As a christian, I must confess that I am struggling with the doctrine of trinity. I found the doctrine to be incomprehensible and what is more …. it is not revealed directly in the Bible. I looked at the history of theology and how the doctrine came to be and still are confused. How can human beings are able to define God (as in the traditional teaching of Trinity) as such? How can we define God by human ingenuity and creativity? The first 300 years of the early church were doing just fine without this doctrine. Now that we have access to the Bible and as I have the commitment to go back to the biblical source and only the Bible. I don’t see how I should embrace this doctrine of Trinity. Actually, I even believe that the Apostles and early church Fathers did not have any idea of the doctrine of Trinity. So my question is Why this doctrine of Trinity has become the pillar of faith in Christian belief today while no one can define it perfectly or even understand it completely. Can we just do away with this doctrine without any problems with the church today? Perhaps it might be easier to evangelise to a muslim without this doctrine.
What happened the last time that was tried?
I don’t think oneness pentecostalism or unitarian is biblical either.
The last time “Jesus Only/Oneness” was tried at scale (in Pentecostalism starting in 1913), it triggered a “New Issue” controversy that ended in institutional line-drawing (notably the 1916 AG fundamentals statement) and a lasting denominational split—Oneness groups became separate fellowships rather than replacing Trinitarian Christianity.
I guess the term itself is a bit problematic because it is theological jargon - a theological term that was invented to label a whole packet of teachings about God, the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There would maybe be less questions if we would just speak about our heavenly Father, the Son (Jesus, Immanuel) and the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) instead of ‘Trinity’.
The early Christians did not have the theological terminology we have now, which makes the literature diverse. Yet, the basic points of the teaching about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit can be found from the biblical scriptures. It is just a matter of interpreting the texts and combining these to a holistic teaching packet about our God.
The Alexandrian priest Arius believed that Jesus was just a created being but could not justify his interpretation to the contemporary theologians. Arius seemed to be a better politician than theologian and managed to get the support of the emperor for his interpretations. Because the Emperor of Rome was also the head of the Christians, the church was forced to teach the doctrines of Arius. Those who would not sign the ‘anti-trinitarian’ doctrines were smoked out of church positions. That lead to a century when the teaching of the ‘official’ church was not trinitarian. That period shows that it is possible to have ‘anti-trinitarian’ teaching in the church; the church would not immediately collapse because of that. Yet, the decisions of the first ecumenical council shows that the vast majority of the theologians and Christian leaders saw that the trinitarian teaching was so strong in the scriptures and church tradition that they rejected the ‘anti-trinitarian’ teachings of Arius.
Since then, there has been a wide agreement that we can see the ‘trinitarian’ teaching in the scriptures although the theological term is not used in the biblical scriptures. When possible and wise, it may be better to speak about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit instead of ‘Trinity’, although both refer to the same teaching.
The Oneness movement may also bring a need to think how to speak. We have adjusted the baptism ‘liturgy’ so that as many as possible can accept the baptism as valid. We ‘… baptize into Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’. That wording seems to be ok for most Christians.
Do you affirm that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are each truly God, and yet God is one—and that the Son is not the Father and the Spirit is not the Son?
it is a loaded theological term with detail definition that goes beyond the scope of the Bible such as “coequal”, three person in one God. Of course the Bible is teaching about The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not sure why we need to put them in a box of a doctrine.
Unfortunately, Arius also went beyond the scope of the Bible when he mentioned that Jesus was just a created being. That is where the heresy lies. Actually the teaching of Arius that Jesus is of “similar substance” instead of “one substance” is quite acceptable in my view.
Yes. The trinity is not a mandatory interpretation. It’s a coined term for a religious interpretation and not all agree that it’s in the bible. I don’t believe in the trinity what so ever. I don’t even believe that the Holy Spirit is some kind of living conscious self aware being.
It’s not even mandatory to believe that Jesus is God. I don’t. I think Jesus was a man made equal to god. Maybe.
Jehova witnesses don’t believe in the trinity and they believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel made flesh.
Anything that’s not clear in the bible is usually not because of some magical scales over their eyes preventing them from seeing it. It’s because it’s not there and no people are reading between the lines.
You have some verses like this.
John 14:28 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
Mark 10:18 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
John 17:3 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
There are other verses often used as prooftexts for why Jesus is God. I’ll mention them later. I’ll probably edit them in but I am about to go hiking. It’s 5am and don’t have the 20 minutes to finish this right now. Driving an hour to pick up a friend and then she and I are driving another 2 hours and going hiking and then to get breakfast and then I’ll drive another 30 minutes further east and drop her off at her boyfriends house but I’m going to my doctors on Friday and then I’ll driven and met them halfway and bring her back to her house. Just kind of worked out this week that I’ll be going pretty close to there. Plus he’s going to help me change my 4 brakes and rotate all my tires. I can do it alone, but why not. Plus he’s been a mechanic for 8 years or so.
for that we have to go back to the teaching of the Bible.
And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken. (ez 34:23-24)
The one who spoke in this passage is obviously God the Father. And he will set over Israel His servant David (presumable Jesus the Son). Wait a minute. Why does God the Father is calling God the Son as His servant David who is supposedly coequal with Him and is actually one with Him (if according to the definition of the trinitarian doctrine). It does not make sense to me. Do I believe that God is one. Yes, but that God is always the Father. What about when we study about the Lord’s prayer? Why did Jesus ask his followers to pray to the Father, not to Jesus nor to the Holy Spirit? Only to the Father.
I do not remember the teachings of Arius in detail but at least, he told that ‘there was a time when he [the Son] was not’. That is in conflict with the teaching that the Son [Logos] has always been with the Father.
Personally, I think that the nature of God is a mystery for us humans. We cannot know or understand the reality of God. The teaching about the heavenly Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit may be the best approximation we can understand. Very detailed formulations about the essence of God may be attempts that confuse more than helps, although I understand the original need to exclude such interpretations that were understood as heresies.
You also never see the phrase “ god the son” only the father is ever directly called god like “god the father” and Jesus is called “the son of god” which is not the name as “Jesus the son our god.”
that is where the heresy of the teaching of Airus lies when he went beyond the scope of the Bible to define who Jesus was when the Bible was silent about that.
true. A classmate of mine in my seminary day who was a close friend of Norman Geiser said in the class. “I don’t understand the trinity, but I believe it in faith.” But why? it is not a revelation in the Bible. It is a formulation created by human ingenuity after centuries of early church. Since when our knowledge of God is based on human ingenuity instead of revelation from God.
In Hebrews 1:8 the Father says to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” When Scripture calls the Son “God,” do you accept that plainly? Or do you reinterpret it? If you reinterpret it, on what textual basis?
actually look at the greeting of Paul, James and Peter in their epistles. They always differentiate between the Father and the Son.
To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Roma 1:7)
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, (Gal 1:3)
Greeting
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:
Greetings. (James 1:1)
Born Again to a Living Hope
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Pet 3)
Not to mention that God the Holy Spirit is being left out in all these greetings.
Actually I accept that plainly. God the Father is talking about Jesus. Then the question arise : Who is Jesus? Is it possible that when the OT is talking about God is one, it is talking about God the Father? Then who is Jesus? It is a mystery actually. Is it a heresy to say that Jesus is actually another God beside the Father who is begotten from the Father?
Jesus might be the one visible God who appears to Moses as “the Angel of the Lord”. He is also might be the one who is mention as the “son of man” in Daniel apart from the Ancient of day. He might be the one who was mentioned in Psalms “The Lord (Father) says to my Lord (Jesus)”
It is interesting to note that the ancient Israel actually believed in monolatry.
Yes: that is exactly the line Scripture warns you not to cross.
-
Scripture is explicit that there is only one God — not “God + another God.”
- Deut 6:4 “The LORD is one.”
- Isa 43:10 “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”
- Isa 44:6 “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”
- Isa 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
So yes: saying “Jesus is another God beside the Father” is contradicted by Scripture’s own monotheism.
-
Yet Scripture also calls Jesus “God” (as he just admitted).
- Heb 1:8 (Father to Son) “Your throne, O God…”
- John 20:28 “My Lord and my God.”
- John 1:1 “the Word was God.”
So the Bible forces both truths:
- One God.
- Jesus is called God.
- Therefore the “mystery” has boundaries: not two gods, but one God in a way that includes Father and Son without collapsing them into the same person.
Jesus asked a question that shut the mouths of those learned who opposed him: why did David call his descendant (assumedly the coming Messiah) his Lord?
The scriptures need to be interpreted in the context where they were written. I am not the correct person to tell about the teachings of the Second Temple judaism (I know very little about that topic). Yet, I have read that there was an understanding of ‘two Jahveh’: a distant Jahveh in the Heaven while Jahveh could also appear to humans on Earth. There are examples in the stories of the Hebrew Bible: to whom did Moses speak to ‘face-to-face’?; whom did Elijah see on the mountain?; who did Abram meet at his tent (three persons, two were angels but who was the third?); etc. These suggest that God could be both in the Heaven and on the Earth in the form of a human.
A key point is that Jesus was both a human and God. As a human, he was lower than the heavenly Father. Jesus lived the life of a human, with the limitations of humans. When the scriptures speak about the human side (descendant of David), that is lower than the Father.
In him (Jesus), the secret plan of God was revealed: he united what was in Heaven and on Earth.