Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justified

Active Member
Mar 11, 2025
410
172
43
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yahweh the Father and Yeshua the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yes the word God in the Old Testament refers to Yahweh.
What scriptures did I miss?
You’re using circular reasoning by assuming that the Father alone is Yahweh, and then using that to conclude that only the Father is in the OT as Yahweh.

Try Heb. 1:10-12 where the Father says that the Son was creator, by applying Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son. As that passage is about Yahweh, it strongly implies that the Son is also Yahweh, from the Father’s own mouth no less.

Try 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16-17 where it is clearly stated that everything was created through or by the Son. Of course, that is what John is also getting at in John 1:3.

The belief that the Son did not preexist is made impossible from those few passages alone. That he may not be explicitly mentioned in the OT is not relevant; there is nothing in the OT that precludes his eternal preexistence nor that the name Yahweh applies to him.
 

HealthyShape

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2025
1,827
673
113
Northeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Admin cannot determine if a person is Christian or not.
I am not expecting them to determine that, but they created this policy:

Please note that taking a position contrary to the doctrines outlined in the statement of faith is not allowed for our Christian members. The Trinity, while open to discussion, is not open to dispute, except by other faith members.

If somebody want to dispute Trinity, they must not identify as Christians, according to this policy.

Anyway, there has to be some sort of freedom to speak or the forum wil be like
Nazi Germany and that's even worse. We do need free speech so we can state what we really believe.
I do not think this is a correct argument. We are talking about a basic Christian doctrine on a Christian forum. With total freedom comes also total chaos - Jehovah Witnesses or polytheists identifying themselves as Christians etc. Trinity is allowed to be disputed outside of Christians Only section.
 
Last edited:

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
14,204
6,181
113
69
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
You’re using circular reasoning by assuming that the Father alone is Yahweh, and then using that to conclude that only the Father is in the OT as Yahweh.

Try Heb. 1:10-12 where the Father says that the Son was creator, by applying Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son. As that passage is about Yahweh, it strongly implies that the Son is also Yahweh, from the Father’s own mouth no less.

Try 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16-17 where it is clearly stated that everything was created through or by the Son. Of course, that is what John is also getting at in John 1:3.

The belief that the Son did not preexist is made impossible from those few passages alone. That he may not be explicitly mentioned in the OT is not relevant; there is nothing in the OT that precludes his eternal preexistence nor that the name Yahweh applies to him.

If you copy the scriptures in your post I will address them but do not give me homework.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
20,736
8,989
113
57
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Where are you getting these from or is a twisted interpretation?
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Philippians 2:6
I've always noticed proponents of this doctrine always ignore the not, treating the sentence to mean the exact same thing as if the "not" is not there. So, "Billy is NOT home" is taken to 'support' the claim that Billy IS home.

Obviously, they make this desperate reach precisely because their IDOL is not in Scripture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hiddenthings

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,877
7,253
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I've always noticed proponents of this doctrine always ignore the not, treating the sentence to mean the exact same thing as if the "not" is there. So, "Billy is NOT home" is taken to 'support' the claim that Billy IS home.

Obviously, they make this desperate reach precisely because their IDOL is not in Scripture.
Hold on a second. What it isn't saying is the Son isn't God. It is simply saying that the Son didn't believe being equal to God was something He needed to take a hold of through force or take what isn't already His.
He's the Son of God, existed before creation, begotten of the Father having being brought forth from the Father's own nature... how could the Son be anything else other than of the same nature as the Father?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HealthyShape

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
20,736
8,989
113
57
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
You have yet to show a single contradiction
Denial. I've shown many contradictions.

1769852007480.png
All red apples are apples.

Those that are not red are not apples.

There is no godhead is Scripture. Translations that invoke it are in error. Look it up.

By definition, one is not 3.

LOL. Changing the reference is not how language works! In no logical construction is 1 apple properly construed to mean 1 orange + 1 banana + 1 strawberry.

It's one triangle with 3 sides; NOT 1 triangle consisting of 3 3-sided shapes.

And it's not except I say one is not three AS IF it is a personal statement I am making.

I'm afraid it does. You keep trying to parse synonyms and nowhere does 3 evolve from one as opposed to any other non-unity number.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,877
7,253
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Hold on a second. What it isn't saying is the Son isn't God. It is simply saying that the Son didn't believe being equal to God was something He needed to take a hold of through force or take what isn't already His.
He's the Son of God, existed before creation, begotten of the Father having being brought forth from the Father's own nature... how could the Son be anything else other than of the same nature as the Father?
But in saying this, I'm not necessarily defending the trinity, at least, not the versions put forth by what is called the "orthodoxy". If i believed the orthodox creedal versions, Jesus never died.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: HealthyShape

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
But the scriptures do not say that......And Jesus said, And while I am on earth the Father is greater than I. But when I get to Heaven I will kick Him off His throne and I will be God Almighty. Make it up as you go....at least it will show imagination.
GH
You just repeated that while Jesus was on earth, the Father was in heaven!
I mean, where else would He be?

So you agree with me.

Jesus as the 2nd Person of the Trinity was on earth.
Father was in heaven.
The Son has always been in heaven as Person number 2.

See. It works out just as Jesus said.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,877
7,253
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
But the scriptures do not say that......And Jesus said, And while I am on earth the Father is greater than I. But when I get to Heaven I will kick Him off His throne and I will be God Almighty. Make it up as you go....at least it will show imagination.
You are right. The scriptures do not say that. Neither did Jesus. And neither is anyone else. Where did you get the idea from?
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Denial. I've shown many contradictions.

View attachment 78968
@Justified should stop talking math or philosophy with you.

When YOU and I were discussing apples I pointed out that your premise was wrong.

I SAID:

IF we want t define apples AS BEING RED...

then YES, every apple that is not red is not an apple.

You never did reply.....
Because, as ususal, analogies DO NOT WORK with THEOLOGY.

Stick to scripture and a person cannot go wrong.
The word of God is the best way to prove the word of God.
Accepted theology is the best way to explain theology.

Nice circle, ain't it?
 

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hold on a second. What it isn't saying is the Son isn't God. It is simply saying that the Son didn't believe being equal to God was something He needed to take a hold of through force or take what isn't already His.
He's the Son of God, existed before creation, begotten of the Father having being brought forth from the Father's own nature... how could the Son be anything else other than of the same nature as the Father?
You need to take care there Brakelight!

Philippians 2:5–11 Christ:

The Ultimate Example of Humility

These verses form the heart of the Epistle. Christ stands as the supreme example of humility.

Verse 5 “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.”

Though he was the greatest of all men, he washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). Believers are called to clothe themselves with humility, as Christ did (Matt 11:29; 1 Pet 5:5–11). See also Isaiah 57:15; 66:2; Matthew 5:3–5; Mark 10:15; Colossians 3:12; 1 Peter 3:4.

Verse 6 — “Being in the form of God.”

This does not mean being the same person as God. The same concept of “form” appears in 2 Timothy 3:5 (“form of godliness”) and Galatians 4:19 (“Christ formed in you”). The related verb is used in Romans 12:2 (“transformed”) and 2 Corinthians 3:18 (“changed”).

The phrase “thought it not robbery” is better rendered (RV): “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself.” Rather than seizing immediate glory, he willingly chose a path of humility and suffering.

Verse 7 — “Made himself of no reputation.”

Literally, “he emptied himself” (RV, RSV). This reflects Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt 5:3; cf. Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:1–2).

Taking “the form of a servant,” he ministered to the broken and submitted entirely to his Father’s will. This section clearly echoes Isaiah’s Servant prophecies (Isa 42:1–4; 49:4–9; 50:5–6; 52:13–53:12), portraying the Son’s willing obedience, displayed under the most intense pressure and trial.

Please take the time to read each of those Isaiah passages, I promise, you won’t go wrong!

@Wrangler If you approach this passage with the wrong starting point, it’s easy to end up in confusion. This section is about the fully developed divine mindset of Christ, rejecting the privileges he could have claimed as God’s Son, and instead choosing the path of servanthood, suffering, and death. I know you know this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

Hiddenthings

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2025
3,777
415
83
Leeton NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
But in saying this, I'm not necessarily defending the trinity, at least, not the versions put forth by what is called the "orthodoxy". If i believed the orthodox creedal versions, Jesus never died.
When the truth is revealed, many will weep!
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
20,736
8,989
113
57
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Hold on a second. What it isn't saying is the Son isn't God.
You're speaking in negation. The verse exactly addresses claims of equality are false. The son is NOT God because he is not equal to God. It does mean what you deny.

It is simply saying that the Son didn't believe being equal to God was something He needed to take a hold of through force or take what isn't already His.

Oy vey! So much is wrong about this sentence.

1st, you are inserting "belief" into a statement of fact. Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. Nothing about belief there.

2nd, you are again ignoring the NOT in the sentence. It's not about his belief but his inequality. God regards equality with himself something to be grasped. tsml

3rd, the verse says nothing about using force. I've heard this tortured take before. Just extreme eisegesis.

4th, Scripture talks quite a bit about our inheritance, which is equal to Jesus' inheritance, where we are GIVEN things by God, not take from God. Jesus too is given things by God. You must know this.

Here is where language betrays your IDOL. Jesus was given things by YHWH, who is the only true God, who we relate to as father. Jesus is not YHWH. To avoid this obvious truth, you retreat to claiming the natures are the same - despite it being demonstrated different natures - as a back door path to being YHWH.

He's the Son of God, existed before creation, begotten of the Father

Jesus was created about 2,000 years ago. We celebrate it every December. Begotten means created. Look it up.

having being brought forth from the Father's own nature

Again, totally wrong and demonstrably so.
  1. No one has seen God. Many have seen Jesus.
  2. God has no body. Jesus has a body.
  3. God is eternal, meaning he did not die and cannot die. Jesus died.
These are not the same natures. These are different natures.

how could the Son be anything else other than of the same nature as the Father?
Because "the son of God" is a title, like Anointed, which applies to others in Scripture. It does not mean a biological relationship, where nature is shared. This is why Acts 17:31 emphasizes that God selected this man.

The main problem with your position is that it is not taught in Scripture, which is why you have to resort to eisegesis, 'support' your position through argument rather than simply quote a verse that teaches what you claim.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
20,736
8,989
113
57
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
When YOU and I were discussing apples I pointed out that your premise was wrong.
Claiming something and showing that claim to be true are not equal.

You never did reply.....
No reply is necessary when you failed to go beyond assertion. I easily showed the flaw of your logic by using red apples as a comparison. This is fun!
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
17,514
8,609
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
I do not confirm the Catholic Church is the original religion.
Maybe I misunderstood.
If so I apologize.

However, yes, the CC IS the original church.
Unless you could name another denomination that was around at the time.

In a letter to Smyrnea, Ignatius of Antioch (my favorite ECF) first used the term CATHOLIC.
It meant UNIVERSAL...however the title did stick...and it is THIS church that was present then and now.

Ignatius did this because heresy was already in the church and he wanted to distinguish the TRUE CHURCH from heresy.

John wrote about this in a much ussed verse but used incorrectly.
1 john 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [a]it would be evident that they all are not of us.


Those that uphold OSAS always use this verse for support.
Unfortunately, it does not mean what they think it means.

John was referring to heretics that had infiltrated the church.
You have been taught a bunch of lies.
Which lies have I been taught GH?
And by whom?
You're the one who went to a theological university and studied under MEN.

I read my bible and make sure that when I'm told/taught something it matches EXACTLY with scripture.
Scripture teaches me that there is ONLY ONE GOD.

And this is both in the OT and the NT.

The Catholic Church was established during the Ecumenical Councils and at the time the head of that Church was Emperor Constantine. That is way people call it the Roman Catholic Church. And then later on words like Pope and Bishop came into use. The Roman Empire enforced all doctrines that the Ecumenical Councils established.
You should learn if you're going to speak.
Roman is not a denomination.
Roman is a rite.

It's not even correct to call it the RCC...
There's no such animal.

And you're wrong about Pope and Bishop too.

1 timothy 3:1-2
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,


Titus 1:7
7 For the [a]overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not [b]a bully, not greedy for money,



That's two verses. There are more.
And the good ole' KJV uses the word BISHOP, which, in Greek is EPISKOPOS and the correct word is BISHOP, but it just sounds too Catholic for we Protestants, I guess, so the word has been changed to ELDER. The meaning is the same.
A bishop IS AN ELDER. Not to be confused with elders in the JW religion or elders in a neighborhood church.


Titus 1:7
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;


This is true for every verse that uses the word OVERSEER or ELDER in our more modern bibles.

And there were MANY councils...why are you obsessed with the Council of Nicea??
Were bishops not present? Was the church not making decisions there?

And you should find out about the history of POPE.
There were 5 Popes while PETER WAS STILL ALIVE.

Look it up.
We have the internet now.

The 12 Apostles....the Jewish Christians did not continue their lineage. They pretty much died out by the end of the 1st century. The Catholic Church started re-writing history, trying to connect to the Apostle Peter but then embraced the teaching of Paul. Re-writing history is bad practice because you end up looking like a liar then all of what you are teaching falls into question. Pope and Bishop are English words, the ECF's wrote in Greek and Latin.

Yes sir.
I just got through explaining the word Bishop.

And it's the CC that created the CANON FOR SCRIPTURE.
It is the CC that established WHAT LETTERS and GOSPELS were to be included in the NT.

Did they not include writings by Paul AND Peter?
HOW did the CC rewrite history when you're not even representing correct history??

But if you look up a word like Bishop it will give a more modern Latin word. The ECF's refereed to religious leaders as episcopus, from Greek episkopos "watcher, (spiritual) overseer. The words Pope and Bishop do not appear in the actual texts. It would be like calling Constitine president.
This is rather a silly statement GH.
Sorry for having to say this.

It's like saying that the word COMPUTER did not exist before the COMPUTER existed.

EPISKOPOS means BISHOP.
Of course the actual word BISHOP did not exist....
because Christianity had to be ESTABLISHED.
But EPISKOPOS means BISHOP...it means a religious LEADER,,,an OVERSEER.
This is what a BISHOP does !

Constantine doesn't appear in scripture either...
but you keep bringing him up.
Double standard?
Most of the history of the Catholic Church was filled with horror and corruption. After Vatican II the Catholic Church affirmed all that and apologized for a lot of it. Today the Catholic Church is better than it ever has been. Like I always say I would not give you two cents for the Vatican. They still have problems but what denomination does not have problems.
Yes. Hatred of the CC runs rampant.

The very church that has allowed Christianity to be established and without which there would be NO CHRISTIANITY.

Your hatred colors everything you say and so it is impossible to be objective.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
20,736
8,989
113
57
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Verse 6 — “Being in the form of God.”

This does not mean being the same person as God.
Indeed, it means the very opposite! The only reason you say something is in a form of something, like a piggy bank, is precisely because it is NOT that thing it is in the form of. My grandson's piggy bank is not a pig.

Saying his safe is in the form of a pig is how we use language to indicate the form is not the substance.

And what does it mean to be in the form of God, given we were created in God's image? In another thread about a year ago a poster claimed we should not be like God. Ending up in intellectual pretzels is what often happens in doing mental gymnastics of IDOLATRY.

@Wrangler If you approach this passage with the wrong starting point, it’s easy to end up in confusion. This section is about the fully developed divine mindset of Christ, rejecting the privileges he could have claimed as God’s Son, and instead choosing the path of servanthood, suffering, and death. I know you know this.
Great, great point! Another poster used the word "mentioned" referring to what different verses actually teach - as opposed to reading into text what you want. This got me thinking. Because the trinity is not in Scripture, trinitarians must rely on taking the unitarian text out of context in an attempt to 'support' their IDOL.

Let me say that again. With the possible exception of Luke, the entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day. Therefore, the text is a monotheism, its overarching theology is there is one God, (not a 3-in-1 god), that contradicts trinitarianism. So, the only option trinitarians have is to take verses out of the unitarian context these monotheist Jews wrote. Put in proper context, the 3-in-1 god always falls apart. Funny that one poster cannot answer the question of what is one who follows Jesus called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hiddenthings
Status
Not open for further replies.