To the Law and to the Testimony:

"A person or group that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity or a new method or technical development." Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary.

The cause of the fall of Babylon is thus stated: "she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Her fornication was her unlawful union with the kings of the earth. The wine of this, is that with which the church has intoxicated the nations of the earth. There is but one thing that this can refer to, viz., false doctrine. This harlot, in consequence of her unlawful union with the powers of earth, has corrupted the pure truths of the Bible, and with the wine of her false doctrine, has intoxicated the nations. A few instances of her corruption of the truths of the Bible must suffice:

The doctrine of the trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, a. d. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous measures by which it was forced upon the church, which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush. (The Three Angels of Revelation 14:6-12, pg. 54.3 (1855) By J. N. Andrews.)

Here we might mention the trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being "buried with Christ in baptism," "planted in the likeness of his death:" but we pass from these fables to notice one that is held sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is, The change of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week. (Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, December 11, (1855), James White)

If it be said that the Spirit of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one Spirit, with this we all agree. But if it be said that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one person, making in all one God without body or parts, with an idea so inconsistent we cannot agree.

The oneness of Christ with the Father may be plainly seen by any one who will refer to John xvii, 22. "That they (that believe) may be one, even as we are one." Who could believe that Christ prayed that his disciples should be one disciple? Yet this would be no more inconsistent than the idea of some that Christ and his Father are one person.

In accordance with the doctrine that three very and eternal Gods are but one God, how may we reconcile Matt. iii, 16, 17. Jesus was baptized, Spirit of God descended like a dove, and the Father's voice heard from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, etc. The Father in heaven, the Son on earth, the Spirit of God descending from one to the other. Who could ever suppose for a moment that these three were one person without body or parts, unless it was by early training. See other texts which appear equally absurd, if such doctrine be true. Matt.xxviii,18; Acts x,38. "How God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost," etc. First person takes the third person and anoints the second person with a person being at the same time one with himself. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, March 12, (1857), Uriah Smith)

QUESTION 1. What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the trinity?

ANSWER. There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.

These positions we will remark upon briefly in their order. 1. It is not very consonant with common sense to talk of three being one, and one being three. Or as some express it, calling God "the Triune God," or "the three-one-God." If Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three Gods; for three times one is not one, but three. There is a sense in which they are one, but not one person, as claimed by Trinitarians.

2. It is contrary to Scripture. Almost any portion of the New Testament we may open which has occasion to speak of the Father and Son, represents them as two distinct persons. The seventeenth chapter of John is alone sufficient to refute the doctrine of the trinity. Over forty times in that one chapter Christ speaks of his Father as a person distinct from himself. His Father was in heaven and he upon earth. The Father had sent him. Given to him those that believed. He was then to go to the Father. And in this very testimony he shows us in what consists the oneness of the Father and Son. It is the same as the oneness of the members of Christ’s church. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Of one heart and one mind. Of one purpose in all the plan devised for man’s salvation. Read the seventeenth chapter of John, and see if it does not completely upset the doctrine of the trinity.

To believe that doctrine, when reading the scripture we must believe that God sent himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to himself, raised himself from the dead, ascended to himself in heaven, pleads before himself in heaven to reconcile the world to himself, and is the only mediator between man and himself. It will not do to substitute the human nature of Christ (according to Trinitarians) as the Mediator; for Clarke says, "Human blood can no more appease God than swine’s blood." Com. on 2 Sam. 21:10. We must believe also that in the garden God prayed to himself, if it were possible, to let the cup pass from himself, and a thousand other such absurdities.

Read carefully the following texts, comparing them with the idea that Christ is the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Supreme, and only self-existent God: John 14:28; 17:3; 3:16; 5:19, 26; 11:15; 20:19; 8:50; 6:38; Mark 8:32; Luke 6:12; 22:69; 24:29; Matt. 3:17; 27:46; Gal. 3:20; 1 John 2:1; Rev. 5:7; Acts 17:31. Also see Matt. 11:25, 27; Luke 1:32; 22:42; John 3:35, 36; 5:19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26; 6:40; 8:35, 36; 14:13; 1 Cor. 15:28, and c.

The word trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. The principal text supposed to teach it is 1 John 5:7, which is an interpolation. Clarke says, "Out of one hundred and thirteen manuscripts, the text is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It occurs in no MS. before the tenth century. And the first place the text occurs in Greek, is in the Greek translation of the acts of the Council of Lateran, held A. D. 1215."—Com. on 1 John 5, and remarks at close of chap.

3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous. Instead of pointing us to scripture for proof of the trinity, we are pointed to the trident of the Persians, with the assertion that "by this they designed to teach the idea of a trinity, and if they had the doctrine of the trinity, they must have received it by tradition from the people of God. But this is all assumed, for it is certain that the Jewish church held to no such doctrine. Says Mr. Summerbell, "A friend of mine who was present in a New York synagogue, asked the Rabbi for an explanation of the word ‘Elohim’. A Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, ‘Why, that has reference to the three persons in the trinity,’ when a Jew stepped forward and said he must not mention that word again, or they would have to compel him to leave the house; for it was not permitted to mention the name of any strange god in the synagogue." (Discussion between Summerbell and Flood on trinity, p. 38) Milman says the idea of the Trident is fabulous. (Hist. Christianity, p. 34)

This doctrine of the trinity was brought into the church about the same time with image worship, and keeping the day of the sun, and is but Persian doctrine remodeled. It occupied about three hundred years from its introduction to bring the doctrine to what it is now. It was commenced about 325 A. D., and was not completed till 681. See Milman’s Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 4, p. 422. It was adopted in Spain in 589, in England in 596, in Africa in 534.—Gib. vol. 4, pp. 114, 345; Milner, vol. 1, p. 519. (Review and Herald, November 5, (1861), J. N. Loughborough,)

My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points in their faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: their mode of baptism, and doctrine of the trinity. My father, who had been a deacon of long standing with them, labored to convince me that they were right in points of doctrine.… Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, "If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity. (The Autobiography Of Elder Joseph Bates, pg. 204, (1868) Joseph Bates)

"Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb." (Life Incidents, page 343 (1868) James White )

The doctrine of the trinity:

This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as orthodox ever since the bishop of Rome was elevated to the popedom on the strength of it. It is accounted dangerous heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must hold it, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a multitude of views are held concerning it by its friends, all of them orthodox, I suppose, as long as they nominally assent to the doctrine.

For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached against it. But I probably put as high an estimation on the Lord Jesus Christ as those who call themselves Trinitarians. This is the first time I have ever taken the pen to say anything concerning the doctrine.

My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural—the trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would make it no clearer to my friends.

But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. If the testimony says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe it. If he is said to be the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, I believe it. And when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one," I believe it; and when he says, "My Father is greater than I," I believe that too; it is the word of the Son of God, and besides this it is perfectly reasonable and seemingly self-evident.

If I be asked how I believe the Father and Son are one I reply, They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. If the ‘"and" in the sentence means anything, the Father and the Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His language is, "that they may be one, even as we are one."

It may be objected, If the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, do you not, in worshiping the Son and calling him God, break the first commandment of the Decalogue?

No; it is the Father’s will "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." We cannot break the commandment and dishonor God by obeying him. The Father says of the Son "Let all the angels of God worship him." Should angels refuse to worship the Son, they would rebel against the Father. Children inherit the name of their father. The Son of God "hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than" the angels. That name is the name of his Father. The Father says to the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." Heb. i. The Son is called "The mighty God." Isa. ix, 6. And when he comes again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, "This is our God." Isa. xxv, 9. It is the will of the Father that we should thus honor the Son. In doing so we render supreme honor to the Father. If we dishonor the Son we dishonor the Father; for he requires us to honor his Son.

But though the Son is called God yet there is a "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 1, 3. Though the Father says to the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever," yet, that throne is given him of his Father; and because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, he further says, "Therefore God even thy God, hath anointed thee." Heb. i, 9. "God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ." Acts. ii, 36. The Son is "the everlasting Father," not of himself, nor of His Father, but of his children. His language is, "I and the children which God hath given me. Heb. ii, 13. (Review and Herald, June 1, (1869), R. F. Cottrell)

Those who will have the patience to read the writers of the early centuries in their controversies over the doctrine of the trinity, must agree in this, that very much which was then written on the subject was an interminable jargon, a bitter contention over words to no profit; made up more largely of invectives and personal criminations than of argument; showing more zeal for party success than piety. With one thing we have been particularly struck, that the dominant or orthodox writers sometimes expressed their faith in the very same words which were bitterly assailed as the rankest heresy when used by an opposing party. The "Athanasian creed" was saved only by the greater influence of the bishop of Rome. Athanasius himself was not always considered orthodox; he was not only banished from his place in the church, but a reward was set upon him by the emperor Constantius "to whomsoever should bring him alive or dead." The bishop of Rome endeavored to procure his pardon, to whom the emperor replied:

'"All without exception have been injured by him, but none so deeply as I have been. Not content with occasioning the death of my eldest brother, he endeavored to excite Constans, of blessed memory, against me; and had not his aims been frustrated by my moderation, he would have caused a violent contest between us. None of the victories which I have gained, not even those obtained over Magnentius and Silvanus, appear so satisfactory to me as the ejection of this despicable man from the government of the church."' Theodoret, book 2, chap. 16. (Thoughts on Baptism, pg. 180.1 (1878) Joseph Harvey Waggoner)

TRYING TO PUT GOD INTO A FORMULA

It could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyse, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the Divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend Him as He actually is. Christ is the Word—the expression of the thought—of God; and none but He knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. "He had a name written, that no man knew but He himself; . . . and His name is called the Word of God." Rev. xix. 12, 13.

Neither the nature, nor the relationship, of the Father and Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." This revelation of the Father by the Son can not be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand "the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Eph. ii. 7.

Therefore, no man's conception of God can ever be fixed as the true conception of God. God will still be infinitely beyond the broadest comprehension that the mind of man can measure. The true conception of God can be attained only through "the Spirit of revelation in the knowledge of Him." Eph. i. 17. Therefore the only thing for men to do to find out the Almighty to perfection, is, by true faith in Jesus Christ, to receive the abiding presence of this "Spirit of revelation," and then quietly and joyfully wait for the eternal ages to reveal "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God." (Present Truth, July 22, (1897) A.T. Jones)

[Question:] Do you believe in the trinity?

[Answer:] If I knew what you meant by the term, I might tell you; but from the days of Athanasius until now all discussion about the trinity has been an attempt to define the indefinable and the incomprehensible. Thousands have been put to death for not professing belief in a formula which even its professors could not comprehend, nor state in terms that anybody else could comprehend. The Scriptures reveal "One God and Father of all," our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the brightness of the Father's glory, and "the eternal Spirit" through whom Christ offered Himself and was raised from the dead; but we do not profess any knowledge of them beyond what the Scriptures give us. In teaching and preaching the Gospel we always confine ourselves strictly to Scripture terms and language; those who manufacture terms must be looked to for definitions of them. It is attest not to presume to define what the Bible has not defined, nor to attempt to explain infinity. (The Present Truth UK, July 30, (1903), E.J. Waggoner)