Many Universalists DO accept the idea of “The Trinity” including most of those in this forum. But I’m not one of them.
When you read the Bible and encounter the word “God”, how many times does it refer to “The Trinity”?
The answer? Zero!
1 Like
Trinitarian theism is a complexly detailed doctrinal set that is hard to understand and isn’t specifically spelled out in the scriptures but (at best) is a result of piecing together a very large amount of data.
Consequently, it shouldn’t be surprising that there still can be and is honest debate and dissension on this.
Although most of the leadership here on the forum (myself included) are trinitarian, and although one primary purpose for the creation of the forum was to promote trinitarian theism, we do not support belittling our non-trinitarian members (Christian or otherwise) as though they are wilfully sinning and/or mentally retarded not to just accept ortho-trin to be bang zap end-of-discussion-obviously true, period. That is very insulting and unrealistic.
Frankly, for someone to appeal to Matt Slick in one breath as having demonstrated ortho-trin beyond anyone’s possible reasonable doubt, and then in the next breath to point out he is just as adamant (if not moreso) about Christian universalism being blatantly false, smacks of trying to drum up controversy for controversy’s sake–especially when you call for universalists to team up against him.
That kind of personal crusading against a Christian brother is not what this board is about.
(Note: this is [size=150]not[/size] a reply to Paidion, who was not the original poster for this thread. I have forgotten who the original poster was, but his posts were eventually removed from the board–possibly at his own request or by his own hand–but most likely for persistently trolling. Keep in mind, someone would have to be misbehaving much more seriously than people we’ve merely banned, to warrant us balefiring his posts from the board, although this has on rare occasion happened.)
Hi All, This is my first post to EU, but I’ve been browsing here for a while, reading with great interest the many posts here.
I believe that the doctrine of Trinity is probably one of the most difficult to understand, and easiest to resist, because it is derived from so much scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, and requires careful study even for those of us who are convinced Trinitarians. A case against the Trinity is easy to make. There are many passages which, taken at face value, and without comparing the meaning with other passages, can be thought to imply that the Trinity doctrine is false.
One of the most significant things I’v learned here, and elsewhere, is that I did not realize the extent that I (and probably most others), are influenced by our traditions. Some of us think that the truth we have is so obvious that when others don’t accept our understanding, they are being rebellious, and just not willing to accept the truth.
I’ve studied scripture for many years, and never gave UR a second thought until very recently, which I attribute my being taught error for most of my life. However, that passages of scripture which clearly teach UR are really obvious, and the reason we (or i) didn’t correctly understand them is because of incorrect translation of other passages which are thought to make UR impossible. I must admit that the doctrine of UR solves a lot problems that have been lurking in the background for a very long time.
My spiritual journey has been through many denominations, which I think is because of my constant study of scripture, thereby learning new truth, and realizing that what I thought was true was really not true at all.
Actually, in the OT most occurrences of God, e.g., LORD God, refer to God the Son.
Luke 24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25* Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26* Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27* And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
All of the appearances of God in the OT were theophanies of God the Son.
Comparing the statements made about John the Baptist being the forerunner of Christ, and the prophecies in the OT about HIS coming, we see that HE is the LORD, i.e., YHWH.
I’m not sure how one could call themselves christian and not believe in the deity of Christ. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you do. So how do you reconcile Jesus being fully God and not accept the Trinity. Maybe you’ve post a response before and I just missed it. I happen to believe that God is multi-dimensional, but because we live in a three dimensional reality we can only understand the Trinity.
Well I actually know quite a few Christians who DO believe in the Deity of Christ, but are not Trinitarian. Many are Oneness Pentacostals.
What is really interesting though is if you look at the Aramiaic you will often find the word Maryah. Forgetting the debate over this word… and there is quite a debate… this particular word is often taken to mean "Master (Mar) Yah. IE… Master YHWH. In MANY instances this word is ONLY applied to Jesus AND God in the NT and to no one else. Now to the few people I know who are Aramaic Peshitta primacists… the verses that MarYah appears really make sense. A couple of excellent examples I can think of in the Aramaic is
Matt 3:3 “For this is he of whom it was said, by Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the MarYah (Master YHWH), make smooth his paths.”
and my personal favorite…
1Co12:3 "I therefore inform you, that there is no man, that speaketh by the Spirit of God, who saith that Jesus is accursed: neither can a man say that Jesus is the MarYah (Master YHWH), except by the Holy Spirit.
(This verse alone just flies in the face of people who do not believe in the deity of Christ whereas the prior verse pretty much says “YHWH is coming… be prepared for him” and we all know this verse is talking about Jesus. Very profound stuff IMHO.)
There are many more such instances in the New Testament and at least 50 specifically calling Jesus “MarYah”.
Now mind you, I am no Aramaic Primacist but I love this understanding. Some critics swear up and down that MarYah ONLY means “lord” but they are very mistaken on this. There are forms of the word that does mean Lord and Mar on its own does mean that. But MarYah does not. And this is no Sacred Namer version where people try to get the name YHWH randomly inserted. This is in the original Aramaic whatever you may think of it. But I do notice that many people who use the Aramaic do not believe in the Trinity but do accept the divinity of Christ.
Now all that being said, I am a trinitarian. But I think I Christ is a bit more GOD than the average trinitarian if that makes any kind of sense.
I believe in GOD. I believe he can manifest himself/herself however and to whomever He sees fit. He may have appeared to the dolphins. I’m not going to say for sure he hasn’t. If He had, would that make him a quadinity?
I dislike the model of the Trinity because it confuses the layperson and most non-Christians who say we have more than one GOD.
I like the model of the Trinity because it speaks to the profound and impenetrable depth of GOD, whose nature is by definition of more layered complexity than our own, and it communicates that the essence of GOD is communion and love, even without creatures.
But really, all of this amounts to less than what lice know about the neurology of my brain from sucking blood from my scalp.
I dunno . . . I have no problem with the Trinity, and am not sure how God could be love if He is singular. He is One, yes; singular, no. Jason does a great job defending the Trinity and has done so elsewhere on the site. I don’t think I could add to what he’s said, so I won’t go into this.
That said, I honestly don’t care if someone else doesn’t accept the Trinitarian view of God. That’s between them and God, and if need be, He’ll straighten one of us out (and possibly both of us!) 
Well said Cindy!
If God wasn’t a mystery in many ways, then He wouldn’t be God. For me “I and the Father are one” “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” says pretty much all I need to know at present.
i’m with Cindy and Pilgrim.
i personally believe in the Trinity, as the best way to explain the odd language around the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. however, i’ve heard good reasons for Unitarianism as well. so i am happy to co-exist with Unitarians!
anyway, i’m the one that could be wrong, and so why argue over something that is deeply hard to prove or disprove.
Even though I dispute with unitarians a lot (and with modalists when they show up), I do want to reiterate here as I’ve done elsewhere that I have no problem believing such people are Christians in various ways, including some important ways.
1.) Are they trying to follow Christ as the lord of their life? Then they’re Christian.
2.) Are they trusting in Christ to save them from their sins? Then they’re Christian.
3.) Are they behaving like sheep instead of like (baby) goats? Then they’re Christian, even if they would be surprised to discover they’ve been serving Christ after all. (Which no non-trinitarian Christian would be surprised about of course, any more than a trinitarian Christian would be surprised about it.)
Whereas, it would be entirely possible for someone like me, who is a hyper-doctrinaire trinitarian, to not be a Christian (not really, even though categorically I would be usefully accounted a Christian in other ways for purposes of discussion), even if Christ also granted me the authority and capability to exorcise people and provide other attesting signs evangelizing in His favor.
"Yet, why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord!’, and do not do what I say??
"Not all who say to Me ‘Lord, Lord!’, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens; but only whoever does the will of My Father Who is in the heavens.
"Many will say to Me, on that day: ‘Lord, Lord! * Did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name send demons away, and in Your name do many works of power!?!’
“And then I shall be vowing to them: ‘I never knew you! “Depart from Me, you evildoers!”’” (as David the king said in a Psalm)*
I get that there’s an interesting, nuanced discussion about this, but what I don’t get is why it’s supposed to be such a huge issue, and why there’s such a polemical attitude taken on it (even when we trinitarian theists are cool with their beliefs). I get WHY people are upset about the concept of hell, and even why some reject Christianity because of it. It’s a huge issue of basic morality and compassion. But the difference between unitarianism and trinitarianism doesn’t seem to envelop that, to me. And if it did, I’d think that it would land in favor of trinitarianism because of what Cindy mentioned about a trinitarian God being love in essence.
But what is it exactly that pulls so many universalists over to it, and what makes them so seemingly antagonistic toward trinitarianism? I can only think of three reasons, none of which seem to totally explain it to me:
- Because of persecution in ages past, and ostracization now (I understand what would be backlash, then, but that doesn’t solve what makes it so appealing)
- Because it seems more logically appealing (but that’s hardly a source of passion either)
- Because trinitarians give worship to the Son when only the Father is to be worshiped (but surely one can take the latter posture with trinitarianism, but then again, there’s much ascribing of worth and worship to the Son in scripture)
I haven’t been able to get a clear answer from any unitarian I’ve asked this of. What’s been especially bewildering to me is how if you unpack what we really believe, some unitarians and I are on the same exact page, we just have different semantical labels for our beliefs. And yet they’re fiercely offensive/defensive all the same.
There could be one more possibility:
- It confuses the world, and sometimes believers (but then why not just calmly sort it out rather than become aggressive?)
Or perhaps it’s a confluence of all of them that erupts together in one accord. But I still don’t get the “glue” of it then - the one driving, simple point behind all of it, if there is one.
I added an update note to my first comment in this thread, but just to be safe I thought I should add another note here: Paidion is not who started this thread. It was started by someone the administration not only banned but balefired their comments out of existence for being an ultra-troll. (Someone worse than A37, for comparison.) The original poster was trying to start a flamewar. Paidion was soberly replying to him; but when we balefired the troll’s threads that left Paidion as the top poster, as though he had started the thread.
I think it becomes a big deal because it always has been historically. Of course, the arian controversy took place in an era much different than ours. Persecution was rife. Athanasius was kicked out of his church for trinitarianism. I think it became a huge issue of orthodoxy back then and will likely remain so.
Personally, I’ve never found the modalist arguments compelling, but I’ve never thought these people are not brethren. I don’t see how someone can completely deny the deity of Christ and still be a christian however. Be on the right path towards God, yes. But to believe Christ is just a man, full stop, would be as Christian to me as those who deny the resurrection.
I think this is important understanding here. The trinity is a model that attempts to explain a mystery that doesn’t quite fit our human notions (or the model!) I think it’s natural that we are going to find evidence for and against such a model.
I believe in the deity of Christ, but not in the traditional sense (i.e., he was/ is one with the Father, but is not himself God). Jesus is never referred to as “God the Son” (this is a term we have inserted), but rather the son of God/ son of Man. With regard to trinitarianism though, I think perhaps the more important question is to be asked of the identity of the holy spirit, and whether or not this spirit of God actually qualifies as a distinct “person”, or is rather just a “personified” part of the Father, who we know is spirit.
However it all comes out in the wash, I don’t think God can be adequately explained as a trinity, and I agree that it causes more confusion than it resolves.
This is an old thread that I hadn’t completely followed since I was away for over a year. I think some of the posters presumed that as a non-Trinitarian, either I believe in “Oneness”(That God is a single Individual who presents Himself in three modes) or that I deny the deity of Christ ( as modern Unitarians do). Neither is the case.
My belief is that God begat or generated His Son as the first act, and that the Son is divine on that basis. Analogously when a man and wife produce a son, their son is human on that basis.
Well over 90% of the occurrences of the word “God” in the Bible refer to the Father. And ALL the prayers are addressed to the Father except one—where Stephen prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,”(Acts 7:59),
No prayer recorded in the Bible ever addresses the Holy Spirit.
My view is that the Spirit is not a third Person, but the extended Persons of the Father and the Son. They dwell in some special sense in Heaven, but they possess a Spirit that they can extend into the hearts of the faithful. Jesus said, The Father and He would make their home with the one who loves Him and keeps His word (John 14:23). That’s how They do it—by their Spirit.
Jesus also said:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7 NRSV)
Why did Jesus have to “go away” before He could send the Advocate (or Spirit)? I suggest that as long as Jesus lived as fully human, His spirit was confined to His body. But after He died and was raised, He could extend that spirit into His disciples.