Contents:
Is saving faith the kind of belief that is based on authority as opposed to reason? Thomas Aquinas, following Tertullian, thought that faith is belief that is based on authority and not on reasons. For Thomas, what a person accepts by reason is called knowledge, and what a person accepts on authority is called faith. One cannot both know and believe P. This gives rise to another important issue in the discussion of faith in general, not just saving faith: What is the relation between faith and knowledge?
Can we know and believe the same thing? This points out another important issue of whether a person needs to understand something to believe it. Is it faith — to understand nothing? Here, we see that Calvin disagreed with Aquinas onimplicit faith and onthe relation of faith and knowledge. First, Calvin clearly affirms the idea that a person can know the same thing that he believes. Second, he suggests that the object of saving faith is Biblical truth i. This brings to light another important issue: What is the object of saving faith?
Does saving faith have, as its object, a person, some propositions, or both? Notitia traditionally corresponds to knowledge or understanding. Assensus refers to assenting to the truth of what is understood.
Fiducia is puzzling, however. However, what should be noticed here is that this threefold distinction means to say that faith is something distinct from mere understanding with assent. Many English-speaking theologians have used this threefold distinction and have variously described what they take to be the extra element in faith under the title of fiducia, whether that be commitment, obedience, repentance, resting, trust, transformation, etc.
For Owen, saving faith is the kind of belief that is based on authority. In certain cases, this seems right. Second, Hodge seems to be saying that saving faith is simply regarding something as true, namely the Gospel. Can a man literally believe a certain proposition with his mind but disbelieve the same exact proposition with his heart? In , Jonathan Edwards wrote Religious Affections and argued against this kind of faculty psychology, making the point that affections such as love, joy, etc.
Today, however, it is more natural for people to accept faculty psychology, drawing distinctions between what one believes with his head his intellect and what he believes with his heart his emotions and desires. One theologian has suggested that this is due to the influence of Freudian ideas, which raises another important issue: Does a person need to literally believe with his mind and his heart, or is this basically a metaphor for believing as a unified person? Machen thought that the Scriptures do not provide a full analysis of what it means to believe something. The Scriptures are not a psychology or philosophy textbook.
Is a person aware of his beliefs? Do you believe that 5 x 13 is 65? If so, when was the last time you were aware of this belief? Maybe in high school? Probably, you are not aware of most of your beliefs. Simply put, your occurrent beliefs are the ones that you are consciously aware of. Your dispositional beliefs are the ones that you do not have in mind. This distinction will be applied to the discussion of saving faith in future subsections.
If Vasily believes that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, it seems natural to say that Vasily also believes that Jesus was in the grave for less than 4 days, and also that he was in the grave for less than 5 days, and also that he was in the grave for less than 12 days. Each of these seems to be a belief which Vasily holds about Jesus, yet Vasily has probably never possessed the occurrent belief that Jesus was in the grave less than 56 days.
The way this is commonly expressed is to say that Vasily possesses implicit beliefs such as that Jesus was in the grave less than 56 days because of his explicit belief that Jesus was in the grave for 3 days. Here is one way this could affect our doctrine of saving faith. However, Tino might point out to him that Sergei had believed that there is no one good except God for at least a year.
Here, Tino might try to argue that Sergei believed that he was a depraved sinner implicitly because he already had the explicit belief that nobody is good but God. Maybe this type of plausibility should cause us to guard against overly formalizing exactly what a person must be able to say he believes for us to call him a believer. Last year, I memorized the text of John 1 — 5. I even formed the belief that when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, he did so at about the 6 th hour John 4: In fact, there are times when I am totally unable to remember at what hour Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, whether he was in Jerusalem before or after he spoke to her, and whether the disciples were indignant at Jesus for speaking to her.
In my thinking, the answer is no, since a forgotten belief ceases to be a belief. But this seems problematic for certain reasons too hard to discuss here. This relates to saving faith in multiple ways, such as, I might wonder if it is possible for me to forget some of the beliefs through which I was saved at first. However, as it turned out, the woman was Tamar, his daughter in law. Judah would have sincerely denied the statement: Tamar is a prostitute, yet the Scriptures teach that he had the belief, the woman with the covered face is a prostitute. Does Judah believe that his daughter in law is a prostitute?
This is typically referred to as the distinction between de re and de dicto beliefs. Judah holds a de re belief that the woman with the covered face, who happens to be Tamar, is a prostitute but he does not hold the de dicto belief that Tamar is a prostitute. A simplistic way of explaining the distinction is that a de re belief is a belief in a proposition whose subject is obscure while a de dicto belief is belief in a proposition whose subject is clearly identified.
This relates to saving faith because, while Aaron might believe that Premillenialists are ignoramuses, if it just so happens that God is a Premillenialist, we might wonder if Aaron believes that God is an ignoramus. However, based on this discussion it would be wrong to conclude that Aaron does not have saving faith since he believes that God is an ignoramus only in a de re sense, but not in a de dicto sense.
Aaron believes that the Apostle Peter was crucified upside down, that his wife is at home, and that he is currently eating a lobster tail. The first belief he realizes is based on controversial historical evidence. The second he takes for granted, but he recognizes that she could have gone to the store or walked outside to take out the trash.
The third belief he regards as nearly certain. Therefore, he is most confident in the third belief, a little less confident in the second, and even less confident in the first belief. This suggests that beliefs have degrees of strength. Some have characterized belief P as thinking P is more probable than not-P. Thus, Aaron believes that his wife is currently at home if he thinks that it is more probable that his wife is at home than not. This model seems a bit disturbing when applied to Christian belief. Occasionally, I find myself in a situation where I doubt the Bible.
Yet there are other times when I have no doubts. This suggests that the strength of my belief in the Bible varies day by day. However, I think it is quite obvious that beliefs can be characterized as strong and weak and that our beliefs vary in strength throughout time. Given this, is there a certain strength that has to accompany belief in Jesus? The Scriptures talk of being assured of salvation. Consequently, when we see fruit in our lives, our belief that we are saved becomes stronger.
On the other hand, believers often find themselves doubting their salvation and doubting the truth of the Bible. It can also be characterized as weak belief. The doctrine of eternal security leads me to expect that a believer, though he may doubt the Christian faith at times when he has weak belief, will never lose his faith entirely. Mike has been told that the Scriptures are true, and his parents have explained that he will be disciplined accordingly if he does not follow them. There may be a sense in which Mike might accept that the Scriptures are true while not holding the belief that the Scriptures are true.
In such a case, Mike accepts the Scriptures to avoid being disciplined and to make his life easier, and he might even say that he believes that they are true, but it is possible that he does not actually think they are true. Another example is a scientist who accepts a certain theory on which to base his research. Since scientific theories are always being revised, it is reasonable and practical for a scientist to accept a theory and behave as if he thought it were true i. One may behave as if the Scriptures are true, without thinking they actually are true. I think it is the latter which saves.
We try to build a rich and fulfilling life through many things family, friends, career, hobbies, etc. Some of these things can be satisfying and some can end up being destructive.
To celebrate the Trinity is to be in the “communion of the Holy Spirit”' (2 Spirit; the mystery of a God who cares for us like a loving parent, who lays down his life. How often do we think about the deep meaning of these words and this . Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation – Born on the wings of. The god of the New Atheists Putting aside the details page 40 http://www. bahana-line.com or.
The purpose of Foundations classes at LifePointe is to use an overview of the Bible to build a solid foundation for being a lifelong follower of Christ. If you are a new Christian, congratulations and welcome to the family! We trust that these classes will introduce the basic principles and concepts for your life as a Christ-follower and that the Holy Spirit would apply what we learn here to your own life. If you have already been walking in the Christian faith for a long time, it is good to constantly refresh your understanding of the basics.
We trust that these classes will strengthen your foundation and that the Holy Spirit would even also shed new light on things that you may have already learned. Either way, the ultimate purpose is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. To the right we have wiccan chalices or goblets if you like, which are used by witches in their practises. And what is the symbol on it? And why would that be? Because witches communicate with Satan.
So we should not be at all surprised to find this symbol there. The next one to the left is from a TV series about three witches, not four witches but three witches interestingly enough. And likewise the symbol they use is the symbol of the sun god or the three in one god. It seems that the world is being trained to accept something and so we need to be very selective in what we watch and expose ourselves to.
And here are another three. The Aquarian Conspiracy with the three interlocking 6's, The Craft, which if you look carefully has a small triquetra in the middle of the cover. And last is the witches Book of Shadows. And what is the symbol there enlarged? Once again we have the symbol of the sun god, the three in one god, and the symbol for Satan. So this is the witches book of shadows and they make their intentions very plain and do not hide who their loyalties belong to.
As shocking as this may be, you will also find this symbol on some editions of the New King James Bible and the New International Version of the Bible. So this symbol has even found its way onto the Bible where it does not belong. This is not a symbol of the God of the Bible but the sun god. When you read inside the cover of the Bible, if it has the triquetra on it, the description there will tell you it is the ancient symbol of the trinity. Yet these symbols belong to Satan and the three in one sun god. A symbol of the worship of the devil. Compare the top and bottom row of pictures in the image to the right.
The bottom row are Christian book covers and the bottom middle picture is a book on the trinity. This is the ultimate deception when the author is teaching the unbiblical and pagan three-in-one trinity doctrine. But then also uses the pagan imagery that represents the true satanic origin of this doctrine by using things such as sun haloes around the heads of what are supposed to represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did you notice the same sun haloes on both rows?
You will also note the triangles around the heads on the bottom left and right with one having three circles representing the sun and the other with one circle representing the sun and the rays of light within. The pagan imagery is blatantly obvious and appears many times in each image so coincidence is an impossibility.
Much of the pagan imagery used in ancient times was often carved or engraved in stone and something that God abhors and ordered it to be destroyed. Trinitarians, such as those who write these books, will deny or change the truth in support of their belief and say that the trinity does not have its roots in paganism, but the weight of evidence is overwhelming and cannot be avoided. As all the experts say, the three in one god is not found explicitly in scripture but it is in paganism from the worship of the sun god. The bishops that formulated the trinity doctrine were the beginnings of the Papal Church that outlawed Sabbath keeping in favour of Sunday worship that came from sun worship, as well as purgatory and dozens of other unbiblical teachings that have their roots in paganism.
These bishops who formulated the doctrine of the trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and there can be no doubt this influenced their religious views and teaching. The pagan Babylonian priests had a chief priest who held the title Pontifex Maximus translated to Latin meant that he was head pagan priest or literally the Greatest Pontiff.
So who is Pontifex Maximus and head priest of Babylon now? So he has the number ! So guess where else we find this satanic symbol called the triquetra? God gave us this information and so many have missed it because they are too busy worshipping the gods of Babylon. By the second century, faithful members of the true Church had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution and were mostly underground. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity.
The Church that was above ground grew in power and influence, and within a few short centuries came to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! Now Satan desired to be worshipped like the most High Isaiah So sun worship gave rise to Sunday worship in the Church instead of the true day of worship being the Seventh day that we call Saturday, as well as the pagan three in one trinity doctrine.
Paganism eventually became mingled with Christianity and was officially adopted by the Papal Church. Many Catholics deny this ever happened but their own Church admits that it is true. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation and even to make it her boast… the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized. So it is not surprising that the two things the Roman Catholic Church mock Protestants for are the two things they brought into the Church that are pagan, and both originated from sun worship, which was Satan worship from Babylon. If only more Christians had a desire to learn the real truth instead of defending what Satan has brought into the Church.
The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath Saturday to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday. What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general?
It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun , to which it was sacred. I highly recommend watching the entire video for the rest of the story that I have not covered above. You will find it at the bottom of this page or by selecting the link above.
So now we know the absolute origins of the trinity doctrine but very few understand how it came to be accepted by the Church several centuries after the Bible was completed. And as you have just seen, its roots go back much farther in history. By late in the first century as we see from 3 John , conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!
It was not long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism , common in the Roman Empire at the time , took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.
We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about A. Ignatius of Antioch was a student and disciple of the Apostle John whom God trusted the book of Revelation.
Note below from John's disciple some of the different errors that were creeping into the early Church. Would John have corrected Ignatius if he was in error? And most significantly, note that Ignatius did not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one god or that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. And since Ignatius was John's disciple, what did he teach his student? Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person , and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.
Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. Those who reject the pagan three in one god principle are typically called heretics today, and yet in John's time it was the other way around. Never underestimate Satan to turn truth into error and error into truth.
These four verses from John are the only Scriptures in the entire Bible that use the word antichrist. You will note that John says that these people he called antichrist used to be part of the early Church but apostatized and went out on their own see green highlighted text and were in the world in his lifetime see blue highlighted text. Thus these people John is calling antichrist used to be with them and were professed Christians, but they began teaching something that was wrong. So what error did they teach that caused John to call them antichrist?
But how does a Christian deny the Father and the Son? Read on and find out as this is clearly a salvation issue. He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. In the video further below you will learn that the beloved Apostle John had two students that he taught. Under the guidance and direction of John's teachings, they taught that Jesus was the literal Son of God. One of these students Ignatius of Antioch as just seen above stated that some were wrongly teaching that all three are one god just as the trinity doctrine teaches today, and also states that this was antichrist.
So who was John calling antichrist? Those who were teaching that all three are the one same god! Why is this antichrist? Because teaching all three are the same one god denies there is a literal Father and Son and so it denies both the Father and Son. The trinity doctrine claims it was the one God playing the role of the Son who died on the cross and hence denies that Jesus came in the flesh as the Son of God! Note carefully 1 John 2: The trinity doctrine claims it was the one God who died on the cross and not the literal Son of God, and hence denies that Jesus came in the flesh as the Son of God!
This is a startling revelation that reveals the truth and the seriousness of this matter. This is the main reason the Bible teaches that the Papal Church is antichrist. Antichrist is not one man such as the pope as wrongly taught today. It is the entire Catholic system. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church. It is antichrist because it denies Jesus because it denies He is truly the literal Son of God who came in the flesh. Note that Ellen White also confirms the above information, so if you choose to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one as the trinity doctrine teaches, then John would actually call you antichrist.
This is very serious if you value your salvation! And many shall follow their pernicious ways. Here the apostle has pointed out one of the marked characteristics of spiritualist teachers. They refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. Concerning such teachers the beloved John declares: He is antichrist , that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. Spiritualism, by denying Christ, denies both the Father and the Son, and the Bible pronounces it the manifestation of antichrist.
White, PP , p. So consistent with what the Apostle John said, these spiritualist teachers are Christians that are denying the Father and Son which in turn denies Jesus is the Son of God. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. White, RH , March 8, , p. While Ellen White did not use the word trinity, her husband did.
Please watch and listen carefully to this short video that discusses what Tertullian believed as well as two students of the Apostle John that give light to what was just discussed. So this was the setting in which the doctrine of the trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He God appearing as a man?
Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the trinity, the true Church of God was largely absent from the scene as it was eventually driven underground.
For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error. This is a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars. A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicea in modern-day western Turkey in A.
Constantine, although held by many to be the first Christian Roman Emperor, was actually a sun worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. Many are also unaware that Jews are non-Trinitarian and always have been! So what does that mean in relation to Jesus and the apostles? As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified.
He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. But now Constantine faced a new challenge.
Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in the year A. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound. Arius was a priest from Alexandria in Egypt who supposedly taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was begotten, or created or established. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.
The decision as to which view the Church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius. As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding Church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned.
It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear. But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus the victorious sun god. Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination. With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius which was also a minority view.
The Church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending. Constantine is also believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed being Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. He also exiled the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in the condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea. However, there is no evidence that Constantius II who was his son and successor was exiled for being an Arian Christian.
The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia to be burned, which was the book in which Arius expressed his teachings. The groundwork for official acceptance of the trinity was now laid, but it had taken more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge! Several years later Constantine became more lenient toward those he had condemned and exiled at the council.
These two and other friends of Arius worked towards getting Arius returned. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in A. So Arius was returned from exile when he suddenly died an abysmal death on the way. Some historian Scholars believe that Arius was poisoned by his opponents and question if Athanasius arranged it.
Either way, Constantine who was now an Arian ordered Athanasius exiled. Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour and when Constantine accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason , ]. Note that all references to Arius presented outside of this section is the generally accepted historical view. But there is more to the generally accepted historical view that has been covered up as you are about to see. Those who understand how the Papal Church came to rule for years known as the dark ages also know they had to uproot three opposing kingdoms.
But did you ever notice that these were all Arian tribes? We know Athanasius taught the unbiblical pagan view, and that the Catholic Church is known for casting truth to the ground as explained in scripture, so it would certainly make sense that the Arians actually had Biblical truth and explains why these Arian tribes were all destroyed. Justinian, the emperor, whose seat was at Constantinople, working through the general Belisarius, was the power which overthrew the three kingdoms represented by the three horns, and the reason for their overthrow was their adherence to Arianism in opposition to the orthodox Catholic faith.
Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet , p. Ever since the inception of the Trinity doctrine into Christianity in the 4th century, in one way or another, Trinitarians have consistently persecuted those who did not hold to the trinity faith. They generally regarded them as heretics and the record of Christian history shows this and it is still happening today! So what spirit is behind persecution? I have seen non-Trinitarians falsely accused of teaching that Christ was created as a means to discredit them.
When the accusers were corrected, they still continued with their false accusations even though they knew it was not true. This of course is dishonest and can only be a deliberate attempt at discrediting non-Trinitarians. Did this same thing happen to Arius? Were rumours started to say that he taught Christ was created when in fact he did not, and was just a means of discrediting him to help the pagan doctrine of the trinity take hold?
The decree banishing Arius was shortly so modified as simply to prohibit his returning to Alexandria. The Catholic Church exerted all her power to destroy any records of what Arius believed. The only records we have are those that either fell through the hands of the Catholic power, or those which they have chosen to keep, whether in their original form or altered by them.
It is doubtful if many believed Christ to be a created being. Generally, those evangelical bodies who opposed the papacy and who were branded as Arians confessed both the divinity of Christ and that He was begotten, not created, by the Father. They recoiled from other extreme deductions and speculations concerning the Godhead. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant , p. Phillipus Limborch doubts that Arius himself ever held that Christ was created instead of being begotten [Footnote: Limborch, The History of the Inquisition, page 95].
So how was the trinity doctrine finally established? Was it through careful study of the Scriptures by all parties to establish what the truth was? It happened through decades of persecution and bloodshed and by the Papal Church murdering the three Arian tribes that opposed them! The Trinitarian view was won by taking out the opposition. It is interesting that the history of the Arian controversy has been so well hidden that it is hard to determine just what Arius believed.
Yet it seems doubtful that all the accusations brought against Arius and those of like persuasion are accurate. It had become the general rule to brand all those who did not subscribe to the trinity doctrine as Arians. Since it is commonly thought that Arians believe that Christ is a created being, and thus not divine, it has been the continual accusation that if you deny the trinity doctrine, you believe that Christ is a created being, and deny the divinity of Christ. This accusation, when applied to those who dissented from the accepted teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject, has seldom been accurate.
I have very reluctantly quoted mainstream history elsewhere in this document but I think other historical evidence reveals the real truth. Looking at the background of Athanasius and Arius for example sheds a lot of light. Since the trinity doctrine belongs to Satan, then we can expect him to do all he can to protect his counterfeit. That would mean hiding any false teaching from Athanasius but doing all he can to condemn Arius by having history altered, false rumours spread and destroying what Arius did believe, which we know was actually done. The Catholic Church are known experts at this.
Since Satan has this base covered, what one can do instead is look at the people Athanasius and Arius received their education from and see what they taught and then the truth becomes very clear. Athanasius who came up with the Catholic Trinitarian view was very strongly influenced by the writings of Origen who was a Greek philosopher and theologian who reinterpreted Christian doctrine through the philosophy of neo-platonism. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher.
He castrated himself in a lecture in front of his students based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh among other strange practices. Origen also wrote that the creation account in Genesis is a fictitious story. His work was later condemned as unorthodox. Arius on the other hand was a student of Lucian of Antioch Lucian was responsible for producing what is known as the Textus Receptus that was later restored by Erasmus, and is what gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.
This excerpt speaks volumes. Although some of his opinions turned out to be heretical by later standards of orthodoxy, he was never condemned or even harshly criticized. So what was Satan's goal? Make sure the truth is discredited and that those teaching his counterfeit can do no wrong. The following author states that the influence of Origen on the writings of Athanasius is seen throughout his work.
Still, the influence of Origen is felt throughout the work, particularly in Athanasius' opening statements about the existence or rather, non-existence of evil and the refutation of various dualistic cosmologies. There can be no doubt that Athanasius incorporated neo-platonism into his works and was greatly influenced by Plato, Origen and Greek philosophy rather than following the true meaning of Scripture. Origen was a student of the humanistic philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and Ammonius and he altered the Bible to make God's Word say what he wanted it to say.
Origen was also a student of Clement of Alexandria who sought to combine Greek philosophy with Christianity as many religions do today corrupting Christianity by combining it with pagan ideas. As previously seen, the trinity doctrine is not found in Scripture but it is found in Greek philosophy and paganism. So the trinity was not derived from scripture but was conceived in philosophy. Note the definition of neo-platonism.
A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century a. It is based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual soul can be mystically united. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology. Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head?
When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictitious stories of things that never actually happened , and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries. Malaty, Before Origen , p. He was a just a good man with very high morals. He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory, transubstantiation, transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul. He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened.
The Scriptures were not literal. He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it. Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers. Origen's belief system clearly indicates that he was a Gnostic Greek Philosopher and not a true child of God.
Now let's look at how much influence Lucian had on the teachings of Arius and if he was grounded in the Word. It was Antioch where Lucian was taught to love and obey God's Word as a child and is also where the disciples were first called Christians. Two movements were forming within the early Christian Church. The Churches in Rome looked to the famous college at Alexandria for spiritual guidance, while the Syrian's trusted their leaders in Antioch to guide them.
Lucian taught that the Church must choose obedience to the Bible rather than allowing manmade traditions to creep into worship. It was Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius who were affiliating themselves with heathenism and hence came the doctrine of the trinity. Lucian on the other hand was the other based on the deep foundations of the Christian faith that produced the Textus Receptus which gave us the trusted New Testament of the KJV Bible.
Its thought was influenced by Plato: Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members. When Babylon was conquered in B. C, the Babylonian pagan priests went to Rome and Alexandria and took their pagan teachings with them. It was about B. Hebrew students were taught to accept manmade traditions and to look for mystical meanings in Scripture rather than accept the plain teachings of the Bible. Lucian was aware that the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of their faulty teaching in Alexandra.
Lucian undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew. By comparing the Greek text with Hebrew grammatical styles, and giving priority to the literal sense, Lucian sought to limit the symbolical interpretation characteristic of the Alexandrian Egyptian allegorical tradition which incorporated pagan philosophy into Christianity. Lucian's influence permanently oriented Christian theology towards historical realism in its debate with classical non-Christian thought.