Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part One

  • 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!

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
974
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
At the suggestion of a poster on another thread that, like so many on this site, quickly began to fray as Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians debated (I’m being kind in using that word) the meaning of each side’s proffered biblical verses, I’ve decided to explain my position that Trinitarians actually need to support – and can support –their thesis logically rather than Scripturally.

This notion will draw fire from both camps, but particularly from the sola scriptura crowd. You won’t find me underscoring supposed proof-texts, because I’m convinced that none truly qualify as “proof.” From the standpoint of word meaning, Scripture is maddeningly equivocal. Arguments over Hebrew words ending in “-im” as establishing plurality; over how kurios or adonai are to be interpreted as a referent; over proper rendering of phrases like theos en ho logos from a language with no indefinite article and which uses case rather than word order to convey meaning – all of these arguments are, in my view, ultimately unpersuasive, and while each of these have their standard bearers (who will now come gunning for me!), it’s obvious that nothing will ever be decided in this way.

Even where word meaning is clear, intention of the author often is not; we sometimes need to pay mind to the historical context, the intended audience and the purpose of writing in order to distill that intention.

Then there is the matter of separating the pre-incarnate Son from the incarnate Jesus, which injects additional ambiguity when, for example, construing gospel passages indicating Jesus’ subservience to the Father – all of which were uttered during the 30-odd years that Jesus had “emptied himself” of whatever “equality” he may have had with the Father (Philippians 2:7). How much are we to discount those subservience quotes as a result?

And enough ink has been spilt over John’s Prologue – obviously a key piece of Scripture on our issue. I can add little, other than to point out an exegetical question: given that John was the last to write a (canonical) gospel, are we to understand his Prologue, to quote James J. G. Dunn, “as a variation on an already well formed conception of incarnation or as itself a decisive step forward in the organic growth or evolution of the Christian doctrine.” If the former, it will inevitably cast the incarnation as a refinement of first-century Jewish messianic expectations (which, by the way, come in several flavors), and inform our interpretation of the Prologue.

I’ve waxed on here not just to set the stage, but to give the Inerrantists and Fundamentalists among you an off-ramp. To you, I’m obviously a nut, maybe even a heretic. You can stop reading now.

To those who are still reading, here is my thesis: Trinitarianism is the outgrowth of the early Church’s effort to understand and explain its own experience of the risen Christ in philosophical terms. The march of Christianity outward from Palestine into the Greek world inevitably resulted in a cultural and philosophical disconnect, as tales told and texts written from a Jewish/messianic perspective were being interpreted by men imbued in a Greek philosophical tradition. Those few scattered passages in the emerging New Testament canon that could arguably be deemed binitarian or (far less frequently) trinitarian yielded no coherent picture of the Son’s participation in the Godhead, and two centuries of patristic thinking were occupied by the effort to weave that idea into a doctrine that was consistent with Scripture. It was thus natural that Greek philosophy, which had long sought to locate an ontological bridge between the One and the Many, between the realm of soul/spirit and the material world, would provide the looms for this tapestry. Particularly in Alexandria, Christianity was discovering its affinity with middle Platonism and using it as a lens through which to view Christian concepts, furnishing the early church fathers with a template for reworking Jewish monotheism into a trinitarianism that could successfully resist devolving into tritheism.

But have they been successful? Now it is time to talk logic. We can express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (three “persons” in one God) as a set of propositions in this way:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Holy Spirit is God.
6. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

For simplicity’s sake we need consider only 1 through 4 (for 5 through 7 will stand or fall on the same logical analysis we apply to 1 through 4):

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

The difficulty in defending the Trinity has always been that these four propositions are, as a group, logically inconsistent when analyzed from the standpoint of the three basic rules of logical equivalence: self-identity (everything is identical to itself, i.e., x = x); symmetry (if two things are equivalent, they are equivalent in any order, i.e., if x = y, then y = x); and transitivity (if one thing is the same as another and that other is the same as a third, then the first is the same as the third, i.e., if x = y and y = z then x = z). The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity fares ill in this analysis.

To make them logically consistent, it is tempting to sacrifice one of the four tenets – and most early heresies took this tack. Thus, Arius sacrificed the third one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
3′. Therefore the Son is not God.

and Sabellius (building on earlier Modalist thought) sacrificed the fourth one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4′. Therefore the Father is the Son.

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent because, unlike the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, they satisfy all three of the aforementioned principles of logical consistency. Arius and Sabellius, although approaching the inconsistency from different perspectives, each preferred rationality to irrationality―even if it meant preferring heresy to orthodoxy.

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. One can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” by separating out personhood from Godhood. How to tease them apart is the ultimate challenge of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

I’ll explain how I do it shortly – and why “persons” is a poor word to use in expressing the hypostasis concept – but I wanted to throw this much up to draw a bit of fire first. That is, if anyone is still following . . .
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Me too.

Without commenting on your logic, it is a very well thought out preamble. A couple of points to ponder regarding

For simplicity’s sake we need consider only 1 through 4 (for 5 through 7 will stand or fall on the same logical analysis we apply to 1 through 4)

is the explicit nature in Scripture of 1 and 2 but only implied for the rest. In addition, definitions that separate 1-4 from 5-7. That is to say, "Father" and "Son" are not only relational terms but one flows from (is created by the other).

This is substantially different from the Holy Spirit, which is an attribute of existence. For instance, I have been told I have a Big Smile. But such attributes as a spirit that is holy or a smile that is big is a very different line of inquiry than relational and chronologically dependent terms, by definition.

I guess I'm getting at the relative strength of asserting the various propositions using 2 criteria. The direct and explicit words of Scripture (juxtaposed with indirect, implications) along with word choices that are by definition, relationally and chronologically dependent. It is somewhat akin to the numerology of admitting Biden is the 46th POTUS and also claim he served contemporaneously with all the rest. The very use of a number series implies a series rather than parallel service.

From a logical perspective, you risk the fallacy of Circular Reasoning, asserting at the start your conclusions.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This 'Part 1' OP can already be seen as an attempt by its apologist to legitimize and support Trinitarianism by superimposing its obvious and undeniable pagan philosophical framework and foundation onto the word of God and into the mind of a believer in Christ. It's another vain attempt to elevate it, and find accommodation and sympathetic equality, drawn solely from human thoughts, on par with the mind of YHWH and his Spirit that is above all human reasoning. Trinitarianism will always be a grave threat and obstacle in knowing the word of God on a truly pure spiritual level.

Trinitarianism is a special form of Modalism (Sabellianism) born out of Gnosticism.

If I seem to come on too strong, it is because I've seen it laid out in a similar way before. Nothing personal intended.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
974
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This 'Part 1' OP can already be seen as an attempt by its apologist to legitimize and support Trinitarianism by superimposing its obvious and undeniable pagan philosophical framework and foundation onto the word of God and into the mind of a believer in Christ. It's another vain attempt to elevate it, and find accommodation and sympathetic equality, drawn solely from human thoughts, on par with the mind of YHWH and his Spirit that is above all human reasoning. Trinitarianism will always be a grave threat and obstacle in knowing the word of God on a truly pure spiritual level.

Trinitarianism is a special form of Modalism (Sabellianism) born out of Gnosticism.

If I seem to come on too strong, it is because I've seen it laid out in a similar way before. Nothing personal intended.

No offense taken. But I do not see Trinitarianism as sharing much with Sabellianism, given that the latter renders Father and Son as effectively identical. Sabellius did not accept the Son's distinctiveness and individuality -- related concepts that are an element of "personhood" -- and how they may be melded in a single unique substance.

Let's try an analogy as a first approximation. Consider the visible spectrum of light waves at frequencies between the limits of infrared and ultraviolet. The colors are distinct.

White is not on the spectrum, because white is not a “color” at all. Rather, white light is produced by combining the colors of the spectrum. More generally, white light is produced in combining three primary colors – red, green and blue. Thus combined, the distinct colors are not separate. Distinct but not separate. Three colors. One light.

View attachment 25087

And the question becomes, can we say the same of the Godhead? The question is whether in the one God, "personhood" is distinct, yet -- in the "meld" -- not separate. Three "persons." One God.

This is where "personhood" in the context of a Trinity starts to limp a bit. We can think of a human being as partaking in the essence of "humanity" (however that essence may be defined) despite being a separate "person." But we are constrained in thinking of Father and Son and Holy Spirit as partaking in the essence of "deity" while still being considered a separate "person" as soon as we define the essence of "deity" to include singularity. If that is our interpretation of the Shema, thinking of Father Son and Holy Spirit as distinct "persons" won't work.

But if we think of Father, Son and Holy Spirit not as persons but as persona -- a concept which the Greek word prosōpon expresses rather well (an actor’s mask, a character, a face) -- we can still include singularity in the essence of "deity." The one God’s triune nature persists in each of these three "faces," forming a single God in the same way that joining three triangles edge to edge with a common apex form what we know as a tetrahedron. In that unity lies the shared essence -- in my analogy the essence of "tetrahedronness," if you will. Without the three, there is not the One.

Sabellius would never have agreed with this, because what separates Trinitarianism from Modalist thinking is the necessity of the meld (without the three, there is not the One) to conceptualize the Godhead.

I can agree in part with your observation that Trinitarianism is "superimposing its obvious and undeniable pagan philosophical framework and foundation onto the word of God." I could agree entirely if we removed "pagan" and "onto the word of God" from your characterization, for Trinitaranism surely is "superimposing an obvious and undeniable philosophical framework and foundation" -- onto the early Church's understanding of and attempt to express the nature of the Son. The early church fathers weren't pagans; they were simply struggling to put their understanding into language -- language which (like all human languages) is born out of human experiences of the empirical world and for that reason is inherently unsuited to express theological concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthias

Monte McGuire

New Member
Aug 6, 2022
15
16
3
57
Wichita, KS
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Logically, this is how I see it.
  • The Shema is defined as one God. So when Jesus was walking on earth and God was in heaven at the same time, how many Gods would you count?
    • A young child would easily say two.
  • How could God be tempted by Satan, in the three temptations of Christ?
    • I refuse to believe God would worship Satan. Satan isn't an idiot and wouldn't have tried if it was impossible.
    • How would that work if Jesus had failed his mission on earth and worshiped Satan?
I just can't buy this Trinity doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK and Wrangler

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Logically, this is how I see it.
  • The Shema is defined as one God. So when Jesus was walking on earth and God was in heaven at the same time, how many Gods would you count?
    • A young child would easily say two.
  • How could God be tempted by Satan, in the three temptations of Christ?
    • I refuse to believe God would worship Satan. Satan isn't an idiot and wouldn't have tried if it was impossible.
    • How would that work if Jesus had failed his mission on earth and worshiped Satan?
I just can't buy this Trinity doctrine.
There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So overwhelming, in fact, that it's futile to argue about it, IMHO.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,241
4,213
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Logically, this is how I see it.
  • The Shema is defined as one God. So when Jesus was walking on earth and God was in heaven at the same time, how many Gods would you count?
    • A young child would easily say two.
  • How could God be tempted by Satan, in the three temptations of Christ?
    • I refuse to believe God would worship Satan. Satan isn't an idiot and wouldn't have tried if it was impossible.
    • How would that work if Jesus had failed his mission on earth and worshiped Satan?
I just can't buy this Trinity doctrine.

Welcome to the forums Monte.

I’m an ex-trinitarian. I’m opposed to trinitarianism (as well as binitarianism and some expressions of unitarianism). Nevertheless, I keep an open mind about it.

There are many threads here on the subject of the Trinity, and they all suffer from the same fundamental defect. This thread is different and unique. In my opinion, it’s the only one that presents a serious argument in favor of trinitarianism. That’s why the OP has my interest and full attention.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And the question becomes, can we say the same of the Godhead?
No. Primarily because the concept of the "Godhead" is not from God's word. Sure, a few trinitarian translations impose that word in English but most do not.

Your approach here is the fallacy of Circular Reasoning. You are asserting the truth of the trinity, in search of an apology. I do appreciate your attempt to defend it using logic.

From your list of propositions, #1 & #2 are direct and explicitly stated in Scripture. Not the case with #3 and #5. Beyond that, your list of propositions excludes the primary point of contention, that salvation depends on believing the trinity is true. It is one thing to blur the lines between a principal and his agent, to sneak in the back door of authority, to conclude that - for all intents and purposes - the agents represent the principal as a practical matter of operation. This is akin to Lord of The Rings, where a trustee was sitting on the throne during the king's absence. While not the king, he acts with the authority of the king.

But trinitarians do not stop there, with moral equivalancy of the agent and his principal. Their dogma rests on the ultimate threat; if you do not believe this you are damned to hell forever. To merely apologize that the 1 god is a 3-in-1 god is absurd enough. To rest on this as a condition of salvation is a necessary proposition to logically defend. Thus, trinitarianism overplays its hand.

Trinitarianism is like global warming alarmists. So obsessed with the 'science' they completely fail to connect it to the moral they want, the political action they desire. Trinitarians are so obsessed with the man-is-god thesis, they completely fail to connect it to the moral they want, the 'believe it is a condition of salvation' they desire.
 
Last edited:

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No offense taken. But I do not see Trinitarianism as sharing much with Sabellianism, given that the latter renders Father and Son as effectively identical. Sabellius did not accept the Son's distinctiveness and individuality -- related concepts that are an element of "personhood" -- and how they may be melded in a single unique substance.

Let's try an analogy as a first approximation. Consider the visible spectrum of light waves at frequencies between the limits of infrared and ultraviolet. The colors are distinct.

White is not on the spectrum, because white is not a “color” at all. Rather, white light is produced by combining the colors of the spectrum. More generally, white light is produced in combining three primary colors – red, green and blue. Thus combined, the distinct colors are not separate. Distinct but not separate. Three colors. One light.

View attachment 25087

And the question becomes, can we say the same of the Godhead? The question is whether in the one God, "personhood" is distinct, yet -- in the "meld" -- not separate. Three "persons." One God.

This is where "personhood" in the context of a Trinity starts to limp a bit. We can think of a human being as partaking in the essence of "humanity" (however that essence may be defined) despite being a separate "person." But we are constrained in thinking of Father and Son and Holy Spirit as partaking in the essence of "deity" while still being considered a separate "person" as soon as we define the essence of "deity" to include singularity. If that is our interpretation of the Shema, thinking of Father Son and Holy Spirit as distinct "persons" won't work.

But if we think of Father, Son and Holy Spirit not as persons but as persona -- a concept which the Greek word prosōpon expresses rather well (an actor’s mask, a character, a face) -- we can still include singularity in the essence of "deity." The one God’s triune nature persists in each of these three "faces," forming a single God in the same way that joining three triangles edge to edge with a common apex form what we know as a tetrahedron. In that unity lies the shared essence -- in my analogy the essence of "tetrahedronness," if you will. Without the three, there is not the One.

Sabellius would never have agreed with this, because what separates Trinitarianism from Modalist thinking is the necessity of the meld (without the three, there is not the One) to conceptualize the Godhead.

I can agree in part with your observation that Trinitarianism is "superimposing its obvious and undeniable pagan philosophical framework and foundation onto the word of God." I could agree entirely if we removed "pagan" and "onto the word of God" from your characterization, for Trinitaranism surely is "superimposing an obvious and undeniable philosophical framework and foundation" -- onto the early Church's understanding of and attempt to express the nature of the Son. The early church fathers weren't pagans; they were simply struggling to put their understanding into language -- language which (like all human languages) is born out of human experiences of the empirical world and for that reason is inherently unsuited to express theological concepts.
RF-Mr. Cornell Univ. A great school of learning by the way..

I also comprehend this 3 primary color in one white light analogy as a representation of a Triune God.

There is also another one on a broader spectrum (pun intended)

EM-Light-Spectrum-2-with-color.jpg


These types of analogies and metaphors do not draw me spiritually to the one God in my heart or in his written word. It has no power that causes change in my life. If it did then you are actually on to something.

And I still wonder how can a Trinitarian place faith in one of these human models and even consider it an idol for worship?

These are like human attempts to illustrate God, and there is nothing wrong with doing this as we are a curious lot. As long as we know these are human level depictions of how we can see God on human terms.

You know before I knew Christ and his Father in a personal way, I used to try and formulate God using mathematics and science as here, and not as a Triune God either, just as the one person only; ironically, as I was taught by the nuns.

Also, the use of the word Godhead is not really an accurate English term or 'Godhood' as was used in middle English. It means the Divinity of God and its source. And this source in in the one person, the Father God and no other person.
-------------------------------
Let me clarify why Trinitarianism is a special form of Modalism....or it really is an outgrown of it with other embedded concepts.

Modalism = 3 persons of god are separate states of god, and to use a simple and inaccurate analogy it how water in a container can be liquid, and ice near its surface and water vapor in the upper surrounding atmosphere. Describing texture.

Partialism = 3 persons of god are each individual portions or parts of the realm of divinity which, together, make god. Describing persons

Now inject into this mix a dimensional variable: 3 distinct planes of operation for this Modal/Partial analogy. Describing operational planes.

The Father operates on the top plane, really his own Spirit, operates on the middle plane, and the Son on the lower plane.

So we can 'see' god operation in 3 parts on 3 planes simultaneously. This is a form of modalism.

Now the crux of it that binds it all together. If the lower planes are considered imperfect forms or reflections of the upper plane(s) then there are no 3 separate modes of operation.

The 3 planes say are for the top down 1. heaven-celestial, 2. mental-intellect bridge between spiritual and mind, and 3. terrestrial - physical movement.

Each person on their respective plane of operation is one person of the one combined god, and that each person on their plane is also god themselves.

Voila => Triune god!! And Trinitarianism is a SPECIAL form of Modalism. a triune god reflected in at least 3 planes - could be more.

Still, even this is not the one YHWH, the Father of all spirits....

Great Day!
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
inaccurate analogy it how water in a container can be liquid, and ice near its surface and water vapor in the upper surrounding atmosphere.
What I love is how trinitarians react to their analogies breaking down. In this case, water exists in 4 phases, not 3. They just ignore it. @Aunty Jane wrote a piece a few months back delving into the Pagan origins for the fascination with the number 3.

I think @RedFan knows the logic supporting the trinity is sophistry. I admire his unique effort to explicitly state the case using logic as well as can be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,853
9,590
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Logically, this is how I see it.
  • The Shema is defined as one God. So when Jesus was walking on earth and God was in heaven at the same time, how many Gods would you count?
    • A young child would easily say two.
  • How could God be tempted by Satan, in the three temptations of Christ?
    • I refuse to believe God would worship Satan. Satan isn't an idiot and wouldn't have tried if it was impossible.
    • How would that work if Jesus had failed his mission on earth and worshiped Satan?
I just can't buy this Trinity doctrine.
Welcome Monte, you have friends here even those that do not share your Theology.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How could God be tempted by Satan, in the three temptations of Christ?
  • I refuse to believe God would worship Satan.

The trinitarian explanation for this is anti-logic, the mystical principle of dualism. Not only is God 3-in-1, one of those is 2-in-1. Then, they show off their anti-logic math skills and claim this 2-in-1 person of the godhead is 100% god and 100% not god (man). Maybe that needs to be propostion #9?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
974
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From your list of propositions, #1 & #2 are direct and explicitly stated in Scripture. Not the case with #3 and #5. Beyond that, your list of propositions excludes the primary point of contention, that salvation depends on believing the trinity is true.

It is interesting that you mention this type of stridency exhibited by many Trinitarians, Wrangler. I've seen it myself from time to time. Let me go on record right here as saying that I do NOT consider belief in the Trinity as a requirement for salvation. In fact, I think such a position is completely untenable, and I'd be happy to debate the point with my fellow Trinitarians on another post. If this has indeed become the "primary point of contention," then the cart is in front of the horse. We first need to put the horse through its paces.

One reason to discredit such a presumed requirement for salvation is that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved over a couple of centuries; it was not hatched fully grown in the first century -- yet many saints from that time nevertheless found salvation.

But articulation of the notion was not far behind. We have, for example, the early second century Second Epistle of Clement (sometimes attributed to Clement of Rome, although Eusebius would disagree), whose opening sentence states "Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God." A pretty remarkable comment (I literally spent the entire day thinking about why someone would write this when I first came across the Epistle back in my early twenties). And there are many like it from the patristic era.

On reading Clement's opening phrase, Anti-Trinitarians might comment "Can you imagine the schmaltz of this guy?" I have a different take. The author was giving a thoughtful sermon, urging his audience to be thoughtful on the topic too. Let's take a step back and be thoughtful as well before we dismiss the author as simply off-base -- or worse, as a polytheist. No doubt many in the second century thought this type of notion as polytheistic. (Thus did Tertullian bemoan “The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One) . . . They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods.”) This stuff was being preached well more than a century before Nicaea. And not as an outlier, either.

Anyway, belief in the Trinity does not make my short list of things that must be believed in order for one to be saved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

Monte McGuire

New Member
Aug 6, 2022
15
16
3
57
Wichita, KS
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God tells us the relationship between God and Jesus is Father/son. The Bible is literally full of passages about this. Wouldn’t a better relationship idea be brothers? Since they are relatively equal. A young child would understand this idea. Try telling that child he is equal to his father and he might laugh.
 

Michiah-Imla

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2020
6,142
3,278
113
Northeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Their dogma rests on the ultimate threat; if you do not believe this you are damned to hell forever.

This I find most offensive because there is no scriptural standing for such an extreme position.

Not so much offensive that they see clues for a trinity…
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
974
456
63
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So overwhelming, in fact, that it's futile to argue about it, IMHO.

I hope, Farouk, that we are discussing the same thing here -- the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit (rather than mere Scriptural references to their existence) and how to square that notion with Jewish monotheism while still retaining separate "personhood" for each.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ was literally God incarnate. But reasonable minds can differ over whether such a notion can be distilled from John 1:14 and other Scriptural passages -- and if you can manage to put confirmation bias aside, I think you will acknowledge these passages as being somewhat ambiguous on the issue. So, what is the right interpretation?

It is my thesis that the early Christian Church DID believe that "God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh" (to quote the Apology of Aristides, circa 125 C.E.). I am focused on the currency of the notion within the early Church as a whole -- a subject which few of us pay enough attention to -- because I think discerning how the early Church understood these passages is an important datum in picking the right interpretation. But a logical defense of the notion still remains to be mounted. And I'm happy to weigh your $0.02 on that subject, unless you just think it is likewise "futile to argue about."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
One reason to discredit such a presumed requirement for salvation is that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved over a couple of centuries; it was not hatched fully grown in the first century -- yet many saints from that time nevertheless found salvation.
Redfan, you are a good man. :)

Strident Trinitarians insist the doctrine was always in place, starting in Genesis 1.

I read a booka few years ago about why Christianity needs to change. It was written by a Bishop. In it, he delved into the obvious evolving theology even within the Apostolic writings of Scripture. One example I recall him using was when Jesus became the son of god. The earliest text reads after the resurrection. A later text reads when his birth was announced. The latest written text reads (or implies) from the beginning of time.

So, the Christian Bishop said honest Christians should be embarassed that such obvious evolving theology was happening in the life time of those who walked with Jesus, the later the text, the earlier Jesus was announced as God's son.

This is an interesting piece of insight and we have to realize the truth of this is independent of salvation. I'm so glad you realize the truth of salvation does not depend on believing the trinity. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,801
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We have, for example, the early second century Second Epistle of Clement (sometimes attributed to Clement of Rome, although Eusebius would disagree), whose opening sentence states "Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God." A pretty remarkable comment (I literally spent the entire day thinking about why someone would write this when I first came across the Epistle back in my early twenties). And there are many like it from the patristic era.

On reading Clement's opening phrase, Anti-Trinitarians might comment "Can you imagine the schmaltz of this guy?" I have a different take. The author was giving a thoughtful sermon, urging his audience to be thoughtful on the topic too.
I can respect that as it aligns with Jesus defense of calling himself the son of god.

He did this by referenceing Ps 82:6. A few years ago I read the CEV translation. Ps 82:1 was the verse of the year for me. A biblical fact that Trinitarians rail against is the recognition of many true gods (lowercase). This is NOT to be taken as a defense of polytheism. Rather the term "god" in Ps 82 (and many other places in Scripture) refers to those in authority to either make law or judge those by the law.

Ps 82:6 references many sons of god, making it an Affirmative Defense for Jesus. I have more to say on this subject will hold my fire, not wanting to derail your thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan