Program 173: New evidence for the trinity! Or not?

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of World’s Last Chance Ministries, an online ministry dedicated to learning how to live in constant readiness for the Savior's return.

For two thousand years, believers of every generation have longed to be the last generation. Contrary to popular belief, though, Christ did not give believers “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, he repeatedly warned that his coming would take even the faithful by surprise. Yahushua urgently warned believers to be ready because, he said, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” [Matthew 24:44]

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Part 1: New evidence for the trinity! Or not?

Miles Robey: When knowing the truth—and learning new truth—is important to you, it’s always good to go back and take a second look at long-established beliefs. Every layer of knowledge you gain provides another step in the process of gaining more.

Hi, I’m Miles Robey and you’re listening to World’s Last Chance Radio. A topic we’ve spent a fair amount of time on in our programs is the true nature of Yahuwah. A three-in-one godhead is the bedrock belief of most Christians. As we’ve covered in other programs, however, we believe that Scripture actually teaches something very different.

Well, recently, someone asked me if I was aware of the proof for a trinity that appears in the Old Testament. I have to confess, that was news to me! I’d never heard of any evidence for a triune godhead in the Old Testament so I’ve asked Dave Wright to take a look and share with us what the evidence supports.

Dave Wright: I’m happy to do so. If you’ve been listening to us for a while, you know that we’re never too full of our own self-importance to admit if we’ve made a mistake. In fact, if we become convicted that we’ve taught error, we feel it is our responsibility to let people know, as far as we’re able, the mistake we’ve made, the new light we’ve learned, and the evidence to support that change in belief.

Miles: Well, sure. Light is advancing and it’s going to continue to advance. It’s only natural that, along the way, we’ll discover our understanding has been off in some areas. It’s par for the course when you’re following advancing light.

Later, during our Daily Mailbag segment, Dave’s going to share with us information why so many Christians are so critical of others and what we can do about that. Then, of course, Elise O’Brien’s going to share another promise from Scripture. I really like her segments. It’s always faith inspiring to focus on the promises of Yah.

Dave: It really is.

Miles: But for now, let’s circle back to today’s topic. Is there evidence in the Old Testament that actually supports the case for a triune godhead?

Dave: Well, what’s the evidence this person presented to you? What was said?

Miles: It has to do with the Shema. You know, that prayer in Deuteronomy? Uh … it’s Deuteronomy six. It goes: “Hear, O Israel: Yahuwah our God [or our Eloah], Yahuwah is one. Love Yahuwah your Eloah with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” [Deuteronomy 6:4-5]

Dave: A passage obviously known to Yahushua, because he quoted that last part when asked what the greatest commandment was.

This verse is the very basis upon which Judaic monotheism—meaning, one God—is built. How is this being used to suggest that Yahuwah is one of three in some mystical trinity? I’m not seeing the evidence. It’s very clear: “Yahuwah our Eloah is one.”

Miles: Interestingly enough, it’s actually the word translated into English as “one.” I looked it up in The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and it comes from the Hebrew word, ‘echâd. It’s number 259. It’s defined as a numeral and can include the definition of “united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) …”

Dave: So … one. I’m not seeing how this suggests three-in-one.

Miles: Well, the idea is that the word “one” here is not referring to an absolute one, but rather a compound unity. In other words, it’s been suggested that the word “one” is actually referring to many things in one. Kind of like, uh … take sunflowers for example. Each sunflower is considered one flower, even though each single flower is made up of multiple florets.

So, the reasoning goes, this verse can only signify a “compound unity,” or many things in one.

Dave: All right, uh …

What are they basing this interpretation on? Do they have any other Bible verses that would support this idea?

Miles: Actually, they do. There are two verses that seem to support this idea. Uh, give me just a second to turn there …

The first instance is in Numbers chapter 13. Let me find it real quick …

Uh … well, let me just start at verse 1. It says: “Yahuwah said to Moses, ‘Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.” This is a couple of years after they’d left Egypt but before the additional 38 years of wandering in the wilderness.

Dave: Right. They sent in men to spy out the land but 10 of the spies came back with an evil report. Only Caleb and Joshua brought back a favorable report.

Miles: Yeah, and because the multitudes of Israel believed the 10 faithless spies and whined that they wished they’d died in Egypt, they were all condemned to die in the Wilderness. Only Caleb and Joshua entered the Promised Land.

Anyway, let’s read the story. This is Numbers 13, verses 17 to 25.

When Moses sent them to explore Canaan, he said, “Go up through the Negev and on into the hill country. See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many. What kind of land do they live in? Is it good or bad? What kind of towns do they live in? Are they unwalled or fortified? How is the soil? Is it fertile or poor? Are there trees in it or not? Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land.” (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.)

So they went up and explored the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath. They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron … When they reached the Valley of Eshkol, they cut off a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. That place was called the Valley of Eshkol because of the cluster of grapes the Israelites cut off there. At the end of forty days they returned from exploring the land.

This translation says “a single cluster of grapes.” Other translations say it as “one cluster of grapes.” So that’s where they get this idea because the word “single” or “one” comes from the same Hebrew word for one as is used in Deuteronomy 6: ekh awd.

Dave: Oh, I see. They didn’t bring back one grape. They brought back a cluster. More than one making up one.

Miles: Right. That’s the idea. The other place is found in Genesis one. Let me read that for you.

Here we go: “And Elohim said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. Elohim saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. Elohim called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” [Genesis 1:3-5]

The word “first” is the same word as translated “one” in Deuteronomy 6 and “single” in Numbers 13.

Dave: I see. You’ve got two halves making up one whole.

Miles: Right. Again, the idea that individual parts can be considered to make up a unified whole, as in a three-in-one godhead.

Dave: I have to say, I really love this question.

Miles: Does it change your belief that Yahuwah is “one God” and not three-in-one?

Dave: Not in the slightest. But I still like this question. It shows deep thought and deep Bible study. Someone has been looking up words, and that’s great! I don’t agree, but I do appreciate the depth of study that went into this to come up with this conclusion.

Remember: truth can always bear the weight of investigation. Either you’ll discover something new, or your original beliefs will have been confirmed and you’ve got additional information to share when witnessing with others.

Miles: That’s true.

Dave: What we’ve got here is a classic breakdown in communication.

Miles: Oh, man! Don’t get me started on breakdowns in communication!

Dave: Had a few, have you?

Miles: Just yesterday, my wife texted me a short list of groceries she wanted me to bring home. After her requests for some cheese and plain yogurt, she added, “Check dates.”

Dave: Obviously wanting to make sure they hadn’t gone bad.

Miles: Well, why didn’t she say so, then?!

Dave: What did you think she meant?

Miles: I thought she wanted me to check and see if they had any dates! And they did! The sweetest, plumpest Medjool dates you’d ever wish to eat.

Dave: I remember once I was backing our car up and I asked my son, who was about four years old at the time, if there were any cars coming.

“No,” he said. Then, after a moment during which I started backing into the street, he added, “But there is a truck.”

Miles: Oops! Did you get in an accident?

Dave: No. Fortunately the other driver was a good defensive driver. He managed to avoid us, although he taught my son a rather rude hand gesture while doing so.

My wife wasn’t pleased!

Getting back to the shema. Basically, that’s what’s happened here. The person or people who are suggesting that the word “one” here actually refers to a fusion of individuals into one are extrapolating from two other verses and applying that extrapolation here.

The word echad in Hebrew—and I just want to add that the word “one” is the perfect translation for echad—the word echad in Hebrew functions exactly like the word “one” in English.

Let’s look at some examples. Uh … library. A library is made up of hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of books. But it’s still only one library.

Another example. Um, a board game can have a lot of individual pieces. It may contain cards, a board, little plastic doohickies to move around. But it’s still just one game.

Miles: How about a dinette? You’ve got a dining room table and however many chairs you need, but the table and chairs constitute one dinette set.

Dave: Exactly. You’ve got it. That’s one way the word “one” is used. At the same time, there are other instances where the word “one” clearly refers to a single, solitary individual, such as, there is one dog sunning himself on the sidewalk.

Miles: There is one cookie left and I lay claim to it.

Dave: Not if I beat you to it!

Miles: So you do know my kids!

Dave: My point is that we can’t be unreasoningly narrow in our definition of this word. We don’t limit our definitions that way in English and neither should we in Hebrew. In fact, there are plenty of examples of the word echad in Scripture that clearly refer to just one of whatever it is that they’re talking about.

Miles: Can you give us any examples?

Dave: Ahhh … no. Not off the top of my head, I can’t. There’s a concordance over there. Why don’t you grab it and look up a few?

Miles: All right! Umm … Oh, here’s one. Deuteronomy 17:6. Could you look that one up for us? Here. You can use my Bible.

Dave: Thanks. It says, quote: “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.”

Unquote. This is a good one. Obviously when it says one witness it’s talking about a single, solitary individual, not a compound unity.

Any more?

Miles: Yeah, uh … Ecclesiastes chapter 4, verses 8 to 11? It looks like there are several uses of the word “one” here.

Dave:

There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: . . .

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.

For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?

This passage is interesting because, although it talks about two being better than one, clearly it’s referring to “one” as a single, solitary individual or the saying that “two are better than one” wouldn’t even make sense.

Miles: Yeah. Obviously, same word, but it’s not referring to a compound unity.

Dave: It’s disingenuous to present two verses of Scripture, Numbers 13:23 and Genesis 1:5, and try to extrapolate from that that a triune godhead, a compound unity, is being presented in Deuteronomy 4 verse 6. It doesn’t stand up to a careful comparison of Scripture with Scripture.

Miles: All right, so then how are we to tell if a compound unity is being meant—as it clearly is in a couple of cases—versus a single entity? Say you’re reading along in your morning devotions, and you come across the word “one.” How are you supposed to know which definition is meant?

Dave: Same way we do in modern English. You get it from context.

Ahhh … Messrs. David de Gea, Anthony Martial, Cristiano Ronoldo, and Hannibal Mejbri, et al. play for Manchester United. They are individual footballers but together they make up one team. That’s a compound unity.

By contrast, “Hear, O Israel: Yahuwah our Eloah, Yahuwah is one,” is pure, unadulterated monotheism because it means just what it is saying: Yahuwah is one. Not a three-in-one compound unity. Just … one.

And, quite honestly, the Jews have always known this. It’s this verse on which they base their pure monotheism. It’s only later, centuries after Christ, that the pagan concept of a trinity entered Christianity. It’s not part of the original belief system of Christianity.

Miles: All right. We have to take a quick break but when we come back, let’s talk about that some more. Stay tuned.

* * *

Advertisement

American humorist, Mark Twain, wryly observed, quote, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” Unquote.

Wondering what happens at death and fearing the unknown has been a topic that has troubled human minds for thousands of years. Is this life all there is? If not, what’s next? Some of history’s greatest minds have wrestled with these questions and more.

For Christians, however, there is hope! Death is not the end. While Christians know this, many have been terrified at the thought of an ever-burning hell and strive with all their might to be deemed worthy of escaping hell and going to heaven at death. According to Scripture, neither option is what happens at death. What our loving Father has worked out is even better. For believers, death is nothing to fear.

If you would like to learn more, look for the previously aired program entitled “The Christian’s Hope” [Program 169]. If you missed this program when it aired, it’s not too late. Previously aired programs can be found on our website at WorldsLastChance.com or on Youtube! Find out the wonderful—and very comforting—truth of what happens at death. It’s nothing to fear!

* * *Part 2: New evidence for the trinity! Or not?

Miles: You addressed the issue of a compound unity versus a singular entity really well in our last segment. The thing is, the idea of a three-in-one godhead is so foundational to modern Christianity.

A Father John A. Hardon, a Jesuit priest, stated, quote: “The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and from it everything else derives. Hence the Church’s constant concern to safeguard the revealed truth that God is One in nature and Three in Persons.”

And, yeah. Not all Christians are Catholics, but the trinity doctrine is foundational to the majority of Christians. I don’t want what you said in the first segment to be too-quickly dismissed if any of our listeners haven’t had a chance to do a deep dig into this topic before. Could you take some time just now and go over the evidence for Yahuwah being just Himself, one, rather than a trinity?

Dave: Certainly. Be happy to. Now, obviously, we won’t be able to cover all of the evidence for a unitarian divine nature. But we can cover the basics and people can use that as a springboard to dig for more. Sound good?

Miles: That’s fine. That’s great.

I know I’ve said it before and I’m going to say it again here: the first time the idea that the trinity was heresy was presented to me, I actually rejected it. The Bible talks about a Holy Spirit, right? How can you say there’s no triune godhead when the Bible actually names the third person of the godhead?

Dave: Oh, if only it were that easy!

Miles: I know! It wasn’t until I sat down with my concordance and looked up every single use of the word “spirit” in Scripture—both Old and New Testaments—that I finally became open to really looking at this subject because the word translated “Holy Spirit” or “Holy Ghost” is simply “breath.” That’s it. There’s nothing in there anywhere about some mystical, disembodied-but-fully-conscious third person of a godhead.

Dave: It does take some mental adjustment and a mind willing to consider new ideas to dig into this topic. So let’s start at the first. Where did this idea come from?

Well, in a word: paganism. It’s all through ancient paganism.

Miles: Well, there’s Semiramis, right? Said to be the wife of Nimrod and mother of Tammuz.

Dave: Right. Unlike the Christian trinity, a lot of the pagan trinities had a mother, father, and son.

In Egypt, it was Isis, the mother, Osiris, the father, and Horus, the son. The ancient Sumerians had Anu, the “Father” and “King of the Gods.” The second “person” of their godhead was Anu’s first-born son by his second wife, Enki, known as the “lord of wisdom,” and, finally, his second-born son by his first wife, Enlil, the creator god.

Miles: Sounds like Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. Nothing like a little bigamy to complicate the line of succession!

Dave: The Hindu trinity consists of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. The Greeks worshipped Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, saying that the three of them “agreed in one.” So, again, this was all over the ancient world within paganism.

Vestiges of this Father/Mother/Son type of trinity can still be seen in the Christian trinity when you learn that the Hebrew word for “spirit” or ruach, is a feminine word. It’s not masculine.

Miles: Huh! That’s interesting.

Dave: So we all know about the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly “converted” to Christianity when, in actuality, it was a strategic political move for him with the intent of unifying his empire. At the Council of Nicea, it was decreed that the Biblical calendar would no longer be used for calculating Yahuwah’s feasts, which include both the annual feasts and the weekly Sabbath.

But they did something more, too. They argued about the true nature of Yahuwah.

Miles: Isn’t that where we get the Nicene Creed from?

Dave: Yes. The First Council of Nicaea in 325. It was later amended in 381, but the core comes from the first council. Constantine invited 1,800 bishops to attend and the main thing they argued about was the exact nature of Yahuwah and Yahushua. It was here that the nature of Christ was officially exalted to being divine.

Miles: That’s late! Three twenty-five? That’s three hundred years after Christ!

Dave: The apostolic Christians knew Yahushua was fully human. This idea that he was divine came in later.

But don’t think that all the bishops agreed with the council! There were plenty who tried to cling to the truths first taught by the apostles. Hold on a second. Let me pull up on my monitor a quote I’d like you to read …

Here. Can you see that? Why don’t you go ahead and read that for us.

Miles: All right. This is from C. L. Hagensick’s article called, “The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine.” It says:

Thus Constantine had his unified Church which was not very unified . . . [Another bishop] Eusebius [of Caesarea] was uncomfortable enough with the Nicene creed that he felt it expedient to justify himself to his own people in a long letter in which he states that he ‘resisted even to the last minute’ until the words were examined and it was explained that the words ‘did not mean all they seemed to mean but were intended simply to assert the real deity of the Son…’

Dave: Do you see how they equivocated and danced their way around straight truths? According to Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in his book, A History of Christian Thought, the leaders at Nicea actually “authorized a double interpretation in order to win Eusebius and his followers.”

Miles: Wow. It’s like they’d stoop to any lengths to unify Christians on this new heresy.

Dave: Well, that’s what the emperor had told them to do: unify. Or else.

The thing is, the early Christians were not trinitarians! Here, I’ve got some more quotes. Read this one. It’s from Victor Paul Wierwille in an article entitled “Jesus Christ is Not God.” What does that say?

Miles:

Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ.

That there was no formal, established doctrine of the trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact.

Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices.

Dave: See, this is how heresy creeps in. Over hundreds of years, a little change here, a little change there, every generation something slightly different, and eventually you have an organized religion that bears no resemblance to the faith of the apostles.

Even Catholics will admit that the trinity doctrine as taught today can’t be found in Scripture.

Miles: Well, yeah. They can because they hold Church tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers on a par with Scripture. The thing that amazes me is that Protestants still cling to this error!

Dave: Read this quote. It’s taken from the 1967 edition of The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Go ahead.

Miles:

. . . One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification . . . when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three Persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.

Hmmm. Very damning statement if you believe the trinity doctrine is Scriptural.

Dave: Scroll down on that Word document. What’s the next quote?

Miles: This is from Edmund Fortman’s book, The Triune God. It says:

The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the Old Testament] suggestions or foreshadowing’s or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

. . . The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity . . . Nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of the three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.

Dave: Did you catch that? “There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.”

Miles: Yeah, that was a surprise to me. Besides the Scriptural references to a “holy spirit” or “holy ghost,” I’d always pointed to 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 & 8 as proof of the trinity in the Bible. Listen to this, it says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Dave: Sure! It’s in the Bible, so John had to have written it, right?

Miles: Wrong!

Dave: Wrong. Let me find another quote here that I think is very revealing. Give me just a moment … ah! Here it is. Read … yes. Right there.

Miles: All right, this is apparently from a lecture course by Bart Ehrman on the history of early Christianity. He says, quote:

The basic notion of the Trinity is that there are three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are all equally God and of the same substance, but despite the fact there are three persons, together, they compromise only one God, indivisible in nature.

… This doctrine does not appear to be a doctrine pronounced by the historical Jesus, Paul, or any other Christian writer during the first hundred years or so of Christianity.

… It cannot be found explicitly stated in the earliest Christian writings. The only passage of the New Testament that declares the doctrine (1 John 5:7-8) was not originally part of the text but was added by doctrinally astute scribes at a later date (it is not found in any Greek manuscripts until the 11th century.)

Dave: That’s a huge statement and I know it’s made an impact on you because you’ve mentioned it before. It was over a thousand years after Christ that that passage in 1 John 5 was added by some “doctrinally astute scribes.”

Miles: Yeah, I like that phrase: “doctrinally astute.” In other words, they knew the Bible had a gaping hole when it came to this doctrine, so they decided to fill the lack themselves.

Dave: “Holy fiction.” And everything has snowballed from there.

If Yahushua is one substance with the Father, that means he must be divine. And if he’s divine, then that must mean he has to have had a pre-existence. And if he has a pre-existence, and-and-and … you can see how the confabulations just keep building and building and building.

Miles: None of which makes logical sense, which is why it’s so often referred to as a “mystery,” isn’t it? Mystery! Mystery! If it’s a mystery, you don’t have to worry about logic. You just shrug away any logical questions by saying it’s a mystery too deep for human minds to grasp.

Dave: That’s exactly what they do. Wayne Grudem on Zondervanacademic.com wrote an article that’s actually called “The Mystery of the Trinity.” He opens his article by saying, quote:

At times it can seem difficult to understand how there are three distinct persons of the Trinity, each with the whole being of God in himself, even though there is only one God, and he is undivided. And it should be difficult. The Trinity is one of those mysteries we can only describe in part. … Attempts to simplify or fully explain this mystery all fail and often lead to beliefs that are contrary to the Bible’s teachings.

In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is something we will never fully understand, for parts of it are beyond our comprehension.

Miles: Yep! Don’t question it. Just accept it. You’ll never understand.

Dave: But that’s not Yahuwah’s way at all! What does He say in the first chapter of Isaiah? “Come now, let us…?

Miles: Reason together.

Dave: Reason together. Truth has logic on its side.

You know, atheists accuse Christians of just accepting everything on blind faith and going with emotion. But there is plenty of logic and proof because truth itself is logical. It never contradicts itself and Yahuwah has pledged to reveal everything we know in order to be saved, and the true nature of Yahuwah, as well as that of the Saviour, is very important.

Miles: Why do you say that?

Dave: Because if you believe in a triune godhead, you must also believe that Yahushua was divine. You may try to dance around the contradictions by saying he was fully human and fully divine—which is itself a confusing contradiction—but if you believe that the Saviour was in any way divine, you’ve upset the whole foundation of the plan of salvation.

Divinity cannot die. By its very definition, divinity is immortal.

Miles: Which, of course, Scripture says only Yahuwah has immortality.

Dave: Another Biblical proof that He is only one, not three-in-one.

Consequently, the Saviour had to be human. His mission was to redeem the human race where the first Adam failed. How can he do that if he’s not wholly, 100% human?

Well, we’re fast running out of time. I wish we could get into this more but we can’t. If our listeners want to grab a pen and paper, I’ll give some names of articles on our website they can read through that get into this more in-depth.

Uh … take a look at: “Basic Biblical Christology for Unitarian Christians.” That’s a good one. Another one is: “The God of Yahushua.”

Miles: There’s also a two-part article series that’s really good. It’s called “When did Yahuwah’s son come into existence?”

Dave: There are a lot of good articles and videos as well as previously released radio programs covering every aspect of this doctrine. Another one is called “The Father and the Son (Two, not One).” So, when you’ve got time, check it out. And Miles is tapping his watch, so I’ll stop talking now.

Miles: Stay tuned, folks. Up next is our daily mailbag.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Advertisement

Sola Scriptura, or the Bible alone, was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. In the Orthodox churches, tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers are held in very high esteem, almost on a level with—if not equal to—Scripture itself. But Martin Luther and the many others who followed understood that Yah’s Word was to be the ultimate authority. Not tradition. Not papal pronouncements. The Word of Yahuwah alone.

Paul, in his second letter to Timothy, stated, quote: “All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahuwah, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yah may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Scripture is one of Yahuwah’s greatest gifts to His children. It is packed with promises to meet every emergency, as well as instruction and guidance for all of life’s trials. A wise Christian is one who makes the Word of Yah his rule of life in all things. To learn more about this precious gift, listen to “Scripture First!” [Program 53] That’s “Scripture First!” on WorldsLastChance.com.

* * *Daily Mailbag

Dave: So where’s today’s daily mailbag question coming from?

Miles: Uh . . . the United States. You know, I read somewhere that the American constitution wasn’t entirely original to the men who wrote it.

Dave: Oh, really? It was plagiarized?

Miles: Well, I don’t know I’d go so far as to say it was plagiarized, but Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the men who wrote it, actually modeled it after the constitution of the Iroquois confederacy. Five separate American Indian nations came together and formed a confederacy back in . . . I think the 1600s. Anyway, they were very powerful for a couple hundred years and at their peak around 1700. Apparently, from what I read, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams based the US Constitution on the constitution established by these Native American tribes.

Dave: Wow. That’s fascinating.

Miles: Isn’t it?

Anyway, Barb from Albany, New York writes: “Have you ever noticed that Christians are often the unhappiest people around? And they take out their unhappiness on their fellow Christians. About five years ago, I gave my heart to Christ and am so thankful to know the truths of the Bible. However, I’ve been really shocked to encounter so much criticism, back-biting and fault-finding in Christianity. I even heard one pastor preach from the pulpit that ‘Christians should be the happiest people around.’ While I agree that we should be, so many aren’t. Why do you suppose that is when we have the beauty of the gospel message, and what can we do about it?”

Dave: Hmmm. What a thought-provoking question.

Miles: Well, I hate to say it, but she’s right. There’s a huge amount of judgmentalism within Christianity and it covers the gamut. “Oh, she dresses so immodestly! She should cover up.” Or, “Can you believe the music he listens to or the movies he lets his kids watch?” to “I can’t believe they still eat meat.” Or whatever. It’s just constant criticism, fault-finding and tearing down our brothers and sisters in the faith.

Dave: Or they still use “God” and “Jesus” instead of the sacred names.

Miles: Yeah. Anything to find fault with another, they do.

Dave: And have you ever noticed that the more conservative a person gets, often the more this is a problem?

Miles: Yeah, actually, I have. So, yeah. I’m thankful for Barb’s question and have wondered about this myself. Why is criticism and fault-finding such a problem among conservative Christians and what can we do about it?

Dave: I would say the problem starts with their belief system. Christians who criticize and find fault with others have an incorrect theology.

Miles: Really! But there are so many who do, even among those who have the truth!

Dave: All right. Let me rephrase. Christians who spend their time focusing on other Christians, finding fault with the actions, beliefs, apparel, diet, entertainment, life-choices—you name it—of others, have internalized a perverted form of the gospel and the fruit of this perverted gospel is self-hatred that is seen in their critical, fault-finding attitudes.

Miles: Okay, let’s break that down. How’d you get from Point A to Point B to Point C in your conclusions?

Dave: One of the truths of Christianity is that Yahushua came as our example of what we are to be. Paul told the Corinthians that they were to imitate him just as he imitated Christ. [I Corinthians 11:1]

Miles: Yeah … I’m not seeing how that turns Christians into fault-finding, back-biting critics, though.

Dave: It comes in when you believe that by imitating Christ, Yah expects you to be perfect even though we all still have fallen natures. The truth is, as long as we have fallen natures, we’ll never be perfect.

Now, I’m saying this as someone who used to be in the camp of believing that at some point prior to Christ’s return, all true Christians would reach the point where they’d surrender so fully that they would no longer sin.

Miles: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I used to believe that, too. You surrender enough, then Christ in you does not commit sin.

Dave: But as we’ve since learned, that actually contradicts other passages of Scripture that it’s impossible for anyone with a fallen, sinful nature to live sinless lives. Now, of course, Yah’s people will fight against temptation. They’ll resist the devil, but we’ll continue to stumble and even fall so long as our very nature is sinful. And that’s not going to change until we’re gifted with a higher nature at Christ’s return.

Miles: So how does this translate into critical Christians?

Dave: Well, remember I said this comes from a “perverted” form of the gospel. If you think the gospel message is that if you surrender enough, Christ living in you won’t commit sin, then you’re under a tremendous amount of pressure to actually live a sinless life, all while still having a fallen nature.

Miles: And that’s impossible.

Dave: Of course! And no amount of sermons, admonishing believers to look to Christ and not each other is going to change the reality that we all still have fallen natures.

Not understanding that the slips and falls that will always occur with a fallen, sinful nature are coming from that and not a lack of commitment to Yah, such individuals doubt themselves. This doubt leads to fear and that fear increases with every sign that demonstrates how near Christ’s return is. Because if you believe his return is near, but you also believe you have to reach a state of perfection before he returns, you’re naturally going to be afraid that your sins are going to keep you out of the kingdom of Yah.

Miles: I can see that. And the self-doubt leads you to feel worthless.

Dave: As long as a person's internalized belief system instills fear by making him or her feel worthless, people will continue to try to make themselves feel better about themselves. That’s the key to understanding why this happens because the easiest way to make yourself feel better about your own failings is to find fault with someone who is different.

That’s where all the criticism comes in. You look at the perfection of Christ—who, as we’ve learned, was born with the nature of Adam before the fall because he was sent to redeem Adam’s failure—and you think that you, having been born with the nature of Adam after the fall—is supposed to be perfect. This simply makes you feel depressed, discouraged, and fearful of your chances of being saved.

Miles: Hmmm. That’s true. Such thinking reveals a lack of confidence in one’s own salvation.

Dave: I don’t think such people realize it, but yes. That’s exactly what it reveals. So, to make themselves feel better about their chances of being saved, it’s very easy to fall into the trap of finding fault with other believers. Not unbelievers. There’s no contest there. But they compare themselves to other believers and if they can find fault with other believers, then that gives them reassurance that they’re not so bad after all.

Miles: I can see that. And, if I’m being strictly honest, I’ve done that.

Dave: I have, too, back when I believed that I had to achieve perfection while still living with a sinful nature.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. It’s very easy to denounce and dismiss as “worldly” anyone who does not “live up to” your own self-imposed definition of righteousness, but what happens if someone with higher standards comes along? One of two things is going to happen. Either you’ll become convinced that this even higher standard is something you wish to adopt, too, which in turn gives you an added layer to find fault with others who don’t accept this “new light,” OR the other alternative is to reject it and accuse the person with the “higher standard” of being legalistic.

Miles: Yeah, I’ve seen that a lot. Been there, done that, too, I must admit.

Dave: Sure! If it’s a standard we don’t want to adopt, then the easiest way to squirm out of an unwanted obligation is to simply denounce it as “legalism.” But either way, it leaves the believer finding fault with other believers, rather than giving everyone the freedom in Christ to follow their own convictions.

Miles: Would you say … well, is it possible that this tendency has contributed to the proliferation of different denominations within Christianity? You know, that’s one thing unbelievers point to as a reason to reject Christianity. “There are so many different denominations,” they say, “you can’t agree on anything! How can any of it be right?”

Now I’m wondering if this tendency to find fault with other Christians is why there are so many different denominations.

Dave: Why, uh, how are you making that connection?

Miles: Well, when you believe that you must achieve a state of perfection prior to Christ’s return, you’re attempting an impossibility. None of us can do that so long as we still have the fallen natures we’ve inherited from Adam. So the emotional effect is self-loathing. A lot of Christians are filled with self-loathing.

Once you get people to hate themselves for just existing, it’s quite easy to get them to direct that anger at everyone else who isn’t a part of their personal belief system. Even within one’s own denomination, this rears its ugly head with some church members being denounced as more “worldly” for failing to have “high standards” when often those “high standards” are self-imposed, rather than actual Scriptural standards.

Dave: That’s quite insightful. And a split will then occur.

Sometimes, pastors try to promote cohesion and unity by saying, “Churches are hospitals for sinners, not country clubs for saints,” as though that explains the harm caused by criticizing others. But what we need to do is stay focused on the true message of the gospel, which is that when Yahushua returns to set up Yah’s everlasting kingdom, we will all be gifted with higher natures. Then and only then will we be sinless.

Miles: That’s true. That’s good.

So … that answers the “why” of Barb’s question. Now for the “how.” Now that we’re aware of this tendency, how can we as Christians stop looking to others to make ourselves feel better about ourselves?

Dave: Well, the solution is in the message of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. Why don’t you turn there and read that to us really quickly. Revelation 3.

Miles: All right, uh … Revelation 3 verses 14 to 18. It says:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of [Yahuwah’s] creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Dave: Our fear and self-loathing turns our eyes from Yahuwah and onto others. We want to tear them down to build ourselves up in our own estimation. This results in spiritual pride, the attitude that we have everything we need when all the time we’re actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.”

So what do we do? We turn to the Saviour and do exactly what he says: ask him to gift us with the gold of his faith that has been refined in the fire. This will give us confidence in Yahuwah’s love for us despite our failings. We ask him for the white raiment of his righteousness. This will preserve us from sinking into accounting ourselves pretty good at the expense of others we criticize. And we ask for eye-salve.

Miles: But wouldn’t the eye salve point out our failings, making us even more inclined to tear others down to make ourselves feel better about our chances to be saved?

Dave: When we’re gifted with divine eye-salve, we see as Christ sees. Yes, sin will become hateful to us, but with the eye salve we will truly love others as Christ did. We will realize that each individual has been shaped by their own life experiences, struggling under their own baggage of established beliefs. We will accept everyone as souls for whom Yahushua died, souls that are beloved by the Father. We certainly won’t be telling people we disagree with, “I love you but I hate your sin.”

Miles: Yeah, I don’t know where Christians come up with this stuff. Yahushua never said anything like that to someone! To the woman caught in adultery, he simply said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” He didn’t lecture her about her poor choices or how what she’d done was a sin.

Dave: And we won’t, either.

Look. It isn’t our job to convict anyone of sin. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. Our job is simply to demonstrate divine love for others in how we treat them. That’s what Yahushua did. We don’t have to look down on them, find fault with them, or criticize them for their lifestyle choices, their dietary choices, their, oh, I don’t know, the way they dress or who they choose to love. We will leave all of that in Yah’s hands because it is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict of sin. Not ours. And he doesn’t need our help! The Holy Spirit knows just how to reach the heart and will do so in the kindest, most gentle way possible.

Miles: “A bruised reed he will not break,
And smoking flax he will not quench.” [Isaiah 42:3]

Dave: Yes. That’s a prophecy of the Saviour and that’s how we will act, too. Encouraging, rather than discouraging. Building up rather than tearing down.

Knowing that it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict of sin frees us to love and accept sinners just as Christ did without lecturing them on their failings. This is what will truly show the love of Yah to the lost. And, when we know that Yahuwah doesn’t expect us to reach sinless perfection so long as we still have our fallen natures, we won’t feel the need to tear others down to make ourselves feel better.

Miles: Beautiful. That’s truly bringing the light of the gospel to those around us.

Keep sending us your questions, comments, prayer requests. We always enjoy hearing from you. Just go to WorldsLastChance.com and click on contact us.

Up next: Elise O’Brien with today’s daily promise.

* * *Daily Promise

Hello! This is Elise O’Brien with your daily promise from Yah’s word.

As a public speaker, I enjoy reading about the various ways other public speakers use to illustrate their points. I recently read of one motivational speaker, speaking to a large crowd of several hundred people, who held up a crisp 20-dollar bill.

“Who wants a 20-dollar bill?” He asked.

After a few surprised, scattered chuckles, the entire crowd held up their hands.

“Okay, I’m going to give this money to someone,” the speaker said, “but first …” and he promptly crumpled the bill in his fist.

Holding the now-crumpled bill aloft, he asked, “Now who wants it?”

Again, every hand went up. The speaker then dropped it on the stage and stomped on it. The crumpled bill was now dirty, too. Picking it up, the man asked, “Anyone still want it?”

Once again, every hand went up. Looking intently at his audience, the speaker said, “No matter what I do to this bill, I’m going to guess that you’ll still want it because no matter what I do to it, its value remains the same. The crisp, new bill was worth $20; the crumpled bill was worth $20; and the dirty, stomped-on bill is still worth $20. The value didn’t change regardless of what was done to it.”

The same holds true for you. We’re living in a sinful world. Sometimes bad things happen. We’re also living with fallen natures. Sometimes we have to deal with the consequences of poor choices and bad decisions. But regardless of what has happened or what had been done to you, regardless of the mistakes you’ve made or the choices you regret, regardless of the consequences you’re now struggling with, your worth remains the same.

In fact, you are so valuable, that Yahuwah was willing to bring forth a son to redeem you from sin. You see, the Father doesn’t want to spend eternity without you. He loves you with a love that eternity itself can never measure and, if you’re not there, He would miss you. To your heavenly Father, you are the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in a field worth sacrificing everything to obtain.

Whatever you’ve done, whatever has been done to you, you have value. You are precious in His sight.

Isaiah 43, verses 1 to 4 says:

But now, this is what Yahuwah says—
He who created you, Jacob,
He who formed you, Israel:
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
For I am Yahuwah your Elohim,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I give Egypt for your ransom,
Cush and Seba in your stead.
Since you are precious and honored in My sight,
and because I love you,
I will give people in exchange for you,
nations in exchange for your life.

We have been given great and precious promises. Go and start claiming!

* * *Part 3: New evidence for the trinity! Or not?

Miles: I appreciated today’s study. It never hurts to re-examine our beliefs or look at new evidence. Like you said earlier, it will either confirm our beliefs or teach us something new.

Dave: And we don’t need to be afraid of learning something new. We’ll spend eternity learning new things. You really think we’re going to learn it all this side of eternity?

Miles: No!

From what I’ve observed, though, people tend to be afraid to look at new ideas. It’s like there’s this idea that if they even give space in their heads to consider some new idea or doctrine, they’ll be wandering onto enchanted ground. Then the devil will catch them in his snares and they’ll be deceived against their will and lost.

Dave: I know what you’re saying. I’ve encountered that belief, too. It’s never really put into words, but that feeling is there.

But let me ask you: does this really sound like something our loving heavenly Father would allow to happen? Does it really?

Miles: No, never.

Dave: In Acts, Luke tells about how Paul and Silas left Thessalonica and went to Berea. He makes an interesting statement in verse 11 of chapter 17. Would you read that for us? He’s comparing the Bereans with the Thessalonians and he gives a very interesting reason for praising the Bereans. Read it as soon as you find it.

Miles: “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”

Dave: I like that translation. The Bereans were more “fair-minded” than the Thessalonians.

Why?

They gave these new ideas, these new concepts they were hearing for the first time a fair chance. They didn’t take Paul and Silas at their word. Neither did they reject it outright simply because it was different than anything they’d previously been taught. They gave it a fair chance. They studied it out for themselves, trusting the spirit of Yah to lead them into truth.

Miles: Other translations say that they were of more “noble character” than the Thessalonians. All because they, basically, studied with an open mind!

Dave: And that’s what we need to do, too. Too many people study out new ideas just to prove it wrong. That’s not studying with an open mind! To study with an open mind means that you are willing to obey if the spirit of Yah convicts you that it’s true. That’s how the Bereans studied.

And when we do that, we can trust Yahuwah to keep our minds safe. We’re not going to be deceived against our will.

Miles: That’s true. We can always trust in the Father’s love for us.

Well, our time is up. Please join us again tomorrow, and until then, remember: Yahuwah loves you . . . and He is safe to trust!

* * *

You have been listening to WLC Radio.

This program and past episodes of WLC Radio are available for downloading on our website. They're great for sharing with friends and for use in Bible studies! They're also an excellent resource for those worshipping Yahuwah alone at home. To listen to previously aired programs, visit our website at WorldsLastChance.com. Click on the WLC Radio icon displayed on our homepage.

In his teachings and parables, the Savior gave no “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, the thrust of his message was constant … vigilance. Join us again tomorrow for another truth-filled message as we explore various topics focused on the Savior's return and how to live in constant readiness to welcome him warmly when he comes.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.