Sunday, October 31, 2010

If the trinity is true

If the trinity is true, Then Christ was a co-eternal being who took the role of the son. While another being pretended to be the son.

"In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit,... By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity.... The divine Beings entered into the roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid." (The Week of Prayer issue of the Adventist Review, October 31, 1996)

This is called pretending. This is denying the father and son. This is antichrist doctrine [1 John 2:22].

Here's another quote that says they pretended...

“The Father–Son relationship in the Godhead should be understood in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense”. (Max Hatton, Understanding the Trinity, p. 97)

METAPHORICAL – a figure of speech in which a term is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable. (Macquarie Dictionary)

And of course no text is given to show that this is a metaphorical relationship between the father and son. And so if we are to understand this as they believe it today, when God gave his only begotten son it was only a figure of speech and not literally true. This is really saying God did not give his son.

1Jn 5:10 …. he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Also if he never really had a son to give, that means he is not his father.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This is called "making God a liar" "antichrist doctrine". But who really is the liar?

“The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the catholic church. Upon it are based all the teachings of the church”[Handbook for today’s Catholic Page 11]

All the wine of Babylon is based on this doctrine. And the trinity is nothing more than Wine from Babylon according to our pioneers.

Here is something from our older publications before we apostatized.

"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. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that affected the most wonderful miracle of creation. 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; 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, July 6, 1869, Review & Herald)

No comments:

Post a Comment