There Is No Trinity

[Rey Reynoso]

It seems to me that the most ardent supporters of strange positions sometimes push things to the extreme thus resulting in the deletion of their threads (or their accounts).

That being the case I plan to argue their case (even though I am vehemently against it) for the purpose of posterity and to sharpen ourselves.

My position in this thread will be the following:

Scripture doesn't teach the Doctrine of the Trinity--it is merely the systemetizing of verses that can just as easily be used to support a Quinitinity. It makes much more sense to believe what Scripture explicitly states or at least make a connection with what Scripture explicitly states of the following two choices neither of which are the Trinity:
1) Behold the Lord your God is One.
2) This man Jesus has been declared both Christ and Lord God

I will not argue for merely one of the positions but for both. My argument in this thread will be this: the teaching of the Trinity is false and needs careful reformulation and expulsion from our teaching of the nature of God.

Have at you.

disclaimer: I don't believe any of this. Its just that some of my best threads dealing against anti-trinitarians have wound up deleted so I plan to have at least one thread that survives. That being the case I will petition the moderators to carefully watch over our actions in this thread.

[Carol Jean]

Many Trinitarians don't feel like they have a problem at all because they believe they are right. ; )

sticha said:

Trinitarians have a two fold problem.

They can’t prove that the trinity is a Biblical doctrine and if they ever get over that hurdle they can’t prove that it is an essential doctrine.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

@sticha: I take the position that all information is good information. Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does. I think it is important to know that a proper trinitarian belief is not required for salvation. I think it really shapes my worldview and understanding to know that Christ rose from the dead. But I would not put the knowledge of the resurrection into the category of required knowledge to be saved. What confuses me about your perspective is two things. First, you seem to equate critical and important. If it isn't critical, then it isn't important. Which makes me really confused about the second thing. If the trinity is so unimportant, then why does it seem to be such a singular focus of yours? If it is so unimportant, then why the active participation in three simultaneous forum topics on it? It gives the appearance that this topic is very important to you. That seems to be the case with some of the other non-trinitarians who have been here as well. I don't get it. You say it isn't important, we agree that it isn't a required belief, yet I can't seem to get the conversation to move past the point that it isn't a crucial belief.

So let me try one more time before I just throw up my hands in a realization that I'm not getting through. Assuming that the trinity *is* a non-critical belief, do you believe that one's belief about God is any reflection of spiritual maturity and understanding? If I don't believe the right thing(s) about it, does it not indicate that I need education on the matter or am not listening to the Holy Spirit? If it doesn't, then why all the effort to convince folks of your perspective? If it *does* indicate a level of proper spiritual understanding and proper theology, isn't that important? Or do you take the position that it doesn't matter what you believe once you are saved?

Daniel

[sticha]

ADE writes: @sticha: I take the position that all information is good information. Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does. I think it is important to know that a proper trinitarian belief is not required for salvation.

You are one of the few Trinitarians to admit that. Otherwise it would be “another gospel”.

I think it really shapes my worldview and understanding to know that Christ rose from the dead. But I would not put the knowledge of the resurrection into the category of required knowledge to be saved.

Well the Apostle Paul disagrees with you. If Christ hasn’t been resurrected physically then our hope is in vain. VERY important. See 1 Cor for details.

What confuses me about your perspective is two things. First, you seem to equate critical and important. If it isn't critical, then it isn't important.

A quick off the cuff definition:

Critical = essential to salvation. Important = proper beliefs.

Which makes me really confused about the second thing. If the trinity is so unimportant, then why does it seem to be such a singular focus of yours? If it is so unimportant, then why the active participation in three simultaneous forum topics on it?

I responded in three different threads for three different reasons. Should I just drop out of one or two of them just because they are similar topics? I don’t think so.


It gives the appearance that this topic is very important to you. That seems to be the case with some of the other non-trinitarians who have been here as well. I don't get it. You say it isn't important, we agree that it isn't a required belief, yet I can't seem to get the conversation to move past the point that it isn't a crucial belief.

As I said there are two problems with the trinity doctrine. One it isn’t biblical and two it isn’t required for salvation. And the second is worst then the first since that would make it “another gospel” so while the trinity isn’t “important” propagating “another gospel” is. I’m sure you can see my concern here about another gospel, even if you don’t agree in regards with the trinity


So let me try one more time before I just throw up my hands in a realization that I'm not getting through. Assuming that the trinity *is* a non-critical belief, do you believe that one's belief about God is any reflection of spiritual maturity and understanding? If I don't believe the right thing(s) about it, does it not indicate that I need education on the matter or am not listening to the Holy Spirit? If it doesn't, then why all the effort to convince folks of your perspective? If it *does* indicate a level of proper spiritual understanding and proper theology, isn't that important? Or do you take the position that it doesn't matter what you believe once you are saved?

Answered above.


Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:

@sticha: I take the position that all information is good information. Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does. I think it is important to know that a proper trinitarian belief is not required for salvation. I think it really shapes my worldview and understanding to know that Christ rose from the dead. But I would not put the knowledge of the resurrection into the category of required knowledge to be saved. What confuses me about your perspective is two things. First, you seem to equate critical and important. If it isn't critical, then it isn't important. Which makes me really confused about the second thing. If the trinity is so unimportant, then why does it seem to be such a singular focus of yours? If it is so unimportant, then why the active participation in three simultaneous forum topics on it? It gives the appearance that this topic is very important to you. That seems to be the case with some of the other non-trinitarians who have been here as well. I don't get it. You say it isn't important, we agree that it isn't a required belief, yet I can't seem to get the conversation to move past the point that it isn't a crucial belief.

So let me try one more time before I just throw up my hands in a realization that I'm not getting through. Assuming that the trinity *is* a non-critical belief, do you believe that one's belief about God is any reflection of spiritual maturity and understanding? If I don't believe the right thing(s) about it, does it not indicate that I need education on the matter or am not listening to the Holy Spirit? If it doesn't, then why all the effort to convince folks of your perspective? If it *does* indicate a level of proper spiritual understanding and proper theology, isn't that important? Or do you take the position that it doesn't matter what you believe once you are saved?

Daniel

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

sticha said:

You are one of the few Trinitarians to admit that.

I think you would be surprised. Rob Bowman is considered an expert on the topic. I gave you links where he said the same thing. A lot of the folks here came here because of the founder of the site, Michael Patton. He has blogged (and taught) quite a bit on what the trinity is and isn't. One of the re-occurring topics in our forum here is what is orthodox, what is critical, what is unessential, and so forth. I don't see a lot of folks here saying that a particular view of the trinity is essential to salvation. If we are everything you appear to think we are, you should be able to find lots of evidence of that in the forum and where we as moderators support that. Maybe in the circles that you have previously traveled, that is the prominent belief. But I ask that you don't judge us here based on other places. We are trying to be/do something different here.

As the head moderator, I can give you my word that no one has ever been booted from here for being a non-trinitarian. And, if we had had the option to keep all their posts, we would have. It's people's attitude and demeanor that gets them booted. The only time someone has been booted for what they say instead of how they say it is when they start calling people names or otherwise attack people. We just don't put up with that here.

Daniel

[Ann Wilson]

I am new to this group, I am a non-trinitarian, and would like to post the following link for your investigation as another proof that there is no Trinity. Herein is disscussed, that one of the primary texts used to support Trinitarianism, has been forged admittedly by the RCC in the 2nd century. to support their doctrine of the Trinity. Many scholarly Bible encyclopedias confirm this truth:

A Collection of the evidence for and against the traditional wording of the baptismal phrase in Matthew 28:19
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Ann Wilson said:

Herein is disscussed, that one of the primary texts used to support Trinitarianism, has been forged admittedly by the RCC in the 2nd century. to support their doctrine of the Trinity. Many scholarly Bible encyclopedias confirm this truth

I don't expect Rob to use passages like that or the Johannine Comma to defend the position. You are right. Some manuscripts have late additions. I would not chalk it up to some RCC conspiracy though. Lots of people today write notes in their bibles. It happened then as well. Even Erasmus, while compiling what became the Textus Receptus, wrote all over manuscripts. One man's "forgery" is another man's personal notes that he never intended to be taken as "gospel" when found centuries later. A proper understanding of textual criticism recognizes that there are variant readings for just about everything and can deal with it.

Daniel