Website: http://amazingwordministries.org/
PayPal Donation Link: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=AZFUZDSQASRDJ
Address:
Amazing Word Ministries
PO Box 639
Kooskia, Idaho
Call: (503) 985-8520

source

25 Replies to “Pagans, Mormons, Catholic Trinity, Anti-trinitarians vs. The Word God Became Flesh & The Holy Spirit”

  1. Where does the Bible say THE HOLY SPIRIT is a different or a separate PERSON? Where does it say, we should worship the Holy Spirit as God? How is questioning the trinity doctrine ,blaspheming or even speaking evil of the Holy Spirit? Do you even know what blaspheming is? YOU ARE DEFENDING A CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 321 AD.

  2. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: Hampton Watson Cottrell (1852 – 1940) “The conclusion drawn at that time [the time of the pioneers] was that the Holy Spirit
    was  not  a  person  in  the  sense  that  God  and  Christ  are  persons,  if  so,  the  same
    difficulty  would  be  encountered  with  the  Holy  Spirit  being  everywhere  present  as  is
    held  by  the  Trinitarians  concerning  God  and  Christ  as  persons  being  everywhere
    present, and if it should be so conceded  Christ would be the  son of the  Holy Spirit,
    rather  tha[n]  of  God  as  the  Bible  declares  him  to  be.” {Letter  of  H.  W.  Cottrell  to
    LeRoy Froom, September 16, 1931}

  3. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: D. W. Hull:
     
    “The inconsistent positions held by many in regard to the Trinity, as it is termed, has,
    no doubt, been the prime cause of many other errors.  Erroneous views of the divinity
    of Christ are apt to lead us into error in regard to the nature of the atonement. … The
    doctrine  which  we  propose  to  examine,  was  established  by  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.
    D.,  325,  and  ever  since  that  period,  persons  not  believing  this  peculiar  tenet,
    have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics.  It was for a
    disbelief  in  this  doctrine,  that  the  Arians  were  anathematized  in  A.  D.,  513.  As  we
    can trace this doctrine no farther back than the origin of the "Man of Sin," and
    as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force than otherwise,
    we  claim  the  right  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  ascertain  the  bearing  of
    Scripture on this subject. Just here I will meet a question which is very frequently
    asked, namely, Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?  Most unquestionably we do;
    but  we  don't  believe,  as the M.  E.  church Discipline  teaches,  that  Christ  is the  very
    and eternal God; and, at the same time, very man; that the human part was the Son,
    and  the  divine  part  was  the  Father.”  {D.  W.  Hull,  Review  &  Herald,  November  10,
    1859}

  4. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: A. J. Morton:
     
    “The  Holy  Spirit  is  divine  because  it  proceeds  from  divinity.  You  can  no  more
    separate divinity from the Spirit of God and Christ than you can separate divinity from
    God  and  Christ.  It  is,  therefore,  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  words  of  God's
    promises which enable us to receive the divine nature from those promises.” {A. J.
    Morton, Signs of the Times, October 26, 1891, p. 342}

  5. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: A. J. Dennis:
     
    “What  a  contradiction  of  terms  is  found  in  the  language  of  [the]  Trinitarian
    creed: “In unity of this head are three persons, of one substance, power, and
    eternity,  the  Father,  the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” There are many things that are
    mysterious, written in the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never
    calls  upon  us  to  believe  impossibilities.  But  creeds  often  do.”  {A.  J.  Dennis,
    Signs of the Times, May 22, 1879}

  6. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: C. W. Stone:
     
    “The Word then is Christ. The text speaks of His origin. He is the only begotten of
    the Father. Just how he came into existence the Bible does not inform us any more
    definitely;  but  by  this  expression  and  several  of  a  similar  kind  in  the  Scriptures  we
    may believe that Christ came into existence in a manner different from that in which
    other beings first appeared; That He sprang from the Father's being in a way not
    necessary for us to understand.”  {C.  W. Stone,  The  Captain  of our Salvation,  p.
    17. 1886}

  7. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: Sarepta Myrenda (Irish) Henry
    (1839 – 1900)
     
     In  1896,  while  a  patient  in  the  Battle  Creek
    Sanitarium, Sarepta accepted the SDA teachings. She
    wrote  numerous  articles  for  the  Review  and  Herald.
    She  was  a  writer  and  a  temperance  worker.  When
    Mrs. Henry became a Seventh-day Adventist in 1896,
    Ellen  White  was  in  Australia.  Mrs.  White's  son,  W.  C.
    White,  met  Mrs.  Henry  in  Battle  Creek  in  1897  and
    carried  back  to  Australia  some  of  her  publications  to
    share  with  his mother. In  a  letter to  Mrs.  Henry, Ellen
    White wrote: "I would be very much pleased could I be
    seated by your side and converse with you in regard to
    the  incidents  of  our  experiences.  I  have  an  earnest
    desire to meet you. . . . Across the broad waters of the
    Pacific,  we  can  clasp  hands  in  faith  and  sweet  fellowship."–Letter  9,  1898.  Her
    biography  has  been  written  by  several  authors,  among  them  her  daughter,  Mary
    Rossiter; My Mother’s Life; and her granddaughter, Margaret R. White, Whirlwind of
    the Lord.
     
    “"Q Do you think the Spirit of God is a person, or is it simply the power by which God
    works, and which he has given to man for his use? 
    "A. The pronouns used in connection with the Spirit must lead us to conclude
    that he is a person, the personality of God which is the source of all power and
    life."” {S. M. Henry, The Abiding Spirit, 1899.}

  8. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  James Edson White:  “The  angels,  therefore,  are  created  beings,  necessarily  of  a  lower  order  than  their
    Creator.  Christ  is  the  only  being  begotten  of  the  Father.”  {J.  E.  White,  Past,
    Present and Future, p. 52. 1909}
     
    “Only  one  being  in  the  universe  besides  the  Father  bears  the  name  of  God,
    and that is His Son, Jesus Christ.”  {J. E. White, The Coming King, p. 33}

  9. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  George Ide Butler:   
    “God dwells in us by His Holy Spirit, as a Comforter, as a Reprover, especially the
    former.  When we come to Him we partake of Him in that sense,  because the Spirit
    comes forth from Him; it comes forth from the Father and the Son. It is not a person
    walking around on foot, or flying as a literal being, in any such sense as Christ and
    the Father are – at least, if it is, it is utterly beyond my comprehension of the meaning
    of language or words.” ” {Letter: G. I. Butler to J. H. Kellogg. April 5, 1904.}

  10. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  Ellet J. Waggoner:  “The Word was "in the beginning." The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that
    are spanned in this phrase. It is not given to men to know when or how the Son
    was  begotten;  but  we  know  that  he  was  the  Divine  Word,  not  simply  before  He
    came  to  this  earth  to  die,  but  even  before  the  world  was  created.  Just  before  His
    crucifixion He prayed, "And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with
    the  glory  which  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was."  John  17:5.  And  more  than
    seven  hundred  years  before  His  first  advent,  His  coming  was  thus  foretold  by  the
      37
    word of inspiration: "But thou,  Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
    thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in
    Israel;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  the  days  of  eternity."  Micah
    5:2,  margin.  We know that Christ "proceeded forth and came from God" (John
    8:42),  but  it  was  so  far  back  in  the  ages  of  eternity  as  to  be  far  beyond  the
    grasp of the mind of man.” {E. J. Waggoner, Christ And His Righteousness, p. 9.
    1890}   
    “Is Christ God?
     
    …This  name  was  not  given  to  Christ  in  consequence  of  some  great  achievement,
    but it is His by right of inheritance. Speaking of the power and greatness of Christ,
    the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  says  that  He  is  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,
    because "He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."  Heb.
    1:4.  A son always rightfully takes the  name  of  the father;  and Christ, as  "the  only
    begotten Son of God," has rightfully the same name.  A son, also, is, to a greater
    or less degree, a reproduction of the father; he has to some extent the features and
    personal  characteristics  of  his  father;  not  perfectly,  because  there  is  no  perfect
    reproduction among mankind.  But there is no imperfection in God, or in any of His
    works, and so Christ is the "express image" of the Father's person.  Heb. 1:3.  As the
    Son of the self- existent God, He has by nature all the attributes of Deity. 
    It is true that there are many sons of God, but Christ is the "only begotten Son
    of God," and  therefore the Son of God in a sense in which no other being ever
    was  or  ever  can  be.   The  angels  are sons  of  God,  as  was  Adam  (Job  38:7;  Luke
    3:38), by creation; Christians are the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 15), but
    Christ is the Son of God by birth. The writer to the Hebrews further shows that the
    position of the Son of God is not one to which Christ has been elevated, but that it is
    one which He has by right.” {E. J. Waggoner, Christ And His Righteousness, pp. 11-13. 1890}   “A word of caution may be necessary here. Let no one imagine that we would exalt
    Christ  at  the  expense  of  the Father or would ignore  the  Father.  That  cannot  be,  for
    their interests are one.  We honor the Father in honoring the Son. We are mindful of
    Paul's words, that "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
    we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor.
    8:6); just as we have already quoted, that it was by Him that God made the worlds. 
    All  things  proceed  ultimately  from  God,  the  Father;  even  Christ  Himself
    proceeded  and came  forth from the Father,  but  it has pleased  the  Father that  in
    Him should  all  fullness dwell, and  that  He  should be  the  direct,  immediate  Agent  in
    every act of creation. Our object in this investigation is to set forth Christ's rightful
      38
    position  of  equality with  the Father, in order that  His power to  redeem  may be  the
    better appreciated.” {E. J. Waggoner, Christ And His Righteousness, p. 19. 1890}  “Is Christ a Created Being?
     
    Before  passing  to  some  of  the  practical  lessons  that  are  to  be  learned  from  these
    truths,  we  must  dwell  for  a  few  moments  upon  an  opinion  that  is  honestly  held  by
    many  who  would  not  for  any  consideration  willingly  dishonor  Christ,  but  who,
    through that opinion, do actually deny His Divinity.  It is the idea that Christ is a
    created being, who, through the good pleasure of God, was elevated to His present
    lofty position.  No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of
    the exalted position which Christ really occupies.                
    …The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten Son of God."  He is
    begotten, not created.  As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire,
    nor could our minds grasp it if we were told.  The prophet Micah tells us all that
    we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
    little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that
    is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  the  days  of
    eternity." Micah 5:2, margin.  There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and
    came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time
    was  so  far  back  in  the  days  of  eternity  that  to  finite  comprehension  it  is
    practically without beginning. 
    But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.  He has
    by  inheritance  a  more  excellent  name  than  the  angels;  He  is  "a  Son  over  His  own
    house."  Heb. 1:4; 3:6.  And since He is the only-begotten son of God, He is of
    the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes
    of God, for the Father was  pleased that His Son should be the express image
    of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the
    Godhead…. 
    Finally, we know the Divine unity  of the Father and the Son from the fact that
    both have the same Spirit.  Paul, after saying that they that are in the flesh cannot
    please God, continues:  "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the
    Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
    his."  Rom. 8:9. Here we find that the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the
    Spirit  of  Christ.  Christ  "is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father"  being  by  nature  of  the  very
    substance of God and having life in Himself. He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent  One  and  is  thus  styled  in  Jer.  23:5,  6,  where  it  is  said  that  the  righteous
    Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the
    name of Jehovah-tsidekenu–THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
    Let no one, therefore, who honors Christ at all, give Him less honor than He gives the
    Father, for this would be to dishonor the Father by just so much, but let all, with the
    angels  in  heaven,  worship  the  Son,  having  no  fear  that  they  are  worshiping  andserving  the  creature  instead  of  the  Creator.”  {E.  J.  Waggoner,  Christ  And  His
    Righteousness, pp. 19-24. 1890}
     
    “In arguing the perfect equality of the Father and the Son, and the fact that Christ is
    in  very  nature  God,  we  do  not  design  to  be  understood  as  teaching  that  the
    Father was not before the Son. It should not be necessary to guard this point, lest
    some should think that the Son existed as soon as the Father; yet some go to that
    extreme,  which adds nothing to the dignity  of Christ,  but rather detracts  from
    the  honor  due  him,  since  many  throw  the  whole  thing  away  rather  than  accept  a
    theory so obviously out of harmony with the language of Scripture, that Jesus is the
    only  begotten  Son  of  God.  He  was  begotten,  not  created.  He  is  of  the
    substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so
    'It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.' Col. 1:19…While both are
    of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that
    he  had  no  beginning,  while  Christ's  personality  had  a  beginning.”  {E.  J.
    Waggoner, Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889}

  11. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:John Gottlieb Matteson:“Christ  is  the  only  literal  son  of  God.  “The only begotten  of the Father.” John
    1:14.  He  is  God  because  he  is  the  Son  of  God;  not  by  virtue  of  His  resurrection.  If
    Christ is the only begotten of the Father, then we cannot be begotten of the Father in
    a  literal  sense.  It  can  only be  in  a  secondary  sense  of  the  word.”  {J.  G.  Matteson,
    Review & Herald, October 12, 1869 p. 123)

  12. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: Merritt E. Cornell:“Protestants and Catholics are so nearly united in sentiment, that it is not difficult to
    conceive  how  Protestants  may  make  an  image  to  the  Beast.  The  mass  of
    Protestants  believe  with  Catholics  in  the  Trinity,  immortality  of  the  soul,
    consciousness of the dead, rewards and punishments at death, the endless torture of
    the wicked, inheritance of the saints beyond the skies, sprinkling for baptism, and the
    PAGAN SUNDAY for the Sabbath; all of which is contrary to the spirit and letter
    of the new testament. Surely there is between the mother and daughters, a striking
    family resemblance.” {M. E. Cornell, Facts for the Times, p. 76. 1858}

  13. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  Joseph Birchard Frisbie:“The Sunday God.
     
    We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between
    the God of the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in
    the  dark  through  Sunday-keeping.  Catholic  Catechism  Abridged  by  the  Rt.  Rev.
    John  Dubois,  Bishop  of  New  York.  Page  5.  'Q.  Where  is  God?  Ans.  God  is
    everywhere. Q. Does God see and know all things? A. Yes, he does know and see
    all  things…Q.  Are  there  more Gods  than  one?  A.  No;  there  is  but  one  God.  Q.  Are
    there  more  persons  than  one  in  God?  A.  Yes;  in  God  there  are  three  persons.  Q.
    Which  are  they?  A.  God  the  Father, God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy Ghost.  Q.  Are
    there not three Gods? A. No; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are all but one
    and the same God'…These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers…We
    should  rather  mistrust  that  the  Sunday  God  came  from  the  same  source  that
    Sunday-keeping did.” {J. B. Frisbie, Review & Herald, March 7, 1854, The Sunday
    God, p. 50}
     
    “In accordance with the doctrine that three very and eternal Gods are but one God,
    how  may  we  reconcile…Acts [10:]38. "How God anointed Jesus with the Holy
    Ghost," &c.  First person takes the third person and anoints the second person with a
    person being at the same time one with himself.
     
    "That three are one, and one are three,
    Is an idea that puzzles me;
    By many a learned sage 'tis said
    That three are one in the Godhead.
     
    "The Father then may be the Son,
    For both together make but one;
    The Son may likewise be the Father,
    Without the smallest change of either.
    "Yea, and the blessed Spirit be
    The Father, Son and trinity;
    This is the creed of Christian folks,
    Who style themselves true orthodox,
    All which against plain common sense,
    We must believe or give offense.”
     
    {J. B. Frisbie, Review & Herald, March
    12, 1857}

  14. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:Roswell  Fenner Cottrell:“Men have gone to opposite extremes in the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity.
    Some  have  made  Christ  a  mere  man,  commencing  his  existence  at  his  birth  in
    Bethlehem; others have not been satisfied with holding him to be what the Scriptures
    so  clearly  reveal  him,  the  pre-existing  Son  of  God,  but  have  made  him  the  'God
    and  Father'  of  himself…I  would  simply  advise  all  that  love  our  Lord  and  Saviour
    Jesus  Christ,  to  believe  all  that  the  bible  says  of  Him,  and  no  more….We
    Understand that the term trinity means the union of three persons, not offices,
    in one God; so that the Father, Son and holy Ghost, are three at least, and one
    at  most.  That  one  person  is  three  persons,  and  that  three  persons  are  only  one
    person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The
    being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason,
    yet I believe them: But the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the
    very  sense  and  reason  that  God  has  himself  implanted  in  us.  Such  a  doctrine  he
    does not ask us to believe. … But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that
    one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person;  and in his
    revealed  word  he  has  never  asked  us  to  believe  it.  This  our  friend  thinks
    objectionable. … But  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  so  much  an
    evidence  of  evil  intention  as  of  intoxication  from  that  wine  of  which  all  the
    nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not
    the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to popedom, does
    not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves;
      31
    as  when  the  spirits  of  devils  working  miracles  undertake  the  advocacy  of  the
    immortality  of  the  soul.  Had  I  never  doubted  it  before,  I  would  now  probe  it  to  the
    bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought. … 
    Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and
    common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could “make justice
    of injustice,” nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference
    between the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and
    add nothing to it.” {R. F. Cottrell, Review & Herald, July 6, 1869} “He  proceeded  to  affirm  that  "man  is  a  triune  being,"  consisting  of  body,  soul  and
    spirit. I never heard a Disciple confess faith in the doctrine of the trinity; but why not,
    if man consists of three persons in one person? especially, since man was made in
    the image of God? But the image he said, was a moral likeness.  So man may be a
    triune  being  without  proving  that  God  is.  But  does  he  mean  that  one  man  is  three
    men? I might say that a tree consists of body, bark and leaves, and no one perhaps
    would  dispute  it.  But  if  I  should  affirm  that  each  tree  consists  of  three  trees,  the
    assertion  would  possibly  be  doubted  by  some.  But  if  all  admitted  that  one  tree  is
    three  trees, I might then affirm  that there  were ninety trees in my orchard, when  no
    one  could  count  but  thirty.  I  might  then  proceed  and  say,  I  have  ninety  trees  in my
    orchard, and as each tree consists of three trees,  I have two  hundred and seventy.
    So if one man is three men, you may multiply him by three as often as you please.”
    {R. F. Cottrell, Review & Herald, Nov. 19, 1857}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 givenme.  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
    worshipping  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. 1:8. The Son is called The mighty God.
    Isa.  9:6.  And  when  he  comes again  to  earth his waiting  people  will exclaim,  This is
    our God. Isa. 25:9. 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.  1:9.  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus  both
    Lord and Christ. Acts. 2:36. 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. 2:13.” {R. F. Cottrell, Review & Herald, June 1, 1869}

  15. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings: Stephen Nelson Haskell :“The rainbow in  the  clouds is but  a  symbol of  the  rainbow which  has encircled  the
    throne  from eternity.  Back in the  ages,  which finite mind cannot  fathom,  the Father
    and Son were alone in the universe. Christ was the first begotten of the Father,
    and  to  Him  Jehovah  made  known  the  divine  plan  of  Creation.  The  plan  of  the
    creation  of  worlds  was  unfolded,  together  with  the  order  of  beings  which  should
    people them. Angels, as representatives of one order, would be ministers of the God
    of  the  universe.  The  creation  of  our  own  little  world  was  included  in  the  deep-laid
    plans. The fall of Lucifer was foreseen;  likewise the  possibility of  the  introduction of
    sin,  which  would  mar  the  perfection  of  the  divine  handiwork.  It  was  then,  in  those
    early councils, that Christ’s heart of love was touched; and the only begotten Son
    pledged  His  life  to  redeem  man,  should  he  yield  and  fall.  Father  and  Son,
    surrounded  by  impenetrable  glory,  clasped  hands.  …  and  the  everlasting  covenant
    was  made;  and  henceforth  Father  and  Son,  with  one  mind,  worked  together  to
    complete  the  work  of  creation.  Sacrifice  of  self  for  the  good  of  others  was  the
    foundation  of  it  all.”  {S.  N.  Haskell,  The  Story  of  the  Seer  of  Patmos,  pp.  93, 94.
    1905} “Before the creation of our world, “there was war in heaven.” Christ and the Father
    covenanted together; and Lucifer,  the covering cherub, grew jealous because
    he  was  not  admitted  into  the  eternal  councils  of  the  Two  who  sat  upon  the
    throne.” {S. N. Haskell, The Story of the Seer of Patmos, p. 217. 1905}“Christ  was  the  firstborn  in  heaven;  He  was  likewise  the  firstborn  of  God  upon
    earth, and heir to the Father‟s throne. Christ,  the  firstborn,  though  the  Son  of  God,
    was clothed in humanity, and was made perfect through suffering. He took the form
    of man, and through eternity, He will remain a man.” {S. N. Haskell, The Story of the
    Seer of Patmos, pp. 98, 99. 1905}

  16. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  Joseph Harvey Waggoner:“Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and
    efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection
    between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the
    difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take
    the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ.  Were
    that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any
    can;  but  it  is  not  the  case.  They  who  have  read  our  remarks  on  the  death  of  the
    Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept
    the  idea  of  a  trinity,  as  it  is  held  by  Trinitarians,  without  giving  up  our  claim  on  the
    dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.” {J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement
    in the Light of Nature and Revelation, pp. 164, 165} “The  distinction  between  Christ  and  the  true  God  is  most  clearly  shown  by  the
    Saviour's  own  words  in  John  17:3:  "That  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,
    and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Much stress is laid on Isa. 9:6, as proving a
    trinity,  which  we  have  before  quoted,  as  referring  to  our  High  Priest  who  shed  his
    blood  for us.  The advocates of  that  theory will  say that it refers to  a  trinity because
    Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that
    it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is
    he the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is
    three  persons.  To  recognize  a  trinity,  the  distinction  between  the  Father  and  Son
    must be  preserved. Christ is called  "the second  person in the  trinity;"  but if this text
    proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second, but the first.
    And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference
    to such a doctrine.” {J. H. Waggoner, ibid, pp. 168, 169} “The  'Athanasian  creed'…was  formulated  and  the  faith  defined  by  Athanasius.
    Previous to that time there was no settled method of expression, if, indeed, there was
    anywhere  any  uniformity  of  belief.  Most  of  the  early  writers  had  been  pagan
    philosophers,  who  to  reach  the  minds  of  that  class,  often  made  strong  efforts  to
    prove  that  there  was  a  blending  of  the  two  systems,  Christianity  and  philosophy.
    There is abundance of material in their writings to sustain this view. Bingham speaks
    of  the  vague  views  held  by  some  in  the  following  significant  terms:  "'There  were
    some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of
    three  divine persons under  the  economy of  Father, Son,  and  Holy Spirit,  brought in
    three  collateral,  coordinate,  and  self-originated  beings,  making  them  three
    absolute  and  independent  principles,  without  any  relation  of  Father  or  Son,
    which is the most proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in
    the doctrine of the Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of
    baptism.'-Antiquities, book 11, chap. 3, & 4. "Who can distinguish between this form
    of expression and that put forth by the council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, wherein
    the  true  faith  is  declared  to  be  that  of  'an  uncreated  and  consubstantial  and  co-eternal  Trinity?'  The  truth  is  that  we  find  the  same  idea  which  is  here  described  by
    Bingham  running  through  much  of  the  orthodox  literature  of  the  second  and  third
    centuries. There is no proper 'relation of Father and Son' to be found in the words
    of the council, above quoted…Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three
    coordinate  and  self-originated  and  independent  beings  arose  in  the  church
    very  early;  and  so  we  find  it  in  the  earliest  authors  after  the  days  of  the
    apostles…We  leave  it  with  the  good  judgment  of  every  unprejudiced  reader  that
    three baptisms are more consistent with the idea of “three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings”, than with the idea of baptism into the name
    of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the likeness of the Saviour’s death and
    resurrection.”  {J. H. Waggoner, Thoughts on Baptism, 1878}“There is one  question  which has been  much controverted in the  theological world
    upon which we have never presumed to enter. It is that of the personality of the Spirit
    of  God.  Prevailing  ideas  of  person  are  very  diverse,  often  crude,  and  the  word  is
    differently understood; so that unity of opinion on this point cannot be expected until
    all  shall  be  able  to  define  precisely  what  they  mean  by  the  word,  or  until  all  shall
    agree  upon  one  particular  sense  in  which  the  word  shall  be  used.  But  as  this
    agreement  does  not  exist,  it  seems  that  a  discussion  of  the  subject  cannot  be
    profitable, especially as it is not a question of direct revelation. We have a right to be
    positive  in  our  faith  and  our  statements  only  when  the  words  of  Scripture  are  so
    direct  as  to  bring  the  subject  within  the  range  of  positive  proof.  We  are  not  only
    willing but anxious to leave it just where the word of God leaves it. From it we learn
    that the Spirit of God is that awful and mysterious power which proceeds from
    the  throne  of  the  universe,  and  which  is  the  efficient  actor  in  the  work  of
    creation and of redemption.” {J. H. Waggoner, The Spirit Of God; Its Offices And
    Manifestations, pp. 8, 9. 1877} “As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject,
    is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the
    divinity  of  Christ.  They  see  only  the  two  extremes,  between  which  the  truth
    lies;  and  take  every  expression  referring  to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  as
    evidence  of  a  trinity.  The  Scriptures  abundantly  teach  the  pre-existence  of
    Christ  and  his  divinity;  but  they  are  entirely  silent  in  regard  to  a  trinity.  The
    declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of
    the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the
    two  natures  are  we  indebted  for  redemption?  The  answer  must,  of  course,  be,  To
    that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his
    blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only
    human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he
    could  neither  suffer  nor  die.  Surely,  we  say  right,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity
    degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down
    to  the  standard  of  Socinianism.”  {J. H.  Waggoner,  The  Atonement  In  The  Light  Of
    Nature And Revelation, pp. 173, 174}“Ques.  What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general?
    Ans.  It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honor of the most holy Trinity,
    and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the
    holy  Ghost  on  a  Sunday,  &c.;  and  therefore  it  is  called  the  Lord's  Day.    It  is  also
    called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to
    which  it  was  sacred.  –  Douay  Catechism,  Page  143.”  {J.  H.  Waggoner,  Review  &
    Herald, July 18, 1854}

  17. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:Uriah Smith:
    Perennial editor of the review
    (1832 – 1903)
     
    Few Seventh-day Adventists have known their Bibles
    better  than  Uriah  Smith.  He  was  a  quiet,  reserved
    man  who  impressed  people  by  his  learning  and
    appearance.  A  man  of  noble  countenance,  he
    commanded  respect.  In  December,  1852,  he
    accepted  the  light  of  the  message  taught  by  the
    Sabbath-keeping  Adventists.  The  following  year  he
    associated  with  the  publishing  interests  of  the  "little
    flock"  of  believers  in  Rochester.  For  about  a  half
    century  he  was  the  editor  or  on  the  editorial  staff  of
    the church paper, the Review and Herald. Smith was
    one  of  the  most  fluent  writers  the  denomination  has
    had.  In  debate  his  pen  could  be  incisive,  his  logic  clear,  and  his  reasoning  lucid.
    Uriah Smith was the first Secretary of the General Conference, accepting this post at
    the organization of the General Conference in the spring of the year 1863. He is best
    known  for  his  book,  The  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelation,  which  has
    circulated by the thousands of copies. He was the first Bible teacher at Battle Creek
    College.  Elder  Smith  was  often  seen  walking  down  the  streets  of  Battle  Creek  with
    his cane, limping along on his artificial limb, for he had suffered an amputation as a
    teen-age boy. He was versatile and intelligent, as were most of the pioneers. Yet, in
    spite of all this, he is probably the most maligned of all the pioneers! But Sister White
    had this to say of him: “I feel very tender toward Elder Smith. My life interest in the
    publishing  work  is  bound  up  with  his.  He  came  to  us  as  a  young  man,  possessing
    talents that qualified him to stand in his lot and place as an editor. How I rejoice as I
    read his articles in the Review–so excellent, so full of spiritual truth. I thank God for
    them.  I  feel  a  strong  sympathy  for  Elder  Smith,  and  I  believe  that  his  name  should
    always  appear  in  the  Review  as  the  name  of  the  leading  editor.  Thus  God  would
    have it. When, some years ago, his name was placed second, I felt hurt. When it was
    again  placed  first,  I  wept,  and  said,  "Thank  God."  May  it  always  be  there,  as  God
    designs  it  shall  be,  while  Elder  Smith's  right  hand  can  hold  a  pen.  And  when  the
    power  of  his  hand  fails,  let  his  sons  write  at  his  dictation.” {E.  G.  White,  Selected
    Messages  Book  2,  p.  225}  The  early  workers  were  people  of  stature-high  calibre.
    Truly, God chose the best that He could find to do the most important work given to
    men and women in these last days.“The  Scriptures  nowhere  speak  of  Christ  as  a  created  being,  but  on  the
    contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. (See remarks of Rev.
    3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while as the Son
    he does not possess a coeternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of
    his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation,
    in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb 1:2. Could not
    the  Father  ordain  that  to  such  a  being  worship  should  be  rendered  equally  with
    himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to
    positions  which  make  it  proper  that  he  should  be  worshipped,  and  has  even
    commanded  that  worship  should  be  rendered  him,  which  would  not  have  been
    necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. 
    Christ himself declares that 'as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the
    Son to have life in himself.' John 5:26. The Father has 'highly exalted him, and given
    him a name which is above every name.' Phil. 2:9. And the Father himself says, 'Let
    all  the angels of God worship him.' Heb.  1:6.  These  testimonies show that  Christ  is
    now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him
    he holds an eternity of past existence.” {U. Smith, Thoughts on the Book of Daniel
    and the Revelation, p. 430. 1882}
     
    “God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could
    be, – a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity, – appeared
    the  Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
    Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness
    of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any
    other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s]
    only begotten Son”  (John 3:16;  1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John
    1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42. Thus it appears that
    by some  divine  impulse  or process,  not creation,  known  only to  Omniscience,  and
    possible only to Omnipotence, the Son of God appeared. And then the Holy Spirit (by
    an infirmity of translation called “the Holy Ghost”), the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit  of
    Christ,  the  divine  afflatus  and  medium  of  their  power,  representative  of  them
    both  (Ps.  139:7),  was  in  existence  also.”  {U.  Smith,  Looking  Unto  Jesus,  p.  10.
    1898}
     
    “1. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matt. 28:19. By
    this we express our belief in the existence of the one true God, the mediation of his
    Son, and the influence of the Holy Spirit.” {U. Smith, The Bible Students Assistant,
    pp. 21, 22. 1858} “J. W. W. Asks: “Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as
    the Father and the Son? Some claim that it is, others that it is not.” 
     
    Ans.  –  The terms “Holy Ghost”, are a harsh and repulsive translation. It should be
    “Holy Spirit” (hagion pneuma) in every instance. This Spirit is the Spirit of God, and
    the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to
    God  or  Christ.  But  respecting  this  Spirit,  the  Bible  uses  expressions  which
    cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a  person like  the Father and the
    Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which
    represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all
    the  universe,  when  not  personally  present.  Christ  is  a  person,  now  officiating  as
    priest  in  the  sanctuary  in  heaven;  and  yet  he  says  that  wherever  two  or  three  are
    gathered in his name, he is there  in  the  midst. Mt.  18:20.  How?  Not  personally, but
    by his Spirit. In one of Christ’s discourses (John 14-16) this Spirit is personified as
    “the Comforter,” and as  such has the personal and relative pronouns, “he,”
    “him,” and “whom,” applied to it. But usually it is spoken of in a way to show
    that it cannot be a  person, like  the Father and the Son.  For instance,  it is often
    said to be “poured out” and “shed abroad.”  But  we  never  read  about  God  or  Christ
    being poured out or shed abroad. If it was a person, it would be nothing strange for it
    to appear in bodily shape; and yet when it has so appeared, that fact has been noted
    as peculiar. Thus Luke 3:22 says: “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape
    like a dove upon him.” But the shape is not always the same; for on the day of
    Pentecost it assumed the form of “cloven tongues like as of fire.” Acts 2:3, 4. Again
    we read of “the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5;
    5:6. This is unquestionably simply a designation of the Holy Spirit, put in this form to
    signify its perfection and completeness. But it could hardly be so described if it was a
    person. We never read of the seven Gods or the seven Christs.” {U. Smith, Review
    & Herald, October 28, 1890}
     
    “It may not then be out of place for us to consider for a moment what this Spirit is,
    what its office is, what its relation to the world and to the church, and what the Lord
    through this proposes to do for his people. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God; it is
    also the Spirit of Christ. It is that divine, mysterious emanation through which
    they  carry  forward  their  great  and  infinite  work. …  You  will  notice  in  these  few
    verses the apostle brings to view the three great agencies which are concerned in
    this  work:  God,  the  Father;  Christ,  his  Son;  and  the  Holy  Spirit.”  {U.  Smith,
    General Conference Daily Bulletin Volume 4, March 14, 1891, pp. 146, 147} More to come!!!

  18. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  J.  N.  Loughborough:J.  N.  Loughborough  was  the  son  of  a  Methodist
    minister  and  became  a  Sabbath-keeping  Adventist
    through the labors of J. N. Andrews in 1852. He began
    preaching immediately and was ordained in 1854. He,
    along with D. T. Bourdeau, were our first missionaries,
    sent to California in 1868. Loughborough was the first
    man  to  receive  ordination  in  what  was  later  to  be
    known  as  the  Seventh-day  Adventist  Church.  This
    occurred when he was only 22 years old. Like most of
    the  early  Advent  leaders,  Loughborough  took  a  real
    interest in the literature work. Loughborough was truly
    a  great  pioneer,  lending  his  many  talents  to  the
    development  of  the  work  wherever  there  was  a  need.  Elder  Loughborough  was
    obedient  to  the  heavenly vision,  and  God used  him in a  mighty way to  build up  the
    interest  of  His  cause.  An  eye-witness  to  the  founding  of  the  Seventh-day  Adventist
    church, he became the denomination's first historian, writing the book The Rise and
    Progress  of  Seventh-day  Adventists,  which  was  followed  by  The  Great  Second
    Advent Movement.  He was also the author of smaller books. He spent his last years
    in the St. Helena Sanitarium, where he passed away peacefully on April 7, 1924, at
    the ripe old age of ninety-two. His funeral was held in the St. Helena church, which
    was  one  of  the  first  churches  he  had  raised  up  in  California  more  than  fifty  years
    before.  “I  say  let  Elder  Loughborough  do  a  work  that  is  suffering  to  be  done  in  the
    churches. The Lord would have his voice heard as was John's, telling the things he
    has seen, and that which he has heard, which he himself has experienced in the rise
    and progress of the third angel's message.” {E. G. White, 1888 Materials, p. 716}
     
    “QUESTIONS FOR BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH.
     
    BRO. WHITE: The following questions I would like to have you give, or send, to Bro.
    Loughborough for explanation. W. W. GILES. Toledo, Ohio.
     
    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.    And  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 2Sam.xxi,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 xiv,28; xvii,3;
    iii,16;  v,19,26;  xi,15;  xx,19;  viii,50;  vi,38;  Mark  xiii,32;  Luke  vi,12;  xxii,69;  xxiv,29;
    Matt.iii,17; xxvii,46; Gal.iii,20; 1Jno.ii,1; Rev.v,7; Acts xvii,31.  Also see Matt.xi,25,27;
    Luke  i,32;  xxii,42;  John  iii,35,36;  v,19,21,22,23,25,26;  vi,40;  viii,35,36;  xiv,13;
    1Cor.xv,28, &c.
     
    The  word  Trinity  nowhere  occurs  in  the  Scriptures.    The  principal  text  supposed  to
    teach  it is 1John  [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
    John i, 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.  iv, p.422.   It  was adopted in
    Spain  in  589,  in  England  in  596,  in  Africa  in  534.  –  Gib.  vol.  iv,  pp.114,345;  Milner,
    vol. i, p.519.” {J. N. Loughborough, Review & Herald, November 5, 1861}
     
    “The Spirit of God is spoken of in the Scriptures as God's representative- the power
    by  which  he  works,  the  agency  by  which  all  things  are  upheld.  This  is  clearly
    expressed  by  the  Psalmist…Psa.  139:7-10.  We  learn  from  this  language  that  when
    we speak of the Spirit of God we are really speaking of his presence and power.” {J.
    N. Loughborough, Review & Herald, September 20, 1898}
     
    “Moreover,  he  [Christ]  is  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God. … The  language
    does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  was  created;  for the words… may simply
    signify  that  the  work  of  creation,  strictly  speaking,  was  begun  by  him.  Without  him
    was not anything made. Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word
    (for beginning in Greek) to mean the agent or efficient cause, … understanding that
    Christ  is  the  agent  through  whom  God  has  created  all  things,  but  that  he  himself
    came into existence in a different manner, as he is called  the only begotten of the
    Father.”  {J.  N.  Loughborough,  Insert  A-1,  Lest  We  Forget,  Volume  4,  Number  2,
    Second Quarter, 1994}

  19. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:  J.  N.  Andrews:  J.  N.  Andrews  usually  stands  for  one  thing  to
    Seventh-day  Adventists.  He  was  the  first  Seventh-day  Adventist  missionary,  traveling  to  Western
    Europe  in  1874,  there  to  establish  the  work  in
    Switzerland.  Few  of  us  know  J.  N.  Andrews  as  the
    third  president  of  the  General  Conference.  The
    literary giant and deep scholar was also at one time
    the editor of our venerable church paper, the Review
    and  Herald.  He  was  closely  associated  with  Elder
    and Mrs. James White in the pioneer leadership and
    evangelistic work of the infant church. He became a
    minister  at  the  age  of  21.  He  claimed  the  ability  to
    reproduce the entire New Testament from memory and could read the Bible in seven
    different  languages.  Andrews was  an  intellectual  who  enjoyed  "severe study"  much
    more  than  physical  activity.  He  was  an  excellent  theologian  and  wrote  an  article
    proving  that  Sabbath  was  from  sunset  to  sunset,  which  became  the  doctrine  of
    SDA's. He was first to write that the U.S. was the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. Elder
    Andrews wrote many articles and books during his career (Among them is his historic
    book  History  of  the  Sabbath).  He  died  in  Europe  nine  years  after  his  arrival  there.
    Though he lived only 54 years, he distinguished himself as one of the best writers we
    have ever had. Andrews was a warrior who stood in the forefront of the battle to the
    day  of  his  death.  This  is  what  Sister  White  said  about  him,  “From what God has
    shown me from time to time, Brother Andrews was his chosen servant, to do a work
    others could not do. I have testimonies where the most distinct reference is made to
    his precious gift. The experience he has obtained has qualified him for the important
    work for these last days.” {E. G. White, Manuscript Releases Volume 13, p. 32}“Every member of the human family, except Adam, has had parents, and every one
    has had beginning of days; and indeed, with two exceptions, everyone has had end
    of life. Even the angels of God have all had beginning of days, so that they would be
    as much excluded by this language as the members of the human family. And as to
    the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at
    some  point  in  the  eternity  of  the  past,  have  beginning  of  days.”  {J. N.  Andrews,
    Review & Herald, September 7, 1869}
     
     “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
      18
    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.” {J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855}
     
    “That  God  is  the  fountain  and  source  of  immortality  is  plain  from  the  statement  of
    Paul. He speaks thus of God the Father: 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the
    light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto;  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see;  to
    whom  be  honor  and  power  everlasting;  Amen.'  1  Tim.  6:16.  This  text  is  evidently
    designed  to  teach  that  the  self  existent  God  is  the  only  being  who,  of  himself,
    possesses this wonderful nature. Others may possess it as derived from him, but he
    alone is the fountain of immortality. "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the source of this life to
    us. 'For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
    himself.' John 5:26. 'As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he
    that eateth me, even he shall live by me.' John 6:57. The Father gives us this life in
    His Son. 'And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life and this life is in
    his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not
    life.'  1Jn  5:11,12.  These  Scriptures  do  clearly  indicate  that  Christ  is  the  source  of
    endless life, and that those only have this who have Christ.” {J. N. Andrews, Review
    & Herald, January 27, 1874 p. 52}

  20. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:Joseph Bates: “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. I informed him that my mind was troubled in relation
    to baptism. Said he, "I had you baptized when an infant." I answered, that that might
    all be according to his faith; but the Bible taught that we must first believe and then be  baptized  (Mark xvi,16;1Pet.iii,21),  but  I  was not capable of  believing  when  I  was
    an  infant.  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."”  {J.  Bates,  The
    Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, pp. 204, 205. 1868}
     
    “One  thing  more:  Much  derision  is  made  about  those  of  our  company  that  have
    joined the Shakers. I say it is a shame to them first, to have preached so clearly and
    distinctly the speedy coming of our Lord Jesus Christ personally to gather his saints –
    and then to go and join the Shakers in their faith, that he (Jesus) came spiritually in
    their Mother, Ann Lee, more than seventy years ago. This, without doubt in my mind,
    is owing to their previous teaching and belief in a doctrine called the trinity. How can
    you find fault with their faith while you are teaching the very essence of that  never –
    no  never  to  be  understood,  doctrine?  … We believe that Peter and his master
    settled this question beyond controversy, Matt.16:13-19; and I cannot see why Daniel
    and John has not fully confirmed that Christ is the Son, and, not God the Father. How
    could Daniel explain his vision of the 7th chapter, if "Christ was God." Here he sees
    one "like the Son (and it cannot be proved that it was any other person) of man, and
    there  was given  him  Dominion,  and  Glory,  and  a  kingdom;"  by the  ancient  of  days.
    Then  John  describes one  seated  on  a  throne  with  a  book in  his right  hand,  and  he
    distinctly saw Jesus come up to the throne and take the book out of the hand of him
    that sat thereon. Now if it is possible to make these two entirely different transactions
    appear in one person, then I could believe that God died and was buried instead of
    Jesus,  and  that  Paul  was  mistaken  when  he  said,  "Now  the  God  of  peace  that
    brought again from the dead ou[r] Lord Jesus that great shepherd of the sheep" &c.,
    and that Jesus also did not mean what he said when he asserted that he came from
    God, and was going to God, &c.&c,; and much more, if necessary, to prove the utter
    absurdity  of  such  a  faith.”  {Joseph  Bates  in  a  letter  to  William  Miller,  Past  and
    Present Experience, pp. 187, 188. 1848}
     
    “But  you  say,  God  is  a  spirit.  (There  is  no  doubt  but  [t]hat  his  spirit  pervades  all
    space, and every thing in it that has life.)” {J. Bates, The Opening Heavens, p. 18.
    1846}

  21. The Pioneers Speaking through their Writings:““Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it
    was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend
      13
    for  THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” (Jude 3, 4) …The
    exhortation  to  contend  for  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints,  is  to  us  alone.  And  it  is
    very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives
    us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are
    certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus
    Christ. … The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God
    and our Lord Jesus  Christ is  first using the old unscriptural  Trinitarian creed,
    viz.,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  eternal  God,  though  they  have  not  one  passage  to
    support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of
    the eternal God.” {J. S. White, The Day Star, January 24, 1846}
     
    “The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with
    the Father in that he had received all things from the Father.” {J. S. White, Review &
    Herald, January 4, 1881}
     
    “We  are  told  by  those  who  teach  the  abolition  of  the  Father's  law,  that  the
    commandments  of  God  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  are  not  the  ten,  but  the
    requirements  of  the  gospel,  such  as  repentance,  faith,  baptism  and  the  Lord's
    supper.  But  as  these,  and  every  other  requirement  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  are  all
    embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not
    the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his
    apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old
    trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith
    of  Jesus  embraces  every  requirement  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  it  necessarily  follows
    that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel, embrace only the ten
    precepts  of  the  Father's  immutable  law  which  are  not  peculiar  to  any  one
    dispensation, but common to all.” {J. S. White, Review & Herald, August 5, 1852“Bro.  Cottrell  is  nearly  eighty  years  of  age,  remembers  the  dark  day  of  1780,  and
    has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the
    Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He
    rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, also the doctrine of man‟s consciousness
    between  death  and  the  resurrection,  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  eternal
    consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried
    his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one of the excellent of the earth. Not long
    since,  this aged  pilgrim received  a letter from friends in Wisconsin,  purporting  to be
    from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, believing that the dead know
    not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirits of the dead,
    knowing everything, come back and converse with the living.  Thus truth is a staff in
      14
    his  old  age.  He  has  three  sons  in  Mill  Grove,  who,  with  their  families  are  Sabbath-keepers.” {J. S. White, Review & Herald, June 9, 1853}
     
    “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.”  {J.  S.  White,  Review  &  Herald,
    December 11, 1855}

Leave a Reply