Trinity Concept Disparages God and Does Violence to the Gospel

The doctrine of the Trinity, further, disparages God by making Him out to be no more than a pretender, who appears in the form of humanity, pretending to die (when He really cannot die) and pretending to sacrifice His only begotten Son out of love for us when, in reality, He made no sacrifice, since Jesus Christ was not really His Son and did not even die.

Which other doctrine is as convoluted and hinged on philosophical speculation as the doctrine of the Trinity?  What else could Ellen G. White have been referring to when she speaks of a “A system of intellectual philosophy”?  Well on target was Ellen G. White when she said: “The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy.”  {1SM 204}.  Which other doctrine undermines the very foundation of the Gospel as the doctrine of the Trinity that seeks to confuse the very core of the gospel truth that God gave His only begotten Son for us?   As to the matter of the Trinity doctrine being spiritualistic, I have already shown that the Trinity doctrine followed to its logical conclusion leads to a belief in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which forms the basis of spiritualism.  As was indicated, the Trinity concept presents the Son of God as being alive on another plane while appearing to be dead in body.

            Could it be reasonable that we hold an idea of which there is no clear statement in Scripture and on the basis of that idea, deny the clear statements of Scripture which say otherwise, and dare to say that we are a  people of The Book?  Seventh-day Adventists would do well to seek the Lord earnestly, retrace their path quickly and cover themselves with the truth lest the shame of their nakedness gets exposed abroad and Seventh-day Adventism be made a mockery and the object of ridicule in the religious world.

            I find that the issues that are raised in objection to the doctrine of the trinity are often misunderstood or misrepresented.  People say that rejecting the Trinity is denying the divinity of Christ.  I hope that it is clearly seen that such is not the case.  In accordance with what has been shown, the Son is the monogenes (only begotten) of the Father (John 3:16) – the only One of God’s genes, so to speak; not one of inferior ‘genetic’ make-up.  This is simple, plain Scripture.  There is no need for any philosophical maneuvering.   Everybody knows what a son is – an offspring.  If the Bible writers wanted to describe a Three-in-one or a one-in-three they could have done so.  But they did not.  They consistently said Father and Son.  So there is no need to confuse what is already plain.

            It is also claimed by some people that rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of the Holy Spirit and they go at length to quote 1 Cor. 13:14 and Matt. 28:19 saying, “See, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Three, not two.”  But that is missing the point altogether.  Whoever was saying that there is no Father or Son or Holy Spirit?  Of course there is a Father, a Son and Holy Spirit.  The issue is defining the relationship between the three.   Are they three individual Beings, One Being with three aspects to his nature, or what?  

            The simple point is that the speculations of the Trinity are unnecessary since the Bible has clearly defined the relationships:  One is Father (we know what father is), He is the One most consistently referred to as God, the Supreme Being.  Another is Son (we know what son is), a different individual Being who is the offspring of the former, having the same nature, but being submissive to the authority of the former (see 1 Cor.15:24-28).  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Father and Son (we don’t know exactly what is one’s spirit; however we know that one’s spirit is an integral aspect of one’s being and not something or somebody different or separate from one’s own being).  The Bible represents The Holy Spirit as being related to God in a similar way as man’s spirit is related to man (of course, this is not saying that God’s Spirit is like man’s spirit.  God’s Spirit must be as high above man’s spirit as God is above man).  The Bible says:

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”  1. Corinthians   2:11. 

Begotten Son Central to the Gospel

            We are told that Enoch had his first son at age sixty five years, and Enoch walked with God.  Sis. White, in commenting on this, said that the birth and development of his first son gave Enoch a deeper appreciation of what God purposed to do in giving His only begotten Son.   This led to Enoch’s walk with God.

            At another place Sis. White said: “The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.”  (Review and Herald, July 9, 1895, pr.14).  Does this sound Trinitarian?

            Sis. White also wrote that an angel said to her that it was not without a struggle that God gave up His only begotten Son.  “Said the angel, “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.” It was even a struggle with the God of heaven”  (Early Writings p. 127.)  . Does this sound like Father and Son are only designated titles ?  Or is this a genuine Father – Son relationship ? 

            Abraham understood also , when he was told to go and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice . Abraham’s hand was stayed however . But for God there was none to stay His hand. He had to bear the suffering of seeing His only begotten son separated from Him and suffer and die .

            I pray that the true gospel of salvation will no longer be obfuscated by spurious philosophical speculation that liken God to inanimate things of nature such as air, fire and water that have their foundation in paganism . I pray that the argument of Calvary will be sufficient to settle all questions.  Do you dare contend with the argument of Calvary that shows the Son of God being separated from the Father, and the Son of God dying in our place? Or do you prefer the pagan triune who are inseparable and cannot die?  The choice is yours.  But as for me and my house we will serve Jehovah and rest our cause in the truth of Calvary. 

Which other doctrine is as convoluted and hinged on philosophical speculation as the doctrine of the Trinity?  What else could Ellen G. White have been referring to when she speaks of a “A system of intellectual philosophy”?  Well on target was Ellen G. White when she said: “The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy.”  {1SM 204}.  Which other doctrine undermines the very foundation of the Gospel as the doctrine of the Trinity that seeks to confuse the very core of the gospel truth that God gave His only begotten Son for us?   As to the matter of the Trinity doctrine being spiritualistic, I have already shown that the Trinity doctrine followed to its logical conclusion leads to a belief in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which forms the basis of spiritualism.  As was indicated, the Trinity concept presents the Son of God as being alive on another plane while appearing to be dead in body.

            Could it be reasonable that we hold an idea of which there is no clear statement in Scripture and on the basis of that idea, deny the clear statements of Scripture which say otherwise, and dare to say that we are a  people of The Book?  Seventh-day Adventists would do well to seek the Lord earnestly, retrace their path quickly and cover themselves with the truth lest the shame of their nakedness gets exposed abroad and Seventh-day Adventism be made a mockery and the object of ridicule in the religious world.

            I find that the issues that are raised in objection to the doctrine of the trinity are often misunderstood or misrepresented.  People say that rejecting the Trinity is denying the divinity of Christ.  I hope that it is clearly seen that such is not the case.  In accordance with what has been shown, the Son is the monogenes (only begotten) of the Father (John 3:16) – the only One of God’s genes, so to speak; not one of inferior ‘genetic’ make-up.  This is simple, plain Scripture.  There is no need for any philosophical maneuvering.   Everybody knows what a son is – an offspring.  If the Bible writers wanted to describe a Three-in-one or a one-in-three they could have done so.  But they did not.  They consistently said Father and Son.  So there is no need to confuse what is already plain.

            It is also claimed by some people that rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of the Holy Spirit and they go at length to quote 1 Cor. 13:14 and Matt. 28:19 saying, “See, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Three, not two.”  But that is missing the point altogether.  Whoever was saying that there is no Father or Son or Holy Spirit?  Of course there is a Father, a Son and Holy Spirit.  The issue is defining the relationship between the three.   Are they three individual Beings, One Being with three aspects to his nature, or what?  

            The simple point is that the speculations of the Trinity are unnecessary since the Bible has clearly defined the relationships:  One is Father (we know what father is), He is the One most consistently referred to as God, the Supreme Being.  Another is Son (we know what son is), a different individual Being who is the offspring of the former, having the same nature, but being submissive to the authority of the former (see 1 Cor.15:24-28).  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Father and Son (we don’t know exactly what is one’s spirit; however we know that one’s spirit is an integral aspect of one’s being and not something or somebody different or separate from one’s own being).  The Bible represents The Holy Spirit as being related to God in a similar way as man’s spirit is related to man (of course, this is not saying that God’s Spirit is like man’s spirit.  God’s Spirit must be as high above man’s spirit as God is above man).  The Bible says:

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”  1. Corinthians   2:11. 

Begotten Son Central to the Gospel

            We are told that Enoch had his first son at age sixty five years, and Enoch walked with God.  Sis. White, in commenting on this, said that the birth and development of his first son gave Enoch a deeper appreciation of what God purposed to do in giving His only begotten Son.   This led to Enoch’s walk with God.

            At another place Sis. White said: “The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.”  (Review and Herald, July 9, 1895, pr.14).  Does this sound Trinitarian?

            Sis. White also wrote that an angel said to her that it was not without a struggle that God gave up His only begotten Son.  “Said the angel, “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.” It was even a struggle with the God of heaven”  (Early Writings p. 127.)  . Does this sound like Father and Son are only designated titles ?  Or is this a genuine Father – Son relationship ? 

            Abraham understood also , when he was told to go and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice . Abraham’s hand was stayed however . But for God there was none to stay His hand. He had to bear the suffering of seeing His only begotten son separated from Him and suffer and die .

            I pray that the true gospel of salvation will no longer be obfuscated by spurious philosophical speculation that liken God to inanimate things of nature such as air, fire and water that have their foundation in paganism . I pray that the argument of Calvary will be sufficient to settle all questions.  Do you dare contend with the argument of Calvary that shows the Son of God being separated from the Father, and the Son of God dying in our place? Or do you prefer the pagan triune who are inseparable and cannot die?  The choice is yours.  But as for me and my house we will serve Jehovah and rest our cause in the truth of Calvary.

READ MORE:
Calvary answers all mysteries PART ONE ARGUMENT OF CALVARY
Calvary answers all mysteries PART TWO TRINITY, PAPAL TEACHING and more
Calvary answers all mysteries PART THREE SEEMING CONTRADICTIONS
Calvary answers all mysteries PART FOUR DESIRE OF AGES
Calvary answers all mysteries PART FIVE VIOLENCE TO THE GOSPEL?