The Doctrine ​o​f The Trinity ​i​s “Above That Which ​i​s Written”

Dear Mike,

I’ve just read this ​article ​of yours​ “Is God a Trinity?

This was written several years ago, so I wanted to ask if you still regard the triadic form as inauthentic, not inspired?

I’ve informally explored this today and find no compelling reason to take that position, it really does seem to be authentic when we apply the same basic principles that we apply to other scriptures when establishing authenticity.

A most detailed analysis was ​this ​one​ [link given]​​ on the claims of inauthenticity​.

I’d like to hear more from you on this purported inauthenticity when time permits.

Many thanks,

H​____​

Hi ​H____​,

I looked at the link you sent me​,​ and to answer your question directly, yes, I do stand by the words in the article ‘Is God A Trinity?’ on iswasandwillbe.com. I saw so much heresy in the first part​ of the link​ you sent, including the false doctrine of ‘free moral agency’, the apostles creed, and the didache (an early manuscript written in the first century A.D.), that I was not led to waste any more of my time with it.

I was much more edified with the list of seven objections to this false doctrine than any of the arguments he used to justify attempting to deny that the God-head is supposed to be understood by “the things that are made”, especially the male and the female “things that are made”:

Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is what Paul tells us he meant by that very clear statement:

1Co 11:3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God… [“the Father”]

How can a three​-​headed monstrosity have a single “head”, as we seen in all of “the things that are made”?

Paul had already made it perfectly clear in this same epistle what he means when he speaks of “the head of Christ”:

1Co 8:6  But to us there is but one God, the Father, of [G1537​:​ ek, out of] whom are all things [including “the beginning of the creation of God”… Christ, Rev 3:17], and we in him; and [besides this “one God” there is also] one Lord Jesus Christ, by [G1223​:​ ‘dia’, ‘through’] whom are all things, and we by [G1223​:​ ‘dia’, ‘through’] him.

Notice, I never quote any of the apostate, so​-​called “church fathers. The apostle Paul and I are on the same page… “There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and [there is also besides the “one God the Father”] one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things”, just as Paul explains in that same 11th chapter. Adam, like God the Father, was first, and out of Him Christ brought a woman of whom Adam was to be the head, reflecting “even His eternal power and Godhead, so we would be without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

I read enough of that link to see this writer quoting Ellen White as if that meant anything. But the worst thing I saw was the circular reasoning of admitting and even quoting where the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, and one of the Popes admit introducing this heresy and then, because the apostasy of  the church was completed before the apostles died, this writer quotes those very apostates saying that the trinity is a Biblical doctrine, and calling me ”dishonest” because I notice how willing he is to use men as his authority instead of the clear words of scripture, a few of which I have quoted above.

Just look at how this man uses apostates as sources and then condemns those who reveal their apostasy as “dishonest” for simply pointing other​s​ to their confessions of tampering with and changing the words of scripture to fit the idols of their hearts:

“Charge 5 – The Catholic Church confesses to changing the words

This is probably the weakest of all the arguments. This can be considered to be debunked by all the evidence we have seen up until this point. However, sometimes there is a lack of care in reading the words of the Catholic writers. [Who cares about the “words of Catholic writers” – 1Co 4:6] Most of these so-called ‘confessions’ do not pertain to the text of Matthew 28:19 but the use of Matthew 28:19 as a liturgical baptismal formula. For example:

“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 263)

Notice that this statement pertains to the formula used in baptism. We have seen that the words of Matthew 28:19 were not originally a formula and that this later development occurred in the second and third centuries. So this is simply a reflection of fact. Perhaps the most misused quote from the Catholic Church on this regard is from then future pope, Joseph Ratzinger.

“The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2nd Edition)

This quote is used dishonestly by many who reject the words of Matthew 28:19. The “text” that is being referred to in the quote is not the text of Matthew 28:19, but the Apostles Creed. Note the discussion leading immediately up to the above quote:

“All that we have said so far has done no more than attempt to answer the formal question of what belief as such is and where in the world of modern thought it can find a starting point and a function to perform. The more far-reaching problems relating to its content thus necessarily remained open-with the whole subject permaps looking only too pale and ill-defined. The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time through some light on the legitimacy of the procedure.” (loc. cit.)

In fact, Ratzinger later goes on to quote Matthew 28:19 as the basis for the Apostles’ Creed, showing that Ratzinger understands these to be the words of Christ.

“This again was fundamentally based on the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (loc. cit.)

So it is clear that whoever first used this quote to question the wording of Matthew 28:19 did so dishonestly. All who have subsequently used these words have done so lazily, never checking the context. [End of Quote]

Just look at all the authorities this man quotes! He is obviously totally unaware of this verse of scripture:

1Co 4:6  Now these things, brothers, I applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us ye might learn not to think above that which is written, so that ye may not be puffed up, one over the one against the other. (ACV)

Why would we quote an apostate to begin with, and why would any truly honest person care what the doctrines of apostate so-called ‘church fathers’ are, who thought it completely scriptural to physically kill anyone they considered to be an apostate? I have never denied that I am commanded to “love [my] enemies”, not burn them at a stake and cut out their tongue before doing so, so that person cannot utter another word of his so-called heresy. These men were one and all as carnal as the first Adam himself, and their own mouths condemn them, and all who stand with them, and their hearts idols will receive the same reward:

Eze 14:7  For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
Eze 14:8  And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze 14:9  And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
Eze 14:10  And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; 

This writer points out the apostasy of the doctrine of a triune God, even with quotes from the apostates themselves like these:

“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 263)

“The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2nd Edition)

“The text comes from the city of Rome… by the Catholic Church”, and it is certainly “above that which is written” which is “in Jesus’ name” as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts. What does it matter if “the text referred to is the apostles’ creed”? The subject is still “in connection with the ceremony of baptism”, and the scriptures reveal time after time the disciples baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus”:

Act 19:5  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

What a slap in the face of an “equal but separate part of the Godhead” to be so sleighted over and  over and  over again throughout all the Gospels and Acts and all the epistles of the apostles, to leave out such an “equal but separate” person.

The false doctrine of a triune God is the trunk of the tree of all the false doctrines which shore up all the daughters of the great harlot. It is this doctrine which teaches that since God is triune, and we are in His image, therefore we, too, must be a triune being with a body and an immortal soul and a spirit. Without this foundation of lies, there could not be the other false doctrines of the immortality of the soul and an eternal hell of literal flames of fire tormenting me with excruciating pain for all eternity by a ‘God of love’.

Why is the Greek word ‘parakleetos‘ translated with two different English words if not to hide the truth that Jesus Christ was given His Father’s spirit so Christ Himself could come to us through His Father’s spirit, as the comforter to His elect, and through that same “holy spirit of God” (Eph 4:30) Christ is also our “advocate [parakleetos] with the Father”:

Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [Greek​:​ parakleetos] that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 

How could the ‘holy ghost’ “dwell with you” if “it is expedient that I go away because if I go not away the comforter cannot come”???

“The comforter, the spirit of Truth, [and our] advocate with [the one God] the Father”​,​ are all through “the holy spirit of God” (Eph 4:30) one and the same… “the man Jesus Christ”:

Joh 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Joh 16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he [the parakleetos, also called…], the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Joh 16:15  All things [including “the holy spirit of God” Eph 4:30] that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The holy spirit clearly is not a person, rather it is “the holy spirit of God”, the holy spirit of the “one God, the Father, of whom are all things”, and who has given that spirit to Christ and through “the holy spirit of God” Christ is now accomplishing all His Father has placed upon Him, including being our “advocate with the ​(​”one God”), the Father”:

1Jn 2:1  My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not [including the teaching of false doctrines]. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [Same Greek word ‘parakleetos‘ translated as ‘comforter’ in John 14, 15, and 16] with the Father [And who is our ‘parakleetos‘, our ‘advocate with the Father’? Well, ​l​o and behold it is] , Jesus Christ the righteous:

The Greek for our English words “holy ghost” is hagios pneuma, and it is defined in scripture simply as “the holy spirit of God”:

Eph 4:30  And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Why doesn’t this verse read “the Holy Ghost of God” as these two words ‘hagios pneuma‘ are translated everywhere else in the New Testament? I think we both know why that is. It would reveal that the holy spirit is the power of God and is not a person of the Godhead which is to be “understood by the things that are made… the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God” (1Co 11:3).

Why did Christ say that His Father had given Him all things, including His Father’s spirit, which Christ was now free to give to others?

Joh 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Why is it “expedient that [Christ] go away”? Is the third part of the Godhead restricted by the second part? How absurd! The reason Christ had to go away was so He Himself could, through “the holy spirit of God”​,​ come and dwell within each of His elect. He does not dwell in any who are teaching lies about “His eternal power and Godhead” such as the false doctrine of a “triune God” of whom “the things that are made​”​ teach us nothing.

In these verses in John 16, Christ refers to the holy spirit as both “the comforter” and as “the spirit of Truth”. He also tells us “I am the way the Truth and the life”. Then after explaining all of this​,​ He tells us plainly​,​ “All things the Father [the “one God” of 1Co 8:6] has are mine, that is why I said that He shall take of mine [the comforter and the spirit of Truth] and shall show it unto you​.​”

Your brother who, Lord willing, will never “think above that which is written” (1Co 4:6),

Mike