Problems with the Trinity Doctrine

I realize that in addressing this subject we are treading on Holy Ground and that our facts need to be solidly based in Biblical Theology and Exegesis. I also realize that many people consider ANY questions regarding the validity of the "Trinity" Doctrine as heresy. However, as will be shown in this study and in the links provided to other websites addressing this subject, it will be found that those who hold to the traditional "Trinity" Doctrine are the ones who are on unstable ground. If you are willing to delve into the subject logically and honesty, I believe that you will find that the "PROBLEMS" associated with the Trinity Doctrine FAR OUTWEIGH any problems that might be presented in an alternative view. With that in mind I invite you to take a good hard look at the "PROBLEMS associated with the Trinity Doctrine" and to honestly re-evaluate the Trinity Doctrine in light of the problems that it presents. Ellet J. Waggoner once wrote that the "Trinity Doctrine" is "Subversive to the Atonement". Now, while I do not agree with everything that Waggoner believed (especially concerning Christ's being "Originally" Begotten -- or "Generated" into Existence by the Father -- I will have more to say on this in my study on "BEGOTTEN HOW?") I most certainly agree with him on this point -- That is, that the doctrine of the Trinity IS, indeed, "Subversive to the Atonement"! Since this is NOT a study on the "HISTORY" of the Trinity Doctrine (either within the Christian Church as a whole -- OR within Adventism -- links to these "histories" will be given at the end of this study for your more thorough investigation) I will be focusing as DIRECTLY and SUSCINTLY as possible here on the unbiblical nature of the Trinity Doctrine. That is to say that I will be addressing the PROBLEMS associated with the Trinity Doctrine as it pertains to the Atonement and Biblical Revelation (including the "Spirit of Prophecy") in as direct and logical means as I can. Some may be wondering how I can be opposed to the "Trinity" Doctrine when the Bible clearly speaks of "THREE" persons in the Godhead. I will say straight out that I do believe that there are "THREE" persons of the Godhead -- but that Three persons of the Godhead does NOT a "Trinity" make! Much of this has been explained in my study on the Holy Spirit so I would direct you there for a more thorough explanation of all this. So, without any further ado let's get started with the "PROBLEMS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE CREATES". Let's be clear that the Basic Premise of the Trinity doctrine is that there are THREE COETERNAL and CO-EXISTENT members of the Godhead (each having an INDIVIDUALITY of their OWN and ALL possessing ALL the ATTRIBUTES OF GODHOOD for ALL of Eternity -- past, present, and future). This is the undeniable premise of the Trinity Doctrine. Please Keep this in mind as you consider the following arguments showing that this belief is most assuredly "SUBVERSIVE TO THE ATONEMENT".

FIRST: The doctrine of the TRINITY (that is that there are Three INDEPENDENT, CoEternal, Co-Existent members of the Godhead -- from now on referred to as "Unrelated" (not in the sense that they are not "God" but in the sense that they are THREE PERSONS in and of their own right which have EVER-EXISTED and are NOT the same being) effectively REDUCES CHRIST's WORK to that of JUSTIFICATION Only. Think about it.

If the Traditional Trinity Doctrine is Correct, then we can only conclude that CHRIST'S WORK involved only the work of JUSTIFICATION and that ANOTHER, THIRD PERSON of the Godhead took over (after Christ's Ascension) and is responsible for the completion of the Plan of Salvation (Sanctification). It reduces Christ's work to a very Limited time and leaves Him sitting in Heaven PLEADING with the Father to accept His Sacrifice on our behalf - but it goes even farther than that because the Trinity Doctrine would have us believe that the HOLY SPIRIT (as a THIRD PERSON and completely Independent of Christ and the Father) is ALSO making intercession for us and that it is NOT CHRIST ALONE doing this work (see Rom. 8:26 cf. 8:34). Please understand that I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is Not making intercession for us - but if I accept the Trinitarian Belief of God then I must conclude that there is not "ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST" (1 Tim. 2:5) but that there are TWO! If the Holy Spirit is understood to be CHRIST'S Divine Nature ("divested from the personality of humanity and independent thereof" MR vol. 14; p.23, par. 3) then all the statements in the Bible regarding CHRIST ALONE being responsible for the Salvation of Mankind and for Mediating on his behalf make perfect sense. Without this understanding that is, if one accepts the Traditional TRINITY doctrine -- one is forced into some very convoluted thinking and nonsensical arguments in order to maintain Biblical Coherency and Meaning.

SECOND:

And this is related to the First Problem -- The Doctrine of the Trinity reduces Christ's Sacrifice to that of a "HUMAN SACRIFICE alone! In other words it was simply an act of providing a "Pound of Flesh" or an "Eye for an Eye" on the part of Christ in order to place at the Father's Wrath! It can be NO OTHER WAY (and such a view completely distorts the CHARACTER of the Father)! It also suggests that Christ only assumed "Human Nature" in order to provide such a sacrifice but that His assuming Human Nature did NOT effect in the least His "BEING" as "GOD" -- that is that He maintained ALL HIS DIVINITY and did not "REALLY DIE" but only "PRENTENDED" to Die in His Human Form (more on this later). But such a proposition completely misses and "Misunderstands" the "ENTIRE NATURE and CHARACTER OF GOD" regarding the "SIN" problem. I will have MORE to say about this under the objection that the Trinity Doctrine also DENIES the "TESTATOR AGREEMENT" of Heb. 9:14-17 -- but for now we must realize that the Trinity Doctrine does, in fact, reduce Christ's Sacrifice to that of a "HUMAN ONLY" Sacrifice-- and this is completely unbiblical and totally MISSES the enormity of what Christ ACTUALLY DID in Sacrificing Himself for you and me!!! It also completely DENIES the fact that "the FATHER HIMSELF also Loves You" (Jn. 16:27) and that "God (the Father) was "IN CHRIST reconsiling the World to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19)! If you are under the impression that Christ did what He did only in order to provide the Father with "Blood" (or a pound-of-flesh) in order to avert His ANGER and WRATH -- than I would suggest that you have COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD the ENTIRE NATURE OF GOD THE FATHER and that you need to get back to the basics of the GOSPEL which tells us that the FATHER (Himself) "GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON IN ORDER THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM MIGHT NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE" (Jn. 3:16)!! Do you really believe that God the Father "Gave" His only begotten Son only in order to provide a "Blood Sacrifice"? What kind of "GOD" would that be? Would you really want to worship and serve such a God? If Christ was really "God Revealed" (Jn. 1:14) then His Sacrifice must actually be the Sacrifice of GOD HIMSELF on our behalf and could NOT simply be a Human Sacrifice as most Christians actually believe. It must be the Sacrifice of GOD (more on this later). But I digress. Since GOD HIMSELF actually DEPLORED the acts of "Human Sacrifice" that were practice by many of the Heathen Religions!

Then WHY would HE HIMSELF actually require one? -- At least if that was ALL there was to it. It simply makes no sense. However, the TRINITY DOCTRINE forces us into this conclusion and this is very sad to say the least. The Trinity Doctrine declares that Christ MAINTAINED His DIVINITY within His Humanity and that it was ONLY HIS HUMANITY that "DIED". If that is True then Christ did NOT really die -- only the human shell that He was wearing "Died". But this totally defies the Biblical Record. So let's get to that now.

THIRD: The "Trinity Doctrine" totally denies the fact that "GOD" died. It States that
Christ only died "HUMANLY" and that His "Divinity" could not have "DIED". In one sense this is "RIGHT" in that DIVINITY CANNOT DIE (in the purest sense of the word -- that is that it could NOT simply cease to exist) -- However, if Christ did NOT die to His OWN DIVINITY then His Sacrifice was simply Human and was the greatest HOAX that has ever been perpetrated against Humanity. His "DEATH" would have only been "APPARENT" and NOT REAL. It would have only involved His HUMAN SHELL. But this is NOT what the Bible states was necessary. In Hebrews 9 we find Paul explaining the "TESTATOR AGREEMENT" and it clearly states that the "TESTATOR" must "DIE" in order for the Testament (or "COVENANT") to take effect and be valid. Steve Wohlberg, in his book "End Time Delusions" (where he refutes the claim of Dispensationalists that the "Antichrist" is the one who "confirms(s) the covenant" with Israel in Dan. 9:27), correctly states that : "Nowhere in the Bible does the antichrist make, confirm, or break a covenant with anyone. The word 'covenant' is Messianic, and ALWAYS applies to the Messiah, and not the antichrist" (p. 45 emphasis mine). The fact of the matter is that NO-ONE (man, angel, devil or otherwise) can make a "Covenant" between man and God (or with mankind) except GOD. GOD is the only one who can make, or confirm a covenant with fallen man (period). And, if this is true, then God (as the covenant maker or "Testator" - according to Paul and Scripture - would have to "DIE" in order for that covenant to take effect or be valid)! It can be no other way. Here is what the BIBLE says regarding this: "Heb 9:16-18 "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the DEATH of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood." Please do NOT miss what is being said by Paul here! Paul is CLEARLY stating that the "Covenant" or "Testament" MUST be confirmed by the DEATH of the One making it. And since GOD is the only One who can make such a "Covenant" with man -- HE must be the One who DIES in some REAL and SUBSTAINATIVE fashion. Otherwise, the "Covenant" which He is attempting to make with man becomes Meaningless! Using Paul's own analogy it would be like trying to make a "WILL" valid and enforceable BEFORE the person making it actually dies (and this is simply a Legal Impossibility). If GOD did not "DIE" in some REAL and SUBSTAINATIVE way then the "Covenant" which He was intending to establish simply CANNOT have been confirmed, solidified, enacted, or legally established -- and it would therefore be of NO EFFECT, MEANINGLESS, NON-BINDING, and of NO BENEFIT to us! And if that does not give you "Pause" for reconsideration of the acceptance of the "Trinity" Doctrine then I don't know what else will. But if that is not enough for you -- then let's keep on considering the implications of the Trinity Doctrine and see how it further violates what the Bible says concerning the Person of Christ and the Atonement.

We have already seen how the Doctrine of the Trinity effectively reduces the work of Christ to that of Justification alone -- how it makes His Sacrifice a merely HUMAN one (meant to appease the Father's Wrath) -- and how it VIOLATES the "TESTATOR AGREEMENT" of Hebrews 9:11-17, 23-26 (making any "ATONMENT" and any "COVENANT" meaningless and invalid). But the Trinity Doctrine does much more than this -- so let's consider some of the other "PROBLEMS" the Trinity Doctrine Creates.

FOURTH: The Trinity Doctrine offers NO SUBSTAINATIVE EXPLANATION for,

and in fact completely DENIES, the BIBLICAL STATEMENT that Christ was "the Lamb SLAIN from the Foundation of the World" (Rev. 13:8). At best, the Trinity Doctrine can only explain this statement of Fact away by saying that Christ was the Lamb "PROMISED" to be slain (at a later date on the Cross) from the foundation of the world. But this makes no sense at all! If the Plan of Redemption was not ALREADY in place (even BEFORE Adam and Eve "Fell") then Humanity would have no hope at all. If the Plan of Redemption was a mere "Afterthought" OR if it was based on a "PROMISE" of some future "HUMAN ONLY" Sacrifice on the Cross -- then All who lived Before the Cross (or AFTER for that matter) would have died vainly hoping for that which could provide NO REDEMPTION at all. The Bible states that Christ was "SLAIN" from the "FOUNDATION" (before the creation) of the world. If that is TRUE (and it MUST be) then there simply HAD to be MORE to Christ's "DYING" than some "PROMISE". There had to be a TRUE and VERY REAL Sacrifice made by Christ even PRIOR to His Incarnation and Death on the Cross. While I acknowledge that Adam and Eve and ALL those who lived PRIOR to the Cross looked forward to the COMPLETION of His Sacrifice (as Typified through the rites and sacrifices of the Old Testament Sanctuary Service) -- it would be a great Heresy to suggest that these rites and sacrifices pointed only FORWARD to Christ's Sacrifice, for it was Begun long before Adam and Eve even "Sinned". If the alter of Burnt Offering symbolized the Cross (which it did) then we must also acknowledge that the offering was originally "KILLED" (or "DIED") at the ENTRANCE TO THE SANCTUARY. I wish I could go into this more thoroughly here but it would take up tons of space. Suffice to say that the entrance to the Sanctuary was the place where the Offering was BEGUN and that this "OFFERING" or "SACRIFICE" was then carried through the entire sanctuary in one form or another. This offering began BEFORE the Alter of Burnt Offering (the Cross) and this symbolism simply cannot be overlooked or explained away as some sort of "Promise" -- for it was a very REAL DEATH that took place PRIOR to its being "OFFERED" on the Alter! So was the "DEATH" of Christ! The ENTRANCE to the tabernacle and ALL that it contained Up to the Entrance to the Holy and Most Holy Place symbolized Christ's work and Sacrifice on Earth PRIOR to His entering into His work on our behalf in Heaven as our High Priest (in the Holy and Most Holy Place) -- So Christ's DEATH at the ENTRANCE of the Tabernacle is aptly described as His having been "SLAIN" from the Foundation of the World. His SACRIFICE BEGAN PRIOR to the Cross and involved a very REAL DEATH to the Life that was once His. The "Trinity Doctrine" leaves no place for (and no explanation for) ANY type of SACRIFICE on the part of Christ PRIOR to His Incarnation and Death on the Cross. As such, it leaves us MISSING MUCH concerning the Sacrifice of BOTH the Father and the Son -- And it leaves us (again) viewing Christ's Sacrifice as that of a mere MAN and NOT as the Sacrifice of GOD! And THAT is most certainly "SUBVERSIVE TO THE ATONEMENT"!!!

FIFTH: ANOTHER problem with the Trinity Doctrine is that it leaves no room for (and
actually does away with) Christ's actually being "BEGOTTEN" of the Father. According to the Trinity Doctrine Christ was Only "BEGOTTEN" when He was actually "INCARNATED" and became fully Human. This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the Biblical account and language which describes Christ as having been "BROUGHTFORTH PRIOR to the Creation of this world (see Proverbs 8:22-31). In John 8:42 Jesus said unto them "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me." Obviously Christ's "Proceeding forth" and His being "Sent" are NOT one and the same thing! If we believe that there have always been Three Co-Eternal beings comprising the Godhead, then it becomes very problematic to explain both the Hebrew and Greek words used to describe Christ's being "brought-forth" (chu^l chi^yl) and "Begotten" (genno?) for they BOTH carry the meaning of being "BORN" or "Brought into existence". This could NOT refer to Christ's ORIGINAL EXISTENCE (see Jn. 1:1) and must refer to an EXISTENTIAL CHANGE in His existence prior to the Creation when He was Begotten, or Brought-forth, from the Father. Put another way, what our Church teaches is that the members of the Godhead mutually agreed to take different positions, or roles, and that this is what is being referred to in Proverbs 8. However, this belief is extremely problematic given the language used to describe Christ's being "brought forth" and "begotten". If Christ were simply assuming a different role or position then why would the Bible writers us a term that conveys a meaning of being brought into existence (born) rather than a term that would express the idea of assuming a different position or being invested with authority - such as might be used to describe Christ being "MADE a high priest" (Heb. 5:4)? Nine times in the New Testament the word "begotten" is used in reference to Christ (the "Son") and it never carries the meaning, implicit or implied, of a new role or position. It ALWAYS carries a relational meaning as pertaining to existence. In other words, it always is used in the exact sense of Christ having been "born" of the Father. But how can that be if He was God and has always existed with the Father? The only way that Christ could have been "begotten" from the Father is for there to have been an existential change in the person of Christ, which occurred prior to the Creation (and was necessary for the Creation), and which involved Christ's taking on the nature of the creatures He was to create in order that He might reveal the character and essence of the "invisible" God to them in an meaningful and tangible way. Hence Christ's being brought forth as a "mediator" from the very Creation (1SM p. 250). The Doctrine of the Trinity completely MISSES this important distinction and Act on the part of the Father and Son in order to commune and communicate with His Creation, and to REDEEM fallen man. This "Change" in the Person of Christ came at an "Infinite Cost" to both the Father and the Son (RH March 10, 1891; par. 2) and "at an Inconceivable Cost to the Son of God" (ST January 6, 1887; par.3) - especially as Christ accepted Human Nature on a permanent and irreversible basis at the Cross. How could Christ's simply "assuming a ROLE constitutes an "INFINITE" or "INCONCEIVABLE COST" to either the Father or the Son? The Trinity Doctrine not only DENIES all this -- it CONFUSES it beyond recognition (and "God is not the author of confusion" [1 Cor. 14:33] -so anything "Confuses" the issue MUST be from some other source!). To DENY the plain WORD OF GOD is a very serious thing -- but, unfortunately, this is exactly what the Trinity Doctrine does to THIS (and to all of the previous points mentioned). The Trinity Doctrine FURTHER confuses the issue because it insists that Christ was "Begotten" when He was INCARNATED AND because it insists that there have ALWAYS been THREE COETERNAL and INDIVIDUAL members of the Godhead!!!

If what the Trinity Doctrine states is true; then would that not make the Holy Spirit the "FATHER" of Christ? (see Mat. 1:20 "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" or Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 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." What other conclusion can we make if we accept the Trinity Doctrine but that Christ was actually the child of the HOLY SPIRIT and that the HOLY SPIRIT (being an INDEPENDENT and THIRD "CO-ETERNAL" member of the Godhead) is actually the "FATHER of Christ?!?!?! But this conclusion defies Christ's AND the Father's claim that Christ is the Father's "only begotten Son" (Jn. 3:16, Mat. 3:17 etc.) and that Christ "came forth from the Father" (Jn. 16:28; 8:42; Prov. 8:22:30 etc.) --clearly the FATHER (not the Holy Spirit) was Christ's father. Do you not see how MESSED UP the belief in the "TRINITY" causes things to be??? If you don't, there's more!

SIXTH: If we accept the Traditional Trinity Doctrine - and if we claim that Ellen White
supported and taught this doctrine - then we must THROW OUT the MANY statements made by her that: "the Saviour is our COMFORTER" (MR. vol. 8, p. 49) - PLEASE NOTE: that the term "COMFORTER" is uniquely reserved as a name for the HOLY SPIRIT (Christ HIMSELF referred to the Holy Spirit in this manner in John 14:16). Yet we have so many other SOP references stating clearly that the JESUS IS THE COMFORTOR -- please note the following. "JESUS THE COMFORTER" (MR vol. 19, p. 298), ".this refers to the OMNIPRESENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST CALLED THE COMFORTER" (MR vol. 14, p. 179), "CHRIST WAS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH" (Southern Watchman, October 25, 1898; par. 2), "HE IS THE COMFORTER" (RH Jan. 27, 1903; par. 13) - [if that statement isn't plain enough, consider the following:] "THE HOLY SPIRIT IS HIMSELF [Christ] divested of the personality of Humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent" (MR vol. 14; p. 23, par. 3) - [can Ellen be any more precise than that - I mean, really, how can we ignore such a plain and unequivocal statement as that? But of course there are MORE! Which, we must throw out if we are to maintain our belief in the Traditional Trinity. Are YOU willing to ignore such plain statements? -- Just because our "Leaders" INSIST on maintaining the Trinitarian position and doctrine?], "While Jesus ministers in the sanctuary above, HE is still by HIS SPIRIT the minister of the church on earth" (DA p. 166, par. 2), "Jesus is waiting to breathe upon all His disciples, and give them the inspiration of HIS SANCTIFYING SPIRIT and transfuse the vital influence from HIMSELF to His people.they must act with HIS SPIRIT, that it may be no more they that live, but CHRIST that liveth in them. Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving HIS HOLY SPIRIT He is giving to them the glory which the Father hath given Him, that He and His people may be one in God" (MR vol. 2, pp. 36,37), "Christ gives them the breath of HIS OWN SPIRIT, the life of His own life" (DA p. 827, par. 3) --- and MANY MORE that are quoted in my book. What are we to do with these statements? Can we REALLY conclude that Ellen is teaching the "Trinity" in these statements? Can we really construe them to mean something other than they plainly say - in order to support our acceptance of the Trinity? Seriously, what should we do with these statements? Should we force them to mean something other than they clearly mean - or should we adjust our understanding (through prayerful study and humility) to conform to a understanding that is in harmony with both them and the Bible - "Now THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17)? We often quote the promise of the "SPIRIT" in Jn. 14:16,17 and we often use these texts to "Prove" that the Holy Spirit is a "Third", "Independent", "Co-Eternal", "Co-Existent" member of the Godhead (the Traditional TRINITARIAN view) -- but we don't often go on to include verse 18 where Jesus HIMSELF says that: "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

Christ clearly states here that HE is the one who will "Come" to us and that HE is the One who will Not leave us "comfortless". This statement is in complete harmony with all of the above SOP statements referencing CHRIST as being the "COMFORTER" and the "Holy Spirit". To IGNORE the BIBLE and the SOP regarding such an important topic as this is nothing short of Inconceivable and certainly does not speak well of those of us who claim to "Love the TRUTH"!

SEVENTH:

If Christ's Death only involved His Human Body (or Nature for that matter), and Christ MAINTAINED His "Divine Nature" intact, within the person of Himself, then we are faced with innumerable problems in regard to His Life and Death (i.e. if He were still OMNIPOTENT then how is it that He said He could "of His own self do NOTHING" (Jn. 5:30) and that it was "The Father in Him which was doing the works" (Jn. 14:10)? Wouldn't that make Christ a Liar? Does God Lie? Could the "Son of God" Lie? Also, If Christ were still "OMNIPRESENT" within His Humanity, then He would be perfectly capable of being everywhere at once - something that is clearly not supported Biblically or in the SOP. If Christ was still "OMNISCIENT" then how could He say that He did NOT KNOW the hour of His Return (Mat. 24:36)? In other words, we simply CANNOT remain true to the BIBLE and maintain the belief that Christ RETAINED the Totality of His Divine Nature WITHIN His Human Nature (even the writers of our Bible Commentary understood this - see SDA BC vol. 7, p. 155 "It was not possible for Christ to retain all the tokens of divinity and still accomplish the incarnation"). Ellen White states that on the Cross, Christ "was Separated from His Father" (see Northern Illinois Recorder; August 17, 1909; par. 14 & Steps to Christ, p. 13, par. 2). Had Christ MAINTAINED His "Divine Nature" (ALL of His Godhood within His Humanity) and IF that Divine Nature is incapable of Dying - than Christ could NEVER have REALLY been "SEPARATED FROM HIS FATHER" and we are again faced with the inescapable conclusion that His Suffering and Death were nothing more than an elaborate "Play" and were not ACTUALLY REAL! [Chapter 8 of my book and Chapter 10 give numerous Biblical and SOP references REFUTING any such beliefs]. If Christ was simply performing a "Role" while still RETAINING HIS OWN INHERENT DIVINE NATURE with His Human Nature - then the kenosis, or "EMPTYING" of Himself (Phil. 2:6-8) becomes completely NON-SENSICAL! Of What, EXACTLY, did He "Empty" Himself of? The Trinity Doctrine would lead us to believe that He did NOT actually "Empty" Himself of ANYTHING -- that is, that He still RETAINED within Himself all of the "tokens" of Divinity and that He simply did not make use of them -- but this is totally illogical given all of the Biblical statements demonstrating that He, in FACT, did NOT possess these "Tokens" of "DIVINITY" within Himself. The question we must really come to grips with is whether or not Christ Actually took on HUMAN NATURE (again, something our Church has never fully come to grips with - and one of the reasons why we have never moved forward in our understanding of the FULL IMPLICATIONS of the INCARNATION and the Plan of Salvation). If Christ did not REALLY become HUMAN, then He was never really like us at all and we are left without Hope. If Christ has ALWAYS been and is STILL completely EQUAL with the Father, even in His HUMANITY, then how is it that Christ claimed that "my Father is GREATER than I" (Jn. 14:28)? Exactly what are we to make of all this "IF" the Trinity Doctrine is, in fact, true???? The FACT of the matter is that we can make no sense of all this at all!!! If Christ was not actually "Begotten" and if He did NOT actually undergo a tremendous CHANGE in His "BEING" (effectively "EMPTYING" Himself of His OWN inherent Divine Nature) then we are left with a "Saviour" who has done NOTHING in order to Redeem us. The Trinity Doctrine, again, fails us on this point and completely MISSES everything that the Father and Son have done in order to SAVE US!!!

EIGHTH:: If we accept the premise of the Trinity Doctrine - that there have Always
been THREE members of the Godhead and that ALL THREE have been and always will be fully God in and of themselves - then we are also faced with the problem of explaining why the Bible places such an emphasis on the FATHER and the SON - and why the Holy Spirit is either given an almost secondary mention OR why the Holy Spirit is not emphasized in so many of the Key Acts of God while the Father and Son are. We must also ask why it is that we are NEVER told to "Worship" or "Pray to" the Holy Spirit while we are told to worship (and have examples of people worshiping) the Father and the Son. Why is the Holy Spirit NEVER mentioned in connection with the "THRONE OF GOD"? If He is God, and I believe He is, WHY is He NOT mentioned as the "Creator" (Gen. 1 doesn't really count because it only says that the "Spirit of God" moved on the face of the waters, which is a very "nebulous" reference or description - while many texts point out the Father and Son as the active agents in the creation [i.e. Jn. 1:1-4; Heb. 1:1,2; Col. 1:16-18 etc.]). And How is it that Ellen White would state so categorically that Christ was the "ONLY BEING that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God" (PP p. 34; par. 1-2) if there was a "Third" independent member of the Godhead involved in all this? There must be a REASON why the Holy Spirit, while being given some prominence in His WORK, does NOT seem to be given much attention when it comes to His "PERSON" and "POSITION" within the Godhead. I explained why this is so within my book but I will leave you to ponder this one for a while. One final thought here; have you ever noticed that JESUS is the one who is always "BREATHING" the Holy Spirit on, or in, people (see Gen. 2:7; Jn. 20:22 and Early Writings p. 55)?

Exactly What the "TRINITY DOCTRINE" Implies:

Christ did NOT actually take on human nature and did NOT "DIE" as GOD (that is to His Divinity) Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross was that of a HUMAN BEING only. Christ did NOT actually do any part of His Sacrifice PRIOR to the Cross. Christ did NOT "EMPTY Himself of ANYTHIG and that He simply Returned to being "God" within His Human nature. Christ did NOT REALLY DIE -- either the FIRST or the SECOND DEATH (which would most assuredly be necessary if He were to accomplish the Plan of Redemption). That Christ is NOT actually responsible for our "SANCTIFICATION -- that is, that the "THIRD" member of the Godhead actually "Took Over" after Christ's Crucifixion and that Christ HIMSELF is NOT RESPONSIBLE for our being "Partakers of His Divine Nature" (see 2 Pet. 1:4) or for His Character being RE-PRODUCED within us. That Christ was NOT actually "BEGOTTEN by His Father. Indeed, He must have been "Begotten" by the Holy Spirit (the "THIRD" member of the Godhead). That the "Father", the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit" were only "ROLE PLAYING and that ANY ONE OF THEM could have actually been the "Father", "Son", or "Holy Ghost" -- effectively NEGATING any real "SACRIFICE" on the part of any of them, for it would all be a "SHOW" (a Theatrical Hoax) and NOT anything of any REAL SUBSTANCE or "SACRIFICE" That any definition of the "SON must only be "METEPHORICAL in nature and NOT LITERAL in any way. That CHRIST is NOT the ONLY way to God and that the HOLY SPIRT is actually the One who produces (or re-produces) any kind of meaningful CHANGE in us.

That Christ's Sacrifice really only happened at the "Cross" and that it involved nothing more that His "Dying" as a Human Being -- As such it could NOT have been an "Infinite" Sacrifice nor could it be an "Inconceivable" Sacrifice -- and it could most assuredly NOT have been one that involved the "SECOND DEATH" and could NOT, therefore, be a Sacrifice that would "ATONE" us to God. That the "TESTATOR AGREEMENT" of Hebrews 9 does not REALLY APPLY and MUST NOT be met in order for God to establish a Binding "COVENANT" with man (which effectively DOES AWAY WITH any "Covenant" made between God and Man -- and effectively leaves us with NO HOPE of ATONEMENT with God at all). While not addressed on this particular web page -- the TRINITY DOCTRINE is of PAPAL ORIGIN (and considered as the FOUNDATIONAL BELIEF of the Catholic Church) and must, therefore, require a great deal of scrutinization from all who would not subscribe to the "Beast" Power's beliefs. There are many ERRORS that have been introduced into the Christian Church and which, over time, have become ACCEPTED as being taught by the Word of God (The Bible) but which cannot be found within its pages (except as they have be wrestled and twisted from there original meaning) -- such doctrines as an "ETERNAL HELL" or "AN ETERNAL SOUL" or "BAPTISM BY SPRINKING" or "FREE GRACE 'without' the LAW" or "SUNDAY KEEPING" (as the "NEW SABBATH") could be named as a few. ALL of these have been "INTRODUCED" fairly "QUITELY" and without much notice -- and TIME (that is "Generation after Generation") has made them "UNQUESTIONABLE in the minds of many Christians. The same has been done with the "TRINITY DOCTRINE -- it has been "Slipped" in between the lines and without much notice (even, and ESPECIALLY within the Adventist Church) until those of us who have lived FAR from the point of origin have simply come to accept this "Doctrine" as Biblical Truth, when, in fact, it is FAR from such. We have, in fact, come to believe in a "TRADITION (a "Doctrine of MAN") and have NOT put such a belief to the TEST. The BIBLICAL TEST! If you are one of those that continue to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity -- I HOPE that this will be your "Wake-up" call!!! Consider the implications of this Doctrine. Consider how DEVISTATING it is to the Plan of Salvation. Consider how UN-BIBLICAL it actually is. Consider how "Subversive" it is to the Atonement. And most of all, consider how CRUCIAL it is to your Salvation -- for you will not be "SAVED" while clinging (knowingly) to a LIE! Many "ADVENTISTS" believe that they will be "PERSECUTED" for believing and standing for the "TRUTH". Most believe that this will apply only to the "SABBATH" Truth (and it WILL apply to that Truth also) -- but the fact of the matter is that it will apply to ALL TRUTH. If you (or I) will not search for and follow after ALL TRUTH then we are NO BETTER than those who simply believe all that is preached to them without any Personal investigation or confirmation from the Scriptures that the things they have been told are "Indeed" TRUE and in accordance with the Word of God. I believe that the TRUTH about the Godhead and the Holy Spirit is a DECIDING ISSUE and that the TRINITY DOCTRINE in fact constitutes the "OMEGA" of apostasies. I believe that Ellen White said that the "Omega" of apostasies would be of a "Startling Nature" (Testimonies Containing Letters to Physicians and Ministers; 1904; [SBTB02.016.002] p. 16, par. 2) NOT because it would be a FRONTAL ASSAULT on our beliefs (such a "Evolution" -- which the "CHURCH" will most certainly NOT embrace) but because it would be introduced in such a sly manner and gain such "wide-spread" recognition and support as to be almost "Unsurmountable". Is that not what the "TRINITY DOCTRINE" has achieved. Are not those who oppose it considered "heretics" (even with the weight of Biblical Evidence on their side)? Could we not be "Standing our Ground" on a "Doctrine" which has NO FOUNDATION?

The Devil has ALWAYS introduced "ERROR" into the Church through Clever and "STEALTHY" means. Most often he has done so SLOWLY and STEADILY until enough time has gone by that those who are living NOW believe that it has ALWAYS been believed and that it is foundational. In the case of the "TRINITY DOCTRINE" the Devil introduced it EARLY in the Christian Church -- and in the case of Seventh-Day Adventism he waited until all the Pioneers (and the Prophet) were well off the scene. Then he placed it squarely within our "Fundamental Beliefs" our "Church Manual" our "Yearbooks" etc. As I am writing this, many generations (3,4 or 5) have how come and gone and almost NO-ONE living today has any idea of "HOW" this Doctrine actually made its way into the Church -- and MOST are convinced that it is a Doctrine that developed from the thinking of the Pioneers and EGW and that it is completely Biblical. Indeed, the Devil is shrewd! But ERROR is ERROR and any serious student MUST come to grips with both the "HISTORY" of the Trinity Doctrine as well as with its "IMPLICATIONS" and its DENIAL of BIBLICAL TRUTH. Please take the time to consider the points listed above and see if you can REALLY come up with a BIBLICAL defense for the Trinitarian Viewpoint. See if you can really answer these objections (or better yet -- see if your Pastor, or Conference President, or General Conference President can offer you any REAL and SUBSTAINATIVE answers to these objections and problems). These are NOT meaningless or TRIVIAL objections or problems! If You or they cannot provide a Biblical answer, then what choice have you? Will you follow the TRUTH -or will you flow with the crowd? The CHOICE is yours. But PLEASE -- do NOT dismiss these things as "UNIMPORTANT". The TRUTH about the Godhead and the Holy Spirit lies at the HEART of the Plan of Salvation and is such an essential core to understanding what GOD has actually done (and SACRIFICED) in order to SAVE you and me that it simply CANNOT be IGNORED! I will WARN you right now that if you have the backbone to really look into this doctrine and to confront those in "Leadership" that you are likely to find yourself "On-the-OUTS" with the Church and may even find yourself ridiculed and persecuted. But this has been the history of ALL who dared to follow the Truth -- So DON'T let that detour you or discourage you. There is something SO BEAUTIFUL in the understanding of these things that is worth any pain or suffering you may experience to fade into oblivion in the LIGHT of the Greater Understanding that lies in front of you right now!

Dare to be a Daniel.

Dare to be a Martin Luther.

Dare to be a TRUE follower of CHRIST OUR LORD!!!