Tag Archives: trinitarianism

News, Events & Profiles

Fictional interpretation – a case study

Leave a comment

In order to clearly highlight what I consider as fictional interpretation of the Bible, allow me to use this example from my recent discussion with a trinitarian theologian.

First, the theologian wrote:

“Thus my advice is to be content with the fact that the God of Moses is not Just ONE person. You have in Exodus 3 YAHWEH revealing Himself to Moses in His quality of Heavenly Messenger (“Angel”) of YAHWEH. Thus there is ONE YAHWEH in Heaven, and anOTHER YAHWEH as His legate showing Himself to Moses. If the name of God is not applicable to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit together (three Persons each manifesting the true God), then we have in Exodus 3 a case of idolatry, worshipping another god. There is no way to escape this conclusion, therefore my non-trinitarian SDA friends prefer to avoid Exodus 3 and similar scriptures.”

Notice that the point he is making is that Exodus 3 shows that there are two which are called by the same name YHWH, yet YHWH is the name of one God. This situation of two persons using one name, which name belongs to only one person is the conundrum to which a harmonising solution must be found. Notice that his solution to this conundrum is a logic which combines the two (of course with the Spirit, though the Spirit was never called YHWH neither by Moses nor any writer in the Bible) to make up the one being called the One God.

Then I responded challenging him to separate what the Bible says from his own solution. I wrote:

“You admitted yourself that in your theology, the Bible is not enough in logic…If you consider the Bible to be complete in defining who God is, and if you stick to biblical definitions, you will come to a different conclusion. Try it. In your thinking about Exodus 3, try to separate what is stated, from what you reason out (your logic). Then consider where your reasoning is coming from. It is a simple normal scholarly thing to do, really…So when you say the plurality is obvious, it is only obvious to what you have added to your insufficient Bible by logic. You need to learn the difference between what is in the Bible, and what you add by logic and tradition, and that both the data and the logic must come from the Bible… On the plurality of one being, you add your logic to the Bible.”

That must be straightforward. The theologian is challenged to identify his logic and separate it from what the Bible says. Then identify where he got the logic from.

Then he responded as follows:

“You want me ”try to separate (in Exodus 3) what is stated” from what I reason out (my logic).” … In Exodus 3 the pluri-personality of God is obvious, because it is the simplest deduction from the data, not some complex phylosophical or theological speculation. If Moses called the One in the burning bush both the Messenger of YHWH (Ex 3:2) and God or YHWH Himself, how one can justify such colossal confusion, if Moses did not mean two different persons? If your logic is better in this case, please dare to explain to me! Why Moses, the father of monotheism, compromised his grand idea from the beginning?”

True to the theologian’s earlier assertion that the Bible does not contain enough logic to explain the One God and he has to make his own deductions, the theologian responds saying that by using the same name for two persons, Moses could have shown colossal confusion, except if he meant the logic that says combine persons to form one being/person. The colossal confusion is that he called two persons by the same name, yet the name belongs to one person/being. The theologian then throws back to me to tell him if there is biblical logic which explains how two separate persons can use the same name, yet the same name belongs to one person/being.

Notice that the theologian agrees that his deduction, that these two persons are combined to make one person/being called one God is his own, not from the Bible. It sounds obvious to him, as it does to many trinitarians, that their logic explains what the Bible intended to mean, but the Bible did not say, which now has been reasoned out by them.

So I take up the challenge to use only what the Bible says to explain how the Father and the Son use one name, yet the name belongs to only one God. I responded.

“Consider Exodus 3 and let us see how you cleverly add to the scriptures… Here is how you separate the data from your own logic, then how you find biblical logic, which is complete.

Here is the data.

  • Moses referred to the one who spoke from the burning bush as YHWH.
  • YHWH refers to the Father who cannot be seen neither interacts directly with mankind, and is in heaven.
  • So that means two persons referred to as YHWH.

That is as far as the biblical data goes.

  • To that you can add that Christ is “I AM”, is worshipped, forgives sins, is called God, etc. All that is just the [biblical] data. [the logical problem that two persons are referred to by one name, and yet the name belongs to one person, still remains.] But what does the Bible explicit say that is what the data means?

Now to say these two (Father and Son) then have to be put together to make a plural God is your deduction [as you asserted yourself], not biblical logic. That logic cannot be found anywhere in the Bible [neither the Bible nor natural reality ever teaches the combination of persons to form another being/person]. So what I am saying to you is stop right there and consider, what is in the Bible, explicitly written that gives us an explanation, i.e. the logic of how two persons can be referred to by the same name, which name belongs to one person.

“It does not follow, even in normal non-fictional human logic, that the reference to multiple persons by the same name combines them into one being. Neither is it logical biblically.

“… Don’t pull ideas out of thin air to explain these two persons with one name, search for the answer in the Bible. You are stopping your search, and giving your conclusion [or deduction] while there is still much more data to explain how two persons can use the same name. That is where I am saying separate your fictional ideas about making a being out of persons, which thing you were never told to do, and consider the Bible to be sufficient. Continue searching the Bible and SOP for an answer, not your own imagination of a being with persons, or the meaningless idea of a plural being, which is pure fiction.”

So I gave him back his challenge to search again something that is not of his own deduction, to let the Bible make the deductions. It has been half a year and the challenge has not been answered yet. But let us consider a logic that is found in the Bible.

I ask the reader to think about this carefully. If two persons use the same name, what question comes to your mind if you are investigating that situation? I suggest that it is absolutely biblically and humanly logical to seek how the two persons got the name. So does the Bible explain how the Father and the Son got their names? Yes it does.

Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.

So Christ was given a name by God the Father. What name was he given?

Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Christ got a name by inheritance. Now I don’t know if there is anyone who does not know what inheritance means. The only way Christ can get a name by inheritance is if he gets his Father’s name, that name is YHWH. The Father Himself was not given a name by anyone.

If you believe in EGW, here is what she says on the same point.

“Jehovah is the name given to Christ…”—The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2. { 7ABC 439.3 }

So, the Father and the Son are using one name because the Father gave His Son the His (the Father’s) own name, YHWH. That is why Christ speaks as the Father Himself. EGW says exactly that.

“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself THAT CHRIST SHOULD BE EQUAL WITH HIMSELF; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.” — (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 9,1879; also in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 18, 19) (emphasis added).

Christ says the same.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Please identify if I used any concept of human imagination in explaining this? Or I read very explicit verses and quotes with absolutely no addition except what the verses and quotes actually say in their own text. This is non-fictional explanation of how there are two persons in one name, which name belongs to one person, the One God, God the Father.

To end this section, let me say, when faced with a situation where two persons use the same name, yet the name belongs to one person, probably the most illogical, fabricated, meaningless, fictional and pagan idea you can ever think of is to combine the persons into one entity that you can refer to singularly as a ‘he’ as the One God of the Bible is referred to. To me that does not make sense at a grand scale. So is the idea of making the word ‘love’ explain the nature of God, a totally fabricated thought process.

therockfortress.net

therockfortress@gmail.com

Opinions & Ideas

Deconstructing the trinitarian thought process

Leave a comment

Click to access Deconstructing-the-trinitarian-thought-process-updated-version-1.pdf

During the journey of discovering the errors in the three-in-one god doctrine, you may come across many books and materials which try to explain the three-in-one (3-in-1) god. The same happened to us. Many brothers, when we questioned the obvious errors of the 3-in-1 god doctrine, referred us to some books. It is thought that such books make clear the 3-in-1 god doctrine. There are so many of these books out there. For example, we came across a book titled “The Trinity: What Has God Revealed” by Glyn Parfitt. When we read the book, we immediately saw the same errors as all the other trinitarian writings. Except that in this book, the errors were nicely packaged into one large book. Despite its huge volume, and our time-poor life, we have always wanted to explain why we see errors in this book and in the trinitarian thought process itself.

After thinking for some time about how to explain the errors, we decided it was better not to produce many pages tackling verse by verse and point by point, even though we could. If we did that, we would be explaining the same underlying errors across many of the different points that allegedly explain the three-in-one god. For example, as we will show in this writing, the error made in using Matthew 28:19 to construct the 3-in-1 god doctrine is the same error made in many other verses including Acts 5:4, 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 John 5:7.

Therefore, we thought the most effective way to help the authors of such books and those who refer to the books as trusted sources of doctrine, is to plead with them to reflect on how trinitarian interpretation works. In this writing we focus on the trinitarian interpretation of the Bible. God willing, in a future writing, we will explain the three-in-one god errors based on Ellen G. White’s writings. For a primer on our view of what EGW wrote, we refer you to our critique of George R Knight’s article, “Adventist and change”. You can find this article titled “A Critique of George R. Knight’s article Adventist and Change” freely available online.

And so here is the reflection on the trinitarian thought process as it navigates verses to formulate the three-in-one god doctrine. We pray that you will not find this writing to be adversarial, but rather that it will be an eye opener to you, or at least lead you to make an honest search for yourself, with no dependence on the church doctrinal statements, but more importantly, a simple “Thus saith the Lord”.

The Rock Fortress Ministries

therockfortress@gmail.com

September 2020

Opinions & Ideas

Tell me nothing but the truth – Part 2

Leave a comment

Tell me nothing but the truth – Part 2

From Part 1, we continue here.

  1. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Another verse which has the three mentioned in one sentence is Matthew 28:19. However, there is no ONE mentioned here. In Matthew 28:19, there is an instruction to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. In this verse there is no talk of forming a One God out of the three. There is only baptism and a name. But what does the Bible teach about baptism, the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? Let us start with baptism.

Baptism symbolises the death and resurrection of Christ. The death and resurrection of Christ reconciles us with God. To support that we read:

  • Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
  • Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

In baptism, we are baptised with the Holy Spirit, and we receive the Holy Spirit by whom we are sealed to salvation.

  • Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So in short, in baptism, we are reconciled with the Father, through the sacrifice of Christ, to receive the Holy Spirit. That if the baptismal formula. None of that demands that the three be One God for baptism to takes place. Nowhere does Matthew 28:19 teach that the Father, the Son and the Spirit form One God.

But how about the name. About the name of God we read:

  • Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

In this verse we see the name of God. How about Christ?

  • Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

We hear that Christ inherited a name and this name was from his Father. Only a father’s name can be inherited by a son. So, the Father’s name is his name. The inspired writer confirms this by saying.

“Jehovah is the name given to Christ.” (The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2.; 7ABC 439.3) (emphasis added)

And about the Spirit we read:

  • John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name…

So, we see that the Spirit came in the name of Christ, and Christ inherited the same name that belongs to his Father. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do come to us in three different independent names. There is only one name, that of God, the Father. The name was inherited by God’s Son, and the Spirit was given in the same name. It is no surprise then that we have one name for baptism whilst God, His Son and His Spirit are all involved in the same baptis.

Again, in all this, there is nowhere where the forming of One God out of three persons is taught.

There is a bit more about this name. We quote the inspired writer again.

“The creation of the worlds, the mystery of the gospel, are for one purpose, to make manifest to all created intelligences, through nature and through Christ, the glories of the divine character. By the marvelous display of his love in giving “his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” the glory of God is revealed to lost humanity and to the intelligences of other worlds. The Lord of heaven and earth revealed his glory to Moses, when he offered his prayer to Jehovah in behalf of idolatrous Israel, and pleaded, “Show me thy glory.” And the Lord said: “I will make all my goodness to pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy…. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock.” { ST April 25, 1892, par. 2 } (emphasis added)

We see here that the name of the Lord, is his character of love. We see that character and identity (name) go together. Then the Bible says:

  • Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

Those who are going to be triumphant over the world have the Father’s name written on their foreheads. That same one name (both identity and character) is on them too. They identify with God and have God’s character.

Therefore, at baptism we are to receive the one name of the One God, who gave his name to his Son, sent His Spirit in the same name and gives us a seal by the same name. In all that, there is no forming of a God made up of three, God remains One God from whom the name, the character, the Son and the Spirit all come.

  • 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

We could also search for this One God made up of three in 2 Corinthians 13:14 since it is another verse which mentions the three. What we see there is that Christ has grace, God has love and we communion through the Holy Ghost. There is nothing about forming a One God out of three persons. In fact, only one is identified as God in this verse and we know that is the Father.

If we read further in the Bible we will see that the Father also has grace and the Son has love.

  • Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
  • Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?…

If we read even further, we will see that the communion/fellowship we have between ourselves is with the Father and the Son through the Spirit.

  • 1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

By the same Spirit, we have communion with the Father and the Son. Therefore, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, there is no reason to assume that the One God is formed out of three persons. God remains God, His Son remains the Son of God and His Spirit remains the Spirit of God.

Summary

We can check all the Bible, but we will never see any statement that says the One God we worship is made up of three persons. In fact, this fact that no passage teaches the one-in-three-god is so true it is agreed by the churches, even the churches which preach that the One God is made up of three persons. They all know that the one-in-three-god is not taught by the Bible. Here are two quotes to confirm that.

“While no single Scripture passage states the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact… only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity.” — (Adventist Review, Vol. 158, No. 31, p. 4) (emphasis added)

“The concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed.” — Fernando L. Canale, The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia, Volume 12, page 138, ‘Doctrine of God’ (emphasis added)

Notice here that it is officially taught that the idea of a one in three god is an assumption. We wonder how many times an assumption can be made to turn it into truth. Yet, in the passages quoted from the modern SDA theology. We wonder how this world would be if assumptions were treated as facts. More importantly, who would inspire such a move whether the forces of truth or the forces of error?

Therefore, if we all want the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, if we do not want truth mixed with a lie or an assumption, then we can embrace the truth that the idea of a One God formed by three persons is not there in the Bible. That the One God we worship is formed by three persons is a lie, and in God, there is no lie.

Continues in Part 3 to Part 5.

God’s blessings to you all.

The Rock Fortress Ministries

Email: therockfortress@gmail.com

Website: www.rockfortress.net

YouTube

Facebook

05 September 2020

Opinions & Ideas

What would you expect of one sent by God

Leave a comment

TRF Ministries

therockfortress@gmail.com

What would you expect of one sent by God the Father through the Son?

Brethren, I pray that you lend me your brotherly ear for a while, and carefully consider the points.

I want to present to you a question, from different angles. If you can answer this question, with a verse, then please teach the trinity. But if you cannot, I plead with you to re-study the subject.

Question 1 Context:

Irrefutable point – The Bible says God, sends his Spirit all the time (to us (John 14:16); to create (Job 26:13); to bless (Isaiah 44:3); to bring us his messages (Revelation 2:7); to give “wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship” (Exodus 31:3); etc.

Question 1: If God sends someone or something to do that which God wants done, will that thing or someone be able to do that which God ONLY can do? (Ref the personal acts of the Spirit OF God)

Alternative question: Would you expect one sent to do what God wants to do, to do anything less than that which God only can do?

Alternative question: If God sent Moses to be a god to Pharaoh, would Moses do any less than that which God only can do?

My answer: One sent by God, to do that which God wants to do, will do that which God only can do, because God wants him to do it, but that does not make that person equal to God in nature and authority.

So to say, the Spirit sent by God, when it does that which God only can do, has become another being equal to, separate from, and of the same nature as the God who sent the Spirit is simple to stretch imagination too far.

That thinking that makes the Spirit of God another being equal to, separate from and of the same nature as God himself is a wild stroke of speculation going far beyond the simple clear statements of the Bible.

Question 2 context:

Irrefutable point – No man has in himself, in his nature, the ability to do miracles. God only inherently, as part of his nature has that ability.

Question 2: If a man does miracles, which ability is only from God, has the man become God, or another person equal to God? (Ref the personal acts of the Spirit OF God)

My answer: Having God’s power and being God’s power, as given by God, makes one able to do that which only God can do, but never equal to God who has given the power. Moses was never equal to God, though made a god by God, and able to perform that which God only can perform.

Hence the Spirit can never be another God by virtue of doing that which God has sent the Spirit to do.

Question 3 context:

Irrefutable point – The Bible says those who trust in God will “partake of divine nature” (KJV), “to share the divine nature”(GNB), “so that his nature would become part of us” (CEV), “have our part in God’s being” (BBE) (2 Peter 1:4).

Question 3: Does having a part in the nature of God, i.e. being members of the godhead, make man another person equal to God? (Ref SOP statements such as heavenly trio, dignitaries, etc.).

My answer: God does whatever he pleases with what is His, including His nature. If one receives the nature of God from God, then that does not mean one has become equal to God.

That the Spirit is the third person of the Godhead (according to EGW), does not make the Spirit another God as trinitarians speculate.

Question 4 context:

Irrefutable point – The Bible says thou shalt not bear false witness. If one bears false witness to his brother, he has borne false witness to God. Just like when we help others, we are doing that to Jesus. Lying to the church is lying to God. Lying to Peter is lying to God. Lying to the Pastor is lying to God. Lying to Moses is lying to God. All these are sent by God.

Question 4: If lying to a man is lying to God, by lying to one whom God has sent (one who is representing God), does that mean that man has himself become God, another person equal to God in nature and identity? Ref Acts 5:4.

My answer: The simple understanding is found right through the Bible.

  • Pharaoh rejected Moses who was sent by God, therefore rejected God.
  • Israel rejected prophets who were sent by God, therefore they rejected God.
  • When you do good to one of these little ones, you have done it to Christ and to God.
  • “And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.” (Matthew 23:22)
  • “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.” (John 15:23)

This is baby simple. If you lie to the Holy Spirit sent by God, you have lied to God who has sent the Spirit. Nothing there to make the Spirit equal to God in nature, identity and authority, or another person of God.

Question 5 context:

Irrefutable facts – SOP says the Holy Spirit, being sent by God from heaven, is a heavenly dignitary to God’s people {16MR 204.4}. The SOP also says, “The God of heaven uses His Spirit as it pleases Him.”

A dignitary is a person of a high office (1828 Webster Dictionary).

Question 5: If God sends a person as it pleases Him, is that person not a dignitary to those to whom he is sent (think of Moses, or Elijah, as dignitaries or high officers) and would that make that person equal in nature to God who has sent him?

Alternative question: If God wants His Spirit to be a dignitary to us, why would that make the Spirit equal to God in nature and identity?

My answer: God, His Son and His Spirit, (the latter two sent by God as he pleases all the time) are all of higher office and power, which authority and power comes from the God who has sent and given them the authority/power. That does not warrant an assumption that they are three co-equal in nature and authority. God remains the one who sent and the source of the power by which the Son and the Spirit are sent.

Question 6 context:

Irrefutable facts: In Genesis 18:2, Abraham received three men who were actually two angels and Christ. EGW comments on this as follows:

“We read [in Genesis 18] of visitors coming to Abraham as he was sitting in the door of his tent…. These were angels of God, and one of them was no less than the Son of God.” Manuscript 19, 1886. {CTr 73.5}

Question: If the Son of God, being equal to God, came with two men/angels, and were referred together as three men, and being on the same mission, does that mean they were three EQUAL men/angels?

Alternative question: Could Abraham say, “three men, three angels, three heavenly dignitaries, three powers, the heavenly trio, the three living persons, etc. came to me?”

My answer: The mere mention of three entities in a single sentence, collectively referred to such as dignitaries, men, powers, trio, etc. does not make them equal to each other in nature, identity or even in authority and power. There is no need to make such a wild assumption.

Summary:

I could continue with this line of thought with more examples, but the questions above make the point.

My brother, if you get the point you will see that it is illogical to assume that the nature or identity of someone based on what they do, that if they do that which God only can do as sent by God, or are lied to after being sent by God, then that someone has become equal to God Himself. If God appoints us into his divinity, or as third, fourth or hundredth person in His divinity, or makes you a dignitary carrying his words like Moses, or any such act and consciousness performed by any being on behalf of God, how can that make that person equal to God in nature and identity, when it is clearly stated that God has sent him? Does not the very fact that one is sent mean that his nature and identity has already been separated from the God who is sending?

This is what I am answering to. You see, if you ask the trinitarians, “why do you say the Spirit is co-equal to God”? The answer you will get is all about what the Spirit has done, felt, etc. which is what God alone can do, feel, etc. whilst ignoring that God has sent the Spirit to do and feel on His behalf. What would you expect the Spirit to do or feel if it has been sent by God, and acting on His behalf? Would you expect the Spirit to do and feel anything less than that which God can do and feel?

Or to put it in other words. Moses was sent by God, and he did that which only God can do (miracles, power over nature, power over death, etc.). Would you expect Moses to do anything less than that which God can do, while acting on behalf of God? And if Moses did that which God only can do, does that change the fact that Moses was sent to do that by God, with the ability of God given to him to do it? Would that make Moses equal to God in nature and identity because he has done that which God inherently can do?

Is there any way to make one see the unwarranted assumptions that are in this statement: “Father, Son and Spirit, three co-equal and co-eternal persons”?

Hence the truest and greatest statement ever made about the trinity doctrine was made by a Seventh Day Adventist trinitarians.

“While no single Scripture passage states the doctrine of the Trinity, IT IS ASSUMED AS A FACT… only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity.” — (Adventist Review, Vol. 158, No. 31, p. 4) (emphasis added)

“The concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated BUT ONLY ASSUMED.” — Fernando L. Canale, The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia, Volume 12, page 138, ‘Doctrine of God’ (emphasis added)

It does not get clearer than that. The idea of a three in one god is a wild unreasonable assumption, against all logic and biblical reasoning. It is tantamount to re-writing the Bible.

Let me put it in a more succinct form.

All the verses used by trinitarians to make God the Father’s own Spirit another person equal to God the Father and His Son tell us about the capabilities of the Spirit. By that I mean, the Spirit is lied to, intercedes, thinks, is grieved, is a dignitary, has divinity, plays a role in baptism, etc. From all these capability statements of the Spirit, the trinitarian mind assumes identity of the Spirit. That is unnecessary. The identity of the Spirit is clearly given. It is a Spirit belonging to God the Father, sent by God as God pleases. Simple!

God bless you all.

TRF Ministries.