A Biblical and Logical Examination of Divine Nature, Godliness, and the Claim That “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” Are Merely Attributes
In modern theological discussions, a subtle but serious shift has taken place. Some theologians now argue that God is not a living divine being but an attribute, that “divine” refers only to moral character, and that even the biblical terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not realities but symbolic roles, expressions, or attributes of godliness.
According to this teaching:
God = godliness
Divine nature = moral character
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = attributes, titles, or modes
This view claims biblical support, yet when examined carefully, it collapses under Scripture itself. The Bible does not reduce God—or the names He reveals—to abstract qualities. It presents God as the self-existent, acting, revealing divine reality, and the names He uses are not metaphors for character but revelations of how He exists and works.

1. God Is Not an Attribute in Scripture
   The Bible never defines God as an attribute.
   From the opening declaration:
   Genesis 1:1 – God creates.
   Exodus 3:14 – “I AM THAT I AM.”
   Isaiah 46:9–10 – God declares the end from the beginning.
   Attributes do not initiate creation, declare history, or command existence. Scripture presents God as the source from which attributes flow, not the product of them.
   Holiness describes God.
   Love describes God.
   Power describes God.
   But none of these is God.
   To say “God is godliness” is equivalent to saying:
   Light is brightness
   Fire is heat
   Brightness and heat proceed from a source; they are not the source itself.
2. The Misuse of “Divine Nature”
   Romans 1:20 — Divine as Godhood
   “His invisible things… His eternal power and divinity are clearly seen…”
   Paul uses θειότης (theiotēs), referring to divine reality itself, revealed through creation. Mountains, stars, order, and life do not reveal moral character alone; they reveal:
   Eternal existence
   Absolute power
   Self-sustaining authority
   These are realities of being, not ethics.
   2 Peter 1:4 — Divine as Shared Life
   “That you may be partakers of the divine nature…”
   Here θεία φύσις (theia physis) refers to participation, not identity:
   Escaping corruption
   Growth in holiness
   Transformation of life
   Scripture itself distinguishes:
   God’s unshared divine reality (Romans 1:20)
   Believers’ shared divine life (2 Peter 1:4)
   To erase this distinction is to confuse source with effect.
3. Godliness Is Not God
   Scripture never equates godliness with God Himself.
   1 Timothy 6:6 – “Godliness with contentment is great gain”
   2 Peter 1:6 – “Add to your faith… godliness”
   If godliness were God Himself, believers would be adding God to themselves—an idea foreign to Scripture.
   Godliness is likeness produced by God, not God reduced to a quality.
4. Are “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” Merely Attributes?
   Some theologians extend the same logic further and claim:
   Father = authority attribute
   Son = relational attribute
   Holy Spirit = power or influence attribute
   This claim is deeply problematic.
   A. Attributes do not speak to one another
   Yet Scripture records:
   The Father speaking to the Son (Psalm 2:7)
   The Son praying to the Father (John 17)
   The Spirit speaking, teaching, and sending (Acts 13:2)
   Attributes do not communicate. They do not testify. They do not send.
   B. Attributes are not sent
   The Son is sent (John 3:17)
   The Spirit is sent (John 14:26)
   Sending requires distinction of operation and origin. A quality cannot be sent; only a living divine reality can act in this way.
   C. Attributes do not bear witness
   The Spirit bears witness (Romans 8:16)
   The Son bears witness to the Father (John 8:18)
   Witness is not a function of abstract traits.
5. Titles Reveal Reality, Not Symbolism
   In Scripture, names are revelatory:
   “Father” reveals source and origin
   “Son” reveals expression and manifestation
   “Spirit” reveals active divine presence
   These are not poetic labels for character traits. They describe how the one God exists, reveals Himself, and acts, without dividing His divine reality or reducing it to metaphors.
   If “Father” were merely an attribute, God would only be “fatherly,” not Father. If “Son” were merely a role, incarnation would be symbolic, not real. If “Spirit” were merely influence, divine action would be impersonal.
   Scripture does not permit such reductions.
6. The Category Error Behind the Teaching
   The core mistake is a repeated confusion:
   Confusing identity with expression
   Confusing source with effect
   Confusing divine reality with divine qualities
   God is not assembled from attributes. Attributes flow from God.
   Father, Son, and Spirit are not qualities God temporarily adopts; they are how the one God reveals and operates eternally.
7. Biblical Coherence Preserved
   The biblical framework preserves all truths without contradiction:
   God is one, eternal, and unshared in divine reality
   God reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit
   Believers participate in divine life, not divine identity
   God’s attributes transform us, but do not redefine Him
   Any teaching that reduces God—or His revealed names—to attributes ultimately weakens worship, empties revelation, and dissolves biblical meaning.
   Final Reflection
   God is not an abstract quality. God is not a moral concept. God is not a collection of attributes.
   He is the self-existent, eternal divine reality from whom life, holiness, love, and power flow.
   We may reflect His holiness.
   We may walk in His life.
   We may share His divine qualities.
   But God Himself—revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—remains the uncreated source, not a symbolic description.
   That distinction is not academic.
   It is essential to Scripture, faith, and truth.

A Biblical and Logical Examination of “Divine Nature” and God’s Identity
A growing theological claim suggests that God is not a being but an attribute, that “godliness” or “divine character” defines what God is, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are expressions of this character. According to this view, “divine” refers only to moral qualities, not to God’s actual identity or reality.
This claim may sound refined, but it is neither biblical nor coherent when examined carefully. Scripture does not reduce God to qualities, functions, or character traits. Instead, it presents God as the self-existent, living, acting reality from whom all attributes proceed.
Let us examine this claim carefully—biblically, logically, and conceptually.

1. How Scripture Defines God
   The Bible never defines God as an attribute.
   From the opening verse of Scripture, God is revealed as the acting, initiating source of all existence:
   Genesis 1:1 – God creates. Attributes do not create; only a living source can initiate being.
   Exodus 3:14 – “I AM THAT I AM.” This is not a description of character but a declaration of self-existence and absolute reality.
   Isaiah 45:5 – “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” God identifies Himself as the sole divine authority, not a moral quality.
   Attributes describe what something is like; Scripture reveals God as what exists eternally.
2. The Misuse of “Divine” as Mere Character
   Some argue:
   “Divine simply means godly character. God is godliness.”
   This collapses a critical biblical distinction.
   Romans 1:20 — Divine as Godhood
   “His invisible things… His eternal power and divinity are clearly seen…”
   Here Paul uses the Greek θειότης (theiotēs), referring to God’s divine reality or Godhood itself, revealed through creation.
   Creation does not reveal moral qualities alone; it reveals:
   Eternal power
   Self-existence
   Supreme authority
   These are not character traits; they are realities of being.
   2 Peter 1:4 — Divine as Shared Life
   “That you may be partakers of the divine nature…”
   Here Peter uses θεία φύσις (theia physis). The context is unmistakable:
   Escaping corruption
   Growing in holiness
   Living transformed lives
   This refers to participation in God’s life and qualities, not possession of God’s identity.
   The Bible itself distinguishes these meanings.
   One refers to what God is in Himself (Romans 1:20), the other to what believers share by grace (2 Peter 1:4).
3. Why “God = Attribute” Fails Biblically
   If God were only an attribute or character quality, several contradictions arise:
4. Attributes do not exist independently
   Love, holiness, and wisdom cannot exist without a source. Scripture presents God as the source of all attributes, not one attribute among others.
5. Attributes do not speak, command, or judge
   Yet God speaks, commands nations, judges history, and reveals His will. These are actions of a living divine reality, not abstract qualities.
6. Attributes cannot be worshiped
   Scripture commands worship of God Himself, not of godliness, holiness, or love as independent realities.
   Reducing God to an attribute removes the foundation of worship, obedience, and revelation.
7. Godliness Is Not God
   The Bible uses godliness as a derivative term:
   1 Timothy 6:6 – “Godliness with contentment is great gain”
   2 Peter 1:6 – “Add to your faith… godliness”
   If godliness were God Himself, then believers would be adding God to themselves—which is absurd. Godliness is likeness, not identity.
   God produces godliness; He is not reduced to it.
8. Divine Nature and Participation: A Clear Distinction
   Scripture allows participation without confusion.
   An illustration consistent with biblical logic:
   Light illuminates objects.
   Objects reflect light.
   Objects do not become light itself.
   Likewise:
   God is divine by nature.
   Believers reflect divine qualities.
   Believers do not become the divine source.
   This preserves:
   God’s uniqueness
   Human transformation
   Biblical coherence
9. The Core Error Behind the Claim
   The fundamental mistake is a category confusion:
   Treating what God is as identical with what God produces
   Treating divine being as identical with divine effects
   Scripture never makes this mistake.
   God:
   Is eternal
   Is self-existent
   Is the source of life
   Is the supreme authority
   Divine attributes flow from Him, not the other way around.
10. Biblical Conclusion
    The Bible does not teach that:
    God is an attribute
    Divine nature is only moral character
    God is reducible to godliness
    The Bible clearly teaches:
    God is the living, self-existent divine reality
    His divine being is revealed through creation (Romans 1:20)
    Believers share in His life and holiness by grace (2 Peter 1:4)
    Attributes describe God but do not define His existence
    Any teaching that collapses God into character traits diminishes Scripture, weakens worship, and confuses transformation with identity.
    Final Reflection
    God is not a quality we imitate;
    He is the source of all life we receive.
    We may reflect His holiness.
    We may walk in His life.
    We may share in His divine qualities.
    But God Himself remains the eternal, unshared, self-existent divine reality.
    That distinction is not technical—it is biblical, necessary, and essential.

ከቅዱስ ቃሉ፣

መግቢያ፦ የአንድ መጠሪያ ስም የዘላለምን ክብደት ሲሸከም

በክርስቲያናዊ መዝገበ-ቃላት ውስጥ እንደ “ሐዋርያ” ያለ በመንፈሳዊ ግርማ የሚንቀጠቀጥ ቃል ጥቂት ነው። ይህ ቃል በክርስትና አጥንት ውስጥ የተቀረጹ ምስሎችን ይቀሰቅሳል—
ጴጥሮስ በሕዝቦች ፊት ስለ ክርስቶስ ሲመሰክር፣
ጳውሎስ በአቴና ከአሳቢዎች ጋር ሲከራከር፣
ምስክርነታቸውን በጭብጨባ ሳይሆን በደማቸው ያተሙ ሰዎችን ያሳስበናል።

ዛሬ ግን ይህ መጠሪያ በቀላሉ ዳግም ብቅ ብሏል። በቢዝነስ ካርዶች ላይ ሰፍሯል፤ በመድረኮች ላይ ይታወጃል፤ በማህበራዊ ሚዲያዎችም ይስተጋባል። ጥያቄው ሰዎች ቅን ናቸው ወይስ አይደሉም የሚለው አይደለም። ጥያቄው “ቅንነት እውነትን መተካት ይችላልን?” የሚለው ነው።

የዘመናችን የሐዋርያነት ጥያቄ መጽሐፍ ቅዱሳዊ ታማኝነት አለው ወይስ ሥነ-መለኮታዊ ? ለዚህ እውነተኛ መልስ ለመስጠት፣ ከስሜታዊነት፣ ከካሪዝማ እና ከታዋቂነት ፈቀቅ ብለን ወደ ሶስቱ የማይናወጡ የክርስትና እምነት ዳኞች መመለስ አለብን፦
ቃሉ እንዲህ ይለናል :-

“መሰረቶቹ ቢፈርሱ፥ ጻድቅ ምን ያደርጋል?” — መዝሙር 11:3

1. እንደ መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ትርጓሜ “ሐዋርያ” ማለት ምን ማለት ነው?

“ሐዋርያ” (Apostle) የሚለው ቃል “አapostolos” ከሚለው የግሪክ ቃል የመጣ ሲሆን ትርጉሙም “በስልጣን የተላከ” ማለት ነው። ነገር ግን የመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ትርጉም በቃላት ጥናት (etymology) ብቻ አይወሰንም፤ በመለኮታዊ ዓላማ እና በታሪካዊ አጠቃቀም ጭምር እንጂ።

ኢየሱስ ራሱ ሹመቱን እንዲህ ሲል ገልጾታል፦
“በነጋም ጊዜ ደቀ መዛሙርቱን ጠራ፥ ከእነርሱም አሥራ ሁለት መረጠ ደግሞም ሐዋርያት ብሎ ሰየማቸው።” — ሉቃስ 6:13

ይህ በራስ ጥረት የሚገኝ ማንነት አልነበረም። በአገልግሎት እድገት፣ በተሰሚነት ወይም በታዋቂነት የሚገኝም አልነበረም። በራሱ በክርስቶስ የተሰጠ ነበር። በመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ሐዋርያነት የአገልግሎት የሥራ መስመር (career path) አይደለም፤ ይልቁንም በአንድ የተወሰነ የማዳን ታሪክ ወቅት የተከናወነ መለኮታዊ ተልእኮ ነው።

2. ሐዋርያት መሠረቶች ነበሩ—አስተዳዳሪዎች አልነበሩም

አዲስ ኪዳን ሐዋርያትን እንደ የቤተክርስቲያን ሥርዓት አስተዳዳሪዎች አያቀርባቸውም። ይልቁንም የእምነቱ መሠረት አርክቴክቶች አድርጎ ነው የሚያቀርባቸው።

“በሐዋርያትና በነቢያት መሠረት ላይ ታንጻችኋል፥ የማዕዘኑም ራስ ድንጋይ ክርስቶስ ኢየሱስ ነው።” — ኤፌሶን 2:20

መሠረት ለጌጥ የሚሆን አይደለም፤ መዋቅራዊ ነው። መሠረት፦

• አንድ ጊዜ ይጣላል
• በእርሱ ላይ የሚገነባውን ሁሉ ይወስናል
• ቤቱን ሳያፈርሱ ድጋሚ ሊጣል አይችልም

ክርስትና ተመሠረተ እንጂ ያለማቋረጥ አዲስ መሠረት አይጣልለትም። ፦
“ክርስትና የሚያርፈው በአዲስ መገለጥ ላይ ሳይሆን፣ በተፈጸመ መገለጥ ላይ ነው።”

ዛሬም “ ሐዋርያነት” አለ ብሎ መከራከር፣ የእምነቱ ቤት ገና በመሠረቱ ላይ እየታነጸ ነው እንደማለት ነው—ይህ ደግሞ ቅዱስ ቃሉ የማይደግፈው ሐሳብ ነው።

3. የሐዋርያነት ብቃቶች ልዩና የማይደገሙ ነበሩ

መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ በሐዋርያነት ዙሪያ ማንም ዘመናዊ አማኝ ሊያልፋቸው የማይችላቸውን ድንበሮች ያስቀምጣል።

ሀ) በክርስቶስ በግል የተመረጡና የተላኩ፦ “እናንተ አልመረጣችሁኝም፥ እኔ ግን መረጥኋችሁ።” (ዮሐንስ 15:16)
ለ) የትንሣኤው ምስክሮች፦ “ከእኛ ጋር የትንሣኤው ምስክር ይሆን ዘንድ ይገባል።” (ሐዋርያት 1:22)
ሐ) የአጽናፈ-ዓለማዊ ዶክትሪን (ትምህርት) ሥልጣን ያላቸው፦ ሐዋርያት ለአንድ አካባቢ ወይም ለተወሰነ ቡድን ብቻ አልተናገሩም፤ ለጠቅላላው ቤተክርስቲያን በክርስቶስ ስም ተናገሩ።
መ) የ“ሐዋርያነት ምልክቶችን” የያዙ፦ “የሐዋርያነት ምልክቶች በመካከላችሁ ተደረጉ…” (2 ቆሮንቶስ 12:12) እነዚህ ማንም ሊያገኛቸው የሚችላቸው መንፈሳዊ ባጆች አልነበሩም፤ በቤተክርስቲያን የታወቁ መለኮታዊ ማስረጃዎች ነበሩ።

4. ጳውሎስ፦ ሕጉን የሚያጸናው ልዩ አጋጣሚ

ጳውሎስ ብዙ ጊዜ ለዘመናዊ ሐዋርያነት እንደ ማረጋገጫ ይጠቀሳል—ነገር ግን ጳውሎስ በእርግጥ የሚያረጋግጠው የሐዋርያነትን ልዩነት ነው።
“በኢየሱስ ክርስቶስ በኩል ሐዋርያ የሆነው ጳውሎስ እንጂ ከሰዎች ወይም በሰው በኩል አይደለም።” (ገላትያ 1:1)

ጳውሎስ ትንሣኤውን ክርስቶስን በግል ተመልክቷል፣ መለኮታዊ ተልእኮ ተሰጥቶታል፣ በቀደሙት ሐዋርያት ዘንድም እውቅና አግኝቷል። ከሁሉ በላይ ግን ራሱን እንዲህ ሲል ገልጿል፦
“ከሁሉ በኋላ እንደ ጭንጋፍ ለምሆን ለእኔ ደግሞ ታየኝ።” — 1 ቆሮንቶስ 15:8
ንግግሩ የሚያመለክተው መደምደሚያን እንጂ መደጋገምን አይደለም። ጳውሎስ በር እየከፈተ አልነበረም፤ ዘመንን እየዘጋ ነበር።

5. “ሐዋርያ” የሚለው ቃል ሁለት መጽሐፍ ቅዱሳዊ አጠቃቀሞች

ቅዱስ ቃሉ በሹመት እና በተግባር መካከል ልዩነት ያደርጋል።

ሀ. የመጀመሪያዎቹ ሐዋርያት
አሥራ ሁለቱ እና ጳውሎስ፤ የክርስትና መሥራቾች፤ የአዲስ ኪዳን ትምህርት ደራሲያን፤ የማይደገም ሹመት።

ለ. ተግባራዊ ሐዋርያት
ለላኪዎች ወይም ለመልእክተኞች በጥቅል መጠሪያነት የሚያገለግል፦ “እነርሱ የቤተ ክርስቲያን መላክተኞች (apostoloi) ናቸው።” (2 ቆሮንቶስ 8:23) እነዚህ ሚስዮናውያን፣ ተወካዮች እና የተላኩ አገልጋዮች ናቸው እንጂ የትምህርት መሠረት ጣዮች አይደሉም። አደጋው የሚመጣው ተግባራዊ አገልግሎት ወደ መሠረት ጣይነት ስልጣን ሲጋነን ነው።

6. ታሪክ

ለሐዋርያት ዘመን ቅርብ የነበሩት የወንጌል አስተማሪዎች —አዳዲስ ሐዋርያትን በጭራሽ አልጠበቁም። እንደ እነ ኢግናጥዮስ፣ ኢራኒየስ እና ተርቱሊያን ያሉ ዘወትር የሚናገሩት፦

• የሐዋርያትን ትምህርት ስለ መጠበቅ እንጂ፣
• የሐዋርያትን አካላት ስለ መተካት አልነበረም።
  “ሐዋርያዊ ቅብብሎሽ” ማለት ለትምህርቱ ታማኝ መሆን እንጂ የሹመት መጠሪያን መውረስ ማለት አልነበረም።

7. የዘመናዊ ሐዋርያነት ጥያቄ የሚያስከትለው ምክንያታዊ ውጤት

ዛሬም መሠረት ጣይ ሐዋርያት ካሉ፣ በምክንያታዊነት፦

• ትምህርተ መለኮት (Doctrine) ገና ክፍት ነው
• መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ አልተጠናቀቀም
• ሥልጣን ተከፋፍሏል
• ክርስትና ቋሚ መሠረት የለውም ማለት ነው።

ነገር ግን ቅዱስ ቃሉ ተቃራኒውን ያውጃል፦
“ለቅዱሳን አንድ ጊዜ ፈጽሞ ስለ ተሰጠ ሃይማኖት እንድትጋደሉ…” — ይሁዳ 1:3
አንድ ጊዜ የተሰጠ። እንጂ በየጊዜው የሚሻሻል አይደለም።

8. መጠሪያ ስሞች በመንፈሳዊ ለምን ያጋድላሉ?

ኢየሱስ ራሱ ከታማኝነት ይልቅ ሥልጣንን ከሚያጋንኑ ሃይማኖታዊ መጠሪያዎች አስጠንቅቋል፦
“እናንተ ግን፦ መምህር ተብላችሁ አትጠሩ… ሊቃውንት ተብላችሁ አትጠሩ።” — ማቴዎስ 23:8–10
አዲስ ኪዳን ከማዕረግ ይልቅ ተግባር ላይ ያተኩራል፦ አገልጋዮች፣ እረኞች፣ ሽማግሌዎች፣ መምህራን። እውነተኛ ሥልጣን የሚመነጨው ከታማኝነት እንጂ ከስም ዝርዝር አይደለም።

ማጠቃለያ፦ እውነት ያለ ማጋነን

በመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ፦ ሐዋርያት የክርስትና መሥራቾች ነበሩ—ልዩ፣ ባለሥልጣን እና የማይደገሙ።
በታሪክ፦ የቀደመችው ቤተክርስቲያን አዳዲስ መሠረት ጣይ ሐዋርያትን አልጠበቀችም።
በአመክንዮ፦ እምነቱን ዳግም ሳይተረጉሙ መሠረቱን ድጋሚ መጣል አይቻልም።
በመንፈሳዊ፦ እግዚአብሔር ከመጠሪያ ይልቅ ታማኝነትን ያከብራል።

ራስህን መሥራች ሳትል መላክ ትችላለህ። መሠረቱን ሳትለውጥ መምራት ትችላለህ። የሐዋርያነት ማዕረግ ሳትይዝ ኃያል መሆን ትችላለህ።

የመጨረሻ አስተያየት

ክርስትና አዳዲስ ሐዋርያት አያስፈልጉትም። የሚያስፈልገው የሐዋርያዊ እውነት ታማኝ መጋቢዎች ነው። ዛሬ የቆምነው እኛ ረጅም ስለሆንን ሳይሆን—ቀድሞ በተጣለው መሠረት ላይ ስለቆምን ነው፤ ይህም መሠረት ብዙ ጊዜ በእንባ፣ በስደት እና በሰማዕትነት የተገነባ ነው። ጥሪያችን መሠረቱን እንደገና መገንባት ሳይሆን፣ በእርሱ ላይ በታማኝነት መታነጽ ነው።

ቃላት የጨለማውን ሀይል በብልጠት ማሸነፍ ይችላሉን?
በእምነት፣ በንግግር እና በእውነት ማንነት ላይ የቀረበ ቅኝት

በስብከቶች፣ በጸሎት ክበቦች እና በማኅበራዊ ገጾች ላይ አንድ ዓረፍተ ነገር በዝግታ ሲስተጋባ ይሰማል፦
“ሰይጣን እውነትን ወይም ውሸትን አይረዳም፤ የሚረዳው ቃላትን ብቻ ነው። በጎ ቃላትን ተናገር፣ ታታልለዋለህም።”

ይህ ሃሳብ ኃያል ይመስላል።
ተስፋ ሰጪ ይመስላል።
እንደ ምስጢራዊ የጦር መሣሪያም ይቆጠራል።
ነገር ግን፣ አንዳንዴ መንፈሳዊ መስለው የሚቀርቡ ነገሮች በጥንቃቄ መመርመር አለባቸው፤ ምክንያቱም እውነት ጥያቄን አትፈራም።

አቋራጭ መንገዶችን በምትናፍቅ ዓለም ውስጥ እንኖራለን።
አንድ ሐረግ…
አንድ ቀመር…
እርግጠኝነት በሌለበት ዘመን ላይ ቁጥጥርን የሚሰጥ አንድ ዓረፍተ ነገር…
ቃላት ብቻ ጨለማን ሊያሸንፉ ይችላሉ የሚለው ሃሳብ ለሰው ልጅ ስሜት ምቾትን ይሰጣል። በትክክል ከተናገርን ሕመምን የምናስወግድ ይመስለናል። ቃላትን በሚገባ ከመረጥን እውነታን የምንቀይር ይመስለናል።

አዎን—መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ቃላት ዋጋ እንዳላቸው ያረጋግጣል፦
“ሞትና ሕይወት በምላስ እጅ ናቸው።” — ምሳሌ 18:21
ነገር ግን መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ንግግር እውነትን ይተካል፣ ወይም እምነት ማለት በቃላት የሚደረግ ‘ማታለያ’ ነው ብሎ በጭራሽ አያስተምርም።

ሰይጣን አላዋቂ አይደለም—ዓመፀኛ እንጂ
ኢየሱስ ስለ ሰይጣን ሲናገር በማያሻማ ግልጽነት እንዲህ ይገልጸዋል፦
“እርሱ ከመጀመሪያ ነፍሰ ገዳይ ነበረ… በእርሱ ዘንድ እውነት የለም … እርሱ ሐሰተኛ የሐሰትም አባት ነውና።” — ዮሐንስ 8:44

ይህ ጥቅስ ስለ ግራ መጋባት የሚያወራ አይደለም።
ይልቁንም ሆን ተብሎ ስለተደረገ የእውነት መጣመም እንጂ።
ሐሰተኛ ማለት መረጃ የሌለው ሰው አይደለም።
ሐሰተኛ ማለት እውነትን እያወቀ ለመቀበል ፈቃደኛ ያልሆነ አካል ነው።
ሰይጣን በቃላት አይታለልም፤ እርሱ የእውነት ተቃዋሚ ነው።

እምነት ወደ ትርኢት ሲቀየር
መንፈሳዊነት ወደ ትርኢት (performance) ሲቀየር ድብቅ አደጋ አለው።
እምነት የሚከተሉት ነገሮች ብቻ ሲሆን፦

• ትክክለኛ የሚባሉ ቃላትን መናገር
• ከግልጽነትና ከሐቀኝነት መሸሽ
• ፍርሃትን በድፍረት ቃላት መሸፈን

ያኔ መታዘዝ በሌለበት ሕይወት ስለ ድል ማውራት እንጀምራለን።
ይህ አካሄድ ከፍልስፍና አንፃር እምነትን ወደ ‘ምትሀታዊ ቃላት’ ዝቅ ያደርገዋል—እውነታው ለቃላችን እንጂ ለእውነቱ የማይገዛ ይመስል…
ነገር ግን ክርስትና መሠረቱ ምትሃት ሳይሆን፣ ቃል ሥጋ ሆኖ በመካከላችን መገለጡ ነው። እውነት ኃያል የሆነችው በከፍተኛ ድምፅ ስለተነገረች ሳይሆን፣ እውነት ስለሆነች ብቻ ነው።

ኢየሱስ በምድረ በዳ፦
ኢየሱስ ፈተና በገጠመው ጊዜ በስሜታዊነት አልተከራከረም።
በጎ (ፖዘቲቭ) አዋጆችን አላወጀም።
ስለ ራሱ ብቃት አልተናገረም።
ይልቁንም ያለው፦ “ተብሎ ተጽፏል” ነበር።
እውነት የተነገረው ከጭንቀት ሳይሆን ከመለኮታዊ መስመር ጋር በመገጣጠም ነው። ሰይጣን የሸሸው ግራ ስለገባው ሳይሆን፣ እውነት የማይናወጥ ስለሆነ ነው።

ቃላት የውስጥ ዓለምን ይገልጣሉ
ኢየሱስ ጥልቅ የሆነውን ምስጢር እንዲህ አስተምሯል፦
“በልብ ሞልቶ ከተረፈው አፍ ይናገራልና።” — ማቴዎስ 12:34
ቃላቶቻችን በሰይጣን ላይ የምንሰነዝራቸው መሣሪያዎች አይደሉም።
ይልቁንም የውስጣችንን ማንነት የሚያሳዩ መስኮቶች ናቸው።
በፍርሃት የተሞላ ንግግር ፍርሃትን ይገልጣል።
በእምነት የተሞላ ንግግር መታመንን ያሳያል።
የውጊያው ሜዳ በዋነኝነት ያለው በአየር ላይ ሳይሆን በልብ ውስጥ ነው።

የትህትና ጥሪ
ቆም ብለን እራሳችንን እንጠይቅ፦

• እየተናገርን ያለነው እምነትን ነው ወይስ ፍርሃታችንን በቃላት ውስጥ እየሸሸግን?
• ድልን እያወጅን ነው ወይስ ለፈቃዱ መገዛትን እየሸሸን?
• መጽሐፍ ቅዱስን እየጠቀስን ነው ወይስ እየኖርንበት?
  እምነት ማዕበሉን መካድ አይደለም።
  እምነት ማዕበሉ እያለ በጽናት መቆም ነው።

መጽሐፍ ቅዱሳዊው ድል
መጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ግልጽ የሆነ ቅደም ተከተል ይሰጠናል፦
“እንግዲህ ለእግዚአብሔር ተገዙ፤ ዲያብሎስን ግን ተቃወሙ ከእናንተም ይሸሻል።” — ያዕቆብ 4:7
መገዛት ከመቃወም ይቀድማል።
እውነት ከድል ይቀድማል።
ዲያብሎስ የሚሸሸው በድምፅ ድፍረት ስለተናገርን ሳይሆን፣ በመለኮታዊ መሠረት ላይ ስለቆምን ነው።

ለማጠቃለል ያህል
የእምነት ቃላትን እንናገር —አዎን።
ተስፋ አስቆራጭ ንግግሮችን ውድቅ እናድርግ —አይ።
ነገር ግን ተስፋ ያለው ንግግርን ከመንፈሳዊ ስልጣን ጋር አናምታታ።
ጨለማን የምናሸንፈው ድምፃችንን ከፍ አድርገን ፓዘቲቭ ንግግር በመናገር ሳይሆን፣ በብርሃን ውስጥ በመመላለስ ነው።
እውነት ድምፅ የምንጨምርለት መሣሪያ ሳይሆን፣ የምንቆምበት መሬት ነው።
ያ መሬት ደግሞ ማታለልን በጭራሽ አይሻም—
ታማኝነትን እንጂ። ተባረኩ  ወንጌሉ ወልዴ ዶ.ር

Are Modern “Apostles” Biblically Valid? A Scriptural, Historical, and Logical Examination
Introduction: A Title That Carries Weight
Few titles in Christianity carry as much spiritual gravity as the word “Apostle.”
It evokes images of Peter preaching at Pentecost, Paul debating philosophers in Athens, and men who laid down their lives to establish the Church of Jesus Christ.
Yet today, many sincerely—and sometimes boldly—call themselves apostles.
Is this biblically valid? Or is it a theological overreach?
To answer this honestly, we must move beyond emotion and popularity and return to Scripture, history, and reason.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
— Psalm 11:3

1. What Does “Apostle” Mean—Biblically?
   The English word apostle comes from the Greek apostolos, meaning “one who is sent with authority.”
   However, biblical meaning is defined not by etymology alone, but by usage and qualification.
   Jesus Himself defined the office:
   “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.”
   — Luke 6:13
   This was not a self-appointed role. It was a divine calling, personally conferred by Christ.
2. Apostles Were the Founders, Not the Managers
   The New Testament presents the apostles as foundational figures, not recurring administrators.
   “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”
   — Ephesians 2:20
   A foundation is:
   Laid once
   Determines the structure
   Cannot be re-laid without rebuilding the entire house
   Christianity was founded in the first century, not repeatedly in every generation.
   “Christianity does not rest on continuous revelation, but on a completed one.”
   — F. F. Bruce, New Testament scholar
3. Apostolic Qualifications Were Unique and Non-Repeatable
   According to Scripture, apostles met qualifications no modern believer can fully claim:
   a. Personally chosen and commissioned by Christ
   “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” — John 15:16
   b. Witnesses of the resurrected Christ
   “Must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” — Acts 1:22
   c. Carriers of universal doctrinal authority
   They did not represent a denomination or local church; they represented Christ Himself.
   d. Bearers of “the signs of an apostle”
   “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you…” — 2 Corinthians 12:12
4. Paul: The Exception That Proves the Rule
   Paul is often cited to justify modern apostleship—but Paul actually reinforces its uniqueness.
   “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.”
   — Galatians 1:1
   Paul:
   Personally encountered the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8)
   Was divinely commissioned
   Was publicly recognized by the original apostles (Galatians 2:9)
   Importantly, Paul refers to himself as “one born out of due time”, signaling that his case was exceptional and final.
5. Two Uses of the Word “Apostle” in the New Testament
6. Foundational Apostles (Capital “A”)
   The Twelve + Paul
   Founders of Christianity
   Authors of New Testament doctrine
   Non-repeatable office
7. Functional Apostles (small “a”)
   Used generically for messengers or envoys:
   “They are the messengers (apostoloi) of the churches.”
   — 2 Corinthians 8:23
   This refers to missionaries or representatives, not doctrine-setters.
   The danger arises when functional language is elevated into foundational authority.
8. Historical Christianity Rejects Ongoing Foundational Apostles
   The early Church Fathers—those closest to the apostolic era—never expected new apostles.
   Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian emphasized apostolic doctrine, not apostolic replacement.
   “Apostolic succession” meant faithfulness to teaching, not inheriting apostolic titles.
   “What the apostles once taught, the Church preserves; it does not recreate it.”
   — Irenaeus
9. Logical Consequences of Modern Apostleship Claims
   If apostles still exist today in the foundational sense, then logically:
   Doctrine is still open
   Scripture is incomplete
   Authority is fragmented
   Christianity has no fixed foundation
   Yet Scripture states the opposite:
   “The faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
   — Jude 1:3
   Once delivered. Not repeatedly updated.
10. Why Titles Matter Spiritually
    Jesus warned against religious titles that elevate authority beyond obedience:
    “But be not ye called Rabbi… neither be ye called masters.”
    — Matthew 23:8–10
    The New Testament emphasizes function over title:
    Servants
    Elders
    Shepherds
    Teachers
    True authority flows from faithfulness, not nomenclature.
11. A Balanced and Biblical Conclusion
    Biblically:
    The apostles were the founders of Christianity
    Their office was unique, authoritative, and non-repeatable
    Historically:
    The early church never anticipated new foundational apostles
    Logically:
    A foundation cannot be re-laid without redefining the faith
    Spiritually:
    God honors obedience more than titles
    “You can be sent without calling yourself a founder.”
    “You can lead without rewriting the foundation.”
    “You can be powerful without claiming apostolic rank.”
    Final Reflection
    Christianity does not need new apostles.
    It needs faithful stewards of apostolic truth.
    “If we stand tall today, it is because we stand on shoulders already laid down.”
    The call of our generation is not to rebuild the foundation, but to build faithfully upon it.