DW Hull on the trinity - Seventh Day Adventist pioneers- non-trinitarian

DW Hull on the Trinity

Bible Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ

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. Viewing the atonement as an arbitrary scheme (and all must believe it to be so, who view Christ as the only “very and eternal God”), has led to some of the arbitrary conclusions of one or two classes of persons; such as Predestinarianism, Universalism, &c., &c.

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.

We might here add that the orthodox view of God as expressed by them in several “Articles of Faith,” is, that “God is without body, parts, passions, centre, circumference, or locality.” It would be a very easy matter to prove that such a view is exceedingly skeptical, if not atheistical in its nature. It certainly appears that such a God as this, must be entirely devoid of an existence.

The many scriptures opposed to this view, ought, it would seem, to forever settle the matter. Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord walking; and “they hid themselves from his presence.” Gen. 3:8. By turning to Ex. 33:20-23, the reader will observe that the Lord does not try to give Moses the impression that he is a bodiless personage (if the term is allowable); but says he, “Thou canst not see my face.” If ever the Lord would correct an error, and deny his personality, we might expect it would be here. He does not, however, tell him that he should not see his face because he had no face; but tells him that no man shall see him and live, which would imply that he was a personage, having body and parts. “And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me.” So he had a circumference, had he not? “And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.”

In Acts 7:55, 56, Stephen, while looking into heaven, “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,” and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. This shows, at least, that God has a right hand. The very fact, however, of man’s being created in the image of God ought to settle the matter forever with the candid. Gen. 1:27; 5:1; 9:6.

But to our subject. As we wish the opposite side to have a fair hearing, we will candidly investigate all the important passages claimed by Trinitarians.

Isa. 9:6. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”

Particular stress is here laid upon the expressions “Mighty God,” and “Everlasting Father.” If the term had been Almighty God, then the inference would have some weight; but as we read of mighty men, not one of whom were almighty, tho’ great in every particular above their fellows, we are led to believe that the word may be used in a limited sense; though we would not be understood here as limiting Christ’s power, though he plainly declared, “My Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.

In the 10th chapter of John, we find that although our Saviour did not say he was God, he said what the Jews claimed to be the same thing, that he was the Son of God (which they had before claimed was to make himself equal with God), and that he and his Father were one, and justified himself with the following language: “Is it not written in your law, that I said ye are gods?” But as I shall be obliged to refer to this passage hereafter we will pass it by for the present.

In the 18th chapter of Genesis, the reader will observe that an angel who is only acting as a servant or agent of the Lord, is frequently called Lord. The following expression, found in Gen. 32:30, has reference to an angel: “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

We now come to the term “Everlasting Father.” We reply that as Christ is to continue everlastingly, the name is very appropriate; at least there is nothing in the term which would make him (to use the expressive language of our opponents) “very and eternal God.”

If the reader will turn to the passage under consideration, he will find that this being is born; but if I understand our opponents rightly, the divine part (the Godhead, as they term it) was not born. Whatever part may have been born, it is the same part that is afterwards spoken of as the “Mighty God, Everlasting Father,” &c. I would not here be understood as denying the pre-existence of Christ; but I believe that Christ became a child; for we read that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit” (Luke 2:40); which would imply that there was a time when he was not strong in spirit.

Our opponents find it difficult in attempting to reconcile this matter, to show how the Father developed himself so slowly. There must have been a season when there was no God, or else God must have divided himself, and administered portions of himself to the child, as its reasoning faculties became developed. They settle this matter however, by telling us, Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, &c.

As considerable capital is made out of this passage, taking only enough to destroy its meaning, we will quote the whole of it. 1 Tim. 3:16: “And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest (or manifested, margin) in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” The remarks made upon the passage in Isaiah will apply with equal force here.

But we are led to believe that there never was a person in whom the Father manifested himself, more than in his Son. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” says John; and this is undoubtedly the same Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God. John 1:1. Why was the Word called God? Read the third verse. “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made, that was made.” As Christ has always been known to cooperate with the Father, there is no doubt that through his agency the worlds were formed. See Col. 1:15, 16; Heb. 1:2; with which compare Gen. 1:26.

But the objector urges that God was manifested in the flesh, and is therefore incapable of suffering or being compared with humanity in any way. We will only remark that if God was the divine part of Jesus, and his humanity the other part, the world was three days without a God; for Peter tells us [1 Pet. 3:18] that, “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit.” If it was none other than the Father manifested in the flesh; it was the same which was put to death in the flesh. But enough on this point. In a proper place I shall attempt to show that Christ did positively die—soul and body.

Matt. 1:23. “Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is “God with us.” Another expression is found in John 20:28. “And Thomas said unto him, My Lord and my God.” By turning to Phil. 2:11, we read that every tongue “should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” There is here a clear distinction made between the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. The distinguishing qualities are, that whilst one is called the Son, the other is known as God the Father.

John 10:30. “I and my Father are one.” The objector contends that Christ and his Father are one person, and in proof of his position quotes 1 John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” This is claimed as very strong proof in support of the trinity. The three persons are spoken of as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Ghost. I believe I may safely say that, aside from scripture, no such license would be allowable. Men have been so used to perverting scripture, and taking advantage of terms, and pressing them into their service, that they do not realize the magnitude of the crime as they otherwise would. The same expression is frequently used about man and wife; yet no person doubts that a man and his wife are two separate persons, inasmuch as they may be separated by hundreds of miles. Dr. A. Clarke expressly says that this passage [1 John 5:7] is an interpolation. See his Commentary in loco.

But hear the Saviour on this point. John 17:20-22: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they 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.”

No person will contend that Christ prayed for the unity of the disciples, and those that should afterwards become believers through their word, in person! He evidently wished them to be united in object. If this passage were properly appreciated, we should not, I think, hear persons thanking God for so many sects and divisions.

The inquiry here arises, How are the Father and the Son one? We answer, They cooperate together: they are united. Man and wife are said to be one, because their interests through life are blended together. The Father and the Son, too, have one common interest, and of course they are one. I again remark, that if we were to see such a phrase as this outside of the Scriptures, there would be no danger whatever of a misapprehension.

The Jews contended that the use of this expression made him equal with God. They could not think that he had a common interest with God; and they also thought it blasphemy that he should call himself the Son of God, and took up stones to stone him; but hear his justification of the matter: John 10:32-38. “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” We have no evidence that the Jews believed that Jesus, in declaring himself to be the Son of God, made himself the “very and eternal God;” but it was as much as to say that he was God (not that God was his own Son), by asserting that he was his Son, and that their interests were united.

Hear the Lord’s answer: “Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said am the Son of God?” If there existed any doubt, heretofore, as to the Messiah’s claims, and the charge of the Jews, this passage ought to settle the matter. The Jews did not charge Christ with asserting that he was the only and eternal God, much less did Christ ever make such a claim; nor did they believe it would inevitably follow that because Christ was the Son of God, he must be the only all-wise God. Christ does not in the above passage deny that he is God; and we have found heretofore that he has been called God; but that would no more make him the same person with the Father, than a father and a son, both named John, would be the same person. But read on:

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

In John 5, the same accusation is made against the Lord. John 5:17-23. “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” If to declare himself to be the Son of God made him the only Jehovah, the Jews would have made the charge; but as we find no such charge made, we have no idea that they so understood the Saviour.

By the way, it is a little singular, if Christ did ever assume such a title, that the Jews never once charged it upon him. How suddenly they would have seized upon such an expression, and accused him thus: Now we know this man is a blasphemer; for he hath said, I am the eternal and all-wise Jehovah. But our Saviour does not pretend to be as great as his Father; his power is only delegated.

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise; for the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doeth; and he will show him greater things than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father who hath sent him.” Because, says the trinitarian, the Father and Son are one person. Will the reader, in the above quotation, substitute the words, “divine part,” for “Father,” and “humanity” for “Son,” and see what nonsense it will make. In confirmation of the statement above read verse 30.

“I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” Please read trinitarianism in the following paraphrase:

Verse 26. For as my Divinity hath life in himself, so hath my Divinity given to my humanity to have life in himself.

Verses 36, 37. But my humanity hath a greater witness than that of John; for the works which my Divinity hath given me to finish, the same works that my humanity does, bear witness of my humanity that my Divinity hath sent my humanity; and my Divinity himself which hath sent my humanity hath borne witness of my humanity. Ye have neither heard my Divinity’s voice at any time, nor seen my Divinity’s shape.

Verse 45. My humanity is come in my Divinity’s name, and my humanity ye receive not.

With such spectacles as these to look through, some parts of the Scriptures become a mere jumble of nonsense. The reader has, no doubt, ere this, observed that the Father and the Son are spoken of as two separate beings. Turn now to John 6:37-40.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out; for I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” We might here stop to inquire who came down from heaven; the Divinity or the humanity. We have found before that it is claimed that the humanity was born (and so we believe); and our opponents will not, for a moment, concede that the humanity came from heaven. We then ask who was speaking? It was the same that came from heaven, which is said to be the divine part. If the divine part was the Godhead, or Father, then there is a discrepancy somewhere else; for our Saviour had just said, “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape.”

Again, who was it that sent this divine part? For we have just read, I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Let us take the Bible theory: that God sent his Son who partook of flesh and blood, “that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the Devil,” [Heb. 3:14], and all difficulty at once vanishes.

“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me: that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

These are precious promises. It is the Father’s will that his Son should lose none of his jewels; and the Son has declared that he will raise his jewels at the last day.

We have read over and over again, passages that show that Christ has been sent of his Father; which certainly implies that the Godhead is not united with the humanity. Why speak of being sent from the Father, when it was the Father himself that came and dwelt with human flesh? It either implies, as we have seen before, that God has sent the humanity, or else there are two distinct persons. We believe it is impossible for trinitarians to reconcile this matter. We find however, other expressions, that prove that they are not one person.

John 16:5. “But now I go my way to him that sent me, and none of you asketh, Whither goest thou?” It would be useless to talk about going to him that sent him, when the very person that sent him, composed a part of his being. But when he does go to the Father, he tells his disciples that they “should see his face no more” [verse 10], which implies that they are two distinct persons. “A little while,” says he, “and ye shall not see me; and again, a little while and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”

Verse 27, 28. “For the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father.”

What would the reader think of a man who had moved from the State of Ohio to Iowa with his family and after enjoying their company for a season, talk of going back to Ohio where he could see his family? If you cannot allow such inconsistencies in men, how can you accuse the Saviour of leaving the world to go to the Father, and at the same time assert that the Saviour was Jehovah himself?

Matt. 20:23. “And he said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but 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.” Here Christ would not assume even so much authority as to make a promise, unauthorized by his Father; but tells them what is prepared for a certain class; but he had no power to bestow it.

Matt. 16:53. “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently send me more than twelve legions of angels?” It would be meaningless for Christ to pray to himself. Our friends must either claim that Christ was deceptive, or else that God and his Son were separate. For it would be a mere farce for Christ to pray to himself to send angels.

Matt. 23:32. “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” We do not believe the Son never is to know because he did not know at that time; for he certainly will know, and perhaps did know immediately after his resurrection. It is supposable that after he had paid the debt which was to purchase man’s redemption he would be informed of the time he was to reap the fruit of his harvest. At any rate he says after his resurrection: All power is given unto me in heaven and earth [Matt. 23:18]; and this must necessarily include knowledge. It appears, however, that this power was delegated. The very fact that he informs his disciples that all power had been given him, implies that hitherto (although he had great power) he had not possessed all power.

John 17:5. “O Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Here we find some part of Christ praying for glory; and it appears to be the same part that had glory with the Father before the world was. Verse 8. “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.” If Christ and the Father are one person, we might justly ask, Why this earnestness in his prayer? (Concluded next week.) (D. W. Hull, November 10, 1859, Review & Herald, vol. 14, pages 193-195)

Bible Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ

(Concluded)

We have found thus far that the Father and Son are spoken of as two distinct persons; we shall now bring other passages bearing directly upon that point.

Phil. 1:13-15. “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son; in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every creature.” No, says popular theology backed by the decision of popes, he is himself the invisible God.

Jude 4. “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here the only Lord God is distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ. If ever language implies anything it certainly implies in this connection that the “only Lord God” is distinct being from “our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Phil. 2:5-11. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God (very God, our opponents would read it) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made (not his humanity, but he himself was made) in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death (No, says the Trinitarian, his body became obedient unto death, but the divine part never suffered) even the death of the cross. Wherefore (not his divine part, but) God hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

This confession will result in the Father’s glory, but if every tongue should confess that a part of Jesus only was Lord whilst the other part was human it would not be the confession that Paul desired to result in the Father’s glory.

1 Pet. 1:3. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” The reader should bear in mind that in all the passages quoted above, the Father and the Son are spoken of as separate beings. Jehovah is called not only the Father of Jesus Christ, but is also termed his God. Hear our Saviour while suffering upon the cross [Mark 15:34]: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” We not only find that our Saviour calls his Father his God but that God had forsaken him. It is here asserted by Trinitarians that the God-head had left him. If this is the case then Christ was alive after the God-head had left him. Then it was only the humanity that died and we have only a human sacrifice. Gal. 1:3, 4 “Grace be to you, and peace from God our Father AND from our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God, and our Father.” It would have been very easy here for Paul to have told the Galatians that Christ might deliver us from this present evil world according to his OWN will.

Heb. 13:20. “Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work,” &c. Here again God is spoken of as a distinct being from Jesus Christ. We learn here that while Jesus was dead, the God of peace was living, else he could not have raised Jesus from the dead.

Having examined all the important passages of scripture on this subject, we will now take our leave of this part of it and proceed to show that Christ must needs die; and also what kind of a death he must die.

We have said that Christ must needs die. Our reason for this assertion, is, that man by transgression is subject to death; and unless there is a being who is not subject to death to pay the penalty, there is no hope of a resurrection. See 1 Cor. 15:26. Adam by transgression entailed death upon the whole human race; Christ by his death brings them back to life again. But he does not restore immortality to those who live all their lives in transgression of God’s holy law.

Heb. 9:27, 28. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him will he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Nothing short of the same death that men are subject to will ever bring a resurrection. Christ is here represented as an offering. If there was any part of the lamb that was offered that escaped out of the body, then did a part of Christ escape death. But we are told that Christ’s soul did not die. We remark that in order to pay the debt and restore men to life he must die the same death to which man is subject. If our Trinitarian friends are not careful they will have a compound of four elements instead of three; thus, Godhead (one) Humanity (two—soul and body), and holy ghost (one) which makes four.

Psa. 16: 9, 10. “Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh, also shall rest in hope; for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (or the grave) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” It would have been nonsense to say that Christ’s soul should not be left in Sheol if it never was there. In proof that this has reference to Christ we refer the reader to Peter’s testimony; Acts 2:25-27, 31, 34. “For David speaketh concerning him (Christ), I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand that I should not be moved.” Then comes the quotation above. He then goes on to show that it was not David because his sepulcher is with us to this day (an evidence that David’s soul was left in hell) He continues, “He seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in hell (adez—the grave) neither did his flesh see corruption.” This was evidence that David had reference to Christ. But as further evidence, the Apostle continues, “For David is not ascended into the heavens.” We have evidence then, that either dead or alive, Christ’s soul entered the silent portals of the tomb.

Matt. 26:38. “Then he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.” If this implies anything, we should infer that it would imply that the Saviour’s soul was subject to death. It would be the worst of nonsense to talk about a never-dying soul being sorrowful unto death. On this point we shall be obliged to quote again 2 Pet. 3:18. “For Christ hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being PUT TO DEATH IN THE FLESH.”

There is no chance of escape here: Christ’s soul and every part that dwelt in his flesh was put to death and buried in sheol, or hades. We now turn to Isa. 53; “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth.”

We might here remind the reader that a lamb when slain is not partly killed and partly kept alive, but totally deprived of life.

“He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” We might ask, What was left of him after he was cut off? Suppose the body only was cut off, and the soul freed; then the only important part was not cut off. “And he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” &c. His soul was really made an offering for sin; this agrees with Peter’s testimony. “He was put to death in the flesh.” If the soul was the offering, it was the soul that was slain. “He shall see the travail of his soul (his “soul was sorrowful unto death”), and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.” Why? Because he hath POURED OUT HIS SOUL UNTO DEATH! And he was numbered with the transgressors and he bear the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” This is so plain that it needs no comment.

If the reader will now turn to 1 Cor. 15, he will observe that Paul bases our whole hope upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead. “If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain,” says the apostle. Modern theology would answer, Not so Paul, for the only important part of Christ returned to heaven at death.

Just here we might anticipate an objection. It is asserted that Christ promised the thief that they would that day be together in paradise. Luke 23:43. “Verily I say unto thee to day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The quotation as it stands above however, does not seem to imply so much. Christ only asserted on that day what he would do when he comes in his kingdom! As punctuation is no part of inspiration we have taken the liberty to alter the punctuation somewhat above. The reader will find the subject of Christ’s promise to the thief elaborately discussed in a work lately published at the Review Office, Battle Creek, Mich.

Let us now look at what the Saviour himself taught on this point. Matt. 12:40. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” How was Jonah in the whale’s belly? Was his soul in heaven and his body in the whale’s belly? How is the Son of man to get into the heart of the earth? We are answered that his body went into the grave, but his soul, divinity or something, went off to paradise. But we have still more positive testimony on this point.

John 20:17. “Jesus saith unto her, touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” This was three days after the Lord’s promise to the thief. This surely is enough to settle the matter with the candid.

We trust we have now fairly investigated this subject having examined a majority of the scriptures referring to it. We have found positive testimony to show

1. That God is a personal being.

2. That Jesus Christ was his Son.

3. That he and his Father were distinct persons having one common interest, and

4. That Jesus Christ died soul and body and rose again.

May the Spirit of the living God wake the dear reader to a sense of his obligation to the Son of God, who has so dearly purchased our redemption with his own precious blood. Amen. (D. W. Hull, November 17, 1859, Review & Herald, vol. 14, pages 201, 202)

Pioneers on the Trinity

Truth about God

Comment and/or Like our Facebook Page