The Lord Jesus Christ and The Divine Trinity

 

by Philip N. Odhner

The One Infinite God.

Swedenborg teaches that there is one Infinite Supreme Being who created the universe and all things in it out of His Divine Love and Wisdom.

The human mind can see that God is infinite. For if God were finite, or limited, there would have to be something that made Him finite and limited. And in that case that thing which made Him finite and limited would be the real source and origin of all things, and thus would be the real God. So also the human mind can see that God is eternal. For if God were not eternal, then He had a beginning in time. And if He had a beginning in time, then there was something previous to Him from which He had origin, and that previously existing thing would be God.

Because God is infinite and eternal, He is one. There cannot be two infinite Beings. If there were two or more supposedly infinite Beings, one would limit and finite the other, and thus neither would be infinite. To think or speak of two or more infinite Beings is a contradiction in itself. Such an idea cannot enter the understanding of man.

That the one infinite God is Wisdom can be seen by man from a view of the starry heavens, in which the suns and planets can be seen held in a wonderful order. It can be seen also from a view of anything in nature in its smallest parts. For the microscope reveals the most wonderful order in the least things of creation, even as the telescope reveals such an order in the greatest things.

God is Love. This can be acknowledged by man from the fact that the order existing in the created universe bespeaks a Divine Purpose therein. And especially can it be seen that God is Love in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who showed forth the most perfect love for the eternal salvation of the whole human race.

The Divine Purpose in Creation.

God is Love and Wisdom. In all that He does His Love and His Wisdom are present. Everything that exists is therefore part of His Purpose in creation. But what is the Divine Purpose in creation? Can this be expressed in a way that the human mind can grasp? Swedenborg teaches as follows: "There are two things that make the Essence of God. Love and Wisdom; but there are three things that make the essence of His Love: to others outside of Himself, to will to be one with them, and to bless them from Himself. . . . These things of the Divine Love were the cause of the creation of the universe and are the cause of its conservation." (The True Christian Religion, 43, 46.)

It is the nature of love to love others outside of self, to will to be conjoined with them in love, and to make them happy. This is evident in all true human relationships. It is preeminently true of God. In Him is all life, all love and all wisdom. His will therefore is to create others outside of Himself whom He can bless with the gift of His Life, His Love, His Wisdom. His will is to give to others that which is in Him. This is the cause of all creation.

But God, being infinite, cannot create another infinite Being, or another God or gods, to receive His Love and Wisdom. It is impossible for there to be two or more infinite Beings. If there were a God from God, that God from God would either have to be not infinite and not eternal, and thus not a real God, or He would have to be infinite and eternal and thus absolutely one with the first God. For God to create and love another God would thus be God loving Himself in Himself. And this is contrary to the essence of God, which is to love others outside Himself.

God could not create others who have life and love and wisdom in themselves, but He could create finite beings who could be formed into vessels of His Life and Love and Wisdom. For this reason God first created the physical universe. Out of His own Love and Wisdom, which are the origins of all life and motion, He made the physical universe and the dead and inert matters therein. Some idea of how God so created the physical universe out of His Love and Wisdom can be gathered from the discoveries of modern science, in which it is seen that the dead and inert matters of the earth are in fact composed of things in the highest motion.

Out of the dead and fixed things of nature God formed vessels which can receive His Life. These vessels are men, the human race. These vessels God gifts with liberty and rationality, so that they can if they will receive understanding from God in ever increasing measure, and by the perfection of their lives receive the Love of God in ever increasing measure. These vessels can become images and likenesses of God. In such images and likenesses of God the Divine Purpose of creation can find its fulfillment, for such beings can receive God's love and wisdom freely, can feel them to be their own, and can freely return the love of God. Between the infinite God and such beings there can be eternal conjunction. In this way a true and everlasting relationship can be established between God and those created by Him outside of Himself. But because God's Love is infinite, therefore He looks to an eternal increase of those who can receive His life, and out of them He forms for Himself an eternal Heaven in an eternal world, which is the Spiritual World. In this Heaven those who have become images and likenesses of God advance forever in the understanding and love of God and their neighbors.

Consider carefully the Divine Purpose of creation here set forth. It means that God's Purpose in creating you is to make you an image and likeness of Himself, to make you an angel of heaven, to give you into eternity an increasing understanding of Him and an increasing love of what is good and true from Him. That is His interest and concern with you and with everyone in the human race.

Consider whether there can be any other cause of creation, or any other reason for your existence? Have you heard of any other explanation that is in agreement with the Scriptures and with the dictates of your own reason concerning God?

The Advent of the Lord into the World.

Swedenborg teaches that mankind in their first state of creation were as children, innocent and obedient. From the influx of the Love of God into their minds they were able to perceive the truths concerning God in all things of creation. They loved God and they loved their neighbor. This is the state of mankind that is described in the Bible as the Paradise of Eden.

But as the knowledge and the natural understanding of mankind increased, they began to feel and believe that they could lead themselves in all matters of faith and wisdom. They began to believe that they were good and wise, and denied the truth that they were only vessels of good and of wisdom from God. This is represented in the Scriptures by the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of this disorder men fell from their state of love and wisdom. More and more they removed themselves from the influx of God into their souls and minds. Finally, the human race came into a state in which the Divine Purpose of creation was threatened and the human race itself was threatened with spiritual destruction.

Because of the removal of man from his first state of reception of the Love of God, it was necessary that a new kind of conjunction between God and man should be established. This was accomplished by the coming of God the Creator into the world.

In the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were Divinely inspired and given to men by God during man's gradual decline from his first state, it is foretold and promised many times that He who created the world would come into the world to redeem and save mankind.

We here quote a few such places from the Old Testament:

"For thus saith the Lord (Jehovah) that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain. . .. He formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord (Jehovah) and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18.)

"Behold the Lord God (Lord Jehovah) will come with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him." (Isaiah 40:10.)

"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah). (Zechar. 2:10.)

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord (Jehovah), that I will raise up unto David a just Branch . . . and this is His Name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5,6.)

"And all flesh shall know that I Jehovah am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." (Isaiah 49:26.)

"For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth." (Job 19:25.)

"Let Israel hope in Jehovah ... He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." (Ps. 130:7,8.)

"Yet I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt . . . and thou shalt know no other God but me; for there is no Saviour beside me." (Hosea 13:4.)

From these passages it is clear that the Old Testament teaches that there is one God, who is called Jehovah God, and that this God calls Himself the Saviour and the Redeemer, as well as the Creator. But now consider the following passages from the Old Testament, which foretell the Coming of the Creator into the world, and which clearly refer to the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (the way of Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Isaiah 40:3.) It is said in the New Testament that this is a prophecy of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here, in the Old Testament, the one for whom John prepared the way is called Jehovah and "our God."

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14.) This prophecy is quoted in Matthew with reference to the birth of the Lord, and it is there added about the name Immanuel, "which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matt. 1:23.) Here therefore the Lord is called God with us, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

"Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord (this is Jehovah); we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation." (Isaiah 25:9.)

"Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6.)

From the above passages from the Old Testament, it is clear that the one infinite and eternal God, Jehovah God, the Creator of the universe, promised that He would come into the world, and that this promise refers to the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Swedenborg in his works shows not only that the Old Testament prophesies the coming of the Creator into the world, but also that the New Testament teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is that Creator come into the world. This is taught in John, as follows:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (or, God was the Word.) The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:1-3, 14.)

How the Incarnation of God Took Place.

But how did God come into the world, and what did He do here that brings about the Redemption and salvation of the human race and makes possible again the conjunction of mankind with Him in the reception of His Love and Wisdom?

Swedenborg teaches that God came into the world by taking on a human body by means of birth from the virgin Mary. Consider what is said in the New Testament concerning the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35.)

This teaching can mean nothing else than that the one Infinite God was Himself the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord had no human father, as do all other human beings, but the infinite and eternal God was His Father. This means that the Lord had that in Him which was infinite and eternal, that which was life in itself. But because the Infinite cannot be divided as can the finite, this also means that God Himself was in Jesus Christ.

In the Lord Jesus Christ when He was first born into the world there were two distinct natures: that which He derived from His Father, which was infinite and Divine, and that which He derived from Mary, which was merely human and which had within it the heredity of the human race.

Because the Lord had with Him that heredity from Mary, He had with Him that which was mortal and vulnerable. In the heredity from Mary was the hereditary evil of the human race. He thus took on Himself the sins and iniquities of us all, and in His life in the world He overcame those evils in Himself. In that maternal heredity, which Swedenborg calls the maternal human of the Lord, the Lord met and conquered the evils which had taken possession of human minds and bodies. Through that maternal human the hells could attack His Divine Love for the salvation of the human race, and in it the Lord from His Divine soul met and conquered that attack.

Swedenborg teaches that two things took place by the incarnation of the Divine in the Lord Jesus Christ. First, the evil of the human race, hell itself, was subjugated by the Lord. The second thing was that the Lord during His life in the world reordered that human mind and body which He assumed through Mary and conjoined and at length united it to His own Divine soul which He had from conception. This is what is called the Lord's glorification. Through His glorification the Lord put off what He had derived from Mary and put on a new Human, the Divine Human, from His own Divine soul. Thus, He made His Human Divine, and the Divine Human in Himself. Even as to the Human He became Life itself, Love itself and Wisdom itself.

As to His very soul, and also as to those things of His mind and body which the Lord had made one with the Divine, Jesus Christ was altogether one with the Father. As to those things of His human which had not yet been made Divine, He was as another person. This is why the Lord sometimes spoke of Himself as one with His Father, and at other times spoke as if the Father were another than Himself. But at His Resurrection the process of the glorification of His Human was complete, and then He was altogether one with the Father as to person and essence.

This may be illustrated in the following diagrams:

The Lord in His Human made Divine (D) is not another person than the Father, or another infinite and eternal God, but is the Father Himself clothed with the Human made Divine.

The Lord's soul was Divine from conception. It was the Father in Him. And this is why the Lord taught that the Father was in Him. As the Lord glorified His Human, so that Human also was made Divine, and this is why the Lord says that He is one with the Father.

The one infinite and eternal God, now clothed in His Divine Human, is the Lord Jesus Christ glorified. He is God made Man, and Man made God. And in His Divine Human He has power over all things in heaven and on earth, as the Lord Himself says in Matthew:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matt. 28:18.)

In the Divine Human the one infinite and eternal God has so embodied and accommodated His Divine Love and Wisdom that He may be seen and approached by man in man's fallen state. In His Divine Human He can inflow into our minds and influence us in the love of what is good and true in spite of the hereditary corruption of our nature. And in the Divine Human we can if we are willing come to the idea of God in a truly rational human form. Thus through His incarnation we can see Him and understand Him and love Him in a way that is far superior to anything that ever existed previous to His Advent into the world. For in His Divine Human the Lord is seeable, approachable, able to be understood and loved.

These things God has done out of His infinite Mercy and Love for the human race, to make possible again His Divine Purpose with men, that He might bless them with eternal life and be conjoined with them in Love.

These things are meant by this in John:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (John 1:18.)

The Fruit or result of the Advent and Glorification of the Lord may be illustrated in the following diagrams:

1. A represents the Love and Wisdom of the one Infinite God flowing into men.

    B is the interior mind of man, into which the Lord could inflow before the fall.

    C. is the conscious or external mind of man into which the Lord also inflowed through the interior mind with those before the fall.

2. After the fall of man the interior mind was blocked up with evils, and the influx of God into man was obstructed.

3. A here represents the infinite Love and Wisdom clothed in the Divine Human. By means of this accommodation God can inflow directly into the conscious mind of man and enlighten it with truth and affect it with good. Through this man receives from the Lord the ability to fight against and remove the evils obstructing the interiors of his mind.

The Divine Trinity.

The New Testament speaks of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Many have understood this to mean that God is in three Divine Persons, each of whom is infinite and eternal, and each of whom is God and Lord. But the New Testament does not speak of Persons in God at all, much less of three Divine Persons existing from eternity.

It is admitted by many that the question of how three persons make one God is past all human understanding. And because of this mystery many people do not think deeply about God, believing that their minds are not capable of entering into such thought.

What does Swedenborg teach concerning the Divine Trinity?

From what has gone before in this lecture it can be seen that the Father, the one infinite and eternal God, is not one Divine Person and the Son another Divine Person. but that they are one. as soul and body are one. The Son. the Divine Human, is the Divine Body, and the Father is the Divine Soul in that Divine Bodv. Even as the soul and body of a man are not two people, but one person, so the Father and the Son, the Divine and the Divine Human of the Lord are one Divine Person.

But what then of the Holy Spirit?

Swedenborg teaches that the Holy Spirit is the Lord's own Divine Spirit going forth from Him to men and angels. It is the Divine Love and Wisdom proceeding out of the Divine Human of the Lord to work the regeneration and salvation of mankind. This can be seen perfectly represented in the Gospel of John:

"And when He had said this. He breathed on them and said. Receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)

This was said after the Lord's Resurrection. The Holy Spirit is there represented as the Breath of the Lord. His Breath is His Divine Truth going forth from Himself to men. Swedenborg calls this the Divine Proceeding, or, the Divine Operation.

That the Holy Spirit is the Divine proceeding from the glorified Human of the Lord is also taught in these passages from the New Testament: "But this He spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:39.) The original Greek reads "The Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

"It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." (John 16:7.)

After the Lord was glorified, that is, after His Human was made Divine, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, which leads men into all truth, could come to men, because through the Divine Human the Divine Good and Truth can inflow into our minds.

The conclusion therefore is that the Divine Trinity is not a Trinity of Persons, but that it is a Trinity of essentials in the one Divine Person, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is the Divine itself, present in Him as the Soul. The Son is the Divine Human, which is the Body of that Divine Soul, and the Holy Spirit is the Divine Operation, the Divine Good and Truth proceeding from God to men.

This is taught also by Paul, in these words concerning the Lord:

"For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9.)

If you see God as one Divine Person, one Divine Man, and the Trinity in Him as Soul, Body and Proceeding, you will have an understandable idea of God and of the Divine Trinity in Him. This teaching is that which is given in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. It is the Supreme Truth concerning the Lord.

This truth may be summarized thus: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the one God of heaven and earth, that He is Jehovah, the Lord from eternity, that He is the Creator from eternity, that He is the Redeemer in time, that He is the regenerator into eternity, and thus that He is at the same time the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Lord Jesus Christ is our God. There is no other. To Him we owe all that is good and all that is true. All power in heaven and on earth is His. To Him alone should

 

 

Excerpts from Writings of Vladimir Slovyov

 

“If you say you don’t believe in God, but you do believe in the rights of every person and the requirement to care for all the weak and the poor, then you are still holding on to Christian beliefs, whether you will admit it or not. Why, for example, should you look at love and aggression—both parts of life, both rooted in our human nature—and choose one as good and reject one as bad? They are both part of life. Where do you get a standard to do that? If there is no God or supernatural realm, it doesn’t exist.”

Free Will in Historical Context

 

Compiled by Paidion

Most early Christians believed in free will, that is, the ability to choose. They denied that events were fated to occur or that God caused people to behave as they do:

100-165 AD : Justin Martyr 
“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43 ) 

[About the year 180, Florinus had affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was immediately attacked by Irenaeus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.] 

130-200 AD : Irenaeus 
“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII ) 

150-190 AD : Athenagoras 
“men...have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)...”(Embassy for Christians XXIV ) 

150-200 AD : Clement of Alexandria 
“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.17) 

154-222 AD : Bardaisan of Syria 
“How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him...And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman...they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments ) 

155-225 AD : Tertullian 
“I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5 ) 

185-254 AD : Origen 
“This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface ) 

“There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1 ) 

250-300 AD : Archelaus 
“There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32,33 ) 

260-315 AD : Methodius 
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16 )

312-386 AD : Cyril of Jerusalem 
“The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18 ) 

347-407 AD : John Chrysostom 
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12 ) 

120-180 AD: Tatian 
“We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” (Address to the Greeks, 11)

Died 180 AD: Melito
“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8, page 754)

163-182 AD:Theophilus 
“If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 27)

130-200 AD:Irenaeus
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 37)

150-200 AD:Clement of Alexandria
“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” (The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

155-225: Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. (Against Marcion, Book 2, Chapter 5)

 

Searching for Theological Truth

Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D. 27 APRIL 1997. Latest revision 10 MAR 2014. This is a non-technical article written for a general audience. 

In the Beginning in 1978, I made a fundamental scientific discovery that is used to construct significant mathematical models. This discovery allows certain theological notions to be mathematically modeled. The fundamental theory is “The Theory of Ultralogics.” Application of this theory was originally called the Grundlegend Model (i.e. G-model). The term G-model or G-structure now only refers to a set-theoretic construction. [At the end of this article, I present a brief discussion about the fundamental mathematics used to obtain this theory.] Portions of The Theory of Ultralogics are used to model attributes of God. This implies that such attributes are scientifically rational attributes. These portions were originally call the “Deductive-world (D-world) model.” The combination of the original methodology and the D-world model is now called the “GD-model.” Other portions of The Theory of Ultralogics and recent papers yield “The General Grand Unification Model (GGU-model)” and its “General Intelligence Design” (GID) interpretation. Using various descriptions from C. S. Lewis, as mentioned, the G-model was first utilized theologically to model the attributes of the Godhead and major portions of the theological doctrines described by Lewis. These mathematically obtained findings were published in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 34(1)(March 1982, pp. 17- 23). Of course, the findings were actually submitted a year or so earlier than the publication date. One problem was evident. How does one know that the Scriptures actually state that such and such is an attribute of the Godhead, or such and such is a specific theological doctrine since I had relied mainly upon the C. S. Lewis descriptions? At the time the G-model was being created (1978-1979), I attended a Lutheran Church near to my home. However, in actuality, I knew very little about the differences between the theological doctrines proclaimed by various denominations, doctrines that are contradictory. This situation needed to be corrected. Following 2 Tim 2:15, I began a study of these differences. My conclusion was that these differences, when they are compared one with another, may produce logical contradictions and, every now and then, they tend to contradict a straightforward Scriptural interpretation, as it is substantiated by the G-model. As is often claimed, many of these differences came about by what is called “revelation” as “verified” by the indwelled Holy Ghost. But this Spirit is also called the Spirit of Truth, and, in the most common sense of the term, could not uphold contradictory doctrine.

Research indicates that the original languages used within the Old and New Testaments represent the common languages used at the time the various “books” were written. Further, research proves that Biblical logic is, in general, “common logic,” what we now call the “first-order predicate” logic or the classical logic investigated partially by Aristotle. This is the “scientific” logic that is used within most scientific disciplines and is absolute in a certain sense. This logic is a “two-valued” logic. This means that a written scientific description, if that description actually corresponds to a reality, is either “true” or “false,” and not both relative to such a reality. A better way to understand this two-valued notion is that a statement that describes specific behavior can have only two outcomes. The behavior will occur, or it will not occur, and the behavior cannot both occur and not occur. Further, these ideas can be extended to the concept of what is Scripturally described as “good” or “evil.” A behavior is either “good” or “evil,” and cannot be both “good” and “evil.” I point out that this two-valued concept need not correspond to objective reality since a written statement itself need not describe objective reality.

 I concluded that in order to determine the proper theological doctrine, I would first need to ignore all doctrine presented by any of the church bodies of which I was aware and all forms of extra-biblical “revelation” as stated by any individual. The only doctrine I would accept is the doctrine stated explicitly within the Scriptures, starting with the explicit doctrine as stated by Jesus and His Apostles, and especially Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles. If I am to be judged by God relative to my theological doctrine and can obtain unbiased documentation, then I firmly believe that I cannot use the excuse that I accept such and such doctrine without investigation simply because some individuals claim that their doctrine is correct. In this case, if I am held accountable for basic doctrine, then such doctrine should be obtainable in a straightforward manner, a manner comprehended by the ordinary human being. It should be comprehensible using everyday common logic. However, an obvious problem presented itself. I was aware that not all “Bibles” are the same. Subtle changes, such as word omissions or additions, different word arrangements, and even variant translations have occurred. Thus, I needed what is the best and most unbiased source for Biblical information: Unbiased Scriptures. To ensure that I was minimally influenced by any form of Christian doctrine as stated by specific church denominations, my investigations were done in a manner that insulated me, as much as possible, from such doctrine. To investigate the Scriptures in as unbiased a format as possible, the oldest and most complete extant copies of the Scriptures that are now in existence were consulted. Specifically, these are the Sinaiticus (S), the Alexandrinus (A) and the Vaticanus (B) Greek manuscripts and some of the oldest fragments. None of these manuscripts is absolutely complete and a very minor amount of other evidence is necessary to fill in the missing sections. ((S) is the most complete where it only omits the end of Mark.) Further, the Septuagint (LXX) as contained in these manuscripts is used for Old Testament concepts as well as the Masoretic text. I point out that the LXX contained in these Greek manuscripts is not a copy of Origen’s fifth column taken from his Hexapla as some individuals have claimed. My hope was that these manuscripts would be the least altered manuscripts due to their sacred nature. My investigations indicated that in the early church great care was taken to insure the accuracy of these copies while, at the same time, doctrinal illumination was obtained by re-interpretation rather than by any significance alteration. In hand copying and editing such manuscripts, most errors constitute of omissions rather than additions. The above Greek manuscripts have been reproduced in a combined form, with their ancient editors’ remarks, noting where the manuscripts have omissions or additions. Further, a special “literal” English translation has also been created with the express purpose of presenting a translation that is as unbiased as possible relative to doctrinal interpretations and this translation is also insulated from the personal bias of the translator. Much of this material has existed since 1926, and it is published by the Concordant Publishing Concern. In this translation, certain English words are used that may not convey the actual meaning. However, when this occurs a companion Key Word Concordance gives a more complete description as to its first century meaning. The “Concordance” method used also allows the reader to decide upon the appropriate nuances determined by a word’s location within a specific section of Scripture. In order to prorogate philosophic ideas not originally presented by the Apostles, modifications were made to the basic understandings of the first-century common language terms. It was claimed that the Bible was written in a type of sacred language understandable only by a chosen few. This was shown not to be the case about 100 years ago. Further, I also used twelve distinct well-known English Bibles for comparison purposes and investigated all of the extant writings of the “Apostolic Church Fathers” and other significant “Church Fathers” through Aquinas. [Note: As will be explained later, I have since discovered that this depth of investigation is not necessary.] The Apostles Doctrine [Please note that the doctrine I accept is not new doctrine, but rather the original and, hence, oldest of New Testament doctrine. Other individuals have also discovered this doctrine while in various modes of isolation. Most, however, accept this doctrine through 3the medium of “preaching and teaching.”] My major method of investigation uses the purest form of classical logic as it is represented by the construction of a mathematical theory. Since it can be established that the so-called “dialectic” logic is classically inconsistent, dialectic arguments are not applied. [I note that it is the philosophic dialectic argument that has been used since about 125 AD where term meanings are altered from there Apostolic meanings. These alterations are obtained via “revelation” and lead to Biblical “re-interpretations.”] The major investigation uses a special technique that attempts to determine, as close as possible by a paper and pencil activity, the doctrine as presented by Jesus and the joint doctrine of the original Apostles, including Paul, termed the Apostles Doctrine. To the Apostles, who exactly is Jesus, what are the attributes of the Godhead, what is the Holy Ghost, what are the meanings of other theological concepts described within the Scriptures? Does the Apostles doctrine correspond to doctrine as presented within extra-biblical writings? I firmly believe exactly what Paul implied that adhering to Scriptural doctrine as understood by the Apostles yields a fixed path to salvation. Further, such an approach insulates an individual from “cult” concepts. Do the Scriptures strongly imply that I should know and abide by the doctrine as taught by the Apostles? Consider what happened after Acts 2:42. The Scriptures state “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine . . . .” Paul instructed Timothy that Timothy should abide at Ephesus and that, while there, Timothy should “. . . charge some that they teach no other doctrine” [1 Tim. 1:3]. Indeed, Paul tells us that the doctrine Timothy knows is Paul’s doctrine [2 Tim. 3:10]. Paul’s supernaturally verified doctrine, doctrine obtained by revelation [Gal. 1:12], is apparently the same refined doctrine preached by the other Apostles [Gal. 2:6]. Moreover, Peter indicates that Paul’s doctrine, although sometimes difficult to understand, is the correct refined doctrine [2 Peter 3:15-16]. Paul states an explicit rule, the Paul rule, that should be followed, a rule to which I adhere. “Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” [1 Corinthians 15: 1-2 (Jerusalem Bible)]. Obviously, my investigation would concentrate upon the descriptions as they appear in the Scriptures. Then, for the New Testament and via my best research, the first-century meanings of the Greek words used is determined. The basic methods used are termed the describing set method and mathematical modeling. Take a concept such as the Holy Ghost. Then consider the set of all Scriptural statements that describe this concept. This set is the describing set. Now use this set as a set of hypotheses and extend this set, as much as you wish, by classical deduction without adding any additional hypotheses not Biblically stated. God specifically states that this is the method to apply. (Genesis 1:26, Job 13.3, Isa. 1:18.) From a pure logical point of view, this is all that the ordinary individual can descriptively know about such a concept. I repeat, that, most importantly, I try to determine and use only the common everyday meanings for the Greek terms used by the Apostles when they wrote their original manuscripts. I imagine myself an everyday Greek tradesman at the church at Antioch, where the followers of the Apostles doctrine are first called Christians (Acts 11:26). I seek salvation based upon this and only this doctrine. Trivially, I will not accept that certain terms used by the Apostles are “code” words that have meanings distinct from those taught by the Apostles. Meanings that would only be “discovered” by a “chosen few” many years later. Paul assures his followers that they are saved if they believe exactly what he teaches. The same describing set procedure can be done with a single Godhead attribute, with the concept termed the Father, and all other such notions. One can apply set theoretic operations to these describing sets, and a great deal of very complex analysis; however, as discussed later, such analysis is not, in general, necessary. In particular, in 1978, portions of The Theory of Ultralogics were used to model the attributes of the Godhead as described in the Bible and as these attributes are compared to human attributes. This establishes that God as so characterized is a scientifically rational concept. Although totally unnecessary, one can group God’s Biblically described attributes into various not disjoint named categories. If one uses but three such categories, then the result is the “tri-category” concept. There are basic reasons why the tri-category concept appears useful, but following the Paul rule and accept in one case, I find it totally of no significance to add other speculated non-biblical attributes to these categories. On the other hand, if such speculation contradicts the Apostles teachings, then I reject it. My first results were published in 1982. (“The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence,” J. of the American Scientific Affiliation 34(1)(1982), 17-23.) [I applied these procedures since at that time my only supernatural connection with the Godhead was an external connection.] These are technical methods, methods to which I was accustomed, that allowed me to produce portions of the Apostles doctrine; theological doctrine as it would be understood and shared by the Apostles and members of the church at Antioch. [I will not state the complete Apostles doctrine within this article.] Although I am convinced that I had discovered major portions of Apostles doctrine by this method, the doctrine I had deduced mathematically is different, in certain respects, from doctrine expressed by some Christian denominations. This is especially the case for my 1983 refinements. The fact that I had verified these doctrinal differences bothered me greatly. Was I the only person in the world that knew major aspects of the Apostles doctrine? It was suggested that I discuss my scientific findings with Pastor Chester Wright of Antioch the Apostolic Church in Arnold Maryland. This I did in June 1983 and he verified that my findings are the same as the doctrine he accepts. [In refined form, there is a slight difference, however, in the procedures I accept compared to some of the not truly necessary procedures Pastor Wright accepts.] The major difference in doctrinal determination was that I had deduced them via a mathematical model whereas he had come to the conclusions by a different approach. Indeed, I discovered that there are hundreds, thousands, indeed, millions of others who also share the exact “basic” doctrine that I had logically deduced while I was in complete natural-world doctrinal isolation. Some individuals have come to the same conclusions by Scriptural investigation and their investigation took place while they were similarly isolated. But most discovered the Apostles doctrine by a different means; a means that would have eliminated much of the effort I had put forth for exactly five years. Obviously, such a paper and pencil activity in which I was engaged cannot establish that any supernatural doctrine is “true in objective reality.” But, there is a specific Scriptural method that can be used, and that I have since used, to verify that the doctrine I had deduced is, to me, the correct Apostles doctrine. The Holy Ghost I firmly believe that without a supernatural means, no “supernatural” doctrine can be verified although such doctrine needs first to be expressed. Acceptance of doctrine and verification of doctrine are not the same. I accept that a more complete comprehension of Scriptural ideas requires a supernatural verification. Although I knew the Scripturally described processes that lead to being indwelled by the Holy Ghost, I had not sought such an indwelling. I was caught up in my analysis and did not participate in such an activity. However, many individuals have so participated in the exact Scripturally described procedures and claimed to be so indwelled. Indeed, the processes follow the exact same general procedures as used in a laboratory science. Exact natural procedures, as described within the Scriptures, are applied and, if an individual follows the Scriptural rules, that individual will not only be so indwelled but will demonstrate that he/she is so indwell. However, I can find no Scriptural statement that implies that one is so indwelled if and only if a certain type of physical behavior is displayed or if and only if one of the two methods Scripturally described is employed. Indeed, if these are the only ways to attain this “gift,” then being so indwelled would not be possible under various physical circumstances. I do not accept that God intends to restrict this gift only to those that find themselves restricted to the two Biblical circumstances. Further, depending upon the circumstances, an indwelling may be displayed more subtlety over many years by a persons changed behavior. [Possibly one difficult part relative to the procedures is for an individual to repent, truly repent.] The fact is that millions of individuals are so indwelled by the Holy Ghost and experience the literal presence of the Spirit of God. These individual experiences, which are equivalent to a scientific experiment, yield personal evidence for the existence of God. Further, it is a remarkable fact that all the “gifts of the Spirit” are aspects of such a supernatural indwelling. I also agree that such gifts are not displayed by individuals who accept other doctrinal statements that, usually, include teachings that such gifts are no longer appropriate for the “modern” church. In the early morning of 30 June 1983 while my daughters slept quietly, God presented to me an absolute indication that I should seek the full indwelling of the Holy Ghost. This occurred on July 17, 1983, at the Antioch Church in Arnold Maryland. The procedure I followed is as described in Acts 10:44 - 48. It was only after this supernatural experience that I finally understood what Jesus meant in John 16:13 “Yet whenever that may be coming - the spirit of truth - it will be guiding you into all truth, . . . .” I now firmly believe that the absolute and simplest path to all verified truth is as it is stated in 1 John 2:27. I am not guided by any individual, church, creed, domination or, indeed, a religion. I am guided explicitly and personally by a supernatural entity that has verified all of the Apostles doctrine as I originally deduced it, the straightforward and specific first century doctrine, and much more. Moreover, it is evident that since this is the Spirit of Truth that all doctrine verified by each indwelled individual must be the same doctrine. But, how is the verification obtained? Does verified doctrine ever contradict, in any manner, the Scriptures and has this verification refined or given to me further illumination for significant Scriptural concepts? The last two questions are answered easily. The verification never contradicts the Scriptures and the verification has given to me important doctrinal refinements. If you read my Christian Testimony, then you are aware that for forty years of my life the Adversary controlled me. This control was always related to my “mental” voice. I know exactly how this is done and I can discern easily when it is being done to other individuals, especially those individuals who do not believe that they are being so controlled. For me, the Holy Ghost does not verify in this manner. For me, such verification is not some sort of “small, still mental voice.” The verification process or manifestation is physical and usually of the exact same type. What is my Holy Ghost manifestation? It is a personal and physical manifestation that gives absolute evidence that God’s Holy Spirit is the actuating agent in this verification process. No mode of argument can ever persuade one who accepts the Apostles doctrine that the source of such verification is materialistic since its effects are essentially indescribable. My investigations have shown that a physical manifestation is specifically designed for each individual in such a manner that it cannot be mistaken for any other effect. Due to this fact, I cannot give an explicitly described word-picture. But, I can describe what it is not. Almost always, it is not an emotional manifestation. For me, it does not produce a euphoric feeling. It is not some “thought” or mental imaginary. It can occur during an ordinary course of events, usually when discussing theological notions, or at times of worship. It cannot be reproduced upon demand. Although an observing individual might conclude that “something” is occurring, the specific physical manifestation cannot be externally observed. I note that there have been cases where machines have registered unusual variations in electric fields when a manifestation occurs. However, this fact is of no significance to those who accept the Apostles doctrine. Many times when I am considering specific but distinct theological notions and I need to determine which is “correct” the manifestation occurs at the moment I “think” or discuss one of the possibilities. When this occurs and after determining that the possibility does not contradict the Scriptures, which it never has, I accept that possibility and consider it as verified. Note that in Job 4:15, Eliphaz the Temanite describes a physical manifestation that indicated to him that a spirit being was present. However, the Job 4:15 manifestation is not what I and others experience. The meanings that one assigns to Biblical passages must also be verified. I reject such processes as used within “higher criticism” to comprehend the Bible by comparison with other known literary forms, historical circumstances, etc. For example, is a particular passage to be taken as literal, poetic, metaphorical or something else entirely? There is only one source that can answer such questions and that source is the Holy Ghost. I am totally aware that all of these experiences can be and are, indeed, classified by many as a form of “insanity.” It is trivially obvious that since many manifestations are relative to mental activity by me and others, that it is not difficult to “explain“ our activities as mental aberrations, as forms of a mild insanity. This in itself would be rather remarkable since there are individuals who have similar experiences while in total isolation from others who display such activity. Maybe it is a type of “insanity” virus that mysteriously spreads to just a specific few.

Evidence for the Existence of God:  Although it is scientifically rational to assume that God as described in the Bible exists; unfortunately, absolute evidence for the existence of the God of the Scriptures first requires that you “truly” believe that He exists. This belief can be developed through hundreds of sources. For example, the fact that it is rational to assume that all physical-system behavior is produced by a higher intelligence, an intelligence that verifies many Scriptural statements. The fact that the Scriptures are written perfectly when properly interpreted relative to the word meanings at the times of the original autographs. Then the belief in the existence of God is often influenced by the testimony of those that do believe. The next step is to seek the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Once you are truly indwelled by this supernatural entity, then your personal form of Holy Ghost verification will be your absolute evidence that God does exist. No one will ever be able to “explain away” such evidence. All explanations that claim that such verification is not supernatural will fail on more than one account. There are millions of individuals who display attributes of the indwelled Holy Ghost, and each has personal evidence that the God of the Scriptures is an objectively real entity. And they accept the existence of God as fact. Unfortunately, I am not exactly one of them. My brain is trained in such a manner that even with all the experiences I have had, even with what are classified as “miraculous events” I still retain a type of “safety value,” a type of slight doubt that my experiences point to an actual supernatural God. I cannot explain why I continue to seek “more” evidence. Why, for me, a “safety value”? I am the one who has established the rationality of the statement that “God has an infinitely strong power to accomplish any goal of which I can ever conceive.” This might be a rather frightening notion for one reason or another. The fact that I am now having this personal problem at the moment, should not detract from the significant information I have presented here. I mention this problem, if it is actually such, since I may not be the only individual who has been or is being presented with evidence for God’s existence and who also still slightly doubts. I don’t intend, however, to write in a style that indicates that I am at present experiencing this problem. After all, I have no idea what tomorrow might bring. It is tomorrow and there is a very plausible reason why I am having my slight problem since I have, on this date, developed yet another piece of evidence. So, maybe this doubt continues to spur me on to seek and receive additional evidence that can prove to be important to me and others. My Theological Writings and Choice In the past, I have written on various theological subjects. I do not want any individual to accept or deny any portion of the Apostles doctrine based upon these writings. These writings may be interesting, but they only establish that the Apostles doctrine is scientifically rational. These writings are but paper and pencil activities in applied classical logic. There is only one doctrine I emphasize continually, and this is the “indwelling” of the Holy Ghost. Again, notice that the Apostles state that an indwelling does not occur until God determines that one is truly seeking repentance. Thus, one must first know the Scriptural meanings for the terms “good” and “evil” in order to satisfy this requirement. Once an individual obtains this supernatural method of verification and demonstrates its presence in various ways, then the individual can easily determine what is true and what is false through Holy Ghost verification. The Bible is my final written authority. But, being written, each term, phrase, sentence, etc. must be interpreted. There are specific linguistic rules that influence such interpretations. As mentioned, there are different interpretations for specific passages, and these have led to hundreds of distinct “Christian denominations.” It is often the case that individuals are presented with doctrinal choices that are not logically equivalent. Indeed, one should always consider different doctrinal possibilities when a specific choice has not been Holy Ghost verified. This is where some of my writings and many others might be helpful. Consider 2 Tim 2:15, “Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Investigate different doctrine and compare it to the Scriptures. Study the Scriptures to determine what the Apostles believed. Study and investigate whatever you wish. But, please don’t accept a doctrine based simply upon some other individual’s authority or acceptance or claimed revelation. Nothing in the Scriptures requires the knowledge of some great “scholar” to decipher. The Holy Ghost is obtained via repentance and the desire to be so indwelled. All a person needs to do is to obey. One need not deeply analyze these two basic requirements in an attempt to determine why they are necessary. After being granted this divine gift, other doctrinal choices can be considered, and Holy Ghost verification sought. If you don’t receive such verification, continue your search. I am confident that if one sincerely seeks the correct theological doctrine and is truly indwelled by the Holy Ghost, then this Spirit of Truth will be a guide to the correct choice and once this choice is presented, it will be verified absolutely. It is my firm and absolute belief that one cannot know, with certainty, the truth about supernatural theological concepts through any form of human secular activity. Such assurance can only be obtained by supernatural means. If you do not have supernatural verification, you cannot truly know which interpretation is correct. There are many questions that can be asked, questions that require Holy Ghost verification. For example, can Jesus Christ be characterized as exhibiting, during the time He walked this earth, the most complete set of Godhead manifestations that can be perceived within the natural universe? Although Jesus the man is God manifested in the flesh, when one reads the words that Jesus spoke is it necessary, in order to have an in-depth comprehension, to know when to interpret these words as statements spoken as a man might speak them, or as God might speak them? Are there actually any logical contradictions within the Scriptures? Are there really any “mysterious” or “secret” concepts within the Scriptures, concepts that can only be known by a chosen few? Are the Scriptures actually direct and “straightforward” when describing theological concepts? Can the displayed attributes of the Godhead be placed in three general categories? Indeed, can you find specific descriptions in John’s gospel that imply a title for each category and how they are related? Is it possible that every question one might ask relative to Scriptural concepts has an answer; but a few of these answers might not be comprehensible while humankind is in its present fallen mode? [Determining the answer to this last question is rather important since it appears that much erroneous doctrine and many “cult” like concepts often come from attempts to answer such questions by worldly means.] Well, as the Scriptures say if you sincerely “seek, then you will find” answers to many such questions. The answers you find, if verified by the Holy Ghost, will be the exact same answers found by millions of others. As stated, it is possible that a few portions of the verified Apostles doctrine will be slightly different from the theological doctrine that many individuals presently accept. It is also possible that their accepted theological doctrine cannot be deduced in a straightforward manner from the Apostles doctrine. As Paul implies in 1 Cor: 15:1-2, if one accepts doctrine that does not adversely affect the doctrine taught by the Apostles, then such doctrine is of no significance. Although verified doctrine should not be altered, you might ask “How is it possible that some highly educated individuals could have been wrong for so many years” Well, maybe, just maybe, the doctrine that they propose has not actually been verified by the Holy Ghost, but this doctrine has simply been repeated over and over again under the assumption that many years ago it was founded upon such verification. Is this possible? One small example, from what are thousands, will establish that this is indeed very possible even within science. One of the greatest “thinkers” of antiquity was Aristotle. He claimed to have logically deduced many, many aspects of physical-system behavior. However, he did not verify these claims. One such “self-evident fact,” was that if two similarly configured bodies, one 100 pounds and another 10 pounds, are dropped from a tower, the 10-pound body will take ten times longer to reach the ground. For 1,800 years, all of the philosophers of nature (i.e., scientists) accepted without question this “self-evident fact.” Although Aristotle’s “Law of Fall” obviously contradicts observation, it was Galileo who appears to be the first scientist to mention that an actual experiment would demonstrate that this so-called fact is totally false. Indeed, other “self-evident facts” of Aristotle were also shown to be false because no one had, over all these years, attempted to verify Aristotle’s claims. Relative to Biblical directives, I emphasize that I do not accept any proposed additional doctrine or alterations in the meanings of Biblical terms as commonly understood at the time of Jesus, the Apostles and their followers, that are put forth, after the deaths of the Apostles, by any individual or group via claimed revelation or by any other means. But why should anyone go to this often time consuming effort? Well, most Christians seem to have, at the least, one common doctrine. It states that there is a spiritual life after death. There is “something” supernatural that does exist and is associated with each individual, and it will exist for an eternity. The Scriptures appear to teach that the doctrine chosen is related to “how” a personal supernatural spirit will spend this eternity. Clearly, it is important to investigate and determine the correct theological doctrine. I firmly believe that objectively real supernatural verification by means of the fully indwelled Holy Ghost is the only way to know the truth. Is there a way that might indicate that an individual has such an indwelling and the degree to which it is operative? Although this will not “prove” that such is the case, one could consider how an individual’s behavior compares with that as described by Paul in 1 Cor. 13:3-5. A Biblical Apostolic Christian Any individual or group that uses the title “Christian” should give a specific definition or reason for using the title. As mentioned, the disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:26), a church where Paul preached the Apostles doctrine as stated in Acts 15:35. The doctrine followed at Antioch, according to the above remarks, was that held by the Apostles and no other doctrine was to be accepted. I attempt to follow the doctrine stated and demonstrated by the Apostles with knowledge gained only from the Bible and as illuminated and verified by the Holy Ghost. This I do as directed by John in 1 John 2:27. If such Biblically defined doctrine does not lead to salvation, then the Apostles themselves will not be saved. Many groups that use the title “Christian” have diverse doctrine, often very distinct from the Apostles doctrine. Many groups practice the complete, just portions or altered versions of the Apostles doctrine and they all term themselves as “Apostolic.” For these reasons and in order to identify me as an individual who follows the Apostles doctrine and that I am not a member of one of these groups that incorrectly identify themselves as Apostolic, I have decided on a different label. One might call me a Biblical Apostolic Christian. Millions of individuals have received supernatural verification that among all of the doctrinal choices the Apostles doctrine is the correct choice. However, except for the concept of the indwelling Holy Ghost and the questions I have posed, I have not discussed any other aspects of the Apostles doctrine within this brief article. I will not alter the concepts described within this article. Later, I may refine some of this material. However, for now, this is all that I will state relative to the Apostles doctrine within this article and how, without extra-biblical influences, one can discover its content. You certainly noticed that five times I used the phrase “firmly believe” in the above. I have repeated a particular concept four times for emphasis and the term “firmly” signifies that I will not alter the stated belief that follows the term. Obviously, from my above statement, the material I have presented in this article is not open for destructive “debate.” I am not an official member of any religious organization. I attend churches that follow Biblical modes of worship and that teach doctrine that is in the closest accord with the Apostles doctrine as deduced by my research and verified by the Holy Ghost. [Note: I always use, in these articles, the transitive form of indwell.] The Mathematical Foundations The foundational mathematics used to produce The Theory of Ultralogics is Nonstandard Analysis. I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on applications of Nonstandard Analysis (NSA or NS) to general topology. Although, I have taught Mathematical Logic and have shown how certain aspects of Mathematical Logic lead to NSA, I have never had a course in any aspect of NSA, and I did not have an “advisor” who had any experience in this subject. All the necessary foundations are self-taught. This procedure was very successful since 44 of my 75 publications and or my monographs are on applications of NSA to various mathematical, physical and philosophic concepts. I mention all of this since, at present, it appears highly likely that the only way to obtain training in NSA is still through self-study. This is unfortunate when you consider the significance of NSA not just to theological notions but also to such secular results as the General Grand Unification Model. 

However, if you have a background in undergraduate mathematics, then I have placed on the Mathematics and Physics Archives, arxiv.org. and the vixra.org archives papers and monographs that can aid greatly in self-study. These can be downloaded, saved and viewed as a PDF. The four major monographs, with the latest corrections, also appear on my Web site. Except for the cost of printing, if you wish, these are all free to the general public. Of course, there are commercial books available. I list the four major monographs and I follow this with the method that can be used to view all of my other stored monographs and more than 20 papers, which use, in some manner, NSA. (I also have re-prints of all of my published papers.) 13 “Nonstandard Analysis - A Simplified Approach,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0310351 http://www.raherrmann/cont5.htm (A) “ Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Advanced Undergraduate Mathematics - Infinitesimal Modeling (Including Elementary Physics)” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0312432 (B) “ Nonstandard Analysis and Generalized Functions” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0403303 (A) and (B) http://www.raherrmann/cont2.htm (C) “The Theory of Ultralogics Part I” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9903081 (D) “The Theory of Ultralogics Part II” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9903082 (C) and (D) http://www.raherrmann/cont3.htm There are other papers related to the GGU-model and GID at arxiv.org and elsewhere. These are (E) “General Logic-systems and Finite Consequence Operators,” Logica Universalis 23(1)(2006):201-208. http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0512559 (F) “The GGU-model and Generation of Developmental Paradigms” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0605120 http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0145 (G) “General Logic-Systems that Determine Significant Collections of Consequence Operators,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0603573 (H) “Nonstandard Ultra-logic-systems Applied to the GGU-model,” http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0125 (I) “GGU-model Ultra-logic-systems Applied to Developmental Paradigms,” http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0145 Note: The important part of the monographs that come before “The Theory of Ultralogics” is not the actual theorems established but rather the general methods used. For example, the results in the “Generalized Function” monograph do not apply to The Theory of Ultralogics, but the “concurrent” relation concept does. This method is very important. In order to locate all of my other papers on the archives, consider http://arxiv.org/a/herrmann r 1 http://vixra.org/author/robert a herrmann