This is my reason. Not because the doctrine is a mystery that is, if you mean by mystery something which I cannot fully understand or explain. This circumstance may create a difficulty in many minds; but notwithstanding this, if I found the Scriptures testified to it, as an unquestionable and essential doctrine, I would not hesitate to believe it, any more than I would hesitate to believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, or that JEHOVAH foreknows all things, and that man is a free agent.

 I only ask for PROOF that it is taught in the Scriptures. I have looked for it, and cannot find it anywhere. I do find that God is revealed to be ONE, but I cannot find that he is reveled to be THREE neither three 'persons,' nor three 'subsistences,' nor three 'distinctions,' nor three 'somewhats;' for each of these words has been used to explain the doctrine. Therefore, I cannot believe it.

That JEHOVAH is revealed to be One is a proposition which I need not stop to prove; for no one denies it. It would be consuming time to no purpose to quote passages in support of it.

I therefore pass to the other proposition -- I do not find in Scripture that JEHOVAH is revealed to be Three. See {Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10 & 1 Corinthians 8:6}

The Trinity Doctrine is opposed to my faith, and out of necessity for me, to uphold the truth of the Bible, I must distinctly disprove it by the Scriptures. In doing this, I make my appeal to the King James Version of the Holy Bible; and may JEHOVAH, who blessed man with this precious volume, aid me in unfolding its testimony, that I may 'speak concerning JEHOVAH, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit the thing which is right.'

I refer principally, in this brief outline, to the testimony of the New Testament. If it appears that this is decidedly against the doctrine, it is enough. No one will pretend to prove it from the Old Testament alone. If Jesus and the Apostles deny it, no one will think that Moses and the Prophets asserted it.

I. The terms which are necessary to support the very statement of a Trinity Doctrine, and which cannot be avoided by them who hold it, support it, teach it, preach it or believe in it, are not found in the Scriptures.

The words Trinity, triune, Jehovah-Jesus, God-man, are not in the Scriptures. I cannot find the expression God the Son, but always the Son of God; {Click Here Scriptures Relative to the "Son of God"} nowhere God the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of God, {Click Here for Scriptures Relative to the "Spirit of God"} or the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost {Click Here for Scriptures Relative to the "Holy Ghost" or "Holy Spirit"} . The expressions first person, second person, third person, three persons, are not found. Now if the very words, which are necessary to express the doctrine, are not in the Scriptures, how can I suppose the doctrine itself to be there? If the sacred writers meant to teach this doctrine, how is it possible they should not have used the words which are now used for the Trinity?

II. The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in express terms, while that of the sole divinity of the Father is taught in the most explicit and direct language.

There are only three texts which speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit in formal connection, and none of these declares them to be three equal persons in the Divinity. Now.. how is it possible for this to be the case if the doctrine were true? Is it possible that the Apostles should never name them together but three times, and then not speak of them as being a triune GOD?

Indeed I am wrong to say that there are three texts; there are only two; for one of the three passages to which I referred is well known not to be a part of the Bible: I John 5:7. "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (Vol. 5, No. 58.) This verse, every body knows, was not written by John.  The evidence clearly indicates is was added to this epistle after his day. John wrote in Greek.  The old manuscripts of the Greek New Testament do not contain it. It is found only in the Latin. It therefore, has no right to a place in the New Testament, and should be rejected. In fact, it is rejected by all impartial scholars of every denomination, who have inquired concerning it.

Therefore, there are only two texts which formally name the Father, Son, and Spirit in connection with each other.

The first is the form of Baptism, Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here the three are placed in connection. But observe the mode of expression. Does it say that they are three persons? No, it does not say that they are persons at all. Does it assert that they constitute one God? No. Does it say that each is God? No such thing. Does it say that they are all equal? No such thing. Does it say they are all to be worshipped? No. Then it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. If it neither declares them to be three persons, nor equal to each other, nor each to be JEHOVAH, nor each to be worshipped, then it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

The same is true of the other text, II Corinthians 13:14. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." It is not said that each is JEHOVAH, nor that all are equal, nor that all are to be worshipped, nor that all together constitute one. Therefore, this Scripture does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, it virtually denies it. For, as you can read and observe for yourself, it does not speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but of Jesus Christ, the love of GOD (JEHOVAH) and the Holy Spirit. Observe the difference, and consider what it implies.

Would a Trinitarian believer express himself in these words and in this order, when intending to express his doctrine? Unless expressly instructed to the contrary; if it were Father, Son and Spirit, we might, of course, regard them as three and not one.  How much more when the words run, Jesus Christ, the Father (JEHOVAH),and the Holy Spirit. So that there is only one text which unites the term Father, Son and Spirit, and that one says nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now I ask seriously, if it had been intended to teach the Trinity Doctrine, would not it have been written as such?

It is plain that the "Trinity Doctrine" was not taught in these expressed terms. You then say, it is perhaps taught indirectly and by necessary implication. I answer, it is impossible that this is the case. The doctrine that THE FATHER ALONE IS GOD is taught in the most direct and absolute terms that language will permit; so as to positively put out of the question every other doctrine, and it takes away the liberty of inferring any other doctrine from indirect expression.

For myself, so long as the glorious doctrine of the Divine Unity is built upon these FIVE SACRED PILLARS, I must confide in it as the truth of GOD. If the "Holy Oracle" can announce any truth plainly and unequivocally, it has announced this. To my ear, the Bible speaks this in a language that is unambiguous and not susceptible to perversion. While I abide by it in these plain texts, I know what I believe; I have the sure word of truth.

If I forsake these, and attempt to reason out another doctrine from more difficult passages, I am not sure that my reason may not deceive me in the process, and lead me to wrong conclusions. I am safer therefore to abide by the testimony inscribed on these Five Pillars, which I can read as I run.  See also {Isaiah 43:10}

III. As these fundamental texts most plainly teach the supremacy of the Father, so there are equally decisive texts respecting the character and offices of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, which go to confirm it. Let us attend to these.

(1) Let us consider, first, the language which is commonly used respecting our Lord Jesus.

Does such language imply that he is the Almighty GOD JEHOVAH?

Take his testimony respecting himself:

"I came not to do mine own will." {John 6:38}
"I can of mine own self do nothing." {John 5:30}
"The Son can do nothing of himself." {John 5:19}
"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." {John 14:10}

He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world." {John 10:36}  He says, "I am come in my Father's name." {John 5:43}  And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." {John 20:17}

Ponder these expressions; weigh these words; and say whether they be the words of one who would represent himself as the independent God.

Take the testimony of the Apostles.

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him." {Acts 2:22}  "Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour." {Acts 5:31}  "at the right hand of God exalted." {Acts 2:33} "made both Lord and Christ." {Acts 2:36} Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name." {Philippians 2:9}  In the end he shall "delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father {I Corithians 15:24} , that God may be all in all." {I Corinthians 15:28}  See also {Romans 6:23}

Weigh these expressions deliberately, and consider whether it be possible that they should be used concerning Almighty God. Yet, these are applied to Jesus in every part of the New Testament as the "Son of God" and not as JEHOVAH. {John 3:18; 3:36; 12:44; 14:12; & 1 John 5:10}

Consider the terms of faith in him (Jesus Christ) that were required of his disciples. Were these terms such that they implied Jesus is the supreme divinity? Remember the confession of Peter -- "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God;" {Matthew 16:16} -- and with this Jesus was satisfied. Remember the confession of Martha -- I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God;" {John 11:27} --and he required no more. Remember the reason which John gives for writing his Gospel; "These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." {John 20:31}

Who does John say is born of GOD? "Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." {I John 5:1} Who does he (John) say overcomes the world? "He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." {1 John 5:5} See also {1 John 1:3; 1:7; 3:23; & 5:20}

What was the preaching of the Apostles? Look through the book of Acts, and you will find the burden of it to be, "Reasoning from the Scriptures and testifying, that Jesus is the Christ." {Acts 20:21} Now is it possible, that, in all that is said of the necessity and value of faith in Jesus, when believers were to be received into the church and their immortal interests were depending on it -- is it possible that they should not have been required to believe that Jesus Christ was in fact, the Almighty God, if this were so? {Acts 8:37; & 10:36; Romans 1:8 & 5:15}

Would he (John) and the Apostles have so solemnly assured them that faith in him (Jesus Christ) as the Son of God was sufficient, if in truth he (Jesus Christ) was GOD - JEHOVAH?  See {I Corinthians 1:9; 8:6; & II Corinthians 11:31}

(2) The same conclusion may be as decisively drawn from the language perpetually used respecting the Holy Spirit --language, wholly inconsistent with the idea of a divine person distinct from the Father, and equal with him. The Spirit is said to be poured out -- shed -- given -- given without measure; men are said to be baptized with it, filled with it, to partake of it.

But this cannot be said of a person. It signifies evidently, in such passages, a divine influence; an influence which may descend from the person of the Father, as well as from some distinct person. JEHOVAH does not become another person, because he gives his spirit to men. When Paul visited Ephesus, he found certain Christians there, and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They answered, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. How is this?

The Holy Ghost a person in the Godhead, equal with the Father, and essential to salvation to know him, and yet these disciples never heard of him? Impossible -- and therefore impossible that it should be a third person in the deity, distinct from the Father, and equal in power and glory. No -- the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. Paul tells us what it is, when he says, "As no man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him; so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." {I Corinthians 2:11} The spirit of God is God himself, just as the spirit of a man is the man himself. It is no more a separate person, than a man's spirit is a separate person. Thus the supremacy of the Father remains unaffected.

 

 

Honor is doubtless ascribed to the Saviour in terms of gratitude, love, and rapture. It could not have been otherwise. How could they, who had seen him, avoid it, when we, who have not seen him, are constrained to love him, and through our faith in him to rejoice with joy unspeakable? Ascriptions of gratitude and honor to the Saviour, who will not render? But this does not prove him to be the Almighty God.

When the company around the throne are represented in the Apocalypse as uttering a new song of blessing and honor and glory to Him who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, it never can be understood that they attribute divinity to the Lamb; much less that he is the same being with him who sits on the throne, for he is standing in the midst of the elders, and is praised because he was slain. This is not a description suitable to God.

And thus while the New Testament overflows with warm expressions of reverence and gratitude toward Jesus, it is as to the Son of God and it reserves all supreme worship for the Father. Jesus himself worshipped the Father. The language of the Apostles was, "Giving thanks always to God, even the Father, through Jesus Christ." And when honor to the Son is spoken of, it is distinctly stated that it is "to the glory of the Father."

(2) The manner in which the disciples conducted themselves toward their Master, is a certain proof to the same point. Conceive that they supposed him to be Infinite Jehovah, the God of their fathers, whom they had been adoring from their childhood in the strong and awful reverence of the Mosaic worship; and could they have lived and conversed with him freely as they did? Could Peter have rebuked and denied him -- Judas betrayed him -- and all forsaken him? Impossible -- perfectly impossible. Their whole intercourse with him must have worn a wholly different complexion. It is not in human nature to have lived with one whom they knew to be God, and yet to have conducted themselves as if he were not.

(3) The same thing may be said of the conduct of the Jews toward him. If they had supposed him to be the God of their fathers, is it possible that they should have treated him with violence and contempt? If they did not suppose it, yet knew that he claimed to be such, and that his Apostles so regarded him, they must have looked upon him with horror as the highest blasphemer. And would not this have sometimes appeared? This is a very strong point. When he was accused before their Council, and the charge was blasphemy, they were evidently at no small straits to support the charge.

The only evidence which they could at last adduce was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days. Now if he had ever claimed, in any way, to be Almighty God, or had given any intimation that he desired to be so considered, would they not have remembered it against him at such a moment? When they were eager to seize on the most trifling circumstance, when they sought long for false witness before they could find one; is it to be believed they would pass by such a charge as this? And as they were entirely silent concerning it, is it not certain that he could never have made any such claim?

Nothing can be more decisive than this consideration. Yet it may be corroborated, if not strengthened, by advertising to a remarkable event in his history. Some of the Jews, on a certain occasion, took up stones to stone him. He inquired the cause of their violence. They answered, "Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

To this he replied by a positive denial, and by a full explanation cleared himself of the charge, saying that he claimed to be only "the son of God." After this they seem never to have repeated the accusation; -- not even when they were ready to take unfair measures for his condemnation. And yet, strange to say, this explanation, which satisfied his enemies, has not prevented his followers from still insisting to repeat the charge which he refuted -- that he, being a man, made himself God.

(4) The conduct of the Jews toward the disciples after their Lord's death, proves that they knew nothing of the Trinitarian doctrine. They were active in establishing a new dispensation of religion, and thus drew on themselves the obloquy, abuse, and persecution of their countrymen. Wherever they went, they were assailed by the Jews with outrage and violence. They were accused of speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the law; of turning the world upside down; of designing to overthrow the religion of their fathers; and were scoffed at as followers of a master who had died the ignominious death of a malefactor.

But they were never accused of worshipping him, or preaching him as GOD. Amidst all their enemies' accusations -- about the fairness of which we cannot think they would have been very scrupulous -- they never brought forward this argument or accusation. And yet, in the eyes of a Jew, it would have been the most hateful thing in their system. To teach that that Nazarene enthusiast, whom they had despised and slain, was the very GOD whom they had always honored and worshipped, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! -- nothing would have been more devastating or would have excited them against the new religion and its active propagators. Yet it never formed the ground of their opposition. See {Acts 17:2; 18:4; 18:19 & 24:25}

Therefore, is it not certain then, that the Apostles never preached or taught a "Trinity Doctrine" from the Scriptures?

(5) Of the same nature is the following argument. There arose several controversies in that age, especially with those Jews that converted to Christianity. Some of these are treated in the Epistles. But it is important to note, that amongst the questions that arose and required explanations from the Apostles, there is no record of any question or controversy respecting the Object of Worship. And yet, if the new religion were adding two new Objects of Worship to that of the old, this would have been, to a Jew, by far the most important, most interesting, and the most perplexing of all the peculiarities of the gospel.

No such doctrine could have been added to the ancient faith of the Jews, with whom the Unity of GOD was the proud and distinguishing tenet, without its occasioning some controversy, between those who received and those who persecuted the new birth. Yet no such controversy took place; neither is there the slightest appearance in the new Testament, that any objection, difficulty, or doubt arose in any quarter upon this ground. Is it not impossible, then, that a Trinitarian Doctrine was being taught?

V. I have thus gone over a few heads of the Scriptural argument respecting the Divine Unity.

But in speaking decidedly with respect to the testimony of the Scriptures, I am not advocating that there is nothing in the Scriptures that favors a Trinitarian Doctrine, or that its advocates are altogether without plausible support. Far from it. There are undoubtedly many passages of difficult interpretation, and many expressions, more or less directly, which may be construed to assign Supreme Divinity to the Saviour, and personality to the Spirit. {John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:17 & Ephesians 4:30} But there are two considerations which go to show, that although this might be the case, the certainty of our doctrine is not in any degree affected by it.

(1) The first of these considerations is, that the texts which speak most directly and plainly on this subject are decidedly Unitarian. These have already been quoted, and no forms of speech could be selected more explicit and unequivocal. But this is not the case with those texts which are quoted in support of the Trinity. Not one of them states the Trinity Doctrine in precise language. The Trinity Doctrine is made up by inference and argument from separate texts. Many of these texts are among the most perplexing and difficult passages in the Bible -- passages which have tried the skill of interpreters in all ages, and have received a variety of expositions. Such as, {Genesis 1:26} {John 1:1 & 1:14}

Now it is plain that where such passages are cited in proof of the Trinity, the value of the citation must depend on the correctness of the criticism; that is, on the soundness of the reasoning by which the text is interpreted; that is, the doctrine is supported simply by the power of reason. Need I say how different this is from the support which the Scriptures give to the Doctrine that JEHOVAH is GOD alone and Jesus the Christ is the Son of GOD - JEHOVAH.

The Book of John, Chapter 1, verses 1-14 creates immense contradictions for non-Christians and serious researchers. Certain sections of Paul’s Epistles are also being called into question; which only adds fuel to the fire. Many non-Christians now believe, John’s Gospel is mystical and more in tune with Egyptian mythology than any true religious doctrine. Even though it clearly states the Word was with GOD, many have interpreted this passage of Scripture to mean JESUS and JEHOVAH are on and the same when this is not stated.  

 

Let's examine more flaws in the Trinity Doctrine.  As the Word, JESUS created all things.  This includes heaven, the angels and his father.  He comes to earth by a virgin birth as the Son of the father he created.  While on earth, he proclaims the father he created is the GOD that authorized him.  Then he prays to the father that he created.... himself....., and he... and the father he created.... himself... are one.  While on the Cross, it is interpreted that that he cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" {Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34} How can he forsake himself, if he... himself.. is JEHOVAH?

 

Trinitarians claim there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

 

If you embrace the Trinity Doctrine, then Jesus is JEHOVAH and Mary is the Mother of JEHOVAH, then there is little or no problem when it comes to the issue of Jesus having the title of GOD.  Now you can proclaim Jesus as GOD and hail Mary as the Mother of GOD and you; as a Trinitarian believer and supporter, can now distance yourself from the Jews and their bloody animal sacrifices in the Old Testament.  

 

Well if Jesus; as GOD was born of a woman, then how can he be eternal? His birth is a definite beginning. If he died on the Cross for our sins and had to be raised from the dead... who raised him?  If Jesus; as JEHOVAH raised himself, where’s the salvation for the rest of humanity? None of us can raise ourselves from the dead.  

 

I have heard many ministers preach Jesus is GOD - JEHOVAH and he; as GOD, allowed his own creation to abuse him and nail him to a cross so that we might be saved. This is not in the Scriptures.  If Christ were the Most High GOD, instead of being the Son of the Most High, the Cross would not have been necessary for humanity’s salvation. If Christ did all this as the Most High God and he is already the Most High GOD, then the Most High GOD lied to us by telling us that he is the Son of an entity that he himself created. If this were true, we would have no choice; except to conclude, Jesus Christ is the greatest Charlatan in the heavens, on the earth and in everything that he created. 

 

Such an entity cannot be trusted and Lucifer is indeed the true bearer of light like many New Agers proclaim and all Christendom are the greatest fools that ever lived.  Our faith... would indeed... be in vain.  If this were true, then the Scriptures are lying on Lucifer and his angels like some in well known philosophical societies are proclaiming.  After all. there is no written record of Lucifer’s side of this story. 

 

No rational person can past judgment on a situation without hearing both sides of the circumstances that created it.  Is this why Lucifer rebelled.....  because he had knowledge of this scheme and hoax that was being perpetrated on creation?  Naturally, JEHOVAH is not a man or any other created being that he needs to lie. {Numbers 23:19} Therefore, His Word is right and His Works done in Truth. {Psalm 33:4} Lucifer and his ministers are not the bearer of any kind of light any sane person would want to believe in or accept. {2 Corinthians 11:14} & 11:15}

 

Thus it appears that the doctrine of the Trinity is mainly dependent for its support on processes of reasoning; processes, by which the most plain and decisive texts are made to bend to the less plain, and the easy are interpreted by the difficult. We think it safer not thus to trust our power of interpreting dark places, but to take the plain texts for our guide, and solve the dark ones by them. And if there be some which still remain obscure, and which we cannot satisfactorily clear up, we should esteem it safer to leave them as they are, unexplained, than to give them a meaning, and then find ourselves obliged to conform the plain texts to them. In the one case we should think that we followed our power of logic, and in the other the simple word of revelation.

(2) The second consideration to which I referred is this. The assumption, or supposition, which is resorted to in order to make these plain, decisive passages agree with the Trinitarian Doctrine, is of a character that confirms my belief more strongly. This assumption is that Jesus Christ possessed two perfect natures, the human and the divine; and that he sometimes speaks and acts as a man, and sometimes as JEHOVAH. Now if this were expressly asserted in the Scriptures, it would be very well. But it is not asserted, and, what is even more profound, no one even pretends that fully GOD, fully man is taught in the Scriptures.

It is argued that being fully man and fully GOD must be so, because this supposition serves to remove difficulties and reconcile the language which is used with respect to the Lord. But we have no right, it seems to me, to reason out for ourselves a doctrine of such magnitude as this for such a purpose; especially, when it creates difficulties even more embarrassing than those it is supposed to remove. The fully GOD, fully man assertion is far more difficult to reconcile. Let us examine this accepted assertion for a moment. The assertion is, that our Lord speaks and acts sometimes as JEHOVAH and sometimes as a man. Accordingly when we argue thus:

"He declares that he does not know the day or the hour... he says he can do nothing of himself.... he prays to JEHOVAH; It is then replied: "He says these things as man; but, he does not, as man, possess supreme power, or know the future; and as a man he prays; but still; as JEHOVAH, he is omnipotent, and omniscient, and asks no blessing from on high." Now this assertion may support the Doctrine of the Trinity, and may even evade certain difficulties that Scripture throws in its way; but does it not create more serious difficulties than it removes?

Let any man candidly examine the subject, and say whether it does or does not. For -- I speak it reverently -- does it not attribute to our Lord a very strange way of speaking, and in something of a deceptive manner?  To say that he does not know..... when he really does know, and that he cannot do.... what he has infinite power to do.  For, if he were JEHOVAH, it would not be true that he did not know the future; it would not be true that he did not do his own will, and it would not be true that he did not work miracles of himself.

And therefore I beg to ask -- in the name of all that is reverent and good --whether we can find it in our hearts to advocate a Trinity Doctrine, that can only be supported by suppositions that expose the blessed Jesus to the charge of untruth and deception; a supposition which would render it impossible, if carried to its full extent, to believe anything which he may say; for one has only to assert, "He spoke this or that in his human nature, not as JEHOVAH, and therefore it has no authority;" and then all his testimony on religious truth may be entirely set aside.

No. Let the plain declarations of our Saviour's word be enough for us; and let us rejoice that we hold a faith, which allows us to believe every word that he said, just as he uttered it, without the necessity of explaining away a syllable, on the plea that he sometimes spake in one character and sometimes in another. These are just a few of the reasons that are directly and indirectly furnished by the Scriptures for holding the doctrine of the undivided Unity of God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. {2 Corinthians 1:19}

I regard it as the clear and unquestionable doctrine of Holy Writ, and therefore to be held with firm and decided faith. The more confident our persuasion that it is so, the more highly shall we value it, and the more shall we rejoice to see it extended and honored. If we felt that he whom we call Master and Lord, the Author and Finisher of our Faith,{Hebrews 12:2} who lived and died that he might secure to us the blessing of our religion, and whose kingdom we desire to spread with its holy and beneficent influences {Daniel 7:27} -- if we believe that he taught and inculcated this doctrine; then, as his disciples, we shall desire that it prevail -- for it is his Truth.