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?