherein the Son was viewed as inferior to the Father. Along came Origen, who invented (added) the concept of “eternal generation,” and from then on all the raw material for full-blown Nicene (coequal/coeternal) Trinitarianism was ripe for the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and so forth to codify the new teaching and make it the new “present truth,” which supplanted the old “present truth” that the apostles had been preaching.

And all the Onenessians say “amen,” that’s what the Trinitarians did. At the same time, most, if not all, of the Trinitarians become defensive and present all manner of vile accusations against the author, as if I’ve made all this up and as if it isn’t easily found through study. These steps are actually admitted by many of their own scholars!

Now then, let’s see how our Trinitarian theory math problem looks in graphic, mathematical notation. Just the main points here; details and references will be added in later chapters. The intended way of reading these charts is left to right (equation to explanation) and then down to next row. And yes, it is complicated—in order to demonstrate that this doctrine is clearly not the simplicity of Christ!

This is what the Bible calls “adding to” and “taking away from” the Scriptures. This complex formula is not the simplicity of Christ, but it does accurately list the high points of the evolution of the Trinity doctrine. It is in this way that the Trinitarians landed on a teaching that is mathematically shown to be different than the sum total of the doctrine on God that the apostles left for us. This shows how dishonest it is for Trinitarians to claim that the Trinity is merely a way of explaining what Christians always believed.

To the contrary, we uphold that what the apostles left for us thoroughly equips us with everything we need in matters of doctrine, correction, and righteousness, as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16–17 quoted above. Paul also wrote:

⁶I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different ‘good news’; ⁷and there isn’t another ‘good news.’ Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. ⁸But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any ‘good news’ other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any ‘good news’ other than that which you received, let him be cursed. ¹⁰ For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ. ¹¹But I make known to you, brothers, concerning the Good News which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. ¹² For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:6–12)

Paul adamantly warned against anyone preaching (or declaring) a different good news or a different Christ than that which the apostles preached. You see, by saying there isn’t another good news, Paul is saying that changing the teachings of the Bible doesn’t make it better. It doesn’t even make it good; it makes it a perversion! Not only was Paul afraid that the gospel would be perverted, but he also was explicitly concerned that “another Jesus” would be introduced in place of the one they preached:

I fear, lest… your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received,or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Corinthians 11:3–4; NKJV)

It is practically certain that every Oneness teacher who has ever addressed the Trinity doctrine understands, at least in concept, about not perverting or changing the gospel or preaching another Jesus. And it is likely that any Oneness teacher with even a limited knowledge of history would agree with our estimation of how the Trinitarians developed their “another Jesus” whom the apostles never preached.

But through much study and simply “hearing” the Scriptures, some of us have come to realize that the Oneness position isn’t really that different, fundamentally, from Trinitarianism especially in regard to its method of arriving at its understanding of the Christ. In fact, it was derived by the same methods of interpretation and indeed often from the same sources as those of Trinitarians; namely, pagan and antichristian theories. Onenessians just came up with a slightly different “math word problem” than Trinitarians.

This time, let’s first look at the Oneness model through our mathematical “word problem” graphic, and then we’ll explain it.

This complex formula is the way that modalistic Monarchianism evolved. Historically, the first modalistic Monarchians (Onenessians) were actually Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius (all from late 2 ^nd to early 3 ^rd century). These were the first theologians to actually formulate (add) the Oneness creed that says, “Jesus is an incarnation of the very person of God the Father” (which is still, as indicated in Acts 14:11, based on the pagan doctrine of “gods coming to earth in the likeness of men”). This was also a subtraction of Jesus’ words that he was not alone. This step happened well after Gnosticism had polluted Christianity with its doctrines of the incarnation of a literal preexistent deific being, dual natures, and a trinity of persons in the godhead. So the early Onenessians (then known as Monarchians) also added those extrabiblical teachings.

When theologians such as Tertullian were putting forth the gnostic idea of a literal preexistent son who was begotten before all of creation and a second person in the godhead, the Monarchians rejected that part of the influence of Gnosticism, but then some or many of them kept the ideas of dual nature and the incarnation of God. In contrast to the Trinitarians, Onenessians simply reasoned, “if” Jesus is God, then instead of Christ being a second person, he must be the one God the Father himself. In this they weren’t all that much different than Tertullian, who also didn’t adopt the gnostic view of Christ intact but revised it just enough to make it more acceptable.

In our last chapter, we raised the issue of gods coming down in the likeness of men as originating in pagan mythology. Now we have observed that the doctrine of dual natures was an invention of antichristian Gnostics and was totally repugnant to the early apostolic Christians. We will briefly demonstrate that point here, and we’ll address it more fully later in Chapter Twelve. Irenaeus, who preceded Tertullian by a generation, stated this:

“The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but him who was of Mary, who also suffered; andno Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but… blasphemous systems which divide the Lord…say… that he was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared…” (Irenaeus,Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16, par. 5)

Let these words sink in: “blasphemous systems…divide the Lord…saying that he was formed of two different substances.” You have just read where the idea of the dual natures in Christ came from: the antichristian Gnostics. Nowhere in the Bible will you read where it describes Christ as personally made of two natures. To the contrary, the historical truth is that the early Christians sharply rejected the “two substance” or “two nature” doctrine as an antichristian invention.

Since the Bible does not preach (openly declare) or teach (by expounding in detail) the idea that Christ is personally formed of two natures, adopting this idea is to go against the biblical rules of interpretation being recognized here.

This is an extremely important truth: without the antichristian “dual natures” doctrine, both Trinitarianism and Onenessianism completely fall apart. That is simply because of the absolute abundance of Scriptures clearly describing Jesus as a human, personally separate and distinct from his God and Father. Just as with the concepts of incarnation and the Trinity, you won’t find either the words “dual nature” or the concept clearly explained or described anywhere in the Bible. Again, just like the Trinity, it is a jumping to conclusions. It is not a Jewish view of the Messiah, and it is clearly adding to and taking away from the Messiah as he is clearly described in the Scriptures.

Onenessians are right to criticize Trinitarians for adopting the idea of three persons in the godhead from pagans. Why then don’t they realize that Gnostics invented their precious “dual natures” doctrine? How can anyone believe that the Gnostics, the (antichristians of the Bible, according to Irenaeus), had a better way of explaining Jesus’ human relationship to deity than the one explained in detail in the Bible?

Let us quote again:

Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same…Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people… (Hebrews 2:14–18)

We will have much more to say on this topic; in fact, it is one of the main issues that will be covered in this book from many different angles. But let us just state for now that adopting the antichristian doctrine of dual natures in Christ will be shown to be an insurmountable problem for both Trinitarians and Onenessians. Any Christian who wishes to be true to the NT Scriptures and the words of Christ needs to seriously consider the evidence we are prepared to disclose. If you can’t go to the Scriptures and show where it clearly and explicitly teaches that Christ is personally made of two natures, then you can be certain that you are adding to the Bible a teaching that was invented by antichristians, and you are redefining—that is, taking away from—what the Bible does say Christ is.

Both the Trinity and Oneness are refined forms of Gnosticism. Both are thus “Neo-Gnosticism.”

We know that, unfortunately, many people, even when faced with these truths, will still cling to the idea that their personal “revelations,” their jumped-to conclusions, their man-made traditions, somehow trump what the Scriptures clearly teach. This is why Trinitarians cling tenaciously to the Trinity even though it is clearly refuted in many ever-so-clearly stated Scriptures. Such was the same attitude the originalantichristianshad. That is why they called themselves “Gnostics.” The word gnosis refers to “knowledge.” The Gnostics claimed they had a special knowledge of their destiny in God, and they also claimed a specially revealed insight into the hidden truths of the Scriptures. When you think about it, that’s what the first deception in the Garden of Eden was about: tricking people to look for a deeper meaning by reading between the lines of what God’s word actually says. That is also what Onenessians are doing when they claim that the Oneness is a “revelation,” even though it isn’t called such in the Scriptures and even though, as with the Trinity, when the Scriptures are allowed to speak for themselves they clearly describe something completely different than either the Trinity or Modalism.

It isn’t being supposed that this book will be able to sway anyone who thinks they have a special revelation that trumps God’s word in the Scriptures or gives them an ability to see truths beyond what God’s word actually explains and describes. Rather, this is being written for the sake of those who are willing to “try the spirits,” as the word of God teaches (1 John 4:1), and who are interested in hearing what the Scriptures actually say. This book is written because “it is already time for you to awaken out of sleep, for salvation is now nearer to us than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11).

It is high time to awaken God’s people to a purely biblical view of Christ. Unfortunately, this view is one that the majority of self-professing Christians have moved away from. It seems ironic that the Christ that the Bible clearly explains is a view of Christ that most of today’s Christianity considers a heresy! All that is being proclaimed here is that we need to get back to a view of Christ that isn’t polluted by worldly philosophy, pagan mythology, or antichristian theories. In other words, we need to get back to the Christ as the apostles actually preached him to be:

…Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him… (Acts 2:22)

Summary: Up to this point a summary has been given of what is going to be covered in this book. All of these issues and topics will be covered in more depth, precept upon precept, line upon line. But the desire here was to bring the reader, by this point, to: a) an understanding of these opposing methods of interpretation, b) a clear, open, and straightforward presentation of the substance of what this book will be advocating and what will be renounced, c) the unbiblical and ungodly sources of the alternatives being contended against, and finally, d) the gravity of falling for false views of Christ and God. Of course, the main purpose of the book is in turning things around and showing just how much more glorious God’s message of hope toward fallen humanity is, and can be seen to be, when viewed through the knowledge of the true and biblical Christ, God’s prototype for humankind.

We will begin to restore this correct view by next going back to the schoolmaster, the OT, to hear its lessons for us on who and what the Messiah is as he is meant to be understood. Once we understand what the terms meant from the OT Schoolmaster, we can start interpreting the NT through the proper lens—the scriptural words and testimonies of Jesus Christ himself and his apostles.

 Print This Post