Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

[RLT63]

This article discusses Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. This subject seems to be the main point of debate and discussion on this forum. Is Jesus God? Or merely "a god"? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian) - Berean Patriot
Home
Faith Articles
Is Jesus God? Or merely “a god”? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian)
Is Jesus God? Or merely “a god”? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian)
Berean Patriot February 22, 2018 Faith Articles 5 Comments
Is Jesus God? Or is he merely “a god”? Yeah, that’s a big topic but we’re going to take a stab at it today. And by today, I mean the last few weeks/months while I was researching it.

The most commonly encountered group that believes Jesus isn’t God (capital “G”) are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, the belief is technically known as “Unitarianism” and it’s been around since before Jesus died (the Jews). By contrast, the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is One God, who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (And don’t worry, I’ve got a great analogy later that’ll help it make perfect sense.)

This article is long, but you can use it as a reference instead of reading it straight through. Toward that end, I have organized it like a reference book. The table of contents below is clickable and will take you to the associated parts of the article.



Contents show

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

 

[RLT63]

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinity (disambiguation) and God in Three Persons (album).

A compact diagram of the Trinity, known as the "Shield of Trinity". The Shield is not generally intended to be a schematic diagram of the structure of God, but it presents a series of statements about the correlation between the persons of the Trinity.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus 'threefold')[1] defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons:[2][3] God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons sharing one homoousion (essence).[4] As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who brings about."[5] In this context, the three persons define who God is, while the one essence defines what God is.[6][7] This expresses at the same time their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single common operation of all three divine persons, in which each manifests what is proper to it in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."[8]

This doctrine is called Trinitarianism and its adherents are called Trinitarians, while its opponents are called antitrinitarians or nontrinitarians. Christian nontrinitarian positions include Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Modalism.

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a triadic understanding of God[9] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas.[10][11] The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions.[12]

Though the Trinity is mainly a Christian concept, Judaism has had parallel views, especially among writings from the kabbalah tradition.[13]

 

[Pearl]

Is Jesus God? Or merely “a god”?

Scripture tells us that we must have no other gods who are more important than God Almighty
Eodus 20:1-3
And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me.

And yet in the NT we are told that Jesus is the Name above all other names

Philippians 2:9
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name.

If Jesus is just a god why would God do that to elevate him and give the highest name of all?

 

[Matthias]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Holy Trinity (disambiguation), Trinity (disambiguation) and God in Three Persons (album).

A compact diagram of the Trinity, known as the "Shield of Trinity". The Shield is not generally intended to be a schematic diagram of the structure of God, but it presents a series of statements about the correlation between the persons of the Trinity.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus 'threefold')[1] defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons:[2][3] God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons sharing one homoousion (essence).[4] As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who brings about."[5] In this context, the three persons define who God is, while the one essence defines what God is.[6][7] This expresses at the same time their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single common operation of all three divine persons, in which each manifests what is proper to it in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit."[8]

This doctrine is called Trinitarianism and its adherents are called Trinitarians, while its opponents are called antitrinitarians or nontrinitarians. Christian nontrinitarian positions include Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Modalism.

While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a triadic understanding of God[9] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas.[10][11] The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions.[12]

Though the Trinity is mainly a Christian concept, Judaism has had parallel views, especially among writings from the kabbalah tradition.[13]

When I was a trinitarian I fought hard against Jewish mysticism. As a Jewish monotheist, I point out that it doesn’t actually teach what trinitarians who appeal to it think it does. It damages trinitarianism, when accepted as trinitarianism.

Have you read the Zohar?

Zohar - Wikipedia

 

[Wrangler]

I've been told that I am going to Hell because of Romans 10:9. However I do believe God raised Jesus from the dead.

Even though you say you believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you don't recognize how that makes Jesus not the God who raised him from the dead.

The subject of the sentence is God doing the action. Jesus is the object of the sentence, being acted upon. The subject of a sentence is not the object of the sentence. Trinitarianism might have a leg to stand on IF it said 'the Father' raised Jesus from the dead. But Scripture says God - meaning in his unitarian nature - raised our lord from the dead.

 

[Wrangler]

Unitarians say Jesus has a God and his God is the one true God. Some therefore deny the deity of Christ.

No. Unitarians do not say this. Scripture explicitly says this.

 

[RLT63]

When I was a trinitarian I fought hard against Jewish mysticism. As a Jewish monotheist, I point out that it doesn’t actually teach what trinitarians who appeal to it think it does. It damages trinitarianism, when accepted as trinitarianism.

Have you read the Zohar?

Zohar - Wikipedia

No from what I know about Kabballah I just thought it was an ancient form of New Age mysticism.

 

[RLT63]

No. Unitarians do not say this. Scripture explicitly says this.

QED

 

[RLT63]

Even though you say you believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you don't recognize how that makes Jesus not the God who raised him from the dead.

The subject of the sentence is God doing the action. Jesus is the object of the sentence, being acted upon. The subject of a sentence is not the object of the sentence. Trinitarianism might have a leg to stand on IF it said 'the Father' raised Jesus from the dead. But Scripture says God - meaning in his unitarian nature - raised our lord from the dead.

Jhn 10:17

¶
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
Jhn 10:18

“No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.
Jhn 2:19

¶
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
Jhn 2:20

¶
Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
Jhn 2:21

¶
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
Jhn 2:22

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them;[fn] and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Wrangler]

Some people say the Trinity was not mentioned before the 4th
Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325).

You are setting up a straw man argument. The fact is the Apostolic writing, compiled later as the word of God simply does not have the trinity in it, no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

To listen to trintiarian apologists, one would think everyone simply understood trinitarianism from the beginning, which is obviously incorrect. At Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359, twice as many Bishops as Nicaea adopted the Arian Creed. St. Jerome responded the Roman world ‘awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.’

This creed, which the Emperor Constantius urged the churches to accept, affirmed that the Son is like the Father in all things and prohibited the use of terms including "essence", "substance" or "ousia" when speaking of God.

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding​

This council “was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism [see page 45] which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church.”

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea

The Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359 was called by the Emperor Constantius to deal with the error of trinitarianism. Dismissing your straw man, of course errant ideas of trinitarianism pre-ceded Nicea for that is merely where they codified their error, which the Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359 clearly stated correctly that nothing in Scripture is written about it, i.e., the trinity is not in the Bible.

 

[Wrangler]

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered

Just ignore Rom 10:9 and what it means.

 

[RLT63]

You are setting up a straw man argument. The fact is the Apostolic writing, compiled later as the word of God simply does not have the trinity in it, no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

To listen to trintiarian apologists, one would think everyone simply understood trinitarianism from the beginning, which is obviously incorrect. At Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359, twice as many Bishops as Nicaea adopted the Arian Creed. St. Jerome responded the Roman world ‘awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.’

This creed, which the Emperor Constantius urged the churches to accept, affirmed that the Son is like the Father in all things and prohibited the use of terms including "essence", "substance" or "ousia" when speaking of God.

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding​

The Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359 was called by the Emperor Constantius to deal with the error of trinitarianism. Dismissing your straw man, of course errant ideas of trinitarianism pre-ceded Nicea for that is merely where they codified their error, which the Council of Rimini-Seleucia in 359 clearly stated correctly that nothing in Scripture is written about it, i.e., the trinity is not in the Bible.

The Council of Ariminum, also known after the city's modern name as the Council of Rimini, was an early Christian church synod.

In 358, the Roman Emperor Constantius II requested two councils, one of the western bishops at Ariminum and one of the eastern bishops (planned for Nicomedia but actually held at Seleucia Isauria) to resolve the Arian controversy over the nature of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which divided the 4th-century church.[1]

In July 359, the western council (of about 300[2] or over 400 bishops) met. Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa soon proposed a new creed, drafted at the Fourth Council of Sirmium in 359 but not presented there, holding that the Son was similar to the Father "according to the scriptures," and avoiding the controversial terms "same substance" and "similar substance."[3] Others favored the creed of Nicaea.[4]

The opponents of Sirmium wrote a letter to the emperor Constantius, praising Nicaea and condemning any reconsideration of it, before many of them left the council. The supporters of Sirmium then issued the new creed and sent it through Italy.[5]

The council was considered a defeat for trinitarianism, and Saint Jerome wrote: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."[6]

Pope Liberius of Rome rejected the new creed, prompting Phoebadius of Agen and Servatius of Tongeren to withdraw their support from the homoian.[7][citation needed] The supporters of Sirmium deposed Liberius and reappointed Felix of Rome in his place.[8]

Two councils at Nike (southeast of Adrianople) and Constantinople followed.[9]

Those favoring the Creed drafted at Sirmium included:

• Ursacius of Singidunum[10]
• Valens of Mursa[11]
• Germinius of Sirmium[12]
• Auxentius of Milan[13]
• Demophilus of Beroe[14]
• Gaius of Pannonia[15][16]

Those favoring the Creed of Nicaea included:

• Phoebadius of Agen (died c. 392)[citation needed]
• Servatius of Tongeren (died May 13, 384)[citation needed]
• Gaudentius of Ariminum (died October 14, 360)[citation needed]
• Mercurialis of Forlì[citation needed]
• Restitutus of Carthage[citation needed]

 

[Matthias]

No from what I know about Kabballah I just thought it was an ancient form of New Age mysticism.

Those who are attracted to New Age mysticism will love kabbalism. The Zohar is taylor made for them.

It contains some similarities to trinitarianism, which is why some trinitarian ministries make use of it in their efforts to convert Jews - many of whom hold it in high esteem - to trinitarianism.

I’m currently reading Tertullian’s Against The Valentinians. I’ve enjoyed reading Tertullian - I think I’ve read 18 of his writings since I embarked on this reading campaign a couple of months ago - but I haven’t enjoyed this particular work. It’s easy to read but hard to read. The teachings of the Valentinians remind me of the teachings in kabbalism. It’s not the same, but it’s similar. Tertullian doesn’t do much with it beyond pointing out the absurdity.

I can’t read more than a couple of chapters in Against The Valentinians per day. It’s a fantasy thought world that he’s writing against. I’m having to force myself to read it, which wasn’t the case with his other writings. I was left wanting to read more when I completed reading them. I won’t be left with that feeling after completing this one; more a feeling of relief that I finished slogging through it.

I’m planning to read his The Five Books Against Marcion next. I’m looking forward to that. I’m using it to motivate me to get through Against The Valentinians - something like rewarding myself with dessert after eating my beets (which I can’t stand the taste of.)

Trinitarians can do whatever they please but, imo, they would be wise to distance themselves from mysticism, especially the mysticism of another religion.

 

[RLT63]

Those who are attracted to New Age mysticism will love kabbalism. The Zohar is taylor made for them.

It contains some similarities to trinitarianism, which is why some trinitarian ministries make use of it in their efforts to convert Jews - many of whom hold it in high esteem - to trinitarianism.

I’m currently reading Tertullian’s Against The Valentinians. I’ve enjoyed reading Tertullian - I think I’ve read 18 of his writings since I embarked on this reading campaign a couple of months ago - but I haven’t enjoyed this particular work. It’s easy to read but hard to read. The teachings of the Valentinians remind me of the teachings in kabbalism. It’s not the same, but it’s similar. Tertullian doesn’t do much with it beyond pointing out the absurdity.

I can’t read more than a couple of chapters in Against The Valentinians per day. It’s a fantasy thought world that he’s writing against. I’m having to force myself to read it, which wasn’t the case with his other writings. I was left wanting to read more when I completed reading them. I won’t be left with that feeling after completing this one; more a feeling of relief that I finished slogging through it.

I’m planning to read his The Five Books Against Marcion next. I’m looking forward to that. I’m using it to motivate me to get through Against The Valentinians - something like rewarding myself with dessert after eating my beets (which I can’t stand the taste of.)

Trinitarians can do whatever they please but, imo, they would be wise to distance themselves from mysticism, especially the mysticism of another religion.

I became really interested in the Enneagram about 12 years ago. The personality type descriptions, and the motivation behind the personality types seemed dead on. Type 6 with a 5 wing was me, and it seemed like I had written this information myself it so accurately depicted my personality. It was promoted as being Christian in origin, but when I did some research there really seemed to be no verifiable information about it's ancient origin. It was the brainchild of a man named Oscar Ichazo, a mystic, as far away from being a Christian as you can be and dated back only to the 60's.(Only the symbol was older than that.) It's goals for self improvement were really New Age ideas and I remember reading something about how the Nine personality types tied into the Tree of Life in Kabballah. Naturally I left it alone. I had even written a book about it and self published it, but I made that book unavailable after doing research for a second book. I thought of writing a book exposing it's New Age origin's and teachings but someone beat me to it.

 

[RLT63]

Just ignore Rom 10:9 and what it means.

Just ignore the other verses I posted. - Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

 

[Matthias]

Just ignore the other verses I posted. - Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

 

[Wrangler]

Just ignore the other verses I posted. - Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Yes he said this. The difference is this is not a condition of your salvation but Romans 10:9 is. You want to disregard explicit Scripture in favor of reading into Scripture that has nothing to do with the condition of your salvation or saying anything like 'Jesus is God,'

 

[RLT63]

Yes he said this. The difference is this is not a condition of your salvation but Romans 10:9 is. You want to disregard explicit Scripture in favor of reading into Scripture that has nothing to do with the condition of your salvation or saying anything like 'Jesus is God,'

Acts 16:30-31

 

[Wrangler]

Acts 16:30-31

So before, you distracted away from Romans 10:9 to John. Now it's Acts.

 

[RLT63]

So before, you distracted away from Romans 10:9 to John. Now it's Acts.

A place where someone asked the question, "What must I do to be saved? " and got an answer.