Born to be slain

Depending on your perspective, what I’m about to write will be either heresy of heresies or the deepest, fullest, grandest manifestation of love.

Christ was the “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (Jn. 1:29). He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev 13:8). He was represented by Isaac. As Isaac saved Abraham from the curse of loneliness, and through his father made his father a father of many nations—in fact the inheritor of the world (Rom. 4:13), so through Christ were all the worlds made, blessing His Father with a universe of children, and by His death He redeemed His Father from the accusations of Lucifer and simultaneously redeemed us from the curse of sin, saving His Father from losing His kingdom and forever knowing infinite loneliness, inheriting an eternal kingdom of peace and perfect righteousness. (Rev. 5:1-7).

We don’t know anything about the Arian beliefs that were attacked by the church leaders in the late third century and early fourth century. All we know of that controversy is by what church fathers wrote about them. But the characters of those church leaders are highly suspect of wholesale apostasy and perdition. Jesus said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake.” (Matt. 5:11). “When men shall....” Jesus anticipated this because He perfectly understood the unscrupulous tactics of Satan to constantly deface history and alter it for his work of deception.


“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (Jn. 8:44). In the Bible, Satan is known as “that wicked one.” (1Jn. 3:12). Even though in spiritualistic literature Satan is the great hero and martyr of a vengeful and evil God.

But Jesus was born to be slain. “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” (1Jn. 3:8).

The loudest anathemas against Arius came from Athanasius. He claimed Arius to teach that Christ was created. But, again, only fragments from Arius’ works remain extant. I believe one idea stands forth: that Arius saw great danger of pagan influence on the gospel through the new introduction of the Trinity dogma.

Obviously, as Athanasius still hated Arius with a frenetic passion over twenty years after his death, there is good reason to believe that Athanasius has not been entirely honest with us in his reproduction of The Thalia, [Arius’ full declaration of the Godhead] and may have unduly edited it, so that it suits his libellious imprecations. Even today, `Arianism' is a by-word for heresy, and modern commentators suggest that the ecclesiastical conflict which took place at Nicea was in fact a thinly disguised political conflict, and to the victor belonged the spoils…

Eventually the views of Alexander and Athanasius presided, notwithstanding the fact that in 327 A.D. Constantine regretted this decision after Constantia, his sister, persuaded him to opt for Arianism instead. At first Arius was ex-communicated, and the views of Athanasius predominated until 335 A.D. at which Athanasius was then ex-communicated  and Arius was restored to communion in the following year in 336 A.D., at which Athanasius was banished, although he had been made Bishop of Alexandria at the age of 30, after Alexander died in 328. He was allowed to return as Patriarch of Alexandria when Constantine died in 337. Coincidentally, Arius died the previous year in 336, when he was eighty years old. His enemies believed that this was nothing short of divine intervention, as God was seen to be wreaking vengeance upon the cursed heretic who troubled the Church of God - when in fact it is far more likely that his death resulted from being poisoned by his enemies - which his friends charged his enemies with at that time. Taken from  http://www.agapetruth.com/page3.php

Could the holy fathers ever do such a thing as poisoning? All we have to do is look at the intrigues of the vile king of the north in Daniel 11.

“And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.” (Dan. 11:21-23).

This symbolic language speaks of the early efforts of the workers of iniquity to create what became the catholic (universal) church—the destruction of all opposition in order to establish an absolute power over the world that the dragon (Satan) could use to subjugate mankind in his pernicious and inescapable grip.

Paul said that Imperial Rome staved off the later religious phase of Rome, the papal Roman church. “And now ye know what withholdeth [Imperial Rome] that he [Papal Rome] might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he [Imperial Rome] who now letteth [holds back] will let [will continue to hold back], until he [Imperial Rome] be taken out of the way.” (2Thess. 2:6,7). The Germanic tribes broke up Imperial Rome, and three of the ten tribes, the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, that rejected the primacy of the pope but had the Bible and accepted Arius’ teachings (what little of it that we know), were destroyed by war, in accordance with Daniel’s chapter 7 prophecy. “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.” (Dan. 7:24). Then the way was cleared to exalt the high priest of the new official religion of Rome, one bound for universal power over the conscience—the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

According to Paul, the great “falling away” of the church would result in the “man of sin” being “revealed, the son of perdition”, “the mystery of iniquity” “that Wicked [one]” whom the Lord would consume with the spirit of His mouth. (2Thess. 2:3,7,8). He would superimpose himself onto Christ and then take His place in the hearts of the church (Dan. 8:11;11:31). The new covenant Christ brought to mankind (Heb. 7:12), the “man of sin” would use to change the holy law of God and overthrow the new covenant (Dan. 7:25;8:11; Dan. 11:22). The apostolic church which would begin as the grain of a mustard seed in size and slowly, tenderly grow into the strongest of kingdoms (Matt. 13:31-33), Satan would imitate slowly but violently  (Dan 11:23; Matt. 16:6). Christ’s work of submitting the Jews to the truth (Rom. 11:7) the son of perdition would supervise and bring Babylonian Judaism back to life within Christianity (Rom. 10:1-3; 1Tim. 4:1-3; Rom. 11:26; 1Tim. 1:7). The worship of God (Jer. 31:33,34) would be supplanted by the worship and obedience to a man, purportedly the Vicar of Christ. (Dan. 11:36,37). And they would claim to decide all biblical truth.

According to Roman Catholic sources, the term Trinity, in relation to the Godhead, did not come until approximately 150 AD.

“Yet, the idea of the trinity was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century.
One of the so-called Montanist Oracles, spoken by Montanus was:
‘I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete.’” (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosophy%20and%20Religion/rel_241/texts/montanism.html 01/31/06).”

Much has been written concerning the history of Arianism. The earliest church leaders after John died never espoused Trinitarianism. They were Binitarians and spoke of the Holy Spirit as the power of Christ or of God, the “finger of God”. It was not until Origen (185-254), and Clement (150-215) that the idea of Trinitarianism began to be tossed about the church.

But, the earliest fathers, Melito (died c. 180), Ignatius (martyred c. 117),  Polycarp (69-155) mentioned only the Father and Son as God, the Holy Spirit also being mentioned, but not as a person and not as God. Mithraism was the official religion of the Roman Empire. Mithraism has its trinity, which became the prize to be sought for Christianity, which Paul saw beginning in his day, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” he had told the Thessalonians. (2Thess. 2:7).

I must add: “It is the spirit of the papacy—the spirit of conformity to worldly customs, the veneration for human traditions above commandments of God...”  Great Controversy, p. 573.

“Then said He unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.” (Eze. 8:12). Paganism’s atheism had settled into the church and the leaders, and people had no more fear to alter and adapt their one true religion to the world’s one false religion.

What did the earliest Christians believe about the Godhead? Polycarp (69 – 155), who was instructed by John —“Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians in APOSTOLIC FATHERS (as translated by J.B. LIGHTFOOT) 12:6,7).”

“To insure that people would be forced into accepting the Trinity, shortly after the 381 council, Emperor Theodosius’ declared:
…let us believe in the one deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second the punishment of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict... (Theodosian Code XVI.1.2. Cited in Bettenson H, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, London: Oxford University
Press, 1943, p. 31).
The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental for the Christian faith, even though the doctrine was not clearly formulated and generally accepted by an ecumenical council until the fourth century. The Council of Chalcedon, the decisions of which were reaffirmed at the Trullanum of 680-681, gave us the formulation of Christological doctrine we now call orthodox. Why did it take over two centuries for debate to cease on a topic, only to leave us with what was already said in 451?...Is it possible to say that Chalcedon politics created theology? There can be no doubt that political factors played a role, and a very important one...The formula for laying the Trinitarian and Christological controversies to rest was spelled out at Chalcedon in 451, although it took more than two centuries to accomplish this goal (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 127,192-193,194).”
If we believe we should allow for 200 years of development for Christian doctrine, then we must abrogate the warning of inspired, sacred scripture,

“Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1-6).

 “Although Eusebius led the biggest group at this Council, after an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he was dressed as a golden "angel"), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius (Emperor Constantine was familiar with a Trinitarian viewpoint as he had practiced Mithraism, which had a type of triad leading it, see Do You Practice Mithraism?). And because of Athanasius' speech and the Emperor’s approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement that the Arians could not support. This solved the Emperor’s concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out. But even some of the strongest supporters of Athanasius’ position, such as Marcion of Ancyra, actually did not believe in the trinity as now taught (that is why this paper used the term "Proto-Trinitarians" above).

Also notice that the Emperor Constantine was heavily involved:
Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of Trinitarian orthodoxy.  It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists. (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 332-333).

Thus a pagan emperor, proposed and militarily imposed, a doctrine on his own. And this did not come from the Bible into the world’s largest churches, but from a pagan (Constantine still honored the pagan sun deities after his supposed conversion to Christianity and was not even baptized into the world’s church until his death bed--and even then he insisted upon being buried in a grave dedicated to a pagan deity).” Taken from http://www.cogwriter.com/trinity.htm, p. 15,16.

What all this says is that history could not be blotted out, as the church attempted. The philosophical Trinity, born from heathen religions that warred against Lucian’s, Eusebius’, and Arius’ work to bring in a more biblically sound truth of the Godhead has been unearthed, though buried under a millennium of anathemas and accusations of heresy.

So, what is the truth of the Godhead? What are God and His plan of salvation really all about? How is the Godhead understood with the backdrop of the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

Regardless of what is written of Arius, Adventist non-trinitarians never say that the Son of God was  created. He was begotten, and obtained His Father’s divinity “by inheritance.” (Heb. 1:4). “For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?” (Heb. 1:5). “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Heb. 1:6). 

Begotten, Strong’s G4416, prōtotokos, means, “first-born”.

The divine Son had life in Himself, for His Father had given Him to have that divine, creative power. (See John 5:26). He had power to lay down His life and to take it up again, “This commandment have I received of My Father.” (Jn. 10:18). “All power is given unto Me….” (Matt. 28:18). The divine Son could lay claim His Father’s eternal existence, His creative power, and His authority as His own, and He was the only who could do that. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8). When was Christ given that power? At His incarnation or when He was begotten in the dim, infinite past?

I see that beyond all human comprehension, long before the first angel was created, the universe of galaxies were created by “our Father which art in heaven,” “Him that liveth for ever and ever” (Rev. 4:9,10; 5:14; 10:6; 15:7), “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come” (Rev. 1:4), “the Ancient of days” (Dan. 7:9), “who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” (1Tim. 6:15,16). From the infinity past, the Father, had foreseen a vast kingdom of angelic hosts to surround Him, and corporeal beings on untold worlds created.

This kingdom must be founded upon the principles of love and freedom of choice. Nothing less could suffice Him or endure an eternity of existence. What God does is forever. “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” (Psa. 119:160).  It infinitely saddens Him to see lives lost. But, foreknowing the potential for any created being to choose against His perfect kingdom of freedom and love, He provided the solution—even before creation began. His solution: to produce a Son to be the propitiation for its redemption should an apostasy occur.

God knew that He Himself, as sole Creator, could not cease to exist to save them, because it was impossible for the Creator of all matter, principalities, and powers to cease to exist; and if He could cease to exist, His children would cease to exist also. Therefore, He must have One like Himself, One who would think and feel as He did, who would love His children as He did to the extent of laying down His eternal existence for His usurped creation. And the crux of saving the kingdom from the power of sin, which tore the Son of God apart in the Garden of Gethsemane, had unending eons of preparation. The infinity with His Father could alone fully prepare Him for the infinite wrath His Father must weigh against Him for an eternal antidote of the problem of distrust and disobedience, a problem which must never happen again.

In love for His future created children, the Father would beget the divine Son, the Son of His love and a Son as equally self-sacrificing as He was. In His plan, both He and the Son of His love would die together, descending into the impenatrable shock of infinite separation for three days, in order to save His family in heaven and earth.

So, with the full knowledge of a potential great controversy; having His plan to put down the rebellion and to save His unfallen hosts and His fallen favorite world; and, long before the past billions of years which the theory of evolution so pettily throws around, God brought forth His most precious divine Prōtótokos, “that holy Thing,” His only begotten Son, Michael “who is like God,” His second self, slain from the foundation of the universe.

“Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.” In the infinite ages past, His Son was the ready-made remedy for the coming emergency; having His holy Father’s character, “who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3), the Son of God came into existence ready to end His existence, as His beloved Father willed. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:9,10).

Both God and His Son worked together to create the spiritual hosts of heaven and all the corporeal worlds, save one: Earth. God reared up His Son after His image and character. Michael was intimately involved in every nuance of the divine government and every event in the lives of each individual angel or being on the worlds, for thus the Father saw that its existence would be infinitely ingrained into the soul of His Son. He was God’s mouthpiece, and though fully involved with the creation and government of the new kingdom, afterward, His only manifested work was as divine spokesperson, the Word of God.

Then God, through His Son, made His angelic hosts, of which Lucifer rose as the crème of the crop. Lucifer thus became the eldest son of the angelic hosts and thus, their tutor and guide. Having awakened from non-existence in the presence of God and His Son, Lucifer saw his position as high priest of the angelic family as slightly less than the position Michael held. But, over time he saw his privileged status among the angels to be superior to the Michael’s, since he led out in all the commands given from God through His royal Son.

The great controversy had begun, but not before the Son of God was firm as a Rock in His Father’s character and divine power. Not until Lucifer rose up and slandered the King did he realize that the Son had been greater than he. But, in his mind it was too late; he had been poisoned by pride and self-glory, and had publicly committed himself to overthrowing the divine government.

Lucifer had no idea of the plan of saving the kingdom dwelling in the heart of God since eternity and which was already developed in His holy Son. Though deception would be Satan’s continual weapon against God and he felt able and wise enough to out-general Michael, God would have a more powerful weapon that Satan could never have—self-sacrificing love seen in every look and action and word from Michael, who would be incarnated as the Messiah.