Can Christians live without the doctrine of Trinity?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
21

The fundamental issue with rejecting the trinitarian nature of God (besides it being an heresy) is that it fails to account for how God can be love in His very essence. Within the Trinity, the relationship among the three divine persons is one of mutual love and self-giving; without this, God would be conceived as solitary and potentially arbitrary, as in the Islamic understanding. By contrast, Christians affirm that God is love in His very being, and that love is inherently self-giving and relational.

Hence the trinitarian nature of the one God.

2 Likes
22

Scripture is not monotheism. Look at the first commandment.
“You shall have no other gods before me. (Exo 20:3). There is no point of this commandment if the scripture is monotheism. The point of this commandment was there were many gods existing in this world, but for the Israel, they should worship only one God. And the verses that you quote above make sense in the context that no other gods is like our God who is the creator of all.

I am not saying that I am certain that Jesus is actually another God. However, the existence of Jesus is enigma in light of several passages of the scriptures that says about “the Jesus” in the OT.

Of course there is an additional problem with God the Holy Spirit. I think this is an even greater problem and required another council just to put the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.

23

I hate to say this because it might sound very rude and what you are saying is a common understanding among evangelical christians. My question is since when and how we know how the three persons in the Godhead operate? We talked as if we know exactly the relationship of the three divine persons is one of mutual love and self giving: without this, God would be conceived as solitary and potentially arbitrary? Do we learn this from the bible or we came to our own conclusion of what kind of relationship that this three persons in one should have?
Sorry, but as I said before. I sound quite harsh.

24

I think the fundamental issue with rejecting the trinitarian nature of God because it is not revealed in the Bible, but a human logical conclusion of perhaps a wrong premise.

25

This could reflect both monolatrism and monotheism. The reality was that some people worshiped several idols (‘gods’). The point of the commandment was that you should not do that. The people seemed to believe that the other ‘gods’ were real powers, so to them it was monolatry. To be accurate, the commandment itself does not tell whether the other ‘gods’ were just material images or heavenly ‘powers’.

26

If you are coming from asian countries or africans, then you might learn more about the reality of this other powers whether heavenly or evil.

27

I am actually looking for biblical support for trinitarian. What you are presenting are actually premises and make a logical conclusion out of it in the form of a trinitarian doctrine that actually contradicts some of passages in the Bible that specifically mentioned that the Father is greater. The Father gives the authority. The Son submits to the father. All these passages if interpreted literally and in context contradicted the conclusion of the trinitarian doctrine.

I know you are strong on logic. If you have a conclusion of several premises, then that conclusion should be supported by all range of biblical passages. Even if one passage contradicts the conclusion, then one might have to go back to the drawing board and perhaps reach another alternative answer that might satisfies that passages. If there are many passages that contradicts that conclusion, that one might assume that the conclusion is perhaps incorrect and pursue another answer.

28

Not only among evangelicals i suppose, as I’m Catholic. :sweat_smile:

Anyway, as far as the Trinity and the Bible:

  1. Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
  2. John 10:30: “ I and the Father are one.” Jesus always affirms to be distinct from the Father. And yet they are one. Hence Jesus is God.
  3. John 14:16-17: “ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him, because he lives with you now and later will be in you.” Another Advocate implies that Jesus is one (and He is also one with the Father), and the Holy Spirit is another one, distinct but sharing the same divine nature.
  4. Acts 5:3-4: “But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God, hence the Holy Spirit is God.
  5. 1 Peter 1:2: “ chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
  6. 2 Cor 13:13: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all“.

As for God being love…

  1. 1 John 4:8: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”.
  2. 1 John 4:16: “And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.”

And love is relational by nature. There is no “solitary” love, there is no love without “another” to love. A non relational love is not love at all. And the Bible doesn’t just affirm that God loves, the Bible affirms clearly that God IS love. Hence He must be relational in His very nature, if He is love.

3 Likes
29

I believe there are beings that could be called ‘heavenly’ because they are not part of this material creation. Some of them could be called ‘fallen’ or ‘evil’, like the ‘unclean spirits’ that we call ‘demons’.

That does not reveal whether the idols that were worshipped were just material handwork or whether there was a non-material being associated with the worship of the material images. I assume that both options are possible, simultaneously - some worshipped real ‘powers’, others just material items that they believed represented a god.

1 Like
30

I think the passages you’re referring to need to be read in light of the incarnation, not as statements about Christ’s divine nature itself.

The New Testament explicitly affirms that Christ is fully divine. For example, John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” Even more explicitly, Philippians 2:6 says that Christ, “being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” That’s a very strong statement: He is not merely similar to God—He is described as equal with God.

And Colossians 2:9 reinforces this: “in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.” Not partially, not representatively, but the fullness of divinity.

So whatever “inferiority” we see in the Gospels cannot be about His divine nature.

The same passage in Philippians 2 continues by saying that He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.” In other words, the Son willingly entered a condition of humility, obedience, and dependence. This is not a loss of divinity, but an assumption of a servant role.

So when Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), He is speaking as the incarnate Son, the one who has been sent and who lives out a real human condition of submission.

In short:

  • As to His divine nature → Christ is ontologically equal to God the father, distinct as a divine person but equally divine.

  • As to His incarnate mission and human nature → He takes a subordinate role

So these passages don’t contradict the Trinity; they actually make sense within a framework where Christ is fully divine, yet willingly assumes a position of humility in the incarnation.

1 Like
31

if we are talking about love in the Godhead, then a biblical passage came to my mind in John 15. It is not a mutual love. It is actually a hierarchical love.

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (John 15:9-10)

If you read the passages above, Jesus was saying that the love started from the Father to His Son. Why? because of Jesus’ obedience to the Father’s command. And Jesus abide is His Father’s love. That same relationship is between Jesus and His disciples.

I am always confused why people always used this passage for trinitarian doctrine without proper interpretation. First thing, by saying “I and the Father are one” and if we look at Jesus prayer at John 17 20-26. “one” here does not mean equal. “one” here does not mean Jesus is the same God as the Father”.

32

Jesus had also a human nature and in His human nature He was certainly subordinate to the Father.

33

not sure if you can interpret all these passage in light of the incarnation. One obvious passage to note is from 1 Cor 15:24-28

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

Obviously Jesus is talking about the end times when everything will be subjected to him (beyond incarnation) and then the Son himself will also be subjected to him.
I wonder if you have another explanation for this passage.

This passage intrigued me and forced me to do a more thorough study on kenosis. The word used for grasped (Harpagmos) meaning “robbery”. Meaning that equality with God is not something Jesus strived for (grasped). Meaning that Jesus was not equal with God the Father. and if we look on verse 9.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

Why did God the Father highly exalted Jesus if Jesus was already equal with the Father. How can the Father give Jesus something higher than Jesus had before. The sentence only make sense if God the Father actually gives Jesus the higher authority than ever before his incarnation. if not, verse 9 makes no sense.

34

Are you saying that Jesus was not obedient to the Father’s command prior to His incarnation and did not depend on His Father’s love?

35

So you are thinking that how we/Church/Revelation defines God must be in a way completely understandable and that makes perfect sense to us? Honestly, I would argue the Trinity gives credence to Christianity.

Nichola of Cusa (1401-1464) was a philosopher, theologian, bishop and cardinal. He wrote a work called De Deo Abscondito which had a fictional dialogue between a pagan and a Christian.

The Scene: A pagan approaches a Christian he finds deep in prayer. He asks the Christian to identify the God he worships.

The Pagan spoke: I see that you have most devoutly prostrated yourself and are shedding tears of love—not hypocritical tears but heartfelt ones. Who are you I ask?
Christian: I am a Christian.
Pagan: What are you worshiping?
Christian: God.
Pagan: Who is this God whom you worship?
Christian: I don’t know.
Pagan: How is it that you worship so seriously that of which you have no knowledge?
Christian: Because I am without knowledge of Him, I worship Him.

“The paradox is stunning– only a God who cannot be fully comprehended, who is inexpressible Truth, could be the true God and worthy of our adoration.” – Baglow

God is not a being amongst money. He is the source of being itself. Absolutely our language and descriptors are going to start breaking down when it comes to God. The box that we want to put God in is a wee bit too small (a categorical understatement).

“I am that I am.”

Let me give you some advice. You don’t have to understand everything the Church or the Creeds teach. That is not a prerequisite for what is truth or what Christians should believe. If you deny the Trinity you have left the umbrella of Christianity.

Edited to add… and the earliest Church absolutely believed Jesus was the Creator of the universe. This stems back to Jesus himself where he repeatedly did things that said “I and the Father are one.”

Vinnie

4 Likes
36

There is always the issue of interpretation. We always have to interpret and we can only strive towards as correct interpretations as possible. In the most central teachings, the teaching is found in many passages in the Bible, such as the central role of Jesus in the salvation. The essence of Jesus is told mostly in less obvious ways, which easily brings some uncertainty to the interpretations.
If Jesus would have told directly that ‘I am JHVH’, his public career and probably his life would have ended at that point.

But why is the biblical text so crucial in this?
I am not a bibliolatrous Christian and I do not believe that everything important is told in the scriptures. For me, the key value of the Bible is that it is the most trustworthy document of the early apostolic teaching. The important point is the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles, the NT gets its authority from those teachings.
If some teaching is obviously against the biblical scriptures (canon), we may conclude that the teaching is against the early apostolic teaching.
If something is not told in the biblical scriptures, that only tells that it was not the focal point of the writers. If the biblical scriptures are silent about a question or if what is written is difficult to interpret, we need to estimate the potential answer indirectly or search from some other sources.

2 Likes
37

I think those are very important passages,they’re often central in this discussion.

1 Corinthians 15:24–28 (the Son “subjected” at the end)

This passage is actually one of the strongest examples of what Trinitarian theology calls an order of relations, not an inequality of nature.

Paul is describing the end of the Son’s mediatorial reign—that is, His role as the incarnate Messiah who conquers death and restores creation. After accomplishing this mission, the Son “hands over the kingdom” to the Father.

The key point is this:

  • The Son is already reigning as the risen Messiah (v.25)

  • This reign is tied to His role as the God-man and mediator

  • Once that mission is complete, He “subjects” the kingdom to the Father

So when it says “the Son himself will be subjected”, this is not about His divine nature becoming inferior, but about the completion of His redemptive role.

In other words:

  • This is about function and mission, not essence

  • The Son’s “subjection” reflects the eternal relational order (the Son from the Father), now expressed in the completed work of salvation

Importantly, Paul has already affirmed Christ’s divine status elsewhere (e.g., Colossians 2:9), so this cannot mean a denial of His divinity.

2. Philippians 2:6 and “harpagmos”

You mentioned that harpagmos could mean “something to be grasped” in the sense of “something not possessed.” That interpretation has been proposed, but it’s not the most widely accepted in scholarship.

Most scholars understand it more like: “something to be exploited” or “used to one’s advantage”

So the point is not:

  • that Christ lacked equality with God

but rather:

  • that He already possessed equality with God, yet did not cling to it or exploit it

That fits the flow of the passage:

  • v.6 → He is in the form of God and equal with God

  • v.7 → He empties Himself (not by losing divinity, but by taking on humanity)

  • v.8 → He humbles Himself to death

So the movement is: from highest status → to self-humbling

3. Why is He “exalted” (Philippians 2:9)?

This is a crucial question, and I think it actually supports the Trinitarian reading when understood correctly.

If Christ is already divine, what does it mean that God “highly exalted Him”?

The answer is that this exaltation refers to Christ as the incarnate and obedient Messiah, not to His divine nature in isolation.

In other words:

  • As God → He already possesses all glory eternally

  • As man → He is exalted, vindicated, and enthroned after His obedience

This is why the exaltation follows His death:

  • it is a reward for His obedience as the incarnate Son

And notice the result:

  • every knee bows to Jesus

  • every tongue confesses Him as Lord

This echoes Isaiah 45:23, where that universal worship belongs to YHWH alone—which strongly suggests Paul is including Jesus within the divine identity, not excluding Him from it.

So from a Trinitarian perspective, putting it all together:

  • 1 Corinthians 15 → describes the completion of the Son’s mediatorial mission, not an ontological inferiority

  • Philippians 2:6–9 → shows:

    • real equality with God

    • voluntary self-emptying in the incarnation

    • exaltation of the incarnate Son, not promotion from non-divine to divine

So the pattern is consistent: equality in nature, distinction in persons, order in role and mission

1 Like
38

Especially if we believe that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the successors of the Apostles—for example, by preventing ecumenical councils from teaching falsehoods to the people of God.

39

Yes, as long as we remember the caveats.

The farther we go from the ‘original’ teaching, the higher the risk that the teaching diverts from the original. If a teaching has ecumenical support (a wide agreement among Christians coming from different backgrounds) and does not conflict with the early apostolic teaching (especially the biblical scriptures), we may accept such a teaching even if it is not in the earliest documents (canon).

A common problem with these later additions is that there is not ecumenical acceptance. One group says one thing as the will of God, another one tells something disagreeing. In such a situation, it is not always obvious which teaching originates from the Holy Spirit. A confidence that our group is lead by the Holy Spirit is not a sufficient proof of being correct. Even a church council may be lead to wrong tracks.
Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

1 Like
40

Sure. In the end, it comes down to whether one believes that God has permitted His Church to define falsehoods as dogma. I hold that the successors of the apostles have been preserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, which is why I am Catholic. That said, I recognize that other Christians sincerely hold different perspectives.

I disagree.

Yep. Absolutely.