Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13

< Previous : Next >



Him to be palmed off as the Father's equal; by it he sought to darken God's plan and make it appear unreasonable, self-contradictory and indefensible; by it he sought to make the Bible appear to be a book containing nonsense; by it he sought to baffle the minds of saints, and more or less deprave their hearts through making it impossible appreciatively, and understandingly, to worship and reverence God; by it he sought to make its acceptors amenable to priestcraft and consequent degradation; by it he sought to make infidels out of thinking people, who were by him deceived into believing the Bible teaches such a doctrine; and last, but not least, he sought to deprive the Father of the supremacy and highest reverence and worship in the affections of the people. These fell purposes, germane to the nature and effects of the trinity doctrine, prove it to be of Satanic origin. Hence it is only another lie of the father of lies, and therefore is to be rejected as such; for once seeing an error is to reject it.


As a sixth general argument against the trinity doctrine we note that it is a heathen doctrine, which discredits it, since the heathen gods the Bible says are devils (Deut. 32: 17; 1 Cor. 8: 4, 5; 10: 20). It is the conception of God that is to be found in all the ancient and practically all modern heathen religions. This is true of the Chinese religion, whose emperor offered yearly a sacrifice to the spirit of the trinity. Confucius said: "Tao (God) is by nature one; the first begat the second; both together brought forth the third; these three made all things." The Japanese view is very similar. The trinity of India (Trimurte), Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, is worshiped as three persons, though originally the Divine principle Brahma, was but one. One of its sacred writings declares: "The great Unity is to be distinctively recognized as three gods in one person." One of its hymns reads: "There are three deities; but there is only one Godhead, the great soul." The Chaldean Oracle declares: "The



Unity brought forth the Duality, which dwells with it and shines in intellectual light; from these proceeded the trinity." The names of the Chaldean trinity are Anos, Illinos and Aos. The Babylonian trinity is shown in the three images in the temple of Belus; the Phoenicians' trinity was Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. That of the Egyptians was Kneph or Ammun, Phthas and Osiris. That of the Greeks was Zeus, Poseidon and Pluton. That of the Romans was Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. The money of the Dalai Lama (Thibet) is stamped with a picture of a threefold Deity. A Tartar coin is stamped with a human figure with three heads, which according to the superscription on the reverse side represents their trinity. The trinity of the heathen Irish was Kriosan, Biosena and Siva; of the heathen Scandinavians, Thor, Wodan and Fricco; and of the heathen Germans, Odin, Thor and Freya. The ancient Indians of North and South America called their three in one God Tangalanga (one in three and three in one) and Trinimaaka (trinity). Accordingly we see that the supreme God of practically all heathen nations is a trinity. But since the Bible teaches that the heathen worshiped devils, we infer that Satan secured the worship of himself and two other devils under the name of the heathen trinities. These facts demonstrate the erroneousness of so-called Christian trinitarianism.


A seventh general argument against the trinity is the fact that it is the counterfeit of the Bible God palmed off on the world by Satan, through the Papal Antichrist. The Roman hierarchy with the pope as its head is Satan's counterfeit of the true Christ; for Antichrist means literally, instead of Christ, i.e., counterfeit Christ. The Bible teaches that Jesus, the Head, and the faithful saints, His Body, are the true Christ, i.e., the true Anointed, since the word Christ means Anointed, as the following points will show: These are all anointed by the Spirit (Matt. 3: 16; Acts 10: 38; 2: 1-4; 10: 45-47; 2 Cor. 1: 21; 1 John 2: 20, 27).



Hence they are called Christ, Christ-partakers, sharers in Christ as parts of Him, are in the Christ company, of the Christ, in Christ, Christ in me or in you (1 Cor. 12: 12, 13; 15: 23; Gal. 3: 16, 29; Eph. 4: 13; Col. 1: 24; 1 Pet. 4: 13; Heb. 3: 14; Col. 1: 27; Rom. 8: 10; Gal. 2: 20; Phil. 2: 21). Being The Christ, they are the one Company in which Jesus is the Head and the faithful saints are the Body (John 17: 23, 26; Rom. 12: 4, 5; 1 Cor. 12: 12-14, 27; Eph. 1: 22, 23). This makes them the one new and perfect (symbolic) man (Eph. 2: 15; 4: 13, 24; Col. 3: 10). The reason the faithful saints are with Jesus called Christ is twofold: (1) Like Him they are anointed (Christed) by the Spirit; and (2) a bride bears her husband's name, the faithful saints being the Bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11: 2; Rev. 19: 7; 21: 2, 9; 22: 17).


This fact that The Christ is a company is the mystery of God and Godliness (Col. 1: 26, 27; 2: 2; Eph. 3: 3-6, 9; 1 Tim. 3: 16). But this mystery stands in contrast with Satan's counterfeit of it, the Antichrist as the mystery of iniquity, the very opposite of the mystery of Godliness (2 Thes. 2: 7). The relation between the two is the following: The mystery of God is The Christ; the Mystery of iniquity is the Antichrist, i.e., counterfeit Christ. This counterfeit arose as follows: Satan was one of the most studious listeners to the preaching and teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. From these he learned every feature of God's plan. Then he proceeded to counterfeit it in every detail. He thus produced Antichrist, papacy, as the counterfeit of the true Christ, in which counterfeit the pope, as the head of the hierarchy, is the counterfeit of Jesus, the true Head of the saints, and in which counterfeit the hierarchy, the body of the pope, is the counterfeit of the true saints, the Body of Christ. This explains the relation between Christ and Antichrist. But every other feature of God's plan Satan counterfeited in the papacy, either in its doctrines, organization,



practices or discipline, and in this counterfeit the true God, Jehovah, the One Supreme God, who is only one Person and Being, was counterfeited by Satan through Antichrist by the trinity—three Gods are one God. Since, therefore, the trinity is Satan's counterfeit of the true God in the Antichrist, it must be a false teaching. Satan, proud of the trinity that he invented in the heathen religions, through Antichrist introduced among Christians his heathen doctrine of the trinity, for which we should repudiate it.


The fruits of this trinity doctrine prove it to be wrong, which we present as our eighth general argument against it. Some of these fruits we showed when pointing out that Satan introduced this doctrine to disparage God, grieve Christ, injure God's real people and enslave the nominal people of God. Here we will give some others: There is no doubt that this doctrine is conducive to superstition, priestcraft, and the degradation of the people by making them believe unscriptural, unreasonable, ununderstandable, self-contradictory and unfactual things, which in turn make them susceptible to believe other unscriptural, unreasonable, ununderstandable, self-contradictory and unfactual things. It has made clear thinkers disbelieve the Bible, which they were deceived into believing taught the trinity and its connected errors. It has also been responsible for persecution, since it naturally makes bigots and fanatics of its whole-hearted believers. Calvin brought Servetus to the stake for disbelieving this doctrine. The inquisition tortured many a disbeliever in the trinity. Its detailed elaboration makes the Father appear repellent, cruel and vindictive, and the Son full of mercy, pleading with this repellent, cruel and vindictive Being to exact vengeance on Him, and let the sinner go free in pardon. This view makes people dread God, not love Him, and results in the actual exaltation of Jesus in the affections of the people above the Father. This doctrine turns faith into credulity.



It makes it almost impossible to love God supremely, as well as results in Jesus being loved more than the Father of all compassion, all mercy and all goodness, and this greatly weakens in its believers the power of godliness to make saintly characters. It certainly undermines hope in God. It makes it almost impossible to obey God from faith, hope and love. Accordingly, by its fruits this doctrine gives evidence of being an error, while the truth that the Father is the only Supreme God conduces to sanctification (John 17: 17). This should move us to concordant acts.


This doctrine is false, because it is based on wrong methods of interpretation and of propaganda. This we present as our ninth general argument against it. It sets aside clear statements and stresses obscure ones. It ignores contrasts between the Supreme Being and Christ that, if heeded, would give the trinity doctrine a death blow. It reads into its main proof texts thoughts that they do not contain, and ignores the features of those texts that refute the doctrine that those texts are by trinitarians supposed to prove. Nowhere in the Bible is it either clearly or even obscurely stated. In a word, it is read into the Bible and not drawn out of the Bible. Or to put it in another way, it is based on eisegesis, not on exegesis. It was not originally accepted by weight of argument; but by the power of Emperor Constantine and his successors, who forced the doctrine upon the Christian world, banishing and degrading its opponents, who had decidedly the better of the argument in the debate on the question. The majority of Christian people at first were on their side and recognized the trinity teaching as a thing foreign to the belief that had prevailed from the days of Christ and the Apostles; but they had to bow to the might of emperors who forced their subjects to receive this error. The controversy lasted several centuries before the opponents of this doctrine were forced to give up, the trinitarians owing their victory to armies, generals



and emperors, which again shows that the doctrine was not spread by the sword of the Spirit, but by the sword of the Roman Empire—a sure proof that it was championed by Satan and Antichrist.


As a tenth general argument against the trinity doctrine we present the following: A right understanding of our Lord's three natures overthrows the thought of His being God Almighty or a part of God Almighty. On this point, as on our preceding and following points, lack of space prevents our giving details; therefore as on all our other points we, on this point, will summarize our pertinent thoughts. According to the Bible Jesus has had three natures: (1) A prehuman nature, lower than the Divine, but higher than the angelic natures; (2) human nature, and (3) a posthuman nature, the Divine nature. If this is true, it destroys the possibility of His being the so-called second person in the trinity. We have treated rather detailedly on His prehuman nature above. As we, as well as trinitarians, believe that Jesus existed as the Logos before He came to earth as the human being, Jesus, there is no need of discussing that phase of the subject here; since details on it are given above. The following things may be said on His prehuman relations to the Father, all of which prove that he was not God Almighty or a part of God Almighty. He is said to have been created by God (Col. 1: 15; Rev. 3: 14), hence had a beginning, was therefore a creature, hence could not have been God Almighty. Instead of being God Almighty, He was then (and since) called the Son of God, the firstborn of, and the only begotten by God (Ps. 89: 27; John 3: 16, 18; 1: 14, 18; 1 John 4: 9; Ps. 2: 7-10). Hence He was not God Himself, but God's Son in His prehuman condition. Being a Son of God, having been begotten by God, He is not so old as the Father; hence He had a beginning; hence is not eternal; hence is not God Almighty. In His prehuman condition He is called: (1) Michael, the Archangel



(Dan. 10: 13, compare with 12: 1; Jude 9, compare with 1 Thes. 4: 16); (2) the Angel, and (3) the Angel of God, or of the Lord (Ex. 14: 19; Judg. 6: 11-22; 13: 3-21; 2 Sam. 24: 16; 1 Kings 19: 7; 2 Kings 1: 3, 15; Ps. 34: 7; Zech. 1: 11, 12, etc.). Hence in His prehuman condition He was not God Almighty or a part of God Almighty, but was His Chief Angel or Messenger, which proves that He was in His prehuman condition neither co-eternal, consubstantial (of the same substance or essence) nor co-equal with the Father, things absolutely necessary for Him to have been in His prehuman nature, if He was God Himself, or an essential part of God Himself.


In the passages in which His prehuman condition and carnation are described He is set forth in terms that exclude the thought of His being God Almighty or an essential part of God Almighty. In Phil. 2: 5, 6 He is directly said in His prehuman form to have been a Spirit Being inferior to God. Please see the A. R. V. for the proper translation of this verse. Moreover in v. 7 His becoming a human being is said to have occurred by His emptying [divesting] Himself, a thing a Divine Being cannot do, since such a being is unchangeable. John 1: 14, literally translated, reads thus: "The Word [the prehuman Christ] became flesh," i.e., became a human being. Notice the passage does not say, as the trinitarians' thought requires, "The Word remained the Word and assumed into the unity of His person human nature." But this passage shows us that the Word ceased to remain the Word, the highest being next to God, and became a human being, just as the water at Cana ceased to be water when it became the wine in Christ's first miracle. Because of God's invariableness, it would have been impossible for Jesus to become a man had He been God. The same thought is taught in 2 Cor. 8: 9, by the fact that the passage tells us that He who was rich [in nature, etc.] became poor, an impossibility for God. Indeed, to harmonize



with the trinity doctrine this passage would have to read something like this: He who was rich became richer, inasmuch as He retained His rich nature and added to it as much more of riches as perfect humanity is worth. Does the passage give such a thought?


Heb. 2: 9, 11, 16, 17 overthrows the trinity doctrine; for this doctrine teaches that He as God remained higher than the angels, and that when He assumed in addition the human nature, He still was higher than the angels, remaining God Almighty. To become a little lower than the angels, i.e., a perfect man as Adam was (vs. 7, 8), He had to give up the nature that was higher than theirs (Heb. 2: 16, see A. R. V.), which would have been impossible, if He were God Almighty. In His prehuman condition He is shown not to be God Almighty by the contrast that John 1: 1, 2 brings out, as the literal translation shows: "In a beginning (hence not in eternity) was the Word; and the Word was with the God [the Supreme Being]; and the Word was a God. The same was in a beginning with the God [the Supreme Being]." It will be noted that there is a strong contrast made here between a God, which the prehuman Jesus was, and the God. By the latter term the Almighty God is meant; by the former term a Spirit Being inferior to Almighty God is meant. This will become clear, if we remember that about 200 times in the Bible angels, good and bad, are called Gods, as, among others, can be seen in the following: Ps. 97: 7, compare with Heb. 1: 6, where St. Paul gives an inspired comment on Ps. 97: 7; Gen. 3: 5; Ex. 12: 12; 15: 11; 18: 11; Deut. 7: 25; 10: 17; Josh. 22: 22; 1 Sam. 28: 13; Ps. 95: 3; 96: 4; 97: 9; 136: 2; Acts 14: 11; 1 Cor. 8: 5; 2 Cor. 4: 4. Hence the Logos as the Archangel is in John 1: 1, 2 called a God; but the very contrast between a God and the God shows that he was not the Supreme God, nor a so-called second person of the Supreme God. Hence in this paragraph and the two preceding paragraphs, where His prehuman condition



and His carnation are described, He is set forth in such Biblical terms as disprove His being Divine before and during His carnation. Therefore He was not then God Almighty, which fact proves that He never was nor could be God Almighty, which is fatal to the trinity doctrine as an alleged Bible doctrine.


Then, too, during the days of His flesh, i.e., of His human nature, He is set forth in such terms as disprove His being God Almighty. We have already seen from Phil. 2: 57; 2 Cor. 8: 9; Heb. 2: 9, 14, 16, 17; John 1: 14 that He could not have become a human being without giving up His prehuman nature, which could not have been given up, had it been Divine, since Divinity is unchangeable. This, of course, proves that while He was in the flesh He was not in the Divine nature. Hence He never was God Almighty. The Bible is most explicit that He was a sinless man among sinful men for 33½ years. That He was a human being during those 33½ years follows from His having been born of a human mother (Gal. 4: 4), by His growing as a human being into manhood (Luke 2: 52; 3: 23), by His oft-given title as the pre-eminent descendant of Adam, literally, the Son of the man, and the Son of David, by his hungering and thirsting (Matt. 21: 18, 19; 4: 2; John 19: 28), by His becoming weary (John 4: 6), by His weeping (Luke 19: 4144; John 11: 35), by His praying (Matt. 26: 39-44; Heb. 5: 7), by His temptations (Matt. 4: 1-10; Luke 22: 28; Heb. 2: 18; 4: 15), by His sorrowing (Is. 53: 3; Matt. 26: 38), by His suffering (1 Pet. 2: 21; 3: 18), by His dying (1 Cor. 15: 3), by His crying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt 27: 46), by His being buried as a dead man (Matt. 27: 57-61) and by His resurrection after being dead parts of three days (Matt. 28: 1-6).


Had He been God Almighty during those 33½ years, He could not have been born of a woman, grown into manhood, been rightly called the Son of the man, and



the Son of David. Nor could He have hungered and thirsted, become weary, weak, prayed to God (which would have been praying to Himself), been tempted, sorrowed, suffered, been forsaken by God, died, been buried and resurrected. Had He been God Almighty, we would have to consider these experiences as a pretense, a pro forma exhibition, a sham. The doctrine that He was God Almighty, and that His only personality was the personality of God Himself, must make these experiences a sham, a pro forma matter, since the trinity doctrine denies the possibility of His human nature having a personality of its own, and does this to evade the logical conclusion that His having two natures at the same time—"The God—man" each of which had its own intellect, sensibilities and will, the constituents of personality, there must be two persons in Him. These facts prove that He was only a human being—a perfect one, it is true—during those 33½ years. Accordingly we see that Christ's having human nature, and only human nature, during those 33½ years, He could then not have been God Almighty. And if He then was not God Almighty, He never was such, since this would imply that God Almighty in His alleged second person was out of existence during those 33½ years. The absurdity that He was during those 33½ years "the God-man" and is such yet is the basis of such absurd trinitarian expressions as: "the Mother of God," "God died" and the words of a trinitarian hymn, "O great woe! God Himself lies dead!" Such absurd and blasphemous expressions never occur in the Bible, because they inculcate a grossly unreasonable and unbiblical thought. Rather the thoughts set forth in this paragraph prove that, Christ having been a human being 33½ years, the trinity doctrine must be false.


The trinity doctrine is false because it implies, among other things, that our Lord had the Divine nature from eternity, whereas the Bible teaches that



he became Divine in nature at and by His resurrection. What was above proven of His nature as the Logos and as a man proves that He was not Divine in nature before His resurrection. We will now prove that He became Divine in nature at and by His resurrection. This will appear from a number of considerations. (1) On condition of being faithful unto death He was offered, among other things, the Divine nature as the joy set before Him (Heb. 12: 2). To reach this condition He had to undergo the resurrection process, which begins with the begettal of the Spirit to the Divine heart and mind, proceeds through the development into perfection of that which is begotten—the Divine heart and mind—and is completed in the birth of the Spirit. The begettal occurs at consecration, the resurrection of the spiritual heart and mind proceeds hand in hand with the sacrificial death and the bestowal of the Divine body or nature occurs at the awakening from death. This resurrection process is a regeneration. That Christ underwent this rebirth is evident from several facts: (1) from the fact that His resurrection process is set forth as forming the pattern of ours (Rom. 6: 4, 5), which this passage proves begins at our consecration and proceeds unto perfection, as we carry out that consecration faithfully unto death; (2) from the fact that our resurrection process is called a rising with Christ (Col. 3: 1; 2: 12, 13; Eph. 2: 5, 6), and the power of His resurrection (Phil. 3: 10); and (3) from the fact that the Bible teaches that we are dying with Him (hence undergoing the same kind of a sacrificial death as His) and at the same time rising in life with Him. This thought is taught in all the passages quoted under (1) and (2); it is also taught in the following: Rom. 6: 3-11; 8: 10; 2 Cor. 4: 10; Gal. 2: 20. These three points prove that Christ and the Church from their consecration onward until they are raised from the dead undergo the regenerative process, the resurrection process.



The regenerative process as undergone by both Christ and the Church is described as a new creation. It begins with the begettal of the Spirit (John 1: 12, 13; 1 Cor. 4: 15; Phile. 10; Jas. 1: 18; 1 Pet. 1: 3, 23; 1 John 5: 1), which begettal made them embryo new creatures (2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15; compare with 1 Pet. 3: 16; 5: 10, 14). It proceeds through a quickening process (Eph. 2: 5; Col. 3: 13; 1 Tim. 6: 13). It passes through a growth process until developed enough for the birth (2 Pet. 3: 18; Eph. 4: 15; 1 Pet. 2: 2; 5: 10; Eph. 4: 12). The birth from the dead makes them Spirit beings of the Divine nature (John 3: 5; Jas. 1: 18; 2 Pet. 1: 4; 1 Cor. 15: 50-54). This process beginning with the begettal and ending with the birth of the Spirit constitutes the creative acts whereby God brings into existence a new order of beings, that of the Divine nature. This new creation consists of Jesus and His faithful followers. The passages treating of this creative process just given prove that the Church undergoes this creative process unto the Divine nature. The Scriptures teach that Jesus also underwent it. Thus as the Church was begotten of the Spirit, in its Jewish and Gentile parts (Acts 2: 1-4; 10: 44-47)—so was Jesus begotten of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3: 16). As the Church was quickened, so was Jesus (Eph. 2: 5). As the Church is developed unto character perfection and thus fitted to be born of the Spirit in the resurrection, as the passages in the first part of this paragraph prove, so was Jesus (Heb. 2: 10; 5: 8, 9). And after being so perfected He was born of the Spirit in His resurrection as the Beginning and Chief One of the class so to be born (Col. 1: 18; Rev. 1: 5; Rom. 8: 29). This entire re-creation process that changed Him from a human to a Divine being is described in Ps. 2: 7; Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1: 5; 5: 5; Rev. 1: 5, as a bringing to birth. Hence in Jesus' resurrection He was given the Divine nature for the first time.



The following considerations also prove that He was made Divine in His resurrection. Immortality, which the Bible defines as life in oneself (1 Tim. 6: 16; John 5: 26; 6: 53), is an exclusive quality of the Divine nature, as we see from 1 Tim. 6: 16 and from the first clause of John 5: 26. Its second clause shows that while Jesus did not then have it, God had promised it to Him. This promise God fulfilled to Him in His resurrection, as we see from the fact that in the resurrection all the Faithful, one of whom He was, obtain immortality (1 Cor. 15: 53, 54) and from the fact that in the resurrection the saints will be like Him (1 John 3: 2); hence He must then have gotten it, since they partake in His resurrection (Phil. 3: 10). This likeness consists in their having His, the Divine nature, in their resurrection, which is the same kind of a resurrection as His (2 Pet. 1: 4; Phil. 3: 10, 21; 1 Cor. 15: 45-49). Thus in His resurrection He obtained the Divine nature and its kind of life, immortality. That Jesus did not have immortality before His resurrection is evident from the fact that He died, which an immortal being cannot do. And since immortality is an inherent quality exclusively of the Divine nature (1 Tim. 6: 16), before His resurrection Jesus was not Divine since before that He died; and since His resurrection changed him from a human into a Spirit being (1 Cor. 15: 45-49), it was in His resurrection that He became Divine. But we have yet more proof for it.


His exaltation to the Divine nature, whereby He became "the exact impress of the Father's substance [Divine]," is clearly shown to have occurred in His resurrection by Heb. 1: 3-5; for the whole passage treats of Him after His resurrection at the time of His glorification. We will quote it from the Improved Version, asking our readers to note particularly the tenses of the verbs: "Who, being the effulgence of His Glory [like God in splendor of character] and the very image of His Substance [a body just like God's,



hence Divine in nature] and upholding all things by His powerful Word [acting as God's Vicegerent throughout the universe (Matt. 28: 18)], after making a purification of sins [sprinkled His blood on the Mercy Seat], sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in the highest, after becoming [a thing that He while in the flesh (Heb. 2: 9) had not been; but yet a thing that prior to His sitting down at the right hand of God He had become] by so much superior to angels as He has inherited a more excellent name [nature] than they; for unto which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art my Son; today I have brought Thee to birth." Please note that in Acts 13: 33 St. Paul quotes the last two clauses from Ps. 2: 7 as a proof of Christ's resurrection, which proves that he quotes them here to prove the same thing. Hence this passage proves that Jesus in His resurrection inherited the more excellent name [nature], the Divine nature, than angels have.


Here it is important to note that the word name in the Bible has seven meanings, three of which are nature (Is. 62: 2; Rev. 3: 12), honor (Ex. 9: 16; Neh. 9: 10) and official authority (Ex. 5: 23; Esth. 8: 8, 10). While in Heb. 1: 4 the word undoubtedly means nature, which is proven by the fact that the resurrection passage in Ps. 2: 7, compared with Acts 13: 33, is quoted in proof that His resurrection made Him higher than angels, whereas, while a man, He was a little lower than angels (Heb. 2: 9), all three of these meanings occur in Phil. 2: 9-11, where the "name above every name," the Father's of course excepted (1 Cor. 15: 27), means nature, honor and official authority. Here the Apostle tells us that because of our Lord's emptying [divesting] Himself of His prehuman nature in becoming a man and then obeying God even unto the death of the cross, God highly exalted Him, by giving Him a name above every other name, i.e., a nature, honor and official authority above every other nature, honor and official authority. The same thought



of God's exalting Christ in His resurrection above every other name (nature, honor and official authority) we find in Eph. 1: 19-22. Col. 2: 9 assures us that in Christ now all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily, i.e., in Christ as God's Vicegerent lodges God's character, nature, honor, power and official authority; but a comparison of Col. 1: 18, 19 proves that this is since Christ's resurrection, and is a reward for His faithfulness to God unto death. Having thus proven that Christ attained the Divine nature in His resurrection, it follows that the trinity doctrine cannot be true; for it implies that Christ always has been Divine in nature.


Trinitarians seek to meet this argument by the claim that Christ's exaltation in His resurrection was not in His Divine nature, which they claim was always exalted, but in His human nature. To this we answer, the Bible never says that He was exalted in His human nature in His resurrection; but it says that He, the person, and not a part of Him was exalted. Again, the Bible by at least 21 separate lines of thought teaches that Jesus was not resurrected as a human being, which would have made Him take back the ransom price, and thus vitiate the whole plan of salvation, but was resurrected as a Spirit Being of the Divine nature (P' 28, 11-15). Hence their evasion falls to the ground. If it were kept in mind that God, among other things, set before the Logos the joy of His exaltation to the Divine nature, honor and official authority, if He would give up His prehuman nature, become a sinless human being and give Himself as such to become man's ransom price to be laid down by a sacrificial death and to be paid to God after Jesus' ascension (Heb. 9: 24; 1 John 2: 2; 4: 10), God would as a reward exalt Him in His resurrection to the Divine nature, honor and official authority (Heb. 12: 2; 1: 3-5; Phil. 2: 9-11; Eph. 1: 19-22: Col. 2: 9; 1: 18, 19), the futility of this evasion will at once be recognized. Why did God require such stringent tests of our Lord before exalting



Him to the Divine nature? He desired a Vicegerent that could be absolutely depended upon to take God's side—the side of truth and righteousness—and be faithful to that side, regardless of any pressure whatsoever to the contrary. Hence He deferred His exaltation until by His obedience in carnation, life and death He proved Himself worthy— "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and glory and blessing" (Rev. 5: 12). If He received these after He was slain, as appears from Matt. 28: 18 and the last passage quoted, He did not have them before, hence was not Divine before He was slain. The trinity doctrine cannot stand up in the presence of the Bible and the Plan of God therein contained. The fact that Jesus was raised to the Divine nature in His resurrection gives a fatal blow to the trinity doctrine, as we trust our readers see.


Having proven that our Lord is not God Almighty and hence that the trinity doctrine is not true, we will now proceed to discuss the Holy Spirit in relation to the trinity doctrine, as our twelfth general argument against it. We will first briefly define the Holy Spirit: It is (1) the power or influence, and (2) the disposition of God, either in Himself or in those in harmony with Him. One or the other of these two definitions will fit every occurrence of the expression Holy Spirit in the Bible. We will now give, first in its first sense, afterward in its second sense, proof of the correctness of this definition. That the Holy Spirit is God's power or influence is evident from Luke 1: 35: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Here the Holy Spirit is defined as the power of the Highest. How do we know this? Because Gabriel in using this language used a parallelism, which is one of the ways the Hebrews made their poetry. While English poetry is made by rhythm of words, often accompanied by rime of words, Hebrew poetry, among other ways, is made



by rhythm of thought, whereby the same thought is repeated in different words, called parallelism. Accordingly the expression, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee," means the same thing as, and is defined by the expression, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." This parallelism proves that the word kai, which in Greek means and, also and even, in this passage means even. Hence this passage proves that the Holy Spirit means the power or influence of God. Luke 24: 49 defines the Holy Spirit "power from on high," which also proves the first sense of our definition. So also does John 20: 22, 23 prove the first sense: "He (Jesus) breathed on them and said unto them, Receive a [so the Greek] Holy Spirit [power. That holy power is shown in the immediately following words to be the holy power to declare as God's mouthpieces the forgiveness of sins to penitent believers and the retention of sins to the impenitent]; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." In other words, Christ by His death, providing the ransom price as the basis for forgiveness of sins, in John 20: 22, 23 gave the disciples the holy power to act as His representatives in declaring the basis and conditions on which sins are to be forgiven or retained, and to assure those concerned of these two facts. Before Pentecost (when for the first time the Holy Spirit was given in the sense of the spiritual disposition to any of Adam's fallen race, John 7: 39) whenever the Spirit is spoken of as acting in nature or on fallen men, it is always in the sense of God's holy power or influence. This is implied in John 7: 39, since it shows that before Pentecost the Spirit was not on or in any fallen man in the sense in which it has been since Pentecost.


The second sense of the words Holy Spirit is the disposition of God in Himself and in others, i.e., those who are in harmony with His disposition, His Spirit. It is in them a holy mind, holy affections and a holy



will. During the Gospel Age this is in saints a spiritual disposition begun in them at their begettal of the Spirit, and developed in them unto perfection by the Spirit (in the sense of power), Word and providences of God, working in and upon them. In the saints it is therefore called: the Spirit [disposition] of God and Christ (Rom. 8: 9, 14; Phil. 1: 19; 1 Pet. 4: 14); the Spirit [disposition] of Holiness (Rom. 1: 4); the Spirit of sonship [a filial disposition Godward], in contrast with a servile, cowardly and time-serving disposition (Rom. 8: 14, 15); the Spirit of meekness [a meek disposition] (Gal. 6: 1); the Spirit of power [a strong disposition], of love [a loving disposition] and of a sound mind [a wise disposition], in contrast with the spirit of fear [a cowardly disposition] (2 Tim. 1: 7); the Spirit of the Truth [the disposition worked in us by the Truth, John 17: 17] (John 14: 17); the Spirit [disposition] of the Truth, contrasted with the spirit of error [erroneous disposition] (1 John 4: 6); the Spirit of the promise [the disposition wrought in us by the Oath-bound promise] (Eph. 1: 13, 14); a watchful Spirit [disposition] in contrast with the spirit of slumber [a sleepy disposition] (Rom. 11: 8; 1 Cor. 16: 13); the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and reverence [a disposition that is wise, understanding, practical, strong, intelligent and God-fearing] (Is. 11: 2); the Spirit of glory [the glorious disposition, because transforming our characters into God's glorious likeness] (1 Pet. 4: 14); the Spirit which is of God [the Divine disposition], in contrast with the spirit of the world [worldly disposition] (1 Cor. 2: 12), and the Spirit [spiritual disposition], in contrast with the flesh [fleshly disposition] (Rom. 8: 5-9; Matt. 26: 41; Gal. 5: 16-25).


These passages all clearly prove that God's Spirit therein referred to is His disposition, either in Himself or in those in harmony with Him in disposition. Especially do the contrasts between the filial and the servile



and cowardly spirit in Rom. 8: 15, between the cowardly spirit and the strong, loving and wise spirit in 2 Tim. 1: 7, between the Spiritual and fleshly spirits in Rom. 8: 5-9; Matt. 26: 41; Gal. 5: 16-25, between the Truth Spirit and the erroneous spirit of 1 John 4: 6, between the watchful Spirit and sleeping spirit of Rom. 11: 8; 1 Cor. 16: 13, between the Divine Spirit and the worldly spirit in 1 Cor. 2: 12, prove that the Lord's Spirit is His disposition. Certainly the servile, cowardly, erroneous, sleeping and worldly spirits of these passages are not spirit beings, but are dispositions; hence the filial strong, loving, wise, heavenly, Truth and Divine Spirits of these passages are, by the contrasts drawn between them and the servile, cowardly, worldly, erroneous, earthly and sleeping spirits, shown to be dispositions. Hence these passages prove that the Holy Spirit in its second sense is God's Holy disposition, in Himself and in all in harmony with Him—Christ, the good angels and the saints.


We ought also to remember that in Is. 11: 2 a definition of the Holy Spirit is given. "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him [the Christ]—the Spirit [disposition] of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit [disposition] of counsel and might, the Spirit [disposition] of knowledge and reverence of the Lord." Please note that in John 14: 17; 15: 26; 16: 13 the Holy Spirit is defined as the Spirit of the [so the Greek] Truth, i.e., the disposition that God's Word, the Truth (John 17: 17); works in His people. So in Eph. 1: 13 it is defined as the Spirit of the [so the Greek] promise [the disposition that the Oath-bound promise works in the saints]. These definitions prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but is God's disposition, in Himself, His Son, Jesus, His saints and the good angels. The same conclusion follows from St. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 2: 10, where we are told that "the Spirit searches [studies out] all things, even the deep things of God." If the Spirit were God Almighty,



It would know all things intuitively, as God does, and would not study out anything; but God's mind, disposition in the saints, does not know everything, and must study out the deep things of God to understand them. This same thought is implied in Rom. 8: 26, 27, where we are told the Spirit groans, unable to express its feelings. But God Almighty neither groans nor is He unable to express His feelings; but His disposition in His saints often groans (Rom. 8: 23), and often is unable to express its feelings. Again, when we are exhorted in 1 Thes. 5: 19 not to quench God's Spirit, we are admonished not to do anything that would put out the holy fire of God's disposition in us. To understand God's Spirit here to mean Almighty God would imply that we can put God Almighty out of existence! Every passage in the Bible using the expression Holy Spirit, not using the words, Holy Spirit, in the sense of power, influence, uses them in the sense of God's disposition, in Himself and in His faithful—the mind, heart, will of God. This view stands all tests of the Bible.


While God is a person and while Jesus is a person, The Holy Spirit is not a person. There is no Scripture, apart from mistranslation, that speaks of It as a person, yet numerous passages do speak of God and Christ as persons. The trinitarian mistranslation, Holy Ghost, and certain other mistranslations, suggest this thought, which translation—Holy Ghost—was rightly rejected by the A. R. V., etc., in favor of Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Bible statements with reference to It are of such a kind as are incompatible with the thought that It is a person. That the Holy Spirit is not God Almighty is evident from the fact that It can be quenched by us (1 Thes. 5: 19), which would mean, if It were God Almighty, that we can destroy God Almighty! How Almighty would God be, if we could quench, destroy Him? The Bible says that Jesus (Acts 10: 38) and the saints (2 Cor. 1: 21) are anointed with



< Previous : Next >