(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. 1:19-2& 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 Vice-
gerent, 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 3X1 =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 Scrip ture support. Trinitarians admit that there is no Scrip ture 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 Scripture alone. 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. 12:416 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--(l) 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 consti-
tute 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. l: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-R 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.