It Doesn't Get Any Simpler Than This!

Dear C.

To answer your question why it seems to me that the trinity denies, for instance, the real “sacrifice of both for me and you” let me offer the following:

This was quite a daunting task, not least because I must first give you some context of my understanding of the Godhead and then give you my answer using terminology that must be exact as possible to minimize misunderstanding. In the end I could not avoid the length of this material.

The Godhead
There is only one true God ." Deut.6:4; Mark 12:28-32: 1 Timothy 2:5: John 17:3. God is absolute and immutable and above all (Ephesians 4:6) and the source of all things (DA21) . God is Holy: God is Spirit.

God is the literal Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; John 20:17):

In the endless ages of eternity past the Father brought forth a Son, the ONLY Son to be brought forth (Proverbs 8:22-25: PP34). When and how the Son proceeded forth from the Father (John 8:42) is not important but, as far is His Sacrifice is concerned, it is very important that He was begotten and that He was begotten and not created.

The Son’s life is from His Father (John 5:26) and His Spirit. The Spirit is God and proceeds from God, hence ‘Spirit of God). . The Son has ‘no existence separate from the Father’ (5BC 1142)

The Father ‘invested’ in His Son equality of powers with Himself in respect of His divine nature and attributes (PP34.35) and is the express image of Gods person (Hebrews 1:1-3). The Father ‘exalted’ His Son to equality to Him (Testimonies
Vol. 2, 426; cf. Testimonies Vol .8, 268)

The Father and Son are distinct persons. The Father calls His Son 'God' and Himself (i.e. His own Person in relation to His Son) 'Thy God' (Hebrews 1:8, 9).

He gave His Son power in Himself to create life (John 5:26) and to be worshipped and honored as Himself (Hebrews 1:6; John 5: 22, 23). The Father and the Son ‘alone’ are to be worshiped (The Youth's Instructor, July 7, 1898).

The Father created the universe and everything in it, including angels and man, with the Son, by the word of His power, hence the Son is co-Creator and the Word (John 1:1), or more fully, the Word of God.

On earth the Son had power to lay down His life and to take it up again and had this by command of His Father (John 10:18).

The Son is the only Being in the universe that can enter into the counsels of God and share in His plans (That I May Know Him,363; PP 34,35).

The Son of God shared His Father's throne and equal authority, and was to the angels ‘as God’ in authority and presence and as the voice or word of God (SR13: 5BC 1142). He is ‘next to His Father, the Great Lawgiver’ (The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 2, 9); second in rank and subject to His Father in the exercise of that authority (1 Corinthians 15:23-28; PP36). The Son carries out His Father's will (PP36) with which He is one. .

The Son, as God’s Firstborn (Hebrews 1:6), received all things by inheritance from His Father who appointed Him Heir of all things (Hebrews 1:1-3).

The Son calls His Father ‘God’ (John 20:17: 1 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 3:12) and declares His Father as ‘greater than I am’ (John 14:28: Cf Notebook Leaflets Vol. 1, 114).

The Lord Jesus Christ pre-existed His earthly sojourn as the Son of God (Proverbs 30:4: Proverbs 8:22-25) and was recognized as such by His followers and even evil spirits as the Son of the Living God (Matthew 8:29; 14:33; John 6:69; John 11:27).

The Father sent His Son into this world (John 1:14) and was in Christ reconciling the world Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19; Review & Herald, July 9, 1895).

The Son abandoned His position as Sovereign of the Universe and His seat on the eternal throne with His Father and became fully man -- the Son of man. He lay down His divine powers. He was born as a helpless babe to Mary and “gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God." (5BC 1114)

The divine nature, the divine soul and mind of the Son was encapsulated in sinful fallen humanity and it was His divine soul and mind that was expressed through the faculties of human nature. His divine soul and mind were bound by His humanity thereby making Him totally dependent by faith upon His Father in all things unto life and righteousness. He was without sin. All the works that He did was not of Himself but was wrought by God the Father through a faith He authored in Him. His works were according to what He had heard -- taught or commanded (John 8:28). They were done in His Father’s name (John 10:25)

The Son of God took our sins and bore our sicknesses. He paid the ultimate penalty of sin; even the death of the cross; the second death. When He died He gave back His life to His Father (Luke 23:46).

If He had sinned, the Son would have lost His life. He would have lost everything. “Divine wrath would have come down upon the head of Christ even as it came down upon the head of Adam” (5 or 7BC?). Mankind would have been lost and ultimately destroyed. The Son of God would have been eternally lost. He would not have come forth from the tomb. He would have been blotted out of existence forever. God the Father ran the risk of losing His Only Begotten Son. Both shared in the infinite sacrifice that was made for all mankind. Amazing love!

The Father really did give His Son to this world (John 3:16: 1 John 4:9). The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, really did give Himself and ran the risk of eternal loss and failure and of Heaven itself. But, praise His Holy Name, He was victorious! He overcame through faith. Resurrection morning the Father gave back the Son His life and by that power Christ came forth from the tomb a mighty conqueror over sin and the grave; and a mighty Saviour (DA).

The Son of God maintained His divine human nature and now He is mediating the merits of His sacrifice as our High Priest in Heaven. He cannot come to us in that form. He comes to us in a different way. He comes to us through His Spirit. The Spirit of Christ comes as the Comforter and teaches us how to pray (Galatians 4:6) and to empower us for glory (Colossians 1:27).

The Holy Spirit is Christ Himself (John 14:17, 21; Testimonies Vol. 9, p189: Desire of Ages, p. 669. 1898 edition)-- Himself personally -- representing Himself -- in the Spirit and manifest to us with all the attributes of the personality of His being (Review & Herald, November 29, 1892). The Spirit of Christ is the actual life of His soul (Review &
Herald, May 19, 1904), the Son of the living God, His Omnipresence (Manuscript Release, No. 1084)

The Trinity

I will focus only on the differences as I understand them.

The Trinity doctrine teaches (either directly or indirectly or by implication) that there is more than one true God. There are three Beings or individuals who are absolute and immutable and true, and each is the source of all things. There are three Beings, who are distinct persons. They are co-existent and co-eternal and co-equal, and each has all the attributes of God in their own right, yet they are described as one God.

It is assumed that at a point in time the members of the Godhead took on specific roles. One became the Father; one became the Son and the other the Holy Spirit. Thus these titles are role titles; not literal.

The Trinity accepts and teaches a Father and Son yet denies that at a point in time, in eternity past, the Father literally brought forth an Only Son. This robs God of being a literal Father and His Only Begotten of being a literal Son. It makes the Word of God less than what it says, i.e. it cannot be believed at face value.

The Trinity does not teach that the life of the Son originated in the life of God the Father. It does not teach that the Father gave His Son the equality that He has with Him in respect of His divine nature and attributes. It does not teach a hierarchy within the Godhead by real relationship; it is a hierarchy based on assumed roles.

The Trinity does not allow for and therefore denies, de facto, that the Son is the only Being in the universe that can enter into the counsels of God and share in His plans. Why? Because it teaches a third Being, the Holy Spirit. The Trinity does not allow for and therefore denies that the Spirit is the literal Spirit of the Father or the Son. The Trinity only allows for the Holy Spirit as a representative of the Father or Son, a third person or individual, separate from the Father and Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is Christ Himself coming to us as a real person (hence EGW’s references to the ‘heavenly trio’, ‘three dignitaries’ etc which can be harmonized with Scripture)

May I say at this juncture, that these expressions when read before Scripture and the rest of her writings, would appear to support a Trinity, especially if one approaches with preconceived ideas of a Trinity, but caution must be exercised to harmonize these and similar statements with the Bible and the major part of her writings which clearly contradict a Trinity. Not once does the Lord use the term through her. Such statements should not be used to interpret Scripture, rather Scripture should interpret Ellen White’s writings—again, not the other way round. Her statements must be harmonized with Scripture. If they are found wanting then we have her permission to reject them. I personally have been able to harmonize such statements satisfactorily though I personally believe that they come dangerously close to Trinity terminology.

I protest at the use of titles or headings inserted by the publishers (and which I understand are not found in her original manuscripts) to insinuate a teaching which is not supported by her pen.

The Trinity does not teach that the God the Father is greater in a literal sense than is the Son – Both are considered equal in.

The Trinity does not teach that the life the Son has in Himself (i.e. ‘original’, ‘unborrowed’, ‘underived’ was given Him by the Father (cf John 5:26). By the way the context clearly shows that this life is eternal life the redeem can possess in themselves (see 1SM 296.7). And, most interestingly, note the context -- it is predicated on knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (Ibid., SOT April 8, 1897). The second person of the Godhead has always existed as One in His own right (cf. John 5:26).

The Trinity does not teach that if the Son had sinned, the Son would have lost eternity and Heaven itself. The Trinity cannot therefore teach that if the Son of God had sinned in His humanity that divine wrath would have come down upon His head even as it came down upon the head of Adam.

The Trinity does not teach that when the Son of God lay in the tomb His soul slept. It does not teach that the Son of God could have been eternally lost and would not have come forth from the tomb. Or be blotted out of existence forever. Why? Because the Trinity cannot, by its own definition of the divinity of the second person of the Godhead, allow for the Son to die. Each person is immutable. Therefore God the Father could not take back the life He had given.

The Trinity robs the Father and the Son of the glory of the real measure of the sacrifice of the Son. Why? Because the teaching cannot allow that God the Father really did run the risk of losing His Only Begotten Son because it doesn’t recognize that Begotten means what it says and says what it means. At best the sacrifice was a farce as far as the divine nature of the Son is concerned – He could not have forfeited His divine life. The logical consequence is that the sacrifice He made is not reckoned as an infinite sacrifice because only if the infinite one could lay down His life could an infinite sacrifice be made.

As I said before the Father really did give His Son to this world. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, really did give Himself and ran the risk of eternal loss and failure and of Heaven itself.

Finally the Trinity robs the Son of God of His personal ministration to us as the Comforter, of coming to us to work out in us for Himself by His own power that which He accomplished in His own life. It puts another Being in His place.

For a more comprehensive answer I refer you to the end of the article I sent you headed ‘Why Does it Matter’ and especially to the attached article written by Longacre who puts it so much more clearly than I can at this stage.

Brian Hyde – November 22, 2007