The Trinitarian Delusion

Runningman

Well-known member
The more I read Trinitarian philosophy, I am beginning to see that the way they rationalize God as being three persons who are one God is by converting God into a substance or being that dwells in three distinct persons.

In this paradox, God is actually the substance or being rather than the three persons and therefore the F, S, & HS cannot be God according to Trinitarianism.

They will often say the Trinity is a mystery, which in and of itself has become a thought-terminating cliché, but if you continue analyzing what they desperately don't want you to realize is that the Trinity is neither Biblical, logical, nor adequate to coherently explain God.

It also introduces many contradictions into the Bible. If what God is can dwell in other persons, such as those in the church, they have no clear philosophy for not allowing church members to become a member of the Godhead as well. The Bible says the fullness of God can dwell in Christians, but Trinitarians say the fullness of God can only dwell in Jesus.

Ephesians 3​
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.​

Jesus said the one and only true God is the Father.

John 17​
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​
 
Last edited:
The more I read Trinitarian philosophy, I am beginning to see that the way they rationalize God as being three persons who are one God is by converting God into a substance or being that dwells in three distinct persons.

In this paradox, God is actually the substance or being rather than the three persons and therefore the F, S, & HS cannot be God according to Trinitarianism.

They will often say the Trinity is a mystery, which in and of itself has become a thought-terminating cliché, but if you continue analyzing what they desperately don't want you to realize is that the Trinity is neither Biblical, logical, nor adequate to coherently explain God.

It also introduces many contradictions into the Bible. If what God is can dwell in other persons, such as those in the church, they have no clear philosophy for not allowing church members to become a member of the Godhead as well. The Bible says the fullness of God can dwell in Christians, but Trinitarians say the fullness of God can only dwell in Jesus.

Ephesians 3​
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.​

Jesus said the one and only true God is the Father.

John 17​
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​
Are Trinitarians saved or lost because they believe in a made up God?
 
The more I read Trinitarian philosophy, I am beginning to see that the way they rationalize God as being three persons who are one God is by converting God into a substance or being that dwells in three distinct persons.

Trinitarian Catholic Catechism 252 says…

The Church uses the term "substance" to designate the divine being in its unity, the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them.

The Trinitarian term “God in its unity” implies God is able to be NOT in unity.

Anyone claiming to be a Monotheist should not use that term IMO.
 
Are Trinitarians saved or lost because they believe in a made up God?

Yes. (According to Trinitarians). See the Athanasian Creed, 1st sentence.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless 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.
 
Yes. (According to Trinitarians). See the Athanasian Creed, 1st sentence.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless 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.
To be fair, there are different trinities. You need to make clear which Trinity you are referring to. Because not everyone credits the same Trinity, and not everyone credits the Athanasian creed.

For instance the Orthodox church doesn't use the Athanasian Creed. That 's quite a blow for its proponents, as it means it cannot be regarded as the crux of the Trinity. Probably it should be seen as typifying Roman Catholic medieval scholasticism, which is obnoxious as being largely philosophical.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, there are different trinities. You need to make clear which Trinity you are referring to. Because not everyone credits the same Trinity, and not everyone credits the Athanasian creed.

For instance the Orthodox church doesn't use the Athanasian Creed. That 's quite a blow for its proponents, as it means it cannot be regarded as the crux of the Trinity. Probably it should be seen as typifying Roman Catholic medieval scholasticism, which is obnoxious as being largely philosophical.

I think for individual trinitarians, most would throw out the 1st line of the Athanasian creed (to their credit).

However the Catholic and Orthodox churches hold to it, and alot of protestant churches think of it is authoritative. The point of quoting it is to show the immense separation between the attitude the bible has towards what is required for salvation versus the attitude of the guys who came up with the doctrine of the trinity. And that separation will hopefully prompt somebody to think.
 
I think for individual trinitarians, most would throw out the 1st line of the Athanasian creed (to their credit).

However the Catholic and Orthodox churches hold to it, and alot of protestant churches think of it is authoritative. The point of quoting it is to show the immense separation between the attitude the bible has towards what is required for salvation versus the attitude of the guys who came up with the doctrine of the trinity. And that separation will hopefully prompt somebody to think.
According to one commentator, the (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) is Latin in origin, and is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed.

We need to be careful what we impute to Trinitarians, as it is easy to veer to the extremist position represented by the Athanasian Creed and poke fun at it, as if that is all it has to offer. At its crux, the error of the High Trinity is to relegate the Father from being "God over all" to being just one of three gods/Gods co-equal with other gods/Gods. Hence it contains the germ of polytheism. It subverts the divine hierarchy, or the divine order.

It is also improperly formulated in terms of "substance." It is the Father that is in all, Eph 4:6, and not the "substance of God." It is the Father that unifies, and not the "substance of God" unless you define the substance of God as the Father, which is one way of looking at it.

The Trinity is an inherently philosophical device, rather than a biblical formulation. It should be treated with caution, but it is no excuse for adoptionism, which isn't taught by the bible, and is potentially an even worse error than Trinitarianism, because a Trinity of "Gods" can very easily be converted into a Trinity of "deity" which isn't subversive of the divine order, and hard to repudiate, given the baptismal formula in Matt 28:19.
 
Last edited:
According to one commentator, the (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) is Latin in origin, and is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed.

Thanks for that. The Orthodox church split in 1054 but didn't bring along the baggage of the Athanasian creed with them. I learned something new today.

Protestants typically don't formally embrace the creed at the denominational level, until you announce that you aren't a trinitarian in their presence, at which point you are rolling the dice as to whether they effectively embrace the terms of the creed or not.

Regardless, individual trinitarians (non-Catholic) usually don't care that greatly about the creed.
 
Thanks for that. The Orthodox church split in 1054 but didn't bring along the baggage of the Athanasian creed with them. I learned something new today.

Protestants typically don't formally embrace the creed at the denominational level, until you announce that you aren't a trinitarian in their presence, at which point you are rolling the dice as to whether they effectively embrace the terms of the creed or not.

Regardless, individual trinitarians (non-Catholic) usually don't care that greatly about the creed.
All Protestant denominations subscribe to The Athanasian Creed, though rarely quote it.
Not necessary.
 
I think for individual trinitarians, most would throw out the 1st line of the Athanasian creed (to their credit).

However the Catholic and Orthodox churches hold to it, and alot of protestant churches think of it is authoritative. The point of quoting it is to show the immense separation between the attitude the bible has towards what is required for salvation versus the attitude of the guys who came up with the doctrine of the trinity. And that separation will hopefully prompt somebody to think.
Which Trinity????
I know of only ONE.
 
All Protestant denominations subscribe to The Athanasian Creed, though rarely quote it.
Not necessary.
Only because they are descended from Catholicism - it's part of the inherited Trinitarian baggage, and not compulsory (to my knowledge). It is never used in church.
 
According to one commentator, the (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) is Latin in origin, and is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed.
Thanks for that. The Orthodox church split in 1054 but didn't bring along the baggage of the Athanasian creed with them. I learned something new today.

Protestants typically don't formally embrace the creed at the denominational level, until you announce that you aren't a trinitarian in their presence, at which point you are rolling the dice as to whether they effectively embrace the terms of the creed or not.

What on earth are you talking about? Both Catholics and Orthodox generally hold to the Athanasian Creed. The only difference between the two is that Catholics and Protestants say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son." while Orthodox say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father." This fact is well known and easily searchable online. Why would anyone think a creed written in the late 5th century wouldn't be held by both sides of a church split that happened 500 years later? Cjab, I think you are right that It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council; therefore, it is not technically creed, in Orthodoxy, but it definitively not rejected outright.

Regardless, individual trinitarians (non-Catholic) usually don't care that greatly about the creed.

That's true for many.

God Bless
 
What on earth are you talking about? Both Catholics and Orthodox generally hold to the Athanasian Creed. The only difference between the two is that Catholics and Protestants say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son." while Orthodox say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father." This fact is well known and easily searchable online. Why would anyone think a creed written in the late 5th century wouldn't be held by both sides of a church split that happened 500 years later? Cjab, I think you are right that It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council; therefore, it is not technically creed, in Orthodoxy, but it definitively not rejected outright.



That's true for many.


God Bless
Frim Wiki: "The Christian theology of the [Athanaisan] creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition and uses the exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD)"

It seems to me that the Athanasian Creed is a de facto commentary or exposition of the fictive Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7. It likely arose from the same people as those who wrote the Johannine Comma into the bible. For that reason alone, it should be regarded as deeply suspect.
 
What on earth are you talking about? Both Catholics and Orthodox generally hold to the Athanasian Creed. The only difference between the two is that Catholics and Protestants say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son." while Orthodox say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father." This fact is well known and easily searchable online. Why would anyone think a creed written in the late 5th century wouldn't be held by both sides of a church split that happened 500 years later? Cjab, I think you are right that It was never endorsed by an Ecumenical Council; therefore, it is not technically creed, in Orthodoxy, but it definitively not rejected outright.

That's true for many.
Frim Wiki: "The Christian theology of the [Athanaisan] creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition and uses the exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD)"

That may be true. And?

It seems to me that the Athanasian Creed is a de facto commentary or exposition of the fictive Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7. It likely arose from the same people as those who wrote the Johannine Comma into the bible. For that reason alone, it should be regarded as deeply suspect.

What? I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. If "The Christian theology of the [Athanaisan] creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition", why would anyone think it "is a de facto commentary or exposition of the fictive Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7"? The Eastern Church has never had the Comma in their Bibles. They hold to everything found in the Athanasian Creed save "and the Son". How on earth can this be true? It seems like an old school conspiracy theory, you know the ones that are never true.

God Bless
 
What? I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. If "The Christian theology of the [Athanaisan] creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition", why would anyone think it "is a de facto commentary or exposition of the fictive Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7"? The Eastern Church has never had the Comma in their Bibles.
That isn't necessarily the case. The comma also spread from the west to other traditions in the east. It is quoted in the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, drawn up in 1643 under the direction of Peter Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev. It is in the Moscow Zosimus bible based on the textus receptus. It crept into the bibles of all Greek/Syriac churches aligned with Roman Catholicism. The Comma was reverse translated from the Latin back into the Greek from the 17th century and subsequently.

The Greek language is fickle: Greek has so many words related to "theos," that when linked also to the usage/non-usage of the article, Greek can generate far more nuances relating to "theos" than the Latins ever could. So the Roman Trinity was a crude concept as constrasted with the Greek of the New Testament. It is another reason to be weary of taking doctrine from the Latins.

They hold to everything found in the Athanasian Creed save "and the Son". How on earth can this be true? It seems like an old school conspiracy theory, you know the ones that are never true.
Holding to something now doesn't indicate what people orginally believed. And the creeds, when translated into different languages, can mean different things, because translations are often never exact. Just in the process of translation one can radically alter a meaning.

There is this misconception that the whole word subscribed to the Augustinian Trinity from the start - it didn't. The East, which didn't have the Johannine Comma in those days, was always regarded by the Sabellian leaning & tolerating West as inclined to "Arianism."

The time of Augustine was the time when the Johannine Comma was beginning to appear in Latin manuscripts of the bible. Augustine well reflects the Latin Trinitarian fanaticism of his era, and the setting in of a rabid contempt for "Arians" of every description. Even the subordination of the Son was seen as Arianism, which isn't the case, IMO, as classical Ariansism always insisted that the Son was created, and not just that the Son is subordinate. I suspect it was partly political: the enemies of Rome were Arian, and they simply wanted to brand their enemies as heretics, without making any effort to accomodate them, but which the Greeks were inclined to do (e.g. Chrysostom still regarded Arians of a particular sort at least as Christians).
 
Last edited:
What on earth are you talking about? Both Catholics and Orthodox generally hold to the Athanasian Creed. The only difference between the two is that Catholics and Protestants say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son." while Orthodox say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father."

We are talking about the creed, whereas you are talking about the doctrine of the trinity. Though the creed describes the trinity, it also details the belief in the trinity as a salvation requirement. The Westminster Confession of faith has no such stipulation. The Baptist confession of faith of 1689 has no such stipulation. GotQuestions.org punts on the whole question of belief in the trinity being necessary for salvation (link).
 
What? I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. If "The Christian theology of the [Athanaisan] creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition", why would anyone think it "is a de facto commentary or exposition of the fictive Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7"? The Eastern Church has never had the Comma in their Bibles.
That isn't necessarily the case. The comma also spread from the west to other traditions in the east. It is quoted in the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, drawn up in 1643 under the direction of Peter Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev. It is in the Moscow Zosimus bible based on the textus receptus. It crept into the bibles of all Greek/Syriac churches aligned with Roman Catholicism. The Comma was reverse translated from the Latin back into the Greek from the 17th century and subsequently.

1643? If we are talking about after the translating of the KJV, that's not necessarily a meaningful reference. I was referencing the Greek used in the Greek Church for the first 1500 years of the Church. The comma is only in the textus receptus because Rome forced Erasmus, under protest, to add it in. It wasn't found in any Greek NT before 1500. That someone added it into the Russian in the 1643 is completely irrelevant to my point. Remember, we are discussing the 5th century not the 17th.

The Greek language is fickle: Greek has so many words related to "theos," that when linked also to the usage/non-usage of the article, Greek can generate far more nuances relating to "theos" than the Latins ever could. So the Roman Trinity was a crude concept as constrasted with the Greek of the New Testament. It is another reason to be weary of taking doctrine from the Latins.

Do you just like listing to yourself? How is this relevant to the topic?

They hold to everything found in the Athanasian Creed save "and the Son". How on earth can this be true? It seems like an old school conspiracy theory, you know the ones that are never true.
Holding to something now doesn't indicate what people orginally believed. And the creeds, when translated into different languages, can mean different things, because translations are often never exact. Just in the process of translation one can radically alter a meaning.

There is this misconception that the whole word subscribed to the Augustinian Trinity from the start - it didn't. The East, which didn't have the Johannine Comma in those days, was always regarded by the Sabellian leaning & tolerating West as inclined to "Arianism."

The time of Augustine was the time when the Johannine Comma was beginning to appear in Latin manuscripts of the bible. Augustine well reflects the Latin Trinitarian fanaticism of his era, and the setting in of a rabid contempt for "Arians" of every description. Even the subordination of the Son was seen as Arianism, which isn't the case, IMO, as classical Ariansism always insisted that the Son was created, and not just that the Son is subordinate. I suspect it was partly political: the enemies of Rome were Arian, and they simply wanted to brand their enemies as heretics, without making any effort to accomodate them, but which the Greeks were inclined to do (e.g. Chrysostom still regarded Arians of a particular sort at least as Christians).

Keep on arguing like a old school conspiracy theorist. See how far that gets you. FYI, we still have writing from the Eastern Church in the 5th century, and earlier. We know what they believed then too. In the 5th century, both east and west would have agreed to everything found in the Athanasian Creed save "and the Son".

God Bless
 
What on earth are you talking about? Both Catholics and Orthodox generally hold to the Athanasian Creed. The only difference between the two is that Catholics and Protestants say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son." while Orthodox say "he (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father."

We are talking about the creed, whereas you are talking about the doctrine of the trinity. Though the creed describes the trinity, it also details the belief in the trinity as a salvation requirement. The Westminster Confession of faith has no such stipulation. The Baptist confession of faith of 1689 has no such stipulation. GotQuestions.org punts on the whole question of belief in the trinity being necessary for salvation (link).

Yeah, that's a silly response. If you have the wrong Jesus, you can't believe as to be saved. Outside of ignorance, it's generally accepted by the Reformed that those who reject the Trinity cannot be saved. That seems to be Piper's conclusion in your link:

Here’s my suggestion: what 1 John shows us is that authentic saving faith is of such a nature that, when false views of Christ’s deity and false views of Christ’s humanity are taught in the church, authentic saving faith smells a rat, and will at least have a big question mark, and will go to the Scriptures and search out the truth and believe it.

God Bless
 
Keep on arguing like a old school conspiracy theorist. See how far that gets you. FYI, we still have writing from the Eastern Church in the 5th century, and earlier. We know what they believed then too. In the 5th century, both east and west would have agreed to everything found in the Athanasian Creed save "and the Son".

God Bless
I don't accept it. You have no evidence, and from I can gather, you know next to nothing of church history. Your world is that of trinitarian fanatics, for whom God is his own Son, as per the tenets of paganism. That is why I will never subscribe to your doctrine, but also because the bible never teaches it.
 
The more I read Trinitarian philosophy, I am beginning to see that the way they rationalize God as being three persons who are one God is by converting God into a substance or being that dwells in three distinct persons.

In this paradox, God is actually the substance or being rather than the three persons and therefore the F, S, & HS cannot be God according to Trinitarianism.

They will often say the Trinity is a mystery, which in and of itself has become a thought-terminating cliché, but if you continue analyzing what they desperately don't want you to realize is that the Trinity is neither Biblical, logical, nor adequate to coherently explain God.

It also introduces many contradictions into the Bible. If what God is can dwell in other persons, such as those in the church, they have no clear philosophy for not allowing church members to become a member of the Godhead as well. The Bible says the fullness of God can dwell in Christians, but Trinitarians say the fullness of God can only dwell in Jesus.

Ephesians 3​
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.​

Jesus said the one and only true God is the Father.

John 17​
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​
NO Church member has The fullness of The GODHEAD dwelling in him.
Christ ALONE has that fullness.
 
Back
Top