Is God a Closed TRINITY
Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY? {A Scriptural Refutation of the Trinity Theory}
The doctrine of the trinity is so absolutely fundamental to the followers of Christendom that it is just taken for granted. They do not even deem it necessary to explain it, prove it, or in any way substantiate whether or not such a thing actually exists or is even so much as mentioned in the entirety of the Holy Scriptures! Although lacking any Scriptural proof to validate such a theory, denying the trinity is nonetheless considered heresy of the highest magnitude.
The popular hymn goes:
"Holy Holy Holy, Lord God Al-mighty, God in three per-sons, Bless-ed trin-i-ty"
"God is a TRINITY" we have been told by the world’s leading theologians. That is, "God" is composed of THREE PERSONS. They are:
God the Father
The Holy Ghost {Spirit}
Christ Jesus the Son of God.
With just the above statement (which is accurate according to Christian teaching) we already have several unscriptural problems!
Learn something important and profound: Whenever someone tries to teach you a doctrine that is UNscriptural, he will always be forced to use words that are unscriptural.
First of all, nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to or called a "trinity."
Second, the word "three" is never used in reference to Who or What God is.
Third, God is never called or referred to as "a person."
Four, the holy spirit is never called "God."
Five, since Christ is the Son, He cannot also be the Father or be coequal with His Father. Christ plainly said:
"My Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28).
The holy spirit is never called God, God is never referred to as a trinity or a person or consisting of three, and Christ is the Son of the Father, YET this mysterious doctrine is believed by millions. Why?
Let’s see if my thousand page Hastings Dictionary of the Bible can help us.
Page 1015: TRINITY - The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC or SCRIPTURAL PROOF..." (Emphasis mine).
What an admission. But (I surely don’t want to leave out the "but"), but, we are told that it is, "...a NECESSARY HYPOTHESIS, ABOVE REASON but not contrary to it" (Emphasis mine again). Yah, right. That’s like saying square circles are "above reason but not contrary to it."