What is often overlooked, however, is that the view of origins that is being represented as the scientific position does not reflect or accord with the views of some of the most notable scientists of all time and pioneers of modern science, including Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, both physicists.  Newton, Einstein and others saw such order in the universe that they could not attribute to random chance.

Sir Isaac Newton (left) and Albert Einstein – they and others saw such order in the universe that they could not attribute to chance

According to Newton, who wrote more on religion than he did on natural science, the world was created by God along rational and universal principles and these principles were available for all people to discover (Principia, Book III; cited in Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H. S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, N. Y. 1953).  It is reported that an atheist colleague of Newton saw a model solar system on Newton’s desk and asked who made it.  Newton said nobody did.  After smiling at what he thought was a joke, the colleague repeated his question, obviously unable to accept that nobody made the model.  Newton simply pointed out the absurdity of his being unable to accept that the model was made by nobody while accepting that the real thing of which the model was only a crude representation came about by chance.

Albert Einstein in his book “The Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta” written jointly with his collaborator, Leopold Infeld dismisses the idea that events in nature are purely attributable to chance.  In the foreword, written by Walter Isaacson, Einstein is quoted as saying “Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance”.  Einstein continues, “Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.”  In his words, “There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists”.

The matter of basic origins cannot be determined at the level of biology except by extrapolating backwards into the realm of physics and mathematics.  Biology is built on chemistry as the understanding of the complex molecular building blocks of life such as carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and DNA is based on the fundamental understanding of atoms and molecules in general which is the realm of chemistry.  Chemistry is built on physics as the understanding of atoms and molecules is based on the fundamental understanding of the nature and characteristics of the forces and sub-atomic wave/particles elucidated by quantum mechanics which is the realm of physics.  Physics is built on mathematics as the understanding of the physical world is based on the use of physical quantities which give to the forces, matter, wave/particles and energy that make up the physical world numeric descriptions, which is the realm of mathematics.

At such levels that are closer to the root of the tree of origins, the most authoritative pioneers of modern scientific thought saw a level of order that they could not rationally attribute to chance.  Einstein considered that a reality exists that is independent of our ability to observe it.  As Einstein said “physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as it is, thought independently of its being observed”.

While there is evidence that some new species have developed through an evolutionary process, it seems contrary to reason, contrary to foundational physical laws and mathematically improbable that such evolutionary processes could be extrapolated indefinitely backwards in time to account for all living species.  For some Christians who are practicing scientists, there is no conflict between faith and science as faith tells them why God works while science helps them to understand how God works.  In the words of Sir Isaac Newton, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.  God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done”.

Science is the study of nature or God’s creation. Thus, what we call science is really a study of the products of God’s artistic creativity. Thus, art, science and religion are inextricably linked at the very fountain head in God.

Religion is the study and worship of God. There is no appreciation of God without recognition of him as the Creator, as the Bible puts it, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Ps. 24:1). Also, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Ps. 19:1). At another place it calls upon us to “worship Him that made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of waters” (Rev. 14:7). A study of the basic sciences reveals a level of order in the universe that such notable scientists as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein could not attribute to random chance.

According to Newton, who wrote more on religion than he did on natural science, the world was created by God along rational and universal principles and these principles were available for all people to discover (Principia, Book III; cited in Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H. S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, N. Y. 1953). It is reported that an atheist colleague of Newton saw a model solar system on Newton’s desk and asked who made it. Newton said nobody did. After smiling at what he thought was a joke, the colleague repeated his question, obviously unable to accept that nobody made the model. Newton simply pointed out the absurdity of his being unable to accept that the model was made by nobody while accepting that the real thing of which the model was only a crude representation came about by chance.

Albert Einstein dismisses the idea that events in nature are purely attributable to chance. According to Einstein, “Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance”. Einstein continues, “Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.” In his words, “There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists” (The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld (Foreword by Walter Isaacson), 1938, Simon and Schuster – Touchstone, NY).

Religion provides the link that unites art and science by pointing us to the original artist, God the Creator, who designed and created the wonders of the universe that continues to provide fertile ground for scientific study and discovery.

Seeming Contradictions

I am aware that there are statements that have been attributed to Ellen G. White that, on the face of it, appear to give a Trinitarian viewpoint.  However, a number of them can be explained otherwise.  In fact, they must be explained otherwise if contradiction is not to be conceded, since the overwhelming weight of evidence does not support a Trinity.

As supporting a Trinity persons cite, for example, Evangelism p. 615: “He is the eternal self-existent Son”. This is not the same as saying He is eternally self-existent.  To say that Christ is self-existent does not preclude His being begotten.  Once begotten in the Father’s exact image, He would then be self-existent just as the Father is self-existent.  In fact, that is what the Bible says in St. John 5:26: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”.  The expression eternal Son does not preclude His being begotten either.

One that is begotten of God’s own essence would be eternal since the essence of God from which such One is born had no beginning.  Even the Nicene Creed recognizes a difference between being created and being begotten in the following words: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.” Of course, I am not endorsing the concept of eternal generation.  I am only making the point here, that being created and being begotten are two different things that even the Nicene Creed recognizes, and further, that being begotten does not imply inferiority.

Why should we seek to deny that a literal Father-Son relationship exists?  This does not detract from the Divinity of Christ.  This does not make Him an inferior kind of Being.  What make us think that an offspring could be other than the same kind as the parent?

Another statement of Ellen G. White that is seized upon to advance the concept of a Trinity is the following: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (Desire of Ages, p. 530).  The full statement shows that it is not Jesus Himself that is being described, but rather, life – which Jesus has and is able to impart.  Here is the full statement as it was originally published in Signs of the Times: “In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.  This life is not inherent in man.  He can possess it only through Christ.  He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.” (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897; also Selected Messages, vol. 1, pp. 296,297.)   Those who are diligent enough to do a little research will realize that the statement was not saying anything about the life that Christ had that is not within the possibility for humans to experience.

Being described is the nature and quality of this life and not the origin of it.   Original – not a pattern or copy, but something genuine, authentic.  Unborrowed – does not have to be returned.  Underived – not drawn from a source; He has it in Himself.   How He came in possession of it?  It was given to Him by His Father.   St. John 5:26 says: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”. In like manner as He has received this life from His Father, Jesus will impart it to His people.

This matter seems to be quite straightforward and should not lend itself to much of the confusion that this statement is used to create, since Ellen G. White was not even discussing the matter of a Trinity.

Give Prophet the Benefit of the Doubt

It is only reasonable that the prophet be given the benefit of the doubt by understanding her statements in a manner that is consistent with other clear statements that she made and with the unanimous position that the church held during her lifetime.  Indeed, the non-Trinitarian statements of faith of 1874, (Signs of the Times, June 4, 1874), 1889, and 1894 represented the generally accepted position of the church of which Ellen G. White was a part, and she did not object to it.

It is not reasonable to construe the words of the prophet in a manner that brings the prophet into disrepute and calls into question the credibility of the entire foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.  Nowhere in Ellen G. White’s writings is God referred to as a Trinity or Triune.  She never corrected any of the pioneers, including her own husband, James White, who were staunchly non-Trinitarian.  Quite to the contrary, she strongly endorsed the doctrinal foundation that was laid by the pioneers, describing it as “a solid, immovable platform” (Early Writings, p. 259).

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?

Trinity Concept Justifies Papal Teachings

            Those who advance the idea of God being a Trinity seem to believe that Jesus Christ must, of necessity, have existed as a distinct Being for as long as His Father if He is to be regarded as a Divine Being.  If such is the case, then, by the same premise, would it not also be true that Jesus must always exist and therefore could not have died at any point if He is to be regarded as a Divine Being?  Unless one’s idea of death is similar to that of those who believe in the immortality of the soul, who would hold that there is an aspect of a person that is still alive when the person appears to be dead.  If that was true of Christ, then what of human beings who were made in the image of God?

            I maintain that, in following the Trinitarian line, one is inescapably led to justify not only the doctrine of the immortality of the soul but every single Roman Catholic doctrine.  Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has declared that all their other doctrines are based on the doctrine of the Trinity (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p.16).  Consider even the idea of Mary being co-mediatrix.  If Jesus Christ is also, Himself, the God from whom humanity has been estranged and to whom humanity needs to be reconciled, then, is it not evident that there would be a need for someone to go between us and Jesus Christ?

            How have Seventh-day Adventist come to the place where they are now declaring that Jesus raised Himself from the dead?  Could the Bible have made itself any clearer when, in Gal. 1:1, it declares that it was “God the Father, who raised him from the dead”?  Or, could Ellen G. White have been more explicit when, referring to Christ’s resting in the tomb, she declared that “He was bearing the sins of the world and His Father only could release Him” (Youth’s Instructor, May 2, 1901 pr. 8)?

Trinity Concept Discredits Seventh-day Adventism

            I put it to you that Seventh-day Adventism has no credibility (so far as the matter of truth is concerned) if Trinitarianism is correct.  What rational explanation could be given for such an anomaly as God’s specially led people being in error on a fundamental issue as the question of who God is, when most of  the other churches which they denounced as Babylon had a clearer understanding, in that they believed in the Trinity whereas the pioneers did not? 

            Which set of people would more fit the bill of being classified as Babylon, if Trinitarianism should be regarded as truth?  Would not the pioneers of Seventh-day Adventism be found as fitting the bill of being labeled false prophets and Babylon?  Is it not inexplicable that some of these very persons had previously belonged to Trinitarian churches before accepting Seventh-day Adventism and this great enlightenment that was brought to their spiritual experience should be tainted by the rejection of truth (the so-called truth of Trinitarianism), which they had previously embraced, only to have it replaced with damnable heresy (the supposed error of non-Trinitarianism)?  Yet the world was to accept and believe that these people were specially called by God?

Trinity Concept Denies Bible And Spirit of Prophecy Consistency

            If the Trinitarian line that is being advanced is correct, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy contradict themselves.  I will now highlight some statements which, I maintain, can never be reconciled to a Trinitarian position (all emphases mine).

(1)               “The Father and Son alone are to be exalted” (Youth’s            Instructor, 7^th July, 1898).

(2)               “There is but one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6).

(3)               “The head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).

(4)               “Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father – one in nature , in  character, in purpose – the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34).  The implication of this is that the Holy Spirit is not a being since the Holy Spirit “searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1 Cor. 2:10); yet Christ is the only being who could enter into all God’s counsels (and note, this was referring to the creation!).

(5)               “The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence.  He had an associate – a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34).  An associate – not two.  The associate was not Himself the Sovereign.  Plainly, the God that the Word was (John 1:1), could not have been the same God that the Word was with.

(6)               Prior to the incarnation, Christ was “next in authority” to the Father (Review and Herald, Dec. 17, 1872; also Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 9).

(7)               Prior to the incarnation, before Lucifer’s fall, Lucifer “was a high and exalted angel, next in honour to God’s dear Son.”  (Story of Redemption, p. 13).  There was a clear line of authority: The Father first, The Son second and Lucifer third.  The first two were worshipped, being uncreated Beings and the “counsel of peace” was between them both (Zechariah   6:13).  The third was not worshipped, being a creature.  The third wanted to be worshipped.  After being removed from his position Lucifer (now Satan), has obviously found a way of getting humanity to accept the idea of offering worship to a third being.

(8)               Speaking of the creation, “His Son would carry out His will and His purposes, but would do nothing of Himself alone.  The Father’s will would be fulfilled in Him.”  (Signs of the Times, Jan. 9, 1879, pr. 2).

(9)               “God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God.  To Christ has been given an exalted position.  He has been made equal with the Father.  All the counsels of God are opened to His Son,”  (Testimonies vol. 8, p. 268.)

(10)            “A complete offering has been made; for ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son’ – not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of His majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity and divine perfection.  In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Signs of the Times, May 23, 1895).

I could go on and on.  But it is not necessary.  The point is that there are many statements that simply cannot be reconciled to a Trinitarian concept of God.

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?

Trinity Concept Contrary To Calvary Truth

Contrary to the argument of Calvary, the Trinity concept declares that Father, Son and Holy Ghost constitute an inseparable unity. This implies that no separation took place at Calvary. Which will you believe? It is either the truth as declared at Calvary that there is One Supreme Being and that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son or the omega of deadly heresies – the doctrine of antichrist that denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22). The choice is yours.
Contrary to the argument of Calvary, the Trinity concept declares that the Son is as eternally self-existent as the Father. To be eternally self-existent means that you cannot die. This implies that the Son of God cannot die and, therefore, did not die at Calvary. Which will you believe? It is either the truth as declared at Calvary that the Son of God was made flesh so that He could die and did in fact die (give up His hold on divine life) or the doctrine of antichrist that denies that Christ came in the flesh (1 John 4:3), thus implying that Christ was incapable of dying (going out of existence).

Contrary to the argument of Calvary, the Trinity concept declares that, apart from the Father and the Son, there is another who is deserving of worship and adoration. There is no precedent or authority given in scripture for worship to be offered to anyone except the Father and the Son, for they only are worthy (Rev. 5:12,13). The choice is yours. Will you follow the example and precept of scripture in worshiping “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22) only, and accept that the Holy Spirit is not another, but rather, the Spirit of God Himself, or will you worship another who “sitteth (is positioned) in the temple (place of worship) of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4)?
In the name of this other object of worship, many are supposedly speaking in tongues, performing many miracles and communicating with all manner of spirits. Will you join the band-wagon of believing in the Trinity, thus fulfilling the one criterion necessary for acceptance with the World Council of Churches and being a part of the Babylonish ecumenical spiritualistic confederation that will be overthrown at the second coming of Christ, or will you accept the argument of Calvary?
Calvary discounts the three pivotal concepts of the Trinity, namely: (1) Inseparability of Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
(2) Eternal self-existence of the Son and
(3) Worship of the Holy Ghost.
Do you dare contend with the argument of Calvary? I hope that, once and for all, those who were ready to declare the pioneers of Seventh-day Adventism in error in their rejection of the Trinity will thoughtfully reconsider.

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?

REFRENCE: J. N. Loughborough, “The Great Second Advent Movement”,  CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTORY, page 25 paragraph 1

The Scriptures reveal the purpose of God in creating the world; and from the word of prophecy we also learn his plan concerning the future: “Thus saith the Lord 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.”9 When he had formed it, he gave it to man. The psalmist says, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s; but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”10 But when he gave it to man, man was upright, as expressed by the wise man, “This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”11

We read of the Lord’s dealing with the race, that “when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel,”12 that is, according to the number of the true Israel that shall at last be gathered on the earth as subjects of his future kingdom. It is expressed by Paul in these words: “God . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being.”13 When this original purpose respecting the earth is carried out, “thy people also shall be all righteous.”14 Again it is said of them in that state, “The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity.”15 That will be the time when “the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”16

References

1. UNKNOWN
2. Hebrews 6:19.
3. 1 Thessalonians 2:19.
4. Acts 24:14, 15.
5. Acts 26:6-8.
6. Acts 28:20.
7. Titus 2:11-13.
8. 1 Peter 1:3-7.
9. Isaiah 45:18.
10. Psalms 115:16.
11. Ecclesiastes 7:29.
12. Deut. 32:8.
13. Acts 17:26-28.
14. Isaiah 60:21.
15. Isaiah 33:24.
16. Psalms 37:11.