Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
We likewise understand the mystery of the woman (Rev. 17: 5, 7) as representing the Roman Catholic Church. These clearer examples of the cited passages enable us to see that all of them use the Greek word mysterion as we have defined it. Hence the use of the word mystery as a Bible proof that the trinity doctrine is to be accepted with blank unquestioning minds as a Biblical doctrine is wrong. Such use of the word is a Satanic counterfeit employed to deceive the guileless, in which it also succeeded.
We offer a second line of argument against this doctrine. It is contrary to the seven axioms for Biblical interpretation. These axioms are as follows: An interpretation of a Scripture or a doctrine to be true must be (1) harmonious with itself; (2) with every Bible passage; (3) with every Bible doctrine; (4) with God's Character; (5) with the Ransom; (6) with facts; (7) with the designs of the Bible, i.e., glorify God as Supreme, honor Christ as the Executive and Mouthpiece of God, and contribute to the outworking of God's plan for the Church and the world. If any interpretation or doctrine is in harmony with all these seven axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being true; but if it in any way impinges against any one of these axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being false. The trinitarian doctrine violently impinges against every one of these seven axioms, and is evidently, therefore, false. Let us now compare it with these seven axioms: (1) Being selfcontradictory—3 x 1 =1, 1=3 and 3=1—it is evidently false. Other self-contradictions we will bring out under axioms (3) and (5). (2) It contradicts many Scriptures, e.g., (a) those that teach that the Father in contrast with all others is God alone; and that He in contrast with all others is the Supreme Being (John 17: 3; 1 Cor. 8: 4, 6; 1 Tim. 2: 5, compared with Gal. 3: 20; Jude 25, A. R V.). These contrasting the Father and the Son, call the Father alone the One God, therefore
imply that He alone is the Supreme Being. Here belong the passages that teach the Father's sole supremacy (John 14: 28; 10: 29; 1 Cor. 3: 23; 11: 3; 15: 28; 1 Pet. 1: 3; Ps. 45: 6, 7; Is. 42: 8). All of these passages teaching the superiority of the Father to the Son, who is, next to God, the highest Being in the Universe, God, His Father, must exclusively hold the place of supremacy. (b) All the passages that treat of God's unity treat of Him as but one person or Being, none ever mentioning Him as being three persons in one being. These passages, therefore, prove that the Father alone is the Supreme Being (Deut. 6: 4, compare with Mark 12: 29; 1 Kings 8: 60; Zech. 14: 9, A. R. V.; 1 Cor. 8: 4; Gal. 3: 20; 1 Tim. 1: 17, A. R. V.; Jas. 2: 19). Please, on this point (b), see also the passages under (a). These passages most explicitly teach that there is but one God; and neither they nor any other Scripture intimates in the slightest degree that there are three persons that are and constitute the one God.
The only passage that seems to give some color to such a doctrine is 1 John 5: 7, 8; but this passage is now universally recognized by the students of the original, the Greek text, to be an interpolation. It first crept into the Greek text in the fourteenth century. Nor do any translations made before that century contain it; but some late Latin, Vulgate MSS., copied not more than five centuries before, contain it. This interpolation was first inserted into some Vulgate MSS. and was therefrom in the fourteenth century translated into the first Greek text having it. Had this text been in the Bible when the trinitarian controversies were going on, in the fourth to the eighth centuries, certainly the trinitarians who were hard pressed by their opponents to produce such a text, would have used it as a proof text; but none of them ever so used it, for the good reason that it was then not in the Bible. It doubtless crept into the Latin
text by a copyist taking it from the margin, where it was written by somebody as his comment on the text, and inserting it into the Latin text itself, whence, as just said, it was first translated into a Greek MS. in the fourteenth century. The next Greek MS. that contains it is from the fifteenth century. But even assuming that this text were genuine, it would not prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God; for the Greek word for "one" here is "hen," and is neuter; and the masculine word Theos (Greek, God) cannot be supplied after it; for the Greek word for one in that case would have to be heis (masculine for one). Nor can the Greek word for being (ousia) be supplied after it, because ousia is feminine, which would require the feminine of one, mia. If the passage were genuine we would have to supply a neuter noun, e,g., like pneuma (disposition), after hen in this text even as we have to do in John 10: 30: "My Father and I are one" (hen) disposition. It could not be theos (God) nor ousia (Being); which would respectively require the masculine heis and the feminine mia. We agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in disposition, one in heart, mind and will; but not one God. Nowhere, as the trinitarian doctrine requires, does the Bible distinguish between three persons in one Being, as God. Nor does it ever teach that there is a being who is more than one person; for one person is one personal being, and one personal being is one person always, and not more than one in the Bible. It was Satan who, in producing a counterfeit for everything in the Bible in the dark ages, counterfeited the true God as one Being composed of three persons. Let us avoid this unbiblical, unreasonable and unfactual distinction between the words person and being when referring to a personal being; for it surely is an error invented by Satan to deceive—a work of darkness, a self-contradiction,
which no one can understand or explain, while Bible doctrines are all explainable and understandable.
(c) This trinitarian doctrine contradicts the fact that in the Bible God's Name, Jehovah, applies to the Father alone, and is never used as the personal name of the Son, who repeatedly in contrasted passages is shown not to be Jehovah; for He is in them distinguished from the Father, who by contrast is alone called Jehovah. In Is. 42: 6-8, not only is the name Jehovah applied to the Supreme Being as His exclusive name; but as Jehovah he is shown not to be the Son, who is here represented as being called, held, kept, given by Jehovah, which is the Hebrew word used in the text always where we have the word Lord written entirely in capitals in the A. V., as is the case with the word LORD used in Is. 42: 6-8. Jer. 23: 6, when properly translated, markedly distinguishes between God as Jehovah exclusively, and Christ. Trinitarians have grossly mistranslated and miscapitalized this passage to read their trinitarianism into it, as they have done in other cases. The proper translation shows that Christ is not Jehovah: "This is the name which Jehovah shall call Him [Christ], Our Righteousness." Please compare this with 1 Cor. 1: 30. Thus He is Jehovah's appointed Savior for the world, not Jehovah Himself. See the literal translation of Dr. Young, who, though a trinitarian, translates it substantially as we do. While mistranslating Jer. 33: 16, they have not miscapitalized it, and that because they doubtless feared that the same kind of capitalization would suggest that the Church was also Jehovah, which their translation actually makes her, if their procedure in Jer. 23: 5, 6, be allowed to rule as a parallel case. Here the proper translation is: This is the name that Jehovah shall call her, Our Righteousness. The following are the violations of grammar committed in almost all trinitarian translations in rendering these two closely resembling passages: They have rendered
an active verb, shall call, as a passive verb—shall be called; they have made the subject of this active verb, Jehovah, an attributive object, hence one of its objects, and they have made the object of this verb, him, its subject, he shall be called; so greatly did their error on the trinity blind the translators to these elementary matters of Hebrew syntax. Rightly translated, the first passage proves that Jesus is not Jehovah, while the false translation of both passages makes Jesus and the Church, Jehovah, which on trinitarian principles would give us 144,003 in one! Rightly translated, how clearly Jer. 23: 6 distinguishes between Jehovah and Christ, and Jer. 33: 16 between Jehovah and the Church! This passage proves our point.
Ps. 110: 1 demonstrates that Jesus is not Jehovah: "The LORD [Jehovah, in the Hebrew] said unto my [David's] Lord (adon, not Jehovah, in the Hebrew), sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Here they are clearly distinguished from one another; and our Lord is shown not to be Jehovah. Is. 6: 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, treats of our Lord Jesus and of Jehovah as separate and distinct Beings. In vs. 1, 8, 11 our Lord Jesus is referred to under the Hebrew word adonai, which is indicated to the English readers as such by the translation of the word adonai by the word Lord being written with only an initial capital letter, while in vs. 3, 5, 12 Jehovah is the Hebrew word, as indicated by its translation LORD being written entirely in capitals. Both of them are in v. 8 indicated by the word "us" in the sentence, "Who will go for us?" Jesus here asks: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" The fact that these two words Adonai and Jehovah are used in this chapter, the former to designate Jesus and the latter to designate God, proves that Jesus is not Jehovah, which proves that He is Jehovah's Vicegerent, not Jehovah Himself, and which disproves the trinity doctrine, since it proves that the Father alone is the Supreme
Being, and Jesus is His subordinate, as His Vicegerent. Mal. 3: 1 is an illustration of the same facts, while Josh. 5: 14, with some variation in form, makes similar distinctions to the above.
In many other places Jesus is distinguished from Jehovah, and is thus proven not to be Jehovah, e.g., as the Servant of Jehovah, not Jehovah Himself (Is. 42: 1, 6, 19; 52: 13; 53: 11). He is Jehovah's Arm, Agent, not Jehovah Himself (Is. 53: 1). He is Jehovah's Son, not Jehovah Himself (Ps. 89: 27; 2: 7, 12, compare with Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5; 5: 5). He is Jehovah's Angel, not Jehovah Himself (Gen. 22: 11, 15; Ex. 3: 2; Num. 22: 22-27, 31, 34, 35; Ps. 34: 7). He is Jehovah's Companion, not Jehovah Himself (Zech. 13: 7; Prov. 8: 30). In another connection we will discuss the passages that are alleged to prove that Christ is called Jehovah, and will show that in them Christ acts as God's Representative, speaks, is spoken to and spoken of as Jehovah, because in that representative relation Jehovah speaks, is spoken to and is spoken of representatively in Christ. Thus the lines of thought given in these last two paragraphs prove that the name Jehovah belongs exclusively to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and prove Him to be the only Supreme Being. In this part of our subject we have proven that the trinitarian doctrine, contradicting the second axiom for Biblical interpretation, i.e., a doctrine to be true must be in harmony with all Scriptural passages, must be false.
(3) The trinity doctrine contradicts numerous Bible doctrines, which is a violation of the third axiom of Biblical interpretation. We have already seen this as to the doctrines of God's unity and also the subordination of the Son of God, for the trinity doctrine teaches His equality with the Father. It also contradicts the doctrine of Christ's being the firstborn of all God's creatures (Col. 1: 15; Rev. 3: 14, claiming His coeternity with the Father. It also contradicts
the Bible doctrine that first in His resurrection Christ attained the Divine nature (Heb. 1: 3-5; Phil. 2: 7-11; Eph.
1: 19-21; 1 Cor. 15: 42, 49, compared with 2 Pet. 1: 4; John 5: 26 and 1 Tim. 6: 16, compared with John 6: 53 and 1 Cor. 15: 53, 54); whereas it teaches that from eternity He had the Divine nature. Consequently it contradicts the Bible teaching that His pre-human nature was lower than the Divine, proven among other ways by the fact that He emptied [divested] Himself of that pre-human nature (Phil. 2: 7), which could not have been done had it been Divine, since the Divine nature is unchangeable into another nature. It contradicts the Bible doctrine that Christ, emptying Himself of His pre-human nature, became flesh, i.e., the doctrine of Christ's carnation (John 1: 14; Phil. 2: 6, 7; 2 Cor. 8: 9; Heb. 2: 9, 14, 16). It contradicts the functions of all of Christ's offices, since in them He has acted and still acts as God's Agent, not as His equal. It contradicts the nature and offices of the Holy Spirit, as we will show later on. It contradicts the creative work, inasmuch as it denies Christ's agency therein for the Father. It contradicts the Ransom; for if the trinity doctrine be true, some one outside the trinity would have to be the Ransomer, since under the theory the trinity's, justice would have to be satisfied before it would deal with man; hence somebody outside of the trinity would have to bring the Ransom merit to the trinity to satisfy its justice. It contradicts the Ransom from another standpoint, i.e., a member of the trinity could not die; hence could not furnish the Ransom. Nor could such a being as the second person of the trinity furnish the exact equivalent of Adam's debt, since a Divine being does not correspond in value to a perfect human being. The trinity doctrine violates not only the doctrines of Creation and Ransom as executed by an Agent of Jehovah, not by Jehovah Himself, but for the same reason contradicts the Bible doctrines of
providence, revelation, instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance, all of which are Biblically represented as being performed for God by an Agent (1 Cor. 1: 30; 8: 6). Indeed it is difficult to point out any Biblical doctrine that is not in some way or other impinged against by the doctrine of the trinity. Hence it cannot be a Biblical doctrine.
(4) The trinity doctrine is false, because it contradicts the character of God and thus violates the fourth axiom for Biblical interpretation—a doctrine or a Scriptural interpretation to be true must be in harmony with God's character, since the Bible teachings are an outflow of God's character (Ps. 45: 1). Any doctrine that contradicts that character must be false. God's character blends in perfect harmony His wisdom, justice, love and power. Job 37: 23; Jer. 4: 2; 9: 24, show that these are attributes of God's character, and that they also characterize all His acts. This thought is symbolized by the four living creatures of Ezek. 1 and Rev. 4. Ps. 45: 1 shows that every feature of the Bible Plan is an outflow of God's character. And since God's being and character are harmonious, any teaching that would introduce a contradiction between it and God's being and character must be false. But the trinity doctrine does this very thing; for it reduces God, who is supreme in every attribute of His being and character, and who therefore is, among other things, more wise, just, loving and powerful than any one else, to equality with Christ, a subordinate of God, or to put it another way, it exalts God's Son, who is God's inferior, to equality with God in all His attributes of being and character. Hence the trinity doctrine, which does this, must be false, and cannot be a Bible doctrine. That the Son is in every way inferior to the Father is evident from John 14: 10; 10: 29. That He is inferior to the Father in knowledge is manifest from Mark 13: 32; Acts 1: 7. That He is inferior to the Father in justice and love
appears from John 3: 16, 17. That He is inferior to the Father in power is shown by the fact that His power is that of God's Vicegerent, as is seen in John 5: 30; Matt. 28: 18. Hence the trinitarian doctrine is false, since it makes Him the Father's equal in these, as well as in other attributes. No creature can be the Creator's equal; and the Son is a Creature of the Father (Col. 1: 15; Rev. 3: 14). Hence He can in no way be God's equal, though He is as great as it is possible for a creature of God to become.
(5) The trinity doctrine is false, because it contradicts the Ransom, the central doctrine of the Bible: The Ransom doctrine is this: "The Man, Jesus, is the corresponding price for Adam, and Adam's race condemned in his loins (Matt. 20: 28; 1 Tim. 2: 6). This doctrine is the hub of the plan of God. It conditions every Bible teaching, and assigns to each its place and function in God's plan, as it is also the support of all of them. Any doctrine, therefore, that does not fit in with it, or any doctrine that contradicts it, cannot be true. This the trinity doctrine does, as the following things clearly prove. It makes it impossible that Christ could become a ransom—a corresponding price, a price equal in value to Adam's value as a perfect man—because it makes Him a God-man who must be as much more valuable than a perfect man as God is valuable. Hence a God-man was more than the corresponding price. God's justice must forbid receiving more than the corresponding price, just as much as it must forbid accepting less than the corresponding price. Again, the trinity doctrine makes the Ransom impossible from the standpoint that it makes the death of Christ factually impossible; for the trinity doctrine teaches that Christ, as the God-man, had two natures, Divine and human (a thing that actually makes Him a hybrid), and that the personality of the God-man was that of His Divine nature, not that of His human nature. This it teaches to escape the thought that the God-man is
two persons, and to hold to the thought that He is but one person. But this makes it impossible for the person to have died, since God cannot die. Hence the trinitarian doctrine makes the Ransom impossible, i.e., that a perfect human person died for the perfect human person Adam. Thus we see that the trinity doctrine makes it impossible for Christ to become the Ransom and also to give the Ransom. But, thirdly, the trinity doctrine makes it impossible from another standpoint for Christ to give the Ransom; because if God is a trinity the entire trinity's justice must be satisfied, not simply a part of it. Hence the Son, as a part of the trinity, would have to have His justice satisfied. Hence He could not give the Ransom; He must receive it. The Ransomer would have to be someone outside of the trinity. Hence this point proves that the Ransom could not be received, since it could not satisfy the entire God; and it also proves that a member of the trinity could not bring it. Thus it is apparent that from many vital standpoints the trinity doctrine is in most violent opposition to the Ransom, the central and dominating doctrine of the Bible. Hence it cannot be a true Bible doctrine.
(6) The trinity doctrine must be false because it is contrary to facts; and any teaching that is contrary to facts must be false. The following are some of the facts that the trinity doctrine contradicts: The Father's exclusive past eternity, His all-time supremacy, the Son's creatureship, beginning, inferiority to the Father in all attributes of being and character, His being God's Executive and Mouthpiece in creation, providence, revelation, instruction, justification, sanctification, deliverance for the Church and the world, His carnation, development as a human being and as a new creature, His suffering, His temptation, His trial for life, His dying, His remaining dead parts of three days, His resurrection, the exercise of everyone of the offices of His Saviorhood. It is contrary to
every fact of the Church and the world experiencing through Him the separate, operations of salvation. In a word, the trinity doctrine is in violent conflict with almost every fact in the unfolding of God's plan. This will appear in a clearer light when certain facts as to the nature and office of the Holy Spirit are explained in their pertinent place.
(7) Finally, as being contrary to the seventh axiom for the truth of any interpretation or doctrine, the trinity doctrine is false. The seventh axiom is this: An interpretation or doctrine to be true must be in harmony with the design of the Bible, which is a threefold one: (1) To glorify God as Supreme; (2) to honor Christ as God's Executive and Mouthpiece; and (3) to work out God's plans as to the Church and the world. When the Bible purpose is realized, it will result in there being given "glory to God in the highest," i.e., as supreme (Luke 2: 14; Phil. 2: 11; Rev. 5: 13; 15: 3, 4; Eph. 1: 12; 1 Cor. 15: 28); it will also result in the highest honor under the Father being given to the Son (John 5: 23 [the expression, "as they honor the Father," means not that the Son is to be honored in the same degree, but as a matter of fact as the Father, because He is the Father's Vicegerent. That it does not mean that the Son is to receive equal honor with the Father can be seen from some of the following passages]; Phil. 2: 9-11; Eph. 1: 19-23; 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28; Rev. 5: 13); and finally it will result in the development and deliverance of the faithful Elect and of the faithful non-elect of the world. But the trinity doctrine makes the first of these purposes impossible, for it makes two others share equally with God in the glory of supremacy, acknowledged and yielded to by all the saved. Again, the trinity doctrine makes it impossible to realize the second of these two purposes, for it denies the Son the office of Vicegerent of God, on the alleged ground that He is God Himself, the second person in God, and hence not God's Vicegerent,
but a part of God. It makes the third purpose of the Bible impossible, since in setting aside the Ransom, and making impossible the Saviorhood offices of Christ, there can be no such a thing possible as the realization of the third design of the Bible, the development and deliverance of the faithful elect Church and the faithful non-elect of the world. Hence the trinity doctrine is false. Accordingly, we see from the comparison of the trinity doctrine with the seven axioms of Truth as to an interpretation or doctrine, that the trinity doctrine is a masterpiece of Satanic invention making logically void the entire plan of God, with which it is in most violent conflict. It is therefore not a doctrine of the Bible. It is a doctrine of devils, a masterpiece of Satan, palming off his counterfeit of God on the world of Christendom.
We now offer a third general argument against the doctrine of the trinity: It is contrary to sanctified reason. That the proposition, that sanctified reason, in subordination to the Scriptures, may properly be made a test of truth, so that if anything contradicts it, while it is subject to the Scriptures, it may be regarded as untrue, is true, appears from God's inviting His people to use it (Is. 1: 18); from the fact that it must be used in arriving at Scriptural knowledge (Acts 17: 2; 18: 4; 24: 25); from the fact that the Apostles used it in dealing with the Church (Acts 6: 2) and used it in their writings. Please instance St. Paul's reasoning in his epistles, particularly in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. Accordingly, any teaching that contradicts sanctified reason, while it is subject to the Bible, must be false. Under our first argument we pointed out that Bible mysteries are reasonable and not contradictory to sanctified reason. Let us here note a few cases where the trinity is unreasonable, as is conceded by its acceptors, and thus is contrary to sanctified reason: It implies that 3=1, 1=3, and 3 X 1=1, that a son is as old as his father, that a part of God
died, that a part of God prayed to God, was tempted, suffered, remained dead part of three days, that there is a God-man, that a son is his own father and vice versa, that while God is a Spirit Being (John 4: 24), He has in Him a spirit being that is the Holy Spirit, etc. These things baffle and contradict sanctified reason, and are untrue; but every one of them is implied in the trinitarian doctrine. Hence it is not a doctrine of the Bible, since sanctified reason is invited to reason on Bible doctrines by God and to be used in arriving at the understanding of Biblical things.
As a fourth general argument against the trinity we present the thought that it entirely lacks genuine Scripture support. Trinitarians admit that there is no Scripture that clearly states their doctrine. Yet they allege a number of passages as direct proofs of it. We will examine each one of these; and we will find that in none of them is their thought stated or implied, but into every one of them they read their thought without its being there, and that by every one of them their doctrine is refuted. In other words, whenever they find a reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or to one or two of them, they assume without proof that they teach or imply a trinity. What they should do but fail to do to prove their doctrine is to produce passages that prove that these are and constitute a trinity; but instead of producing such proof they merely assume that these passages prove the trinity. Hence their course with these passages is the sophistry of eisegesis—reading foreign thoughts into their alleged proof texts. They have been sorely pressed by the fact that no Scripture clearly states their doctrine, and have felt deeply the need of such a Scripture. The sense of the need of such a Scripture led to the fraud of interpolating parts of 1 John 5: 7, 8 into the Bible. But even this interpolation does not teach the doctrine. If it were genuine, it would merely prove that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one in
disposition—one in heart, mind and will, which thought is a Scriptural one. But such a thought is a far cry from the trinity thought, that three persons are and constitute one God. Hence even this fraudulent passage does not teach the trinity doctrine, that three persons are and constitute one God. Hence they treat this passage with the sophistry of eisegesis. Again, Matt 28: 19, "baptizing them into [so the Greek] the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is quoted by trinitarians as a direct proof of their doctrine. But this passage does not say that these are three persons, though doubtless two of those mentioned in it are persons. Nor does it say nor imply that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the one God—The Supreme Being. Please note that the passage charges that believers are to be immersed into the name [character] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What does this mean? That the Lord's people by the real baptism are to be given such experiences as to their humanity and new creatures as will make them become character images of God and Christ and Their holy disposition (Holy Spirit). Thus this passage does not teach the doctrine of the trinity—that three persons are and constitute one God; hence trinitarians treat it with the sophistry of eisegesis. Nor does 1 Cor. 12: 4-6 teach nor imply the trinity—three persons being and constituting the one Supreme God, for which trinitarians allege it as a direct proof. Those who use it to teach the trinity say v. 4 refers to the Holy Spirit, which is true, that v. 5 refers to Jesus, which is also true, and that v. 6 refers to the Father, which is also true. But please notice that v. 4 does not call the Spirit God, nor does v. 5 call Jesus God, while of these three subjects in vs. 4-6 the Father alone is called God, i.e., in v. 6. On the contrary, v. 5 calls Jesus Lord in contrast to
v. 6 calling the Father God, which disproves the trinity doctrine. Thus in vs. 5, 6 the Son and the Father are contrasted, the former as being the Lord (not Jehovah), the latter as being God,
which is the same contrast we find more strongly stated in 1 Cor. 8: 6, where the Father is called the one God and the Son is called the one Lord, which contrast in both passages proves that the Father and not the Son is God. Hence 1 Cor. 12: 4-6 refutes the trinitarian doctrine. Hence they treat it with their habitual sophistry of eisegesis, a bad thing indeed.
Trinitarians quote also, as fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh direct proofs of their doctrine, Eph. 4: 3-6; Matt. 3: 16, 17; 1 Pet. 1: 2; Rev. 1: 4, 5. But even a surface examination of these passages disproves that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are and constitute the one Supreme God. We will consider these passages in the order just cited and thus will begin with Eph. 4: 3-6. While the Spirit and Jesus and the Father are referred to in this passage, they are so contrasted with one another as to show that the Father alone is the Supreme Being. Please note that the passage neither calls the Spirit Lord or God. Please note that while the passage calls the Son the one Lord (adon being the Hebrew equivalent, as distinct from Jehovah) it does not call Him the one God, which the passage calls the Father alone. The contrasts in the seven features of Christians' oneness—(1) one Spirit, (2) one body, (3) one hope, (4) one Lord, (5) one faith, (6) one baptism and (7), one God—clearly prove that none of the first six are God, since He is the seventh feature of our oneness. Thus this passage disproves the trinity. Please note the trinitarian sophistry of assuming that the mere mention of the Father, Son and Spirit is of itself a proof of the trinity. This sophistry runs through their use of every passage that they give as direct proofs of the trinity doctrine, whereas not one of them implies, much less states such a thought. The same remarks apply to their use of Matt. 3: 16, 17 as a direct proof of their doctrine. It is true there is mention here made of Jesus, of God and of the Spirit; but the passage certainly does not say they are and constitute
the one God. The fact that the Spirit of God was here poured out on Jesus positively proves that Jesus is not God; for if He had been, He would have had the Spirit from eternity, while here as a new thing it is spoken of as given to Him, and that as a qualification for His ministry (Is. 61: 1, 2). Had He been God, He would always have had supreme qualification for everything that He might attempt to do. Then, too, please note that the passage shows that the Spirit is not God; for It is called not God, but God's Spirit. Hence this passage, which trinitarians quote to prove it, disproves the trinity doctrine. They are in their use of it guilty of their sophistry of reading their doctrine into it. We will continue to stress such sophistry.
Trinitarians use 1 Pet. 1: 2 as one of their alleged direct proofs for the trinity doctrine. In harmony with their course of reading their thought into every passage that they allege as a direct proof of their doctrine, they read their thought into this passage—their habitual sophistry of eisegesis. It neither says nor implies that there are three persons who are and constitute God. On the contrary, the Father here alone is called God, while Jesus is called Lord, the same distinction as we have noted in most of the trinitarians' other alleged direct proofs. Moreover v. 3 refutes the trinitarian doctrine for it directly calls the Supreme Being "The God … of our Lord Jesus Christ." Moreover the word Spirit in v. 2 evidently does not mean a Spirit being, but our new creature, that which is begotten of God in us (1 John 5: 4); for St. Peter is here showing how our foreknown selection for the kingdom is accomplished—in [so the Greek] the sanctification of the Spirit, the new creature undergoing the sanctification process, the selection being made for developing proper obedience and for the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, i.e., our humanity continuing in the justification experience through the continued imputation of Jesus' merit on our behalf. So also do they read
their thought into Rev. 1: 4, 5, which neither says nor implies that there are three persons who are and constitute the one God. Undoubtedly God is meant by the "Him which is, and which was, and which is to come," though in this verse the word God does not occur. And He is in vs. 4, 5 pointedly distinguished from Jesus Christ; for if the trinitarian doctrine were true Jesus would be included in the terms "Him which is, and which was, and which is to come"; but the expression, "which was," implying God's past eternity, cannot be applied to Jesus, since He had a beginning, hence was not eternal (Col. 1: 15; Rev. 3: 14). Moreover He is proven in v. 6 not to be God; for there God is called His Father (see A. R. V.). The Greek expression for the A. V. rendering, "unto God and His Father," were best rendered, unto the God, even His Father. Thus Rev. 1: 4-6 disproves that the Son is God Almighty. This Scripture does not mention the Holy Spirit at all. Hence should not be used as an alleged proof of the trinity. The seven spirits of God of v. 4, in harmony with one of the twelve meanings of the word spirit, mean teachings (2 Thes. 2: 2, 8; 1 John 4: 1-3; 5: 6; Rev. 19: 10) and represent the sevenfold teachings of the Bible: (1) doctrinal, (2) ethical, (3) promissory, (4) hortatory, (5) prophetical, (6) historical and (7) typical. Through these grace and peace, as v. 4 teaches, are ministered to us: This passage, like the wished grace and peace in the start of all the apostolic writings that contain such wishes, never mention these as coming from the Holy Spirit, those wishing them mentioning them as coming from God and Christ, which disproves the trinity. Accordingly our investigation of this alleged direct proof passage for the trinity disproves from this and the preceding passages the trinity doctrine. It is a false teaching.
As an eighth direct proof for the trinity, the threefold Aaronic benediction of Num. 6: 24-26 is quoted
by trinitarians. At least it must be conceded that the passage says nothing about there being three persons, nor about their being one God, nor about their constituting the one Supreme Being. Hence the trinitarian doctrine of three persons being and constituting one God is read into this passage. How is it that trinitarians read their doctrine into this passage? They claim that there are three blessings referred to therein; hence they read their trinity into it. But there are six, not three blessings in this passage, which presents these blessings in three pairs; and six blessings in three pairs are not three persons, nor does the fact that six blessings are imparted imply that there must be three persons imparting them; for one person has often conferred even more than six blessings. Nor does the threefold occurrence of the name Jehovah here imply three Gods in one. Hence the trinity doctrine is not here presented. These six blessings refer to the good things that God bestows upon His people in their three conditions, as these three conditions are pictured by Israel in its relation to the Tabernacle—the Camp, the Court and the Sanctuary, two blessings for each condition. Hence the threefold occurrence of the name Jehovah in Num. 6: 24-26. The first of these double benedictions applies to the Camp, which pictures the condition of the nominal people of God. These God by His Priesthood blesses with the offer of the first blessing, repentance, and the second blessing, faith, working these in the responsive. The second of these double benedictions applies to the Court, which pictures the justified. These God by His Priesthood blesses with the offer of the third blessing, justification, and the fourth blessing, consecration, and works these in the responsive. And the third of these double benedictions applies to the Sanctuary, which pictures the spiritual condition of the Church in its two phases, spirit-begotten condition (the Holy) and spirit-born condition (the Most Holy). These God by His
Priesthood offers to bless with the favors of the spirit begotten condition as the fifth blessing, and with the favors of the spirit-born condition as the sixth blessing of the Aaronic benediction, working them in the faithful. Moreover the blessing of Jehovah (LORD) is here pronounced. And Jehovah is a name that belongs exclusively to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Hence the Aaronic benediction does not teach nor imply the trinity. Trinitarians' use of it is another example of their sophistry—eisegesis.
The ninth and last alleged direct proof that trinitarians offer for the trinity doctrine is the Apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the participation of the Holy Spirit be with you" (2 Cor. 13: 14). Here again we note that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are referred to, but be it also noted that they are not mentioned as being three persons, though two of them are undoubtedly persons, as the third is not, which we will prove in another connection. It will be further noted that the passage does not say that these three are one God. On the contrary, only the Father is in it called God. Again, instead of Jesus being called God He is called the Lord. Here again we find the same contrast between the Father and the Son that we have found in 1 Cor. 8: 6 and in six of the other genuine passages alleged to prove the trinity directly. The Father here is called God; and the Son is here called Lord. Hence this contrast proves that the Son is not God Almighty, which the Father alone is. Hence this passage disproves the trinity. In it the Apostle Paul wished three things for the Corinthians: (1) that the Lord Jesus' favor exercised through His office as Savior may be theirs; (2) that the love of God may continue to be theirs; (3) that a share in the Holy Spirit may continue to be theirs. But such wishes are a far cry from teaching or implying the trinity— that three persons are and constitute the one God, the Supreme
Being. Thus we have examined the nine alleged proofs offered as direct evidence by trinitarians that God is a trinity—that He as one God consists of three persons; and we have found that none of these passages prove or imply their view, that in the trinitarians' use of them they practice the sophistry of eisegesis; yea, that these passages contradict the doctrine that trinitarians quote them to prove. We will in this chapter examine their suggested indirect proofs. We ask our readers to hold their minds in abeyance on the nature of the Holy Spirit until we treat that subject later in this discussion, for we will give abundant Bible proof that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, but is (1) God's power, and (2) God's disposition in Himself and in all who are in harmony with Him. Such a proof as to the Holy Spirit does away with the "third person" in the alleged trinity, as we shall see.
We present a fifth general argument against the trinity doctrine: It is an invention of Satan. This follows from several facts. In the first place, as we have seen, the Bible does not at all teach it. Hence it was not God who invented it; for if it were God's view of the subject, He would have revealed it in the Bible, which is given to reveal God truly to us. Since it is an error it must have come ultimately from Satan, the father of lies (John 8: 44); for it is he, the god of this world, who blinds by error the minds of those who believe not, in order to prevent their seeing the glory of God shining in the face of our Lord Jesus (2 Cor. 4: 4). It is he who by his servants puts light for darkness and darkness for light (Is. 5: 20). When doing this he transforms himself and his servants into angels of light and righteousness, i.e., he pretends to be a messenger of light and righteousness (2 Cor. 11: 14, 15). This trinity doctrine has every mark of a Satanic origin. By it he sought to belittle God by making an inferior of His equal to Him; by it he sought to grieve our Lord who is so loyal to the Father that it grieves