Berean Ecclesial News
   Editor: Fred J. Higham, 20116 McKishnie, Clinton Twp, Mich 48035 U.S.A.

Table of Contents

The Berean Christadelphian Archives
The Exhortations of Bro G. Growcott
The Berean Christadelphians

Christadelphian Cornerstones
Web Based Study Links
Signs and Events
Miscellaneous Writings

The Lord Our God Is One

"There is ONE God, AND one mediator between God and
men, the MAN Christ Jesus"—
1 Timothy 2:5.

THE churches of the world—Protestant and Catholic—teach that there are three Gods—three separate individuals, or "persons," in what they call the "Godhead"—all three co-equal and co-eternal. The word "Trinity" means three, just as "un­ity" means one. Orthodox Christendom's God is 3-fold.

Let us 'Search the Scriptures' to see if these three Gods of Christendom are true Gods or man-made inventions—to learn what the BIBLE itself reveals concerning the relationship be­tween those whom, and that which, it speaks of as "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit."

We shall find, as all truth-seekers have found before us, in the place of the mysterious and meaningless contradictions and absurdities of the Trinitar­ian doctrine, a clear and wholesome and satisfying and beauti­ful picture of reasonable and simple understandability, ap­pealing to the faculties of rea­son, and beauty, and intelligent harmony, with which the ONE God of Scripture has lovingly endowed us.


THE Bible reveals to us first and above all, the FATHER, the Creator and Source of all, eternal and all-powerful, dwelling in heaven in unapproachable light.

Then the HOLY SPIRIT—not a person, nor a separate individuality, but the radiating and space-filling power and vital energy of God; the source and maintainer of all life; the medium and instrument by which God is everywhere present (Psa. 139:7)—

"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?"

"The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent the lion as he would have rent a kid" (Jg. 14:6).

"Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit: they are created" (Ps. 104:30).

"He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 3:11).

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38).

"God giveth not the Spirit by measure to him (Jesus)" (John 3:34).

"The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 13:52).

And then JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, born of the vir­gin Mary, and anointed without measure by God with the power of the Spirit at his baptism, and finally raised to life and immortality by the working of the same Spirit after having been obedient to the Father in all things.


WE shall find that to attempt to apply the mysterious Trinitarian formula to the simple narrative of Scripture reduces it to an absurdity.

We would have one co-equal God anointing another co-equal God with a third co-equal God, and all the time they are all one God! We would have one co‑equal God overshadowing a woman so that her child would be another eternal co-equal, the son of the third co-equal. And yet all three co-equals exist inseparably from all eternity!

We would have one of the almighty co-equal Gods stating frankly that he himself could do nothing, that another of the three Gods had given to him all his power and was greater than himself, and indeed knew things that he did not know! And all the time they are all the same God!

We are aware that many sin­cere people accept and revere this doctrine, because they have been so taught, and we do not desire to unnecessarily offend them, but this above all is a subject on which we must speak plainly, though always with re­spect to the reverent convic­tions of others, mistaken as we believe them to be.

We could, of course, multiply these absurdities endlessly, all showing that the doctrine of the "Trinity" takes all meaning out of the clear and distinct revelation of the Scripture, and leaves it but a hazy and shapeless mass of incoherency.

All this we are asked to be­lieve in the very face of plain Scripture, without any evidence except its impossibility; for indeed its very absurdity is given as proof of its truth!

A trinitarian bishop raptur­ously writes—

"I ever did, and ever shall, look upon those apprehensions of God to be truest, whereby we apprehend Him to be the most incomprehensible, and that to be the most true of God which seems most impossible to us.

"Upon this ground, therefore, it is that the mysteries of the gospel which I am less able to conceive, I think myself the more obliged to believe; especially this mystery of mysteries, the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, which I am so far from being able to comprehend, or indeed to apprehend, that I cannot set myself seriously to think of it, but I immedi­ately lose myself as in a trance or ecstasy; that God the Father should be one perfect God of Himself, God the Son one perfect God of Himself, and God the Holy Ghost one perfect God of Himself; and yet that these three should be but one perfect God of Himself, so that one should be perfectly three and three perfectly one; that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost should be Three, and yet but One; but One, and yet Three!

"O heart-amazing, thought-devouring, inconceivable mystery!"

This is very enlightening, though saddening, for it shows the viewpoint of the pious trinitarian mind, which accepts the dogmas of the Church although it perceives them to be absurd and impossible. Reason and Scripture alike are swept away by the blind infatuation of pious incoherency.


THE "Trinity" is a mystical and philosophical speculation developed through ages of benighted priestcraft, with its root in Platonic paganism. A careful study of the writings of those who accept and try to explain this doctrine will show this clearly. This fact is not denied by its supporters, but reveled in.

The following quotations from trinitarian writers are chosen to illustrate the philosophic, ecclesiastic, and admittedly unscriptural origin of this doctrine. It was not accepted easily by the Church at first. It was, on the contrary, the cause of the greatest and bitterest controversy the Church has known.

It was finally established, not by common consent, but by Emperors championing it and overriding all others, persecuting whoever raised their voice against it. The historian Mosheim traces the varying fortunes of Trinitarianism and Arianism as they alternately enjoyed imperial favor, until finally the trinity won full imperial support, and Arianism was crushed by force. And these were by no means the only two factions in the church on this question. There were many.

The trinitarian Dummelow, in his well-known Commentary, says—

"The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development."

That process, history reveals, continued until—and even after—the 8th century. The Trinitarian "Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl­edge" says—

"The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is historically clear ... The formulation     of the dogma was ruled by the necessity of establishing the absolute character of the Christian revelation."

The Encyclopedia Britannica says—

"The propositions constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity ... were not drawn directly from the New Testament, and COULD NOT BE EXPRESSED IN NEW TESTAMENT TERMS.

"They were the products of reason speculating (note well!) on a revelation to faith.

"They were only formed through centuries of effort; only elaborated by the aid of conceptions, and formulated in the terms, of GREEK AND ROMAN METAPHYSICS.

"The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity (note this expression) was far the most important fact in the doctrinal history of the Church during the first five centuries of its post-apostolic existence.

''The doctrine itself was the work of reason … As soon as an inspired record is left at all, as soon as any speculation is allowed on its contents, as soon as the process of forming doctrine is permitted to begin, all conceivable right to stop the movement anywhere is lost."

This, by the way, is very true, and is a grave warning. The first small step off the path is the most dangerous of all because it in­evitably leads to more. If we condone or ignore the first small step, we have no right to oppose any. The trinitarian writer of this article, of course, glories in the "advances" made in religious speculation, but the believer of Scripture Truth will see a different lesson in these words. The Britannica continues—

"Medieval discussions as to the nature of God turned chiefly on 2 points—the relation of the Divine essence to the Divine attributes, and of the one Divine substance to the 3 Divine persons …

"The fusion of theology and phil­osophy was the distinctive feature of medieval Christendom …

"So long as the simplicity of the Divine nature was conceived of as an abstract self-identity, intelligence could not venture to attempt to pass from the unity to the trinity of the Godhead, or hope for any glimpse of the possibility of harmoniously combining them.

"But this view of the simplicity of the Divine nature having been abandoned, and an idea of God attained which assigns to Him all the distinctions compatible with, and demanded by, completeness and perfection of personality, the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily entered on a new stage of it history."

The trinitarian Mosheim, in his "Ecclesiastical History," writes of the council of Nice, 325 AD, where the "Trinity" was first officially formulated—

"There is so little clearness and discrimination in these discussions that they seem to rend the one God into three Gods.

"Moreover, those idle fictions (note well, from a trinitarian!) which a regard for the Platonic philosophy and for the prevailing opinions of the day (how history so tragically repeats itself in the once‑chosen Body of Christ!) had induced most theologians to embrace, even before the times of Constantine, were now in various ways confirmed, extended, and embellished."

Of the methods of reasoning in the Church at this time (when the "Trinity" doctrine was being developed) he says—

"From the disputes with those who were regarded as opposed to divine truth, the ancient simplicity had nearly taken its flight. In place of it, dialectical subtleties and quib­bles, invectives, and other disin­genuous artifices had succeeded, more becoming the patrons, than the opposers, of error.

"I pass in silence those rhetori­cal figures and flourishes by which many endeavor to parry the weapons of their adversaries, and to involve in obscurity the question under discussion; likewise the inclination to excite odium against their antagonists so common to many, and the disregard of proper arrangement and of perspicuity, and other habits which were no better in their discussions.

"Yet so far were some writers of this century (4th) from disguising these faults, that they rather claimed praise for them. Their antagonists made use of the same weapons.

"With the ancient form of discussion new sources of argument were in this age combined; for the truth of doctrines was proved by the number of martyrs who had believed them, by prodigies, and by the confession of devils, that is, of persons in whose bodies some demon was supposed to reside.

"The discerning cannot but see that all proofs drawn from such sources are very fallacious, and very convenient for dishonest men who would practice imposition; and I greatly fear that most of those who at this time resorted to such proofs, not withstanding they were grave and eminent men, may be justly charged with the dangerous propensity to use deception.

"Ambrose, in controversy with the Arians, brings forward persons possessed with devils, who are constrained, when the relics of Gervasius and Protasius are produced, to cry out that the doctrine of the Nicene council concerning three persons in the Godhead is true and divine, and the doctrine of the Arians false and pernicious. This testimony of the prince of darkness Ambrose regards as proof altogether unexceptionable."

Mosheim says further of this time—

"To these defects in the moral system of the age must be added two principal errors now almost publicly adopted, and from which afterwards immense evils resulted.

"The first was that to deceive and lie is a virtue when religion can be promoted by it.

"The other was that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition, ought to be visited with penalties and punishments.

"The first of these principles had been embraced in the preceding centuries; and it is almost incredible what a mass of the most insipid fables, and what a host of pious falsehoods, have through all the centuries grown out of it, to the great detriment of true religion.

"If some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and writings of the greatest and most pious teachers of this century, I fear he would find nearly all of them infected with this leprosy. I cannot accept Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor Gregory Nazianzen, nor Jerome."

Finally, Mosheim says regarding the conditions in the Church during this 4th century—

"The sacred and venerable simplicity of the primitive times, which required no more than a true     faith in the Word of God and a sincere obedience to His Holy laws, appeared little better than rusticity and ignorance to the subtle doctrines of this quibbling age."

Such is the sorry background of this unscriptural doctrine. The doctrine is most fully and precisely expressed in the so-called Athanasian Creed, which appeared about the year 825. This sums up the orthodox viewpoint of God. It is as follows—


      "The Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

"But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

"Such as the Father is, so is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son un­create, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

"And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. Also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one un­created, and one incomprehensible.

"So likewise the Father is Al­mighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.

"So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords but one Lord.

"For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

"The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

"So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than other; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal.

"So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."

Such is the product of five centuries of theological speculation, a venerable and fitting relic of the dark ages of ecclesiastical super­stition and ignorance. As the Britannica so truly says, "As soon as speculation is allowed on Scripture, all conceivable right to stop the movement anywhere is lost."

There are four points on this Athanasian creed to which we would like to draw attention:

1.      It is wholly unsupported by Scripture. Nothing in the whole Bible faintly resembles this fantastic and meaningless jumble with which men have bewitched themselves. We shall show immediately that it is entirely contrary to Scripture.

2.      The whole thing, on the face of it, is an impossible self-contradiction, and as we have quoted, this fact is admitted and revelled in by its deluded adherents.

3.      All three Gods are said to be Almighty.

4.      All three Gods are said to be co-equal—none greater, none less. There is no distinguishable difference between them—all are one and the same in all respects.

Now let us turn to the Word of God for a clear and refreshing antidote to the above confused foolishness.


ALL through the Scriptural record we find Jesus Christ a distinct and separate person from the Father, never an inseparable and indistinguishable, coeternal and almighty coequal.

We find Jesus praying to God, being strengthened by Him, submitting to Him, calling Him Father, ascribing all power to Him, saying that he himself (Jesus) could do nothing, saying God was greater than he, saying God knew things he (Jesus) did not, teaching that all he had received was of God, and all he did was by God's command, with God's power.

There are, it is true, passages which show a unity between them of mind and purpose and character—a manifestation of the Father through the Son—but never a confusion of identity, authority and power.

And the Holy Spirit, far from being a third person in a mysterious "co-equality," is the POWER that flows between them, the power with which the eternal and almighty Father anoints and strengthens the created and dependent Son.

The Son said, in worshipful and submissive prayer to the Father—

"THIS is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the ONLY true God, AND Jesus Christ whom Thou hast SENT" (John 17:3).

THIS is life eternal!—to KNOW these two as the Holy Scriptures so beautifully reveal them. How important then is this graciously-revealed knowledge! How careful we must be with what we accept and believe!


"TO the Law and to the Testimony!" (Isa. 8:20). THAT is where we must look for the truth about God—not to the multitude of contradictory teachings that comprise the Babel of orthodox Christendom, who boast of their debt to Plato, the pagan philosopher. Moses said,  by divine inspiration (Dt. 6:4):

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord."

And Jesus repeats this Scripture with remarkable emphasis (Mk. 12:29)—

"The FIRST of all the com­mandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord OUR God is ONE LORD."

Such testimonies are legion—

"I am God, and there is NONE ELSE" (Isa. 46:9).

"There is no God beside Me" (Isa. 45:5).

"Beside Me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6).

How, then, can it be main­tained that there are THREE Gods? Could plainer words be conceived of stating that there is only one? It is meaningless to seek refuge in a contradic­tion by calling it a mystery. The Bible never says there are three. We have just as much right to say there are 33 in one. Where is the authority in Scrip­ture for the Trinitarian theory?


THE trinitarian seeks refuge by saying that Jesus Christ is a part of the one true God, and that whenever we are told in Scripture that there is one God, we must understand that this one includes three. The "Arti­cles of Religion of the Church of England" declare on this—

"There is but one living and true God … and in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

The Scriptures say, on the contrary (1 Cor. 8:6)—

"To us there is but ONE God, of Whom are all things, AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all thing."

How then can anyone say that Jesus Christ is part of the one God? Again we read plainly—

"There is ONE God, AND one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Here is a widening breach in the trinitarian doctrine: ONE God AND one mediator, the MAN Christ Jesus.


THIS statement that Christ Jesus, the mediator between God and men, was himself man, is the basis of the whole doctrine of the Atonement and Salvation he wrought for the human race by his REAL overcoming of the law of sin in all the descendants of Adam.

The whole theme of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews is this—

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil . . .

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the people.

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted" (Hb.2:14-18).

In connection with this reference to the temptation of Jesus, James’ inspired words are very instructive (1:13)—

"God cannot be tempted."

This proves that Jesus, who WAS tempted, was not God. Here again the Trinity theory finds itself in opposition to the Scriptures.


LIKEWISE the theme of the other great expository epistle—the Romans—is this (5:15)—

"For as by one man's dis­obedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

"For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Can we intelligibly speak of one Almighty God being obedi­ent to another Almighty God, who is an inseparable part of Himself?

And we find the same clear picture in 1 Cor. 15:21—

"For since by man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

"But every MAN in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming."

This is the theme all the way through the Scriptures. GOD, the Almighty Father, wrought salvation for mankind by one MAN, and that MAN was Jesus Christ.

Not an all-powerful, untempt­able, all-knowing God mas­querading as a weak man, feigning mortal man's weak­ness, pretending to learn, pretending to die, pretending to suf­fer, pretending to struggle and overcome, pantomiming agony and tears, exhibiting effortless perfection of character and making a mockery of poor, weak mankind's REAL strug­gles and painful failures.

No, not this—but a MAN, a REAL man, "made in all points like his brethren" (Heb. 2:17), "made of a woman, made un­der the Law" (Gal. 4:4), "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Strengthened by God, it is true, taught by God, overshadowed by the power of God, the very SON of God, but STILL A MAN—a real, weak, mortal man. Otherwise his work was meaningless and useless. For, in the wisdom of God, man's salvation must be wrought by man. There must be a real overcoming, a real victory over sin, not a pantomime. Man, aided and strengthened by God, must redeem himself.

The man that God provided for the work was Jesus, who himself said (John 5:30)—

"I can of mine own self do NOTHING ... I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me"

Is this an almighty "coe­qual" speaking?

*     *     *

FOUR men, guided by the Spirit of God, have given us brief accounts of the life of this God-provided Savior of mankind, the man Christ Jesus. Let us glance through these records to get the true picture of Jesus, and to learn the relationship be­tween this man and his Father, God, Who he says was in him and working through him to redeem mankind.

We shall find a beautifully clear and reasonable and satis­fying and inspiring picture of a loving, all-powerful, eternal Fa­ther, and an obedient, depend­ent and created Son, of which the Trinity theory is a hideous and blasphemous parody.

In all his actions and words Jesus constantly emphasizes above everything else his complete submission to and dependence upon God his Father. All the efficacy of what he accom­plished is based entirely upon this submission and obedience.


Mt. 4:1—"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." One almighty, untemptable God, led by another almighty God to be tempted! We have already mentioned James' testimony that God cannot be tempted.

Mt. 4:4—"But he (Jesus) answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jesus here applies this command of God to himself, as a man dependent on God. So also (v. 10) he applies this command to himself—"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Mt. 11:27 (Jesus speaking)—"All things are delivered unto me of my Father."

Mt. 12:18 (God speaking of Jesus)—"Behold My servant, whom I have chosen; My beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased: I will put My spirit upon him." God speaks of Jesus as His servant, and promises to put His Spirit upon him because He is well-pleased with him.

Mt. 12:32—"Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." How then could Jesus and the Spirit possibly be co-equal parts of one "Godhead"?

Mt. 19:17—"And he (Jesus) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is, God." Jesus distinguishes between himself as a mortal man (subject to the ills and weakness of sinful flesh), and God to Whom only the term "good" could be applied in the fullest sense. Paul said, of mortal flesh, "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing."

Mt. 20:23 (Jesus speaking)—"To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my FATHER." This authority was not his, but the Father's. How could they be "co-equal"?

Mt. 26:53—"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?"

Mk. 13:32—"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, BUT THE FATHER." How could one part of a co-equal "Trinity" know something another part did not know? Does not God know everything?

Mk. 15:34 (Jesus speaking)—"My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"

Mk. 1:32—"The Lord shall give him the throne of his father David."

Lk. 2:52—"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." If we accept the "Trinity" theory, we make the whole, plain account of the birth and childhood and gradual growth of Jesus a meaningless fabric of confusion.

Lk. 4:18 (Jesus speaking)—"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted."

Lk. 6:12—"He (Jesus) continued all night in prayer to God."

Lk. 22:41—"He kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not MY will but THINE, be done."

Jesus PRAYED earnestly and tearfully to God ("And was heard in that he feared ... He LEARNED OBEDIENCE by the things that he suffered"—Heb. 5:7-8). This is fatal to the "Trinity" theory.

Lk. 23:46—"Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit."

*     *     *

But it is the Gospel of John that gives us the most intimate and revealing picture of the Almighty Father and the dependent Son—

Jn. 3:34-35—"He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."

Jn. 5:19—"The Son CAN DO NOTHING of himself, but what he seeth the Father do … for the Father loveth the Son and SHOWETH him all things that He Himself doeth."

Jn. 5:26—"For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He GIVEN to the Son to have life in himself, and hath also GIVEN him authority."

Jn. 5:30 (Jesus speaking)—"I can of mine own self DO NOTHING … I seek not mine OWN will, but the will of Him Who SENT me." Not Jesus' will, but God's. Re-read the Athanasian Creed. How can it fit?

Jn. 5:36—"For the works which the Father hath GIVEN me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath SENT me." Jesus could DO NOTHING himself . . . God GAVE him life … gave him authority ... SENT him .. gave him a work to do.

Jn. 6:57—"The Father hath SENT me, and I live by the Father."

Jn. 7:16—"My doctrine is NOT MINE, but His that SENT me."

Jn. 8:28—"As my Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak."

God TAUGHT Jesus. The destructive effect of these clear scrip­tural testimonies on the pagan, medieval, philosophic "Trinity" theory is too apparent to need comment. The "Trinity" blurs this beauti­ful, inspiring picture of our faithful, obedient, suffering Elder Brother into an indistinguishable mass of incoherent confusion, and then asks us to worship it as an "incomprehensible mystery."

Jn. 8:42—"Neither came I of myself, but HE SENT ME."

Jn. 8:54—"Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my Father that honoreth me."

Jn. 10:18—"This COMMANDMENT have I received of my Father." One almighty co-equal COMMANDING another almighty co-equal!

Jn. 11:22—Martha said, "I know that whatsoever thou wilt ASK of God, God will give it thee." V. 41—"And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me."

Jn. 12:27—"Father, SAVE ME from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour."

Jn. 12:49—"I have NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF: the Father which SENT me, He gave me a COMMANDMENT what I should say ... As the Father said unto me, so I speak." Jesus spoke, not of himself, but as God commanded.

Jn. 14:24—"The word which ye hear is NOT MINE, but the Father's which SENT me."


This is the death-blow to the “Trinity” theory, if words and reason have any meaning at all. It directly denies and contradicts it in as plain words as we could possibly find. If we desired to deny the “Trinity,” how could we word our denial any more plainly?


Then we come to John 17, Jesus’ beautiful prayer to the Father on the eve of his crucifixion. In the light of the “trinity” theory, all this has no meaning or reality. It portrays a relationship that is so far removed from the co-equal, co-almighty “Trinity” theory that it is difficult to imagine a more striking contrast. It is obvious, as we have seen that historians have testified, that the Church had to wholly abandon the simple meanings of Scripture before it could develop the “Trinity” theory.

And what happens when the “Trinity” theory runs up against the facts of the crucifixion and resurrection? We can only imagine the confusion. Indeed, a perusal of trinitarian writings reveals a host of contradictions, as of course must inevitably be the case when the doctrine itself abounds with contradictions. No wonder the Churches of the world have lost their faith in a wholly inspired Bible, when they read it in the light of the “Trinity” theory.


We could go on through the rest of the New Testament, as we have through the Gospels. One or two passages from the Acts will be sufficient to show the consistent trend—

Ac. 2:32—"This Jesus hath God RAISED UP."

Ac. 2:36—"God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ."

Ac. 3:15—"The Prince of Life, whom GOD HATH RAISED from the dead."

Ac. 5:31—"Him hath God EXALTED to be a Prince and Savior." After his resurrection, Jesus said—

Jn. 20:17—"Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; to MY GOD and your God."

How confusing this must be to pious trinitarians! But we have seen how they take refuge in glorying in its "incomprehensibility." With this outlook, anything could be believed, regardless how self-contradictory.

Two more quotations must suffice, although they could be multiplied indefinitely, for the "Trinity" sets itself against the whole trend of Scripture.

The first deals with the relation of Jesus to the benefits and effects of his own sacrifice, as one of the condemned race (utterly confused by the "Trinity" theory)—

Heb. 9:12—"BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption."

(The "for us" in the AV is spurious. It is a trinitarian corrup­tion. The form of the verb does not permit it. See the Rev. Ver.). It is hopeless to even try to fit this with the "Trinity"

Heb. 9:14—"Christ, who through the eternal Spirit OFFERED HIMSELF without spot TO GOD."

One co-equal, co-almighty God offered himself to another co-equal, almighty God through a third co-equal, almighty God! And the third, by the power of the second, raised the first from the dead. And all three are actually one! We are very reluctant to ap­pear disrespectful to anyone's pious and sincere beliefs, but we do feel it is vital to point out that scripture teaching and the medieval "Trinity" theory are utterly incompatible.


Finally, the great consummation of all things—

I Cr. 15:24-28—"Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father … And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also be SUBJECT unto Him that put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL."

As a trinitarian writer admits in puzzled confusion in his com­mentary on this passage, subjection and co-equality are completely incompatible opposites.

In conclusion, let us once again repeat and solemnly em­phasize the words of Jesus which vest this subject with such vital importance and urgency—


                                                      —G.V.Growcott, The Berean Christadelphian, July 1965