I think itâs interesting that it was not until I had abandoned the âsacred cowâ of ECT that I felt freer to begin to question other âsacred cowsâ (like the Trinity)!
One common Trinitarian objection to Unitarianism is that, according to certain verses from Johnâs Gospel (John 1:1-3; 6:38; 8:58; 12:41; 16:28; 17:5), Jesus pre-existed in heaven as a divine person before his conception. The following is a (relatively) brief examination of these verses (there are a few more verses thought to support this doctrine in the Pauline epistles, but Iâll hold off on covering those for now).
- âIn the beginning was the word, and the word was with God ton theon], and the word was God theos]. He was in the beginning with God ton theon]. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was madeâ (John 1:1-3).
It is inferred by Trinitarians that âthe wordâ (ho logos) which was âwith Godâ (pros ton theon) âin the beginningâ is a personal being (i.e., the Son of God, or âGod the Sonâ). But the Unitarian believes there is a better understanding of this verse: the âwordâ that was âwith God in the beginningâ is not the Son of God; rather, the Son of God is the human being (or âfleshâ) which the word âbecameâ when Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary (v. 14; cf. Luke 1:30-35). But what then is the âwordâ that was âwith God in the beginning?â Answer: the âwordâ or logos here refers to the spoken word of God by which God brought everything into existence, and which is the expression of Godâs wisdom, purpose and character:
âIn the beginning, God created the heavens and the earthâŚand God saidâŚâ (Gen 1:1, 3)
âBy the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their hostâŚFor he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firmâ (Ps. 33:6, 9).
âHe sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructionâ (Ps. 107:20).
âHe sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftlyâŚHe sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flowâŚHe declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israelâ (Ps. 147:15, 18-19).
âIt is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehousesâ (Jer 10:12-13).
ââŚby the word (logos) of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by waterâŚâ (2 Pet 3:5).
Consider especially Isaiah 55:10-11:
âFor as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent itâ (Isa. 55:10-11).
Although personified, the âwordâ of God (which is said to go out from Godâs mouth and accomplish the purpose for which God sends it) is not literally a person. But being Godâs word (and thus the expression of his wisdom, purpose and character), it is divine in nature, and may thus be said to be âtheos.â Note that John refers to the âwordâ as âtheosâ (which can mean qualitatively divine, or âdivine in natureâ) rather than ton theon, which is the personal title that refers to the Supreme Being himself (e.g., Jn. 3:16; 3:34; 4:24; 6:46; 11:22; 14:1; 17:3). Moreover, the word logos is used throughout Johnâs Gospel to denote a spoken word, and I submit it means the same thing in Johnâs poetic prologue. Itâs no more a personal being with a mind and will separate from the Father (whom the word was âwithâ in the beginning) than âwisdomâ is in Proverbs 8 (which was also âwithâ God in the beginning), and there is no more reason to capitalize logos in John 1 than there is to capitalize âwisdomâ in Proverbs 8. But it was Godâs word which, in a figurative sense, âbecame fleshâ and was embodied or âincarnatedâ in a human person when Jesus was conceived in Maryâs womb by the âpower of the Most High.â Christ, as the âword made flesh,â lived out and perfectly embodies the doctrine and words that he spoke during his earthly ministry (words which came from his Father - John 7:16; 17:14), and is the ultimate and definitive communication of Godâs heart and mind to mankind. And just like the divine word of Isaiah 55:10-11, Jesus is the one through whom God will succeed in accomplishing his redemptive purpose for the world (i.e., the salvation of all people). Thus, it is highly appropriate that John refers to Jesus in Rev 19:13 as the âWord of God.â While in the course of redemptive history God has spoken through both angels and human beings (the prophets), only Christ is the complete manifestation of the divine logos, for âin him dwells all the fullness of the divine nature bodilyâ (Col. 2:9; cf. Col 1:19; Eph 3:19; 2 Pet 1:4). âFor the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without measureâ (John 3:34).
- âFor I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent meâ (John 6:38).
It was a common idiom among the Jewish people to say that something âcame from heavenâ if God was its source in some special way. For example, in Mal 3:10 God promised that he would âopen the windows of heavenâ and âpour downâ a blessing for them. Such language, of course, does not mean that God was literally going to pour things out of heaven onto the earth. This kind of expression simply meant that God would be the origin of the blessings they received in their lives. Another example of this idiom is when Christ asked the Jewish people, âJohnâs baptism - where did it come from? Was it from heaven or from men?â (Matt. 21:25). The way that Johnâs baptism would have been âfrom heavenâ was if God was the source of the revelation and practice. John did not get the idea on his own; it came âfrom heaven.â And in James 1:17 we read that every good gift is âfrom aboveâ and âcomes downâ from God. Similarly, in chapter 3, we are told that the wisdom that should be possessed by believers is that which is âfrom aboveâ and which âcomes down from aboveâ (James 3:15, 17). These verses do not mean that the good things in our lives literally come down from heaven (much less that they undergo some kind of mystical transformation before we receive them!). What James means is clear: God is the author and source of the good things in our lives (including the wisdom by which we should live). And just as God is said to be the source of âevery good gift,â so God is the source of the ultimate blessing, Jesus Christ (which he was, in a unique and miraculous way; see Luke 1:34-35).
Thus, things can be âfrom heavenâ (meaning they have their source in God) or they can be âfrom menâ (meaning they originate with men). In light of how such language is used in Scripture, Jesusâ words in John 6:38 are clear: Jesus, whose existence began miraculously in the womb of his virgin mother, Mary, is âfrom God,â âfrom heavenâ and âfrom aboveâ in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin. However, if we take Jesusâ words to mean that he, as a personal being, literally came down from heaven from a âpre-existent state,â we must also (to be consistent) believe that it was Jesus in his fleshly body who pre-existed and came down from heaven. For in John 6:33, Jesus declares himself to be âthe bread of Godâ who âcomes down from heaven,â and in v. 51, he declares this âbreadâ to be his âflesh.â As bizarre as this sounds, such a doctrine would be more consistent with the premise that Jesus pre-existed in heaven before he came to earth. Fortunately, however, we need not understand Jesus to be teaching any such thing.
- âJesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I amâ (John 8:58).
As this verse is discussed by me in some depth elsewhere on this forum, Iâll just provide the links:
- âIsaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of himâ (John 12:41).
Itâs sometimes argued by Trinitarians that when Isaiah saw God sitting on a throne in a vision (Isaiah 6), he was seeing âGod the Sonâ (for in v. 41 John writes that Isaiah saw [the Messiahâs] glory"). But thatâs not at all the only possible (and I think certainly not the best) way to understand Johnâs words. First of all, where does the Trinitarian think the Father and the Holy Spirit are? Why was there only one divine person seen sitting on a throne in this vision? Rather than support Trinitarianism, this vision seems to further confirm the view of Unitarians that the âone Godâ is a unipersonal Being. But what then did John mean in this verse? One possible interpretation is that âthese thingsâ in v. 41 to refer back to both the quotation from Isaiah 6 and the quotation from Isaiah 53. So what I would suggest is that Isaiah âsawâ the Messiahâs glory and spoke of him in both cases. But how did Isaiah see the glory of the Messiah? As a fulfilled reality? No; I believe he saw it in the same sense that Abraham saw the Messiahâs âdayâ and âwas gladâ (John 8:56) - that is, he saw it prophetically, in an anticipatory sense (this is most apparent from the prophecy in Isaiah 53, which is one of the greatest Messianic prophecies in all of the OT). So I submit that it could be said by John that Isaiah âsawâ the Messiahâs âgloryâ when anything Isaiah wrote (i.e., âspokeâ) had prophetic application to the coming Messiah. And because (according to John) the prophecy in Isaiah 6 had a dual fulfillment and was thus applicable to both Isaiahâs own day (i.e., when he saw YHWH in vision and was commissioned by him) as well as to the time of the Messiah, it could be said that, in both cases, Isaiah âsaw [the Messiahâs] glory.â
- âI came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Fatherâ (John 16:28).
As is the case with John 6:38, Jesus could declare that he âcame from the Fatherâ because, as the one responsible for the miraculous conception in Maryâs womb (Luke 1:35), God was his source. He âentered the worldâ when he was conceived, and left the world and went to the Father at his ascension (the word âbackâ in the expression âI am going back to the Fatherâ is absent from the Greek text. As in the KJV, it should simply read, âI am going to the Fatherâ).
There are also verses that say Jesus was âsent from God,â a phrase that also emphasizes God as the ultimate source of that which is sent. John the Baptist is also said to be a man who was âsent from Godâ (John 1:6). The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is clarified by Jesusâ words in John 17. There, we read, âAs you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the worldâ (v. 18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said, âI have sent them into the world.â He meant that he commissioned his disciples, or appointed them. No one thinks that Jesusâ disciples were in heaven with God and incarnated into the flesh. Christ said, âAs you have sent me, I have sent them.â Thus, however we understand Christâs sending his disciples into the world is how we should also understand Godâs sending Christ into the world.
- âAnd now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existedâ (John 17:5).
When we take into account the fact that things that are certain to exist or take place, and which are central to Godâs plan, are sometimes spoken of in Scripture as if they already exist or have already been accomplished, Jesusâ words are easily harmonized with the fact that his existence as Godâs Son had a beginning in history. Jesus was simply glorified in Godâs presence before the world existed in Godâs divine foreknowledge and predestined plan. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul speaks as if believers existed âbefore the foundation of the world,â and in 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul writes that believers were given Godâs purpose and grace âbefore the ages began.â And in Romans 8:30 he speaks as if the elect had already been âglorifiedâ (notice the past tense used). But no orthodox Christian believes that human beings existed before the foundation of the world or before the ages began; our being âchosenâ by God, or being given Godâs purpose and grace, or being âglorifiedâ by him before we actually existed can only refer to Godâs foreknowledge and predestined plan (see Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:5, 11; cf. Gal 1:15; Jer 1:5).
In the same way, Jesus (as the most important and central figure in Godâs redemptive plan) was âforeknown before the foundation of the worldâ (1 Pet 1:20). Because Christâs being glorified by God was so certain to take place and so central to Godâs plan for humanity, Christ could speak as if he had already been glorified in Godâs presence before the world began. When Christ spoke the words of John 17:5, he had been glorified in promise, and as a central part of Godâs predestined plan, long before he actually came into the world. Further support for this understanding of John 17:5 is that Christ goes on to say (v. 22), âThe glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are oneâŚâ Here, the same glory that Christ prayed that God would give him is spoken of as if he already possessed it. But not only that, it is spoken of as if it had already been given to his disciples. And in v. 24, Christ prays, âFather, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.â In v. 5 Christ spoke as if he had ascended to Godâs right hand before the world existed, and in v. 24 he spoke as if he had already ascended to Godâs right hand at the time of his prayer. In the former case Christ spoke of something that was going to happen as if it took place before he existed, and in the latter case he spoke of something that was going to happen as if it had taken place already while he was praying. In both cases, something that was certain to happen and central to Godâs plan is spoken of as if it had already taken place. Was Christ confused during his prayer? Not at all; this was simply a figurative way of speaking.
Wow Aaron 
Thanks for all of this work. I havenât finished reading your posts, but Iâll definitely get through these, and Iâll try and get to your posts on the other threads too. Iâve enjoyed and been challenged by what Iâve read so far. But to be honest, even if I believed unitarianism, Iâm not sure I could ever ditch the trinity (even though I donât hold it that closely â I donât understand it!) â Iâm not sure whether thatâs cowardice or humility. You must have an awful lot of difficulty with most Christians by holding so many minority viewsâŚ
I note that Aaron summarised why I had included Lk 22:42. I put it in there because it was the first verse where I personally stopped and tried to think of a way around it. The logic of it overcame me. I had no alternative but to either believe it, or else dismiss it and forget about the verse altogether (much as many people dismiss 1 Tim 4:10).
The other verse which confirmed this one was one which Aaron cited: 1 Cor 8:6. not only does this verse delineate God the Father and Jesus, but it tells out that everything is from God but through Jesus. it made more sense of an understanding of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus if there was no trinity.
Am I a non-trinitarian? I canât say for fear that some spy will read what I write and Iâll lose my job. I do however agree with Aaron on this one:
I never had the sacred cow of ECT so I never had the sacred cow of âthree personsâ either. I guess (since Iâm getting no responses) that Iâm not relevant in a theological discussion anymore so much - which I suppose is a good thing but suffice to say this: The ârealâ creator" and the ârealâ Spirit of Christ does not care if you label Him as âGodâ or not. He DOES care if you seek to free the oppressed humans around the globe as that and that alone will bring us to the next stage in this long arduous journey.
So - not to judge you as anything other than humans doing the best you can (I donât doubt your good intentions) I guess Iâll leave it at that. To quote my famous best friend âHe that hath earsâ.
Firstborn, the thread is set kind of for no responses, or at least no debate, so that may be why nobody has responded,
or everyone is just ignoring you 
I hear you brother! Preach it! I love a good theological shoot-out myself, but this stuff really doesnât mean that much in the Kingdom. Your theology is of little consequence to your salvation. You are saved in the context of your practice, through faith in Yeshua. Getting absorbed in abstract doctrines to the detriment of works/life is immensely dangerous. I recently escaped this sort of attitude in my last church. I feel more alive in Christ then ever because of it too! All that said, please continue: Ding! Ding!..
Hi firstborn,
I think that understanding and believing sound doctrine is very important to our life as disciples (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:42; Eph 4:11-14; 1 Thess 5:21; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 3:10-17; 4:3; Titus 1:9-13; 2:7), and that we should be concerned when people are being lead astray with false teachings (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). But I also think we all need a âwake up callâ when what we affirm intellectually or verbally is not inspiring and challenging us to live in obedience to Christ (which means loving others and doing what we can to minimize the suffering we see around us), and so I appreciate the sentiment expressed in your words above. The doctrines we affirm, strive to understand better and contend for must be more than mere âhead knowledgeâ if they are to influence what we do. And believing the truth should always have a positive influence on our lives and lead to greater conformity to Christ in our interaction with others.
Youâre blessed to have never believed ECT! While I do think the doctrine of the Trinity is erroneous (and a âsacred cowâ that would be better off as a hamburger! 
), I find the doctrine of ECT far more destructive and offensive. I would rather be a Trinitarian Universalist any day than a Unitarian who believes in ECT. At the same time, I think itâs important that we seek to know what is true (especially the truth concerning who God is!), and that believing what is true is important to our worship of God. Recall Jesusâ words to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21-24: âWoman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.â
Yes, I do know that some writings contained in the collection of writings we call âthe bibleâ (as well as âthe churchâ) put a high emphasis on correct doctrine. That is my very complaint and the purpose of my rant.
Too often the Bible is used as a magic perfect book where people can find ammunition to support their many and widely varying (even opposing) views to prove the rightness or wrongness of theirs or others beliefs. A really weird culture IMO where such things are accepted as normal/rational human behavior. Many of us are born brainwashed to thinking that this is how it should be done.
All that said - I enjoy the bible and all the nuances of doctrine IF they are recognized for what they really are. Using them (the scriptures) to discuss the inspiration and ideas of men about God and seeing the progression/evolution of spiritual thought and ideas through the ages is fascinating and Iâve learned so much - especially in the Hebrew and Greek. But when it all became an institution and political force - forget it.
Obviously - good hearted people like you and most here are not a part of (what I see) as the problem pre se, but are still trained to operate largely within the problem created by religious creeds and dogma through the centuries.
Does this make any sense?
Sorry if I come across as overly critical, I just see things this way and try to express what I see as best I can. Also - Iâm off topic because I know the purpose of this thread is pro and con from scripture, so Iâll try to refrain from taking this into a different subject any further.
I have to say, I was hoping and looking forward to Aaronâs contributions to the thread (from the standpoint of having a fine opponent)! Yay! 
Being swamped at âworkâ work (which is good in some ways, not so good in others at the moment), I doubt Iâll have the time and energy to go after all theseâheck, I havenât even been able to get back to our fascinating discussion on OT theophanies from a year or more ago!âbesides which I do link to a vast amount of my arguments on these topics in 1Cor1522âs sister thread already.
However, another slightly-less-new-member 
, âRedHotMagmaâ, has set up a thread at this link, for replying to the various non-Trin claims and arguments.
Anyone wanting to defend against and/or rebut Aaron or any other non-Trinitarian member contributing to this thread, should either go to that thread or start other threads for specific purposes. Please link back here (and from here to there), if you do so.
John 10:30-33 " âI and the Father are one.â Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, âI have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?â âWe are not stoning you for any of these,â replied the Jews, âbut for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.â"
All will admit that Jesusâ Father is God. It is the Father, and not Jesus himself, whom Jesus understood to be the God of Israel (John 8:54), and whom he and all true worshippers worship âin spirit and in truthâ (John 4:21-24). It is the Father whom Jesus addressed and referred to as âmy Godâ (Matt 27:46; John 20:17; Rev 3:12), as the âonly Godâ (John 5:43-44), and as the âonly true Godâ (John 17:3). What then does âI and the Father are oneâ mean? Does it mean, âI and the Father are the same person?â No, it doesnât â and no orthodox Trinitarian would answer otherwise. But why shouldnât Jesusâ statement be interpreted in this way? Answer: Because such an interpretation would force Jesus to declare an absurdity. Jesus (a man) and Jesusâ Father (who is Jesusâ God) are most assuredly not the same person. But for the same reason that we cannot understand Jesus to be affirming that he and the Father are the same person (because this would make Jesus declare an absurdity), so we cannot understanding Jesus to be affirming that he and the Father are the same divine being. Jesusâ words cannot mean that he and the Father are both the âonly true Godâ and the âone God.â Throughout the Gospels Jesus both implicitly and explicitly distinguishes himself from God. What then does Jesus mean when he declares that he and the Father are âone?â Answer: âOneâ here in John 10:30 means âone in purpose,â just as it does in John 17:21-23 in reference to believers. Similarly, when the apostle Paul speaks of he and Apollos as being âoneâ in 1 Corinthians 3:8, no one understands him to be saying that he and Apollos were the same human being, or shared the same âsubstance.â A more reasonable interpretation of Paulâs words is that he and Apollos were unified in a common purpose.
Thus, while Jesus was indeed making an astounding claim (i.e., that he and the Father were mutually âoneâ in purpose, thus giving Jesus a unique status as a human being), we are not told that he was claiming to be âthe only true Godâ (YHWH) - and it is unlikely that this is what the Jews were accusing him of. A better translation of v. 33 would be, ââŚbecause you, a man (anthropos; the word âmereâ is not in the original Greek text), claim to be a god.â The word theos, without the definite article, can be translated âgodâ (or âgodsâ) or âdivineâ (cf. Acts 12:22; 14:11; 28:6). It is possible, then, that the Jewish people were accusing Jesus of claiming to have the same âdivineâ status as an angelic being, which are referred to as âgodsâ (elohim) in Psalm 8:4-5 (cf. Heb 2:7; see also Psalm 86:8; 95:3; 136:1-2; 138:1; Job 38:7). We can be sure that this is a more correct translation and interpretation because, in the very next verses (vv. 34-35), the same expression (theos, without the definite article) is used again by Jesus in his quotation of Psalm 82:6. There, theos is translated âgods.â Jesusâ response to their accusation is basically, âIf the corrupt human judges of Israel were called âgodsâ (in the sense of being Godâs human representatives invested with his judicial authority) then there is no impropriety in my calling myself the Son of God.â Thus, neither in the Jewsâ accusation nor in Jesusâ response is anything being said about Jesus being YHWH, the Most High God of Israel.
John 14:8-9 "Philip said, âLord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.â Jesus answered: âDonât you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, âShow us the Fatherâ?â "
What does Jesus mean when he says, âAnyone who has seen me has seen the Father?â Does he mean that he and the Father are the same person? Answer: no, that is not what Jesus means (and again, no orthodox Trinitarian would argue otherwise). But why shouldnât Jesusâ statement be interpreted in this way? Again, because such an interpretation would force Jesus to declare an absurdity. For the same reason, we cannot interpret Jesusâ words to mean that he and the Father are both YHWH. What then does Jesus mean? Answer: he is declaring himself to be the Fatherâs perfect human representative. As a sinless human being and thus the Fatherâs perfect human representative (or as Paul says, the âimage of the invisible Godâ â Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4), Jesus could with all propriety declare, âAnyone who has seen me has seen the Father.â
When Thomas later exclaims (upon seeing the risen Christ) in John 20:28, âMy Lord and my God,â Jesusâ words in John 12:44-45 and John 14:7-9 should come to mind. In John 12 Jesus declared, âWhoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.â And in John 14 we read, âIf you had known me, you would have known the Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen himâ (14:7). Jesus, of course, is not the Father (and no orthodox Christian would argue otherwise). However, because Jesus perfectly represents God, to see and know Jesus is to see and know the Father (which is what Jesus then explains to his disciples in response to Philipâs request â vv. 8-11). But again, it is because Jesus is not the Father that Jesus is not God (because it is the Father who is the âone Godâ). Jesus even distinguishes himself from God in v. 1 of this very chapter: âLet not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.â Throughout the entire Gospel of John, whenever Jesus or his disciples address or refer to âGod,â it is the Father alone who is meant. For example, after Jesusâ resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, âGo to my brothers and say to them, âI am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.ââ It is the Father who is the God of Mary Magdalene and the disciples (including Thomas), and it is the Father who is the God of Jesus. Thus, when Thomas exclaims âMy Lord and my God,â we can reasonably infer that by âmy Lordâ Thomas meant Jesus (whom Paul calls the âone Lordâ), and by âmy Godâ he meant the Father (whom Paul calls the âone Godâ). Upon seeing Christ after he was raised from the dead by God, Thomas must have recalled what Jesus had taught shortly before his death - i.e., that whoever sees Jesus sees him who sent Jesus (i.e., the Father). Thus, Thomasâ declaration âmy Lord and my Godâ should best be understood as an affirmation of this truth.
Youâre an Orthodox UR? Is that possible? O.O
Sure, if UR is orthodox doctrine (in the sense of being true). 
Quite a few of the Eastern Orthodox would agree that (one or another variant of) UR is orthodox doctrine.
And insofar as âOrthodoxyâ is a handy title for the groups which affirm the Big Three Creeds (Apostleâs, Nicene, and the catholic faith statement within the wrapping statements of the so-called Athanasian Creed), so long as someone affirms those they belong within that set of groups somewhere.
I myself first came to be a Christian universalist (instead of trying to decide between a version of Calvinism or Arminianism, with leanings toward Arm) thanks to extensive study into understanding and believing orthodox trinitarian theism to be true. That isnât usual (I only know a few other people who arrived at a version of Katholicism this wayâmaybe I should run a member poll on the topic!) But it does happen.
Iâve always been interested in the Eastern Orthodox for various reasons, but never courageous enough to go to a parish or something. Theyâre probably my favorite Christians, though.
just a comment and then a serious question I would like answered by you more learned disciples.
As to âOrthodoxâ, of course there are NUMEROUS flavors of these - my personal experience with some of what in America we call âGreek Orthodoxâ - they can be very very narrow-minded in the sense of excluding from their idea of âchristianâ any of us who subscribe to other-than-orthodox denominations [or non-]. Having good friends that are longtime missionaries in the middle east, we find that much persecution comes from various âorthodoxâ groups against christian missionaries and small groups of non-orthodox believers. To me their history might show them to be just another form of âProtestantâ - decrying some of the doctrines of the Roman church and splintering off to go their own way, retaining much of the baggage of the parent just as other Protestants have. That all said, I think their common understanding of the Trinity is biblically sound.
Question: for the purposes raised by the OP in this thread, do the experts define âTrinitarianâ in what I might call the âLateral Alignmentâ mode? What I find in the canon [and, to a point raised above, in the ante-nicene fathers also] is a hierarchical understanding of âTrinityâ.
To paraphrase Gandhi my issue is not with the Trinity but that so many alleged Trinitarians are practical Modalists.
Claudius; Yes thatâs true, and is one of the things that got me to start questioning trinitarianism; too much practical modalism, as you say.
Just as long as nobody here thinks Michael is Jesus, I donât care if they are trinitarian or unitarian, or modelist, or arian, etc.
The Orthodox are more permissive of âflavorsâ than other denominations. They have a stronger adherence to the idea of âmysteryâ, while others like to âknowâ. This permits for ranges of views. Thatâs why something like UR can be compatible with Orthodoxy. Iâve even heard a statement that the Orthodox Church believes what its Church (i.e., the members) believes.
The Orthodox are not very clear on the whole Christian/nonChristian thing, either. The Orthodox view their religion as a way of healing, learning, spiritual growth. They believe this is only possible within their church. I think they do a pretty good job in that department. They believe at the judgment, we all encounter Godâs love and have to deal with it, and this doesnât seem religion specific. I feel thereâs a bit of a jump here, perhaps where they got off (exclusivity is a bit of a defensive reaction of religions). I asked a few Orthodox if they believe other Christians or unbelievers will be saved. Mostly they avoid the question, and say they canât know (besides, Orthodoxy is self-centered, not other-people-centered). One notable Orthodox guy said that âthere may be sheep outside, we should watch for wolves insideâ. Again, very self-centered. The Orthodox are (supposed to be) concerned with THEIR flaws, THEIR problems, and any time I have spoken to an Orthodox, they seemed to reflect that philosophy. Furthermore, the Orthodox are afraid of the book of Revelation /s.
The Orthodox possess a rather strong tradition, compared to most Protestant denominations. It seems to give them a lot of power in terms of how well they follow Jesus. When Protestants give up (bla bla bla all fall short), the Orthodox try to perfect themselves (yes, these are sweeping generalizations and all). The Orthodox have a very strong monasticism tradition, as well.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox believe the RCC schizmed, not them⌠I donât really know. But there is Catholic Church history, and thereâs Orthodox Church history. Feel free to compare them.
I guess the only question now is why the heck am I still not Orthodox.
Claudius,
For purposes of this thread, modalists are also invited to present their cases against trinitarians, since trinitarians (whether among the central orthodoxy promoted by Western and Eastern Rome, or otherwise) would affirm the real distinction of the Persons, âneither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.â
(Ideally anyway. Even professional trinitarians sometimes have difficulty keeping that in mind, and so shift effectively into some variety of modalism or unitarianism. But it is a shift. The position that professes both modalism and unitarianism, to roughly oversimplify it , may be difficult to hold, but it isnât one instead of the other.)