VI — The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
No truth was more firmly planted in the Jewish mind, through the teaching of their prophets, than the absolute and essential unity of the Deity. Hence, when Jesus, quoting from Moses, affirmed the same truth, it received the prompt approval of the Scribe to whom it was addressed. In answer to his question as to which was the first commandment, Jesus said, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”; to which the Scribe responded, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other but He” — (Mark 12: 29-32). So jealous was Jesus of this great foundation truth, that, on another occasion, when addressed as “Good Master”, he administered a reproof by saying, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God” — (Matt. 19: 17); thereby showing, not that the Deity is the only being possessing any goodness, but that none have essential, underived goodness but He.
The One God
Respecting the attributes of the “one God” Jesus said little for with these the Jews were tolerably familiar. They knew that He was omnipresent; for He had said, by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” — (Jer. 23: 24). They knew that he was omniscient; for their wisest man had said: — “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” — (Prov. 15: 3). They knew that He was powerful; for they had witnessed or read of numerous miracles performed by Him on behalf of their nation; and further, they knew that He was all-powerful, for he had revealed himself to the fathers of their nation — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — as “God Almighty” — (Ex. 6: 3).
They knew that He was their creator, for their “sweet psalmist” had said, “It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves” — (Ps. 100: 3). They knew that he had had no beginning, and would have no end; for he was described in their law as “the eternal God” — (Deut. 33: 27); and David their king had addressed him in the words, “Even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” — (Ps. 90: 2). They knew that he was wise; for he had given them laws and instruction which were admirably adapted for promoting their physical and moral well-being. They knew that he was immutable; for he had said through one of their prophets: — “I am the Lord, I change not” — (Mal. 3: 6).
They knew that He was just, because of the impartial decrees which He had from time to time promulgated among them. They knew that He was jealous of His revealed will; for He had frequently reproved them for disregarding it, or for teaching things which were contrary to it. They knew that He was holy, and abhorred sin; for He had frequently punished them, both individually and nationally, for their transgressions. They knew that He was merciful and long-suffering; for He had oftentimes pardoned their iniquities. They knew that He was spirit; for as spirit He had manifested himself to them in the wilderness, and in the temple. And they knew that He was invisible to human eyes; for they had never seen Him, and He had said to Moses, “There shall no man see me, and live” — (Ex. 33: 20).
Jesus Did Not Teach a “Trinity”
Jesus did not teach anything which tended to undermine their knowledge of these things. The very reverse: he confirmed them. He endorsed God’s declaration as to his omnipotence, by saying “With God all things are possible” — (Matt. 19: 26). He declared that the miracles he worked were by the power of the Deity; and that the wisdom he uttered came from the Deity. His forerunner, John the Baptist, confirmed the Divine statement to Moses, by saying, “no man hath seen God at any time” — (John 1: 18); and Jesus taught them that in seeing himself they saw the manifestation of the Father — (John 14: 9). He taught them that the Father whom he represented required implicit obedience to merit His blessing, and that He would not spare the guilty; but that He was ready to receive back with open arms the sheep who had strayed from the fold, provided they sought admittance by the door.
If Jesus had proclaimed to the Jews the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Athanasian creed, he would not have made the slightest impression upon them. Their belief in the absolute unity of God, founded as it was on the teachings of their inspired prophets, was too strong to allow of their accepting such an incomprehensible and paradoxical dogma. Even at the present day, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the greatest impediments to Jews believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.
Although Jesus did not teach the Trinity, yet he taught the existence of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. But nowhere does he declare that these are “three persons, co-equal and co-eternal”. He taught the personality of the Father, and of the Son, but not of the Holy Spirit. A certain section of human theology, on the contrary, ever prone to “change the truth of God into a lie”, denies that the Father is a person, and affirms the personality of the “Holy Spirit”.
The Holy Spirit
It is unfortunate that the word “ghost” should be used at all; it is an obsolete Saxon word, which conveys the idea of an invisible person. It would be better, and quite correct, if, in all cases, the word “spirit” were substituted. The idea of its being a person receives its chief support from the fact that Jesus calls it “another Comforter”, and that it is spoken of as “he”. If this idea be correct, we should reasonably expect to find that when the Spirit came to the apostles as a “comforter”, a personal being visited them. But such is not the case: the narrative describing this event says that “Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting” — (Acts 2: 2). The idea conveyed by this passage is that the Spirit is similar to wind, and is invisible. It can however, be rendered visible; for on this occasion it appeared as “cloven tongues like as of fire” — (Acts 2: 3); and at the baptism of Jesus it descended upon him in the form of “a dove” — (Matt. 3: 16). If it had been a person, it is scarcely likely that it would have assumed such forms as these.
The use of the personal pronoun “he” in reference to the Spirit, is explained by the fact that the word translated “Comforter” is a masculine noun. In I Peter 1:11, the Greek word for Spirit, a neuter noun, is represented by the pronoun “it”.
The Spirit is, undoubtedly, something which is under the power or control of God for, in giving the promise to the apostles, Jesus said, “I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter” — (John 14: 16); and in a subsequent part of the same discourse, he defines it to be “the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father” — (John 15: 26). Hence, in speaking of the time when this prediction would be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” — (Matt. 10: 20). Although in a parallel passage in Mark 13: 11, it is styled “the Holy Ghost”, yet here, it will be observed, it is rendered “Spirit”, showing that the word so frequently translated “Ghost” might, with equal accuracy, be translated “Spirit” in other passages. The same Spirit which was in the apostles was also given to the prophets; for Peter says that prophecy came by “holy men of God” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” — (II Peter 1: 21). Paul, in describing the same thing, declares that “God . . . spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” — (Heb. 1: 1). There is no contradiction here; the two statements are perfectly harmonious: they do not teach that God spake through some prophets, and the Holy Spirit through others; but that God spake through all the prophets by means of the Holy Spirit. It is the medium by which He makes known His will to man. Hence, “whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost” speaketh against God; a sin which “shall not be forgiven” either in this world or “the world to come” — (Matt. 12: 32).
The Spirit is an unseen power emanating from the Deity, filling all space, and by which He is everywhere present: hence David’s question, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?” — (Ps. 139: 7), and Paul’s declaration, “In him we live, and move, and have our being” — (Acts 17: 28). It is the medium by which God creates all things: “By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens” — (Job 26: 13), and the power by which he upholds the whole creation: “If he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together” — (Job 34: 14-15). In these operations it is called “the Spirit of God” — (Gen. 1: 2), or “his Spirit” — (Job 26: 13); but, when set apart for certain purposes in connection with the scheme of redemption, it is called “the Holy Spirit”, after the manner in which the various articles and materials used for the ceremonials of the Mosaic law became “holy” when thus set apart for religious purposes. It is generally called “Holy Spirit” when spoken of as the instrument by which God has made known His will to man through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
On this account it is frequently used to signify the revealed word of God. “The Spirit is truth,” writes the Apostle John — (I John 5: 6). Jesus, in addressing the Jews, said, “The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit” — (John 6: 63). Hence, the “Spirit”, the “Truth”, and the “Word” are used interchangeably. The last two are the spoken or written utterances of the first. To say that believers are “elect . . . through sanctification of the Spirit” — (I Peter 1: 2), is the same as to say that they are sanctified through “the truth” or “the word of God”. Accordingly Jesus, in praying to his Father about his apostles, said “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” — (John 17: 17).
The Spirit in Operation
A knowledge of this important fact will enable Bible readers to understand many portions of the New Testament speaking of “the Spirit”, which otherwise appear to teach that the Holy Spirit, as given to the apostles, is absolutely necessary to all believers of the gospel. Among the passages adduced in support of this erroneous idea is that in which Jesus is recorded to have said, “When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth” — (John 16: 13). Those who quote these words for the purpose mentioned overlook the fact that they were addressed exclusively to the twelve apostles of Jesus. The Holy Spirit was necessary to them in order to instruct them more perfectly in God’s purposes, and so equip them for carrying out their commission. It was given to teach them all things, and bring to their “remembrance” those things which Jesus had spoken to them, but which they had either forgotten or misapprehended — (John 14: 26).
For instance, Jesus had told them that he should be crucified; but they neither believed nor understood him. When, however, “the Spirit of truth” came, it enlightened them on this point, and so enabled them to preach the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ. They were led “into all truth” that they might lead others into the same truth “the truth as it is in Jesus”. Having themselves received the key of knowledge, they were able to unlock its treasures to others. Those to whom they spoke or wrote about that truth were able to understand what they meant, without the possession of the Holy Spirit. Why, then, cannot Gentiles in the present age be led into the same truth by simply studying the record of the speeches and writings of the apostles given nineteen centuries ago? To say that it is necessary to have the Holy Spirit in order to understand the words of the Spirit, is derogatory to God’s word. It is equivalent to charging Him with having given to man a revelation of His will which it is impossible for anyone unassisted to understand. It also contravenes Paul’s statement, that “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” — (Rom. 10: 17).
The Conviction of Faith
It is wholly incorrect to say, as do some, that faith is the gift of God. It is the salvation resulting “through faith” that is God’s gift: — “The gift of God is eternal life” — (Rom. 6: 23). Faith is an operation of the mind, a belief in that which cannot be seen by the natural eye. It can only be produced when sufficient evidence is presented to convince the mind that the unseen things spoken about are true. With this end in view, God has, at various times, attested His spoken word by evidence of an extraordinary character. He did this when he caused “a smoking furnace and a burning lamp” to pass between the pieces into which Abraham had divided certain animals — (Gen. 15: 17). By this means Abraham’s faith in God’s promises was made stronger.
The Deity did a similar thing when, on the day of Pentecost, He enabled the disciples, by means of the Spirit, to speak in tongues which they had not previously learned. By this means a large number of Jews became convinced that what Peter spake was true, and so they manifested faith in his words. This was one of the principal objects for which the Spirit was given to the apostles, viz., to attest the truth of what they uttered. In introducing a new dispensation, some such extraordinary effusion of power was absolutely necessary. Without it neither Jews nor Pagans would have believed that the apostles were messengers from the only true God. Through its instrumentality, large numbers of both classes were led to embrace the truth preached by them; and then they became recipients of this gift, at the hands of the apostles, to enable them to prophesy, speak with tongues, cure diseases, work miracles, etc., so that they in their turn might convince others that they held the truth of God.
Holy Spirit Not Possessed Now
But, in course of time, it came to pass that these supernatural gifts were abused; whereupon they were withdrawn. Since that time they have never been re-bestowed; though it is highly probable that they will be given in the next dispensation. If the Holy Spirit were now possessed by any, we should be able to see miracles quite as wonderful as those performed nineteen centuries ago; we should also find that those who possessed the Holy Spirit believed the truths taught by Jesus and his apostles. Notwithstanding the loud profession of some religious denominations that they possess the Holy Spirit, it is quite clear that they do not: first, because they teach things which are diametrically opposed to each other; and second, because they teach doctrines which flatly contradict what has been revealed by that Spirit in the word of truth. The Spirit being truth, it is quite certain that God would not reveal one thing in His word in the first century, and something in opposition to it through men in the present day.
Jesus Did Not Pre-exist
The Son of God differs from the Spirit of God in two things: the latter is eternal, but is not a person; whereas the former is a person, but is not eternal; that is, he has not existed from all eternity. The falseness of the dogma of eternal sonship is clearly demonstrated by the angelic announcement respecting the birth of Jesus: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” — (Luke 1: 35). If Jesus were God’s Son from all eternity, or at any time previous to his birth of Mary, such language as this could have no meaning.
It is recorded that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” — (Luke 2: 52), thereby showing the wisdom he displayed was acquired gradually, and that the progress he made met with his Father’s approval. On arriving at the age of thirty years, this approbation was publicly expressed at his baptism, by “a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” — (Matt. 3: 17). It was in consequence of his having manifested perfect obedience during the whole of his previous life that he was, on this occasion, publicly acknowledged as God’s beloved Son, and endowed with authority and power to work miracles, and communicate God’s will to the children of Israel; a fact inferentially stated by Peter when he spoke of Jesus as “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him” — (Acts 2: 22). Addressing the Gentiles on another occasion, the same apostle declared that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” — (Acts 10: 38).
The difference between Jesus in the days of his flesh, and the Holy Spirit, is shown by his saying that “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him” — (Matt. 12: 32). To speak against the Son of man was simply to speak against the “man approved of God”; but to speak against the Holy Ghost was equivalent to speaking against God himself, whose name is sometimes used interchangeably with that of the Holy Spirit.
God Manifest in Flesh
It is on this principle that many of the difficult sayings of Jesus are to be explained. Thus, when he said, “The Father dwelleth in me” — (John 14: 10), he meant that God was in him by means of His Spirit, enabling him to speak the words and do the works of his Father, in accordance with the Mosaic prediction (Deut. 18: 18), that he should speak the words which Jehovah would put in his mouth. Hence Jesus could say, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” — (John 7: 16). He could say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” — (John 14: 9). Jesus was the manifestation of the Father by means of his Spirit: first, in his birth; and second, in his anointing. For this reason he was styled “Emmanuel”, or “God with us” — (Matt. 1: 23). It was the Father in him that said “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — (John 2: 19). “The temple of his body,” which, like Solomon’s temple, was constituted the dwelling place of Jehovah, was destroyed, and in three days was rebuilt by the power of the Deity, as declared by Paul when writing to the Romans: — “Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father” — (Rom. 6: 4); the Spirit of God” raised up Christ from the dead” — (Rom. 8: 11). It was the Spirit of God in Jesus which said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven” — (John 6: 51), and “Before Abraham was I am” — (John 8: 58). The Jews, to whom Jesus said, “Ye judge after the flesh” — (John 8: 15), did not understand these sayings. Equally impossible is it for Gentiles in the present day to comprehend them if they “judge after the flesh”.
No Trinitarian would affirm that the fleshly body of Jesus was in existence before Abraham, and came down from heaven; but they would affirm this of the supposed “eternal Son”. It has, however, been shown that “the Son of God” only came into existence when the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, and that subsequently the power in that Son was the Spirit “of the Father”. In the words of Paul, “God was in Christ” — (II Cor. 5: 19). It was not, therefore, as Trinitarianism construes it, an eternal Spirit-Son in a fleshly-Son, but the Father in the Son. The use of the expression, “The Father dwelleth in me”, destroys the theory that “God the Son” dwelt in Jesus. The Father, or His Spirit, existed from all eternity, but the Son did not come into existence until born of woman. Jesus Christ was, therefore, not the Son of God manifested in a human body, but the Father manifested in a human body, by means of Spirit, the result being a Son.
Without being thus endowed with Spirit, Jesus would have been powerless to work any miracles, or reveal God’s will to man. He was extremely careful to make this known. Not only did he say, “My Father is greater than I” — (John 14: 28), but, to be more explicit, “I can of mine own self do nothing” — (John 5: 30).
Subject to the Father
The subjection of the “Son of man” to the Father is shown not only by his words, but also by his deeds, such as that of offering up prayer to God, saying, “I thank thee, O Father” — (Matt 11: 25), and “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” — (Matt 26: 39). The fact of his addressing God as his “Father” is rendered more significant by what he said to Mary after his resurrection: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” — (John 20: 17); thereby showing that the supreme Being was his “God” and “Father” as well as Mary’s. If Jesus Christ were “very God”, how could he call the Father “my God”?
Then again, it is written that “God cannot be tempted with evil” — (Jas. 1: 13); but Jesus was tempted. Therefore, when he was so tempted, he must have been distinct from his Father, and of an inferior nature. It is also written that “God knoweth all things” — (I John 3: 20); but, before the crucifixion, there were certain things which Jesus Christ did not know, such as the time for his second appearing: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” — (Mark 13: 32). If he had been the Deity, such a distinction as this between his own knowledge and that of his Father would have been impossible.
It is customary to evade the force of these facts and plain statements by saying that they refer only to the “humanity” of Jesus. But this reply is based upon a fallacy. It assumes that the divinity of Christ lay in an “eternal Son”, incarnate in his body. It has been shown that the Divine power in Jesus was not an eternal or pre-existent Son, but the Father dwelling in him by means of His Spirit. This answer, therefore, falls to the ground. Of course no one would say that these statements are applicable to the Divine power of Jesus. They are affirmed of Jesus himself, the child of Mary and Son of God, and evidence a limitation of knowledge inconsistent with the Trinitarian view of the case. Thus it will be seen that the truth on the subject neither admits of Trinitarian speculation on the one hand, nor Unitarian freethinking on the other. It is a medium between the two extremes.
Jesus was the child born of a virgin: he grew in wisdom and stature; and on arriving at manhood, he was “anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power” — (Acts 10: 38), whereby he became Jesus the Christ, or the anointed; from that time God worked through him in a way that He had not previously done, testifying by numerous miracles to his Divine origin and mission.
A Teacher Sent from God
The position of Jesus as a prophet was correctly defined by Nicodemus, when he said to him, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” — (John 3: 2). And the truth of this statement is confirmed by Jesus himself, on another occasion, saying to the Jews, “Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God” — (John 8: 40). The fact that Jesus is described as having “come from God”, or, more frequently, as being “sent” from God, affords no proof that Jesus came from heaven to earth in a mechanical sense. John the Baptist is described as “a man sent from God” — (John 1: 6); and God’s servants, the prophets, are said to have been “sent” by Him — (Matt. 21: 34). The great difference between them and Jesus was that he was brought into existence by the power that merely inspired the others, and was endowed with that power in an unlimited degree: “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” — (John 3: 34), as he had done to the prophets before him, and as he did to the apostles after him. But he was also superior to them in the character which he manifested: they all sinned, but he committed no sin; he alone of all men could triumphantly say, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” — (John 8: 46). His whole career is an exemplification of the words he uttered in the garden of Gethsemane, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt”. And it was in consequence of this strict obedience that he was released from death: “It was not possible that he should be holden of it” — (Acts 2: 24).
“Son of God with Power”
By means of resurrection Jesus became Son of God in a higher sense than he had ever been before; a truth taught by Paul in saying that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” — (Rom. 1: 4). Previously, Jesus had been the Son of God by begettal, anointing, and character, but now he became “Son of God with power”; he was no longer of a weak, mortal nature. It is necessary to notice and remember this great fact — that Jesus was of a very different nature before crucifixion from that which he has possessed since resurrection.
The omission to recognise this is one of the chief causes of the prevalent misconceptions concerning Jesus Christ. Very often passages referring to his present and future functions are improperly quoted to prove that he possessed the attributes and nature of the Deity when preaching the gospel to the Jews. In this way a great mass of irrelevant matter is piled together, which, to those who have not examined the question, presents the appearance of an impregnable fortress. But to those who understand the difference between the two natures successively possessed by Jesus Christ in those two great epochs, it has the appearance only of a frail structure, very showy, but without any real strength or substance. The glory, honour, and power ascribed to Jesus since his elevation to heaven, have nothing to do with the question as to his nature before death. These are all explainable by the fact that Jesus has been “perfected” — (Luke 13: 32) by being changed from a human nature to the nature of his Father.
Crucified in Weakness — Raised to Power
Contrasting Jesus Christ’s former with his present condition, Paul says, “He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God” — (II Cor. 13:4). The first clause of this passage is forcibly illustrated by the words Jesus uttered when on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — (Matt. 27: 46). At this period the Spirit which was given to him at his immersion was withdrawn from him; and thus he was left in all the weakness of a flesh-and-blood nature, and in the solitude of a Son deprived of the presence and support of his Father. His mission as a teacher sent from God to the Jewish nation had then ceased, so far as his first appearing was concerned. He had fully complied with the instructions he had received, by making known the will of Him that sent him, and he was just about to undergo the most important event in his career as a priest; an office which will be treated of in the next section.
Jesus is now of the same nature as God himself; but they are, nevertheless, distinct persons, and the former is still subordinate to the latter. Jesus now “liveth by the power of God”, and still recognises the Deity as his God; for since ascending to heaven he has said through the apostle John, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God . . . and I will write upon him the name of my God” — (Rev. 3: 12). And it is predicted, in relation to the “kingdom of God”, that when the last enemy, sin, is destroyed, “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” — (I Cor. 15: 28).
His Brethren to Be like Him
The present position of Jesus, as Son of God, is both interesting and important, because he is “the first-born among many brethren” — (Rom. 8: 29), all of whom are to be made “like him” — (1 John 3: 2). True, they are now called “sons of God” — (I John 3: 1); but at present they are only sons by “adoption” — (Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4: 5). Of none of them can it be affirmed that they are sons of God by a miraculous birth, that they are of sinless character, or have been anointed with the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus in the days of the flesh. Nevertheless, they have the promise that they shall each become a son of God, such as he now is. This will be effected by what Jesus styles being “born again” — (John 3: 3).
They become adopted sons in the days of their flesh, by being “born of water” — (John 3:5); but they will become real sons, by being “born of the Spirit”, at the second appearing of their Elder Brother. Instead of being flesh-and-blood beings, as at present, weak, mortal, and corruptible, they will then be Spirit beings, powerful, immortal, and incorruptible; for “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” — (John 3: 6).
They will then be “perfect in one” God, and will have realised the request made by Jesus when he prayed to their common Father, “that they may be one, even as we are one” — (John 17: 22-23). Having been “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” they will all be, like Jesus, sons of God with power, and will constitute, in the aggregate, that which Paul calls “The manifestation of the sons of God” — (Rom. 8: 19-21). Only such as are now begotten with “the word of truth” — (Jas. 1: 18) and are “born of water”, will have any title to be “born of the Spirit” when “Christ our life shall appear” in his glory — (Col. 3: 4).
Opposition of Modern Theology
The reader has now before him an outline of what Jesus taught in the capacity of a prophet. In each of its several elements it is opposed to the teaching and belief of the great majority of his professed followers. Their theology teaches that the “kingdom of God” consists simply of a reign of Jesus in the hearts of his disciples, or of a kingdom in the skies; that the gospel Jesus preached was good news about his death; that the second appearing of Jesus takes place in a figurative sense at conversion or death, or in a personal sense at the end of the millennium, when all the world has been converted by the religious agencies now in operation; that the righteous and the wicked are rewarded and punished at death, thereby rendering unnecessary the Resurrection and the Judgment; that the righteous go to heaven to be blessed with happiness, superadded to an immortality they are supposed already to possess; and the wicked to hell to endure eternal torment in a fire in which they will be always burning, but never burnt; that baptism is not necessary to salvation, and may be administered by sprinkling water on infants; and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons all on an equality, each having existed from all eternity.
In opposition to these dogmas, Jesus taught that the Gospel to be believed was glad tidings concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, otherwise called the “kingdom of God ”, to which the apostles have since added the facts and doctrines connected with his death; that his second appearing will take place at a time when the “one faith” is difficult to find on the earth, and, therefore, before the whole world has been converted; that at that time his disciples will be raised from the dead and judged; that the reward then to be given to the righteous will be “everlasting life”, with rulership in the “kingdom of God” and the inheritance of the earth; that the punishment then to be awarded to the wicked will be consignment to a fire which will utterly consume them like tares and withered branches; that one of the commands necessary to be obeyed by those who would be included in the former class is immersion in water, the ceremony by which they become adopted sons of God, and brethren of Jesus Christ; that the Father is the one Deity, who alone possesses underived power, wisdom, and goodness; that the Holy Spirit is a power proceeding from Him, by which He has made known His will to mankind; and that he himself, the Son, who became such in the first instance by his Divine begettal, and afterwards by his resurrection, derived all his power and teaching from the Father, without which he could do nothing.
An Indisputable Authority
These two series of doctrines are so antagonistic to each other that it is utterly impossible to reconcile them. Those who hold the one cannot at the same time believe the other. The second series, therefore, being true, the first is necessarily false, and, as a consequence, those who hold it cannot be entitled to be called disciples of Jesus Christ. It is futile for any to delude themselves with the idea that such discipleship does not depend upon a belief of what Jesus taught. That point has been settled by an indisputable authority: — “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, Even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing . . . from such withdraw thyself” — (I Tim. 6: 3-5).
It is but necessary for any intelligent person to examine the creeds of “Christendom” in the light of what Jesus taught to perceive at a glance how widely applicable is the above declaration and injunction. All who are included in this category will incur the penalty threatened by the Lord through Moses, and quoted by Peter: “It shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear (i.e., believe and obey) that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” — (Acts 3: 23). If the reader be an independent thinker, searching for the truth and desirous of being delivered from the traditions of blind leaders who can only lead him into the ditch, let him put that injunction into practice at once by withdrawing religious fellowship from all who teach or believe that which is contrary to the “wholesome words” of Jesus Christ; and then let him become one of those who have always been despised and hated by the world because they have not been ashamed of the words of their Lord and Master. Only by adopting this course can he by any possibility be included among those of whom the “Son of man” will not “be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of the Father, with the holy angels”.