The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: Are you a Trinitarian?

Let us be gentle in our differences, and I will agree not to quench a warm heart with cold counsel, if trins can agree likewise, for my heart is warm also, toward our common Father.

I answered ‘no’.
I do not accept the Athanasian Creed:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. …(and here I’ve deleted about 7,344 sentences that expound the same thing - yes I exaggerate)…And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

I DO believe that trinitarian language is a powerful way of describing, not what is ontologically true - I don’t think it is , BUT is perhaps as close as we can get to describing God. We want and actually have a God who answers to our overwhelming personal needs.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - speaks directly to the problem of man’s finitude, estrangement, and ambiguities of Life, as Tilllich writes, “The questions arising out of man’s finitude are answered by the doctrine of God the Father and the symbols used in it. The questions arising out of man’s estrangement are answered by the doctrine of Christ and the symbols applied to it. The questions arising out of the ambiguities of llife are answered by the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and its symbols.”

The doctrine of the Trinity, though not scriptural - yes, just my opinion - is the best way that mankind has come up with to describe someone who is greater than all description.

I totally accept the Apostle’s Creed:

  1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
  2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
  3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
  4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
  5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
  6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
  7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
  8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
  9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
  10. The forgiveness of sins:
    1l. The resurrection of the body:
  11. And the life everlasting. Amen.

I votes “yes, fairly sure”. If there are any doubts, it wouldn’t be about Jesus. I don’t see how anyone could worship Jesus, which the disciples and others did do, and not be breaking the first couple of commandments if, in fact, Jesus was not somehow God. At any rate, I don’t think God would hold us to an honest mistake if Jesus wasn’t God. But there is ample evidence, IMO, that He was and is God in the flesh.

Rather any reservations I have about the Nature of God stem on whether the Holy Spirit is a separate entity from God the Father. Jesus said, “God is Spirit…”, which I assume He is speaking of God the Father, in which case the distinction is unclear. So at worst I’m binitarian.

While there is evidence in scripture to support trinitarianism (Isaiah 48:16, Matthew 28:19, Luke 3:21-22 (baptism), I John 5:7-8, I Cor 13:14), it is difficult to define the differences between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit (whether it be God the father, or a separate entity) is vital to the Christian life. Our bodies are temple of the Holy Spirit, which can only dwell in us because of Jesus Christ.

However, speaking of temples, in Revelation 21:22-23, we are told that in the New Jerusalem the temple IS the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb, and they both are the source of light in it. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit. Of course, the Holy Spirit could be continiously dwelling in the glorified bodies of the Children of the Kingdom. But then again, if God the Father is Spirit, there is no reason to think that it is God the Father whose Spirit dwells in us.

It’s all pretty confusing to me. I don’t think it is that important to try to figure that all out. The important thing is to be responsive and sensitive to the Spirit, and His workings as He indwells the believer, whatever the Nature of God is.

And it’s not only difficult to define the differences between the Father and Spirit, but also some of the differences between Jesus and the Sprit; because the one could not be sent without the departure of the other! One of my problems with trinitarianism is its attempt to fit God into a box that is too small to fit him in, and its attempt to explain the essentially unexplainable. It is true that there is support for the idea in scripture, but there is also support against the idea as well.
I do believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all manifestations of God, but that’s as far as I’m willing to take it.

Interesting Dave, that you should mention the creeds. Here is the Nicene Creed in its original form:

Notice the statement that the Son of God was “begotten of the Father before all ages.” This creed was accepted even by the early Trinitarians. They agreed that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages.” But the later Trinitarians began to realize that this statement was inconsistent with Trinitarian thought. So they altered the phrase to “eternally begotten” (whatever that means).

“For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords,** nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father**, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.” But not in all is there this knowledge. Now some, used hitherto to the idol, are eating of it as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, being weak, is being polluted." Now food will not give us a standing with God, neither, if we should not be eating are we in want, nor if we should be eating are we cloyed" (1Co 8:5-8).

The above is telling me there is one God, Who is the Father and Who is the source of all. And there is one Lord, Who is the channel of all.

I believe it is possible to not be Trinitarian and still believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus. I am not a Oneness person either. I just hope that in so stating my position that I am not on the outs with some here. I certainly don’t hold it against anyone who believes in Trinitarianism.

Here is my view of the Trinity doctrine that Constantine forced the church to adopt.

I like the quotes that the O.P. uses as it fits into my world view of all of us seeking the Father within us the way Jesus taught.

If you look up Jung and Freud’s Father Complex, you will see that the ancients were likely aware of this complex and how our minds worked.

It is all normal and natural as it is our instincts to be the fittest Father that is pushing us to seek the Father/God as defined as the best rules and laws to live life by.

To define god any other way is anathema to how the ancients thought.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, “The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it.”

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, “God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning.”


Which texts was Origen referring to?

Surely there are texts we cannot take literally such as a two bladed sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth or Jesus being a little lamb on the throne in Revelation. But we surely can take as literal that “for us there is one God, the Father,” (written by a saved Jew who used to be a Pharisee of Pharisees, the apostle Paul.)

The old Jewish view was and to some still says that if any part of a text is found to be wrong, the whole text becomes suspect.

The bible begins with a talking serpent so if we are to stop reading literally at that point in scriptures, then none of them should be read literally. … exodus.htm

These days, only the really foolish will believe that Yahweh would literally flood the whole earth or that Moses really wrote of his own death.

BTW, no one really knows who wrote the various books of the bible.

Peter, Paul and Mary are not even eastern names. They are English.


If God, Who created the entire universe can make a donkey talk, why cannot he make it so a serpent can communicate (however it communicated) with Eve? Maybe it used some sort of ESP? Today we have learned that Prairie Dogs have a language in which they can tell or warn other prairie dogs in the area if a woman or man or other animal is going through their area and even inform other prairie dogs of the color they are wearing. In other words, the Prairie Dogs have communication abilities to differentiate between a man and a woman and a dog or a child and colors.

There was a world-wide flood. Study Polystrate Trees found around the world. Why would God have Noah take 100 years to build a massive ark if the flood was to be local to the Mesopotamian region? Noah could have taken a few days off and walked all the animals out of that area.

Some say the strata layers are millions of years old each. Polystrate trees disprove this notion since a tree doesn’t take millions of years to grow through different layers of sedimentary layers. And many Polystrate trees are upside down.

This is caused by a sudden deposition of sediment such as a massive flood would bring about. This is also seen in the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens where there are trees encased in layers of sediment after they were blown into the lake by the volcanic blast then sediment encased them. Some trees were upside down as well.

Is there no end to your regression?

Is there no end to your immorality.

As Ingersoll said; ‘no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.’


Why do you ask?

Ingersoll was wrong.
No one would be fit for heaven who thought they could be their own saviour.

Christ had to be a spotless lamb who was crucified from the disruption of the world as the bible says.

It wasn’t an ordinary serpent that talked to Eve. If we can accept contents of the book of Revelation as a revelation from God to Jesus, who then made it known to John through an angel (Rev 1:1), then we know who that old serpent was:

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Revelation 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Now why would God be such a prick and cast Satan and her minions to earth, knowing she could deceive the whole earth?

Why put Satan in Eden knowing that Eve could not resist her?

Yahweh is either the vilest and stupidest God that man has created, or he really wanted A & E to eat of the tree of knowledge.


No, God is wise and knows what He is doing.

He needed Satan to hoodwink Eve. Right after the pair sinned God gave them the evangel which eventually came true in the person of Christ.

While God’s revealed will was that Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it was at the same time His hidden intention that they do eat of it.

Paul asked: “Who has withstood His intention?” in Romans 9 Actually no one has.[/size]

So God punish A & E for doing what he wanted.

That does not make him less of a prick, it makes him more of a prick.

You are to emulate your God.

Do you beat your children when they do what you want them to do?

If so, you know what that makes you. Right?


That’s right. He did. But not just Adam and Eve, the whole human race had death passed through into them due to Adam’s one act of disobedience.

Only if that is the final goal He was after. The goal is that by Christ’s one righteous act, the same all mankind will be made righteous.

I’m sure you do a nice job of that yourself.

I’m not God.

No, I’m not God.

“God is working all together for good.”

As Ingersoll said; ‘no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.’


Ingersoll is not in the Bible. He is blind and does not understand the evangel.

One does not have to be to know what good morals are.

Your bible has corrupted your morals.


If humans could save themselves, Christ need not have died for our sins.