Why I'm not a trinitarian

Rather than defend a concept, one which is far too abstract for my taste as applied to a LIVING God, let me just tell you what I believe and you can tell me whether or not we disagree on Who God is, as opposed to how we should label Him.

I believe God is our Father Who is in heaven. I believe Jesus is His only begotten Son.
I agree.
Both are elohim, or God,
I agree.
I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. He is a He, not an It. A Person, not a mere influence.
I agree.
I believe that when we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father.
I agree.
I believe that Christ is the Logos, the perfect expression of the Father.
I agree.
I believe that Christ co-existed with the Father even before the advent of time.
I disagree.
I believe that God existed eternally as one person. It wasn't until God became incarnate that He began to exist in two distinct ways/modes, as Father and Son. God was not a father in the sense of begetting a Son until He conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary. Luke 1:35
The holy child in her womb would be called the Son of God. Isa 9:6
I believe that everything that is, was, or ever will be is created by Christ, including Time itself.
I disagree.
The use of the names/titles "Christ", "Jesus", "the Son of God" are used anachronistically when speaking of the existence Christ had prior to his incarnation. Prior to his incarnation, Jesus was simply YHWH.
I believe that God the Father sustains the universe through God the Son.
I disagree.
I believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct forms/modes of the one person of God. Spirit and Human. The one person of God made all things and sustains all things.
I believe that the reason God desires our praise is because of the mutual love of the Father and Son which means the Son is pleased when we praise the Father and vice-versa.
I could agree with this if you are not talking about perichoresis, the trinitarian indwelling of one another.
I believe the Father is greater than the Son due to the fact that the Son will some day hand His Kingdom over to the Father.
I disagree.
I believe the Father is greater than the Son only as it pertains to the difference in their modes of existence. One is unfettered Deity and the other is restrained as a human.
 
I disagree.
I believe that God existed eternally as one person. It wasn't until God became incarnate that He began to exist in two distinct ways/modes, as Father and Son.

The idea of God suddenly developing a split personality kind of creeps me out. But I guess that's not a good reason to object to your strange notion that the Incarnation forever altered the essence of God. How do you deal with these words of Jesus:

Luke 13:34: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"
and

John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."

God was not a father in the sense of begetting a Son until He conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Hebrews 1:2: "....... in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world."

And of course we know He created the world long before Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary.

I disagree.
I believe the Father is greater than the Son only as it pertains to the difference in their modes of existence. One is unfettered Deity and the other is restrained as a human.

I Cor 15:28: "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
 
The idea of God suddenly developing a split personality kind of creeps me out. But I guess that's not a good reason to object to your strange notion that the Incarnation forever altered the essence of God. How do you deal with these words of Jesus:

Luke 13:34: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"
and

John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."



Hebrews 1:2: "....... in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world."

And of course we know He created the world long before Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary.



I Cor 15:28: "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

You are not understanding what the Oneness of God is. You are judging the doctrine of the Oneness of God through Trinitarian lenses and I think you are not understanding some basic biblical truths about the nature of God. So, that is a hindrance here. There is One God who uses singular pronouns (I, ME, MY) to identify Himself this way THOUSANDS of times throughout the scripture. God is Spirit (John 4:24) and as Spirit He is everywhere present (Psalm 139) and not limited by a body or by space and time. God is omnipotent and not bound by manmade categories and boxes you call "persons". Paul warned you not to do this in Colossians 2:8. Yes, he rebuked Trinitarians before it was a twinkle in Tertulian's eye.

God becoming a man was a miraculous event (Luke 1:35) and a gift to us. God's essence or nature or substance did not change. God is immutable, unchangeable. The essence of God didn't get transformed or converted to humanity at the incarnation, but rather God added to Himself a real human existence while simultaneously continuing to exist as He always has as Spirit (John 4:24).

The man whom God (I AM) became (Colossians 2:9) had a real relationship with God, who is immutable Spirit. God perceiving and functioning as a genuine man, communicated to God who continued to exist as the eternal Spirit that He has always been.

Jesus is the I AM because He is this one God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). He is the creator because He is this one God manifested in the flesh. He didn't create the worlds after he became a man (or Son), but because He is God.

You are reading Hebrews 1:2 through Trinitarian lenses. Hebrews 1:5 says "you are my son, TODAY I have begotten you". So, that obviously blows your theory out of the water.

It was by the Father's Word/Logos all things were created (John 1) and the Father's Word/Logos became flesh or the begotten Son. The Father's Word was complete and known from eternity and began to be fulfilled at creation and found ultimate expression when He became flesh. The Sonship was known from eternity but literally found fulfilment in space and time (Galatians 4:4). All things were created in the beginning with the incarnation in view and creation ultimately finding maturity and completion by the Son.
 
You are not understanding what the Oneness of God is. You are judging the doctrine of the Oneness of God through Trinitarian lenses and I think you are not understanding some basic biblical truths about the nature of God. So, that is a hindrance here. There is One God who uses singular pronouns (I, ME, MY) to identify Himself this way THOUSANDS of times throughout the scripture. God is Spirit (John 4:24) and as Spirit He is everywhere present (Psalm 139) and not limited by a body or by space and time. God is omnipotent and not bound by manmade categories and boxes you call "persons". Paul warned you not to do this in Colossians 2:8. Yes, he rebuked Trinitarians before it was a twinkle in Tertulian's eye.

God becoming a man was a miraculous event (Luke 1:35) and a gift to us. God's essence or nature or substance did not change. God is immutable, unchangeable. The essence of God didn't get transformed or converted to humanity at the incarnation, but rather God added to Himself a real human existence while simultaneously continuing to exist as He always has as Spirit (John 4:24).

The man whom God (I AM) became (Colossians 2:9) had a real relationship with God, who is immutable Spirit. God perceiving and functioning as a genuine man, communicated to God who continued to exist as the eternal Spirit that He has always been.

Jesus is the I AM because He is this one God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). He is the creator because He is this one God manifested in the flesh. He didn't create the worlds after he became a man (or Son), but because He is God.

You are reading Hebrews 1:2 through Trinitarian lenses. Hebrews 1:5 says "you are my son, TODAY I have begotten you". So, that obviously blows your theory out of the water.

It was by the Father's Word/Logos all things were created (John 1) and the Father's Word/Logos became flesh or the begotten Son. The Father's Word was complete and known from eternity and began to be fulfilled at creation and found ultimate expression when He became flesh. The Sonship was known from eternity but literally found fulfilment in space and time (Galatians 4:4). All things were created in the beginning with the incarnation in view and creation ultimately finding maturity and completion by the Son.

I disagree with very little of what you say. But I have no "theory" about it as you claim. Nevertheless, I do believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That IS a trinity. The Son is at the right hand of the Father. One cannot be at the right hand of himself.
 
I disagree with very little of what you say. But I have no "theory" about it as you claim. Nevertheless, I do believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That IS a trinity. The Son is at the right hand of the Father. One cannot be at the right hand of himself.

Oneness people believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On that we agree. What we disagree on what this means. You seem to be expressing a BODY-CENTRIC view of God with God the Father in body #1 and God the Son in body #2 and you have body #2 standing at the right hand of body #1. But God is Spirit and the "right-hand" means a position of authority, not a physical location of two bodies. Similar to how we use the term "right-hand man".

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64

With Luke 21:27 "in a cloud with power and great glory".

God is Spirit, therefore where is his right hand exactly other than Christ who is God in flesh.
 
Oneness people believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On that we agree. What we disagree on what this means. You seem to be expressing a BODY-CENTRIC view of God with God the Father in body #1 and God the Son in body #2 and you have body #2 standing at the right hand of body #1.

I believe none of that. Only the Son has a body.

But God is Spirit and the "right-hand" means a position of authority, not a physical location of two bodies. Similar to how we use the term "right-hand man".

Acts 7:55:

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand."
 
I believe none of that. Only the Son has a body.



Acts 7:55:

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand."

Right, only the son has a body, what are you saying about Acts 7:55?

a. Stephen sees Jesus in a position of power, or
b. Stephen sees Jesus standing next to the Father's body, specifically, Stephen sees the Father right hand and Jesus next to that right hand.
 
Right, only the son has a body, what are you saying about Acts 7:55?

a. Stephen sees Jesus in a position of power, or
b. Stephen sees Jesus standing next to the Father's body, specifically, Stephen sees the Father right hand and Jesus next to that right hand.

c. Stephen saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand. [like it says]

Even if I were a contortionist, I could not STAND at my right hand. Jesus and the Father are separate Persons.
 
c. Stephen saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand. [like it says]

Even if I were a contortionist, I could not STAND at my right hand. Jesus and the Father are separate Persons.

You are saying that Stephen saw two bodies? He saw the Father and his right hand and then the Son standing next to him. What is different than what you said from selection b. above.
 
No. Just one.



No. He saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand. [like it says]

Like saying, no he drank the water out of an empty cup.

What are you saying? Let's simplify further:

Did Stephen literally see a right hand that Jesus was standing next to? Did you see a right hand or not?
 
Like saying, no he drank the water out of an empty cup.

What are you saying? Let's simplify further:

Did Stephen literally see a right hand that Jesus was standing next to? Did you see a right hand or not?

Literally? No. The "right hand of X" is a figure of speech. Are you that same type of literalist with the verse about how one "believes with the heart?" Do you think a cardio pump can think?

If you are going to contend that Father and Son are One and the same, i.e.synonymous, you're going to need to explain Acts 7:55. How can anyone stand to the right of himself?
 
Literally? No. The "right hand of X" is a figure of speech. Are you that same type of literalist with the verse about how one "believes with the heart?" Do you think a cardio pump can think?

If you are going to contend that Father and Son are One and the same, i.e.synonymous, you're going to need to explain Acts 7:55. How can anyone stand to the right of himself?
I know I still have another one of your posts to respond to but I can't do it on this laptop. I messes me up with the way it formats my responses. I have to add some of the codes and I never fail to have trouble doing it. I respond to your other post when I get back home on my desktop. I can tackle short responses to one topic okay on this laptop.
How do you view of God the Father?
Do you think God is on the throne and Jesus is at this literal right hand?
God is a Spirit who fills the universe and beyond. He cannot be limited to one place. He doesn't have hands, eyes, wings, etc.
I believer that what when Stephen looked up and saw Jesus in a place of great power and authority, even as the visible God.
 
I know I still have another one of your posts to respond to but I can't do it on this laptop. I messes me up with the way it formats my responses. I have to add some of the codes and I never fail to have trouble doing it. I respond to your other post when I get back home on my desktop. I can tackle short responses to one topic okay on this laptop.

No problem. Thanks for the explanation. I don't necessarily expect a reply and read nothing into not getting one.

How do you view of God the Father?

As One Who gave His only begotten Son out of love. Love for me and you, and all of us. This sacrifice of His own Son cost Him dearly. We often hear and read about the passion of the Christ, but seldom about the passion of the Father. Here is a short little feature that I like which is an allegory regarding that passion. It's only 29 minutes long and well worth watching:


Do you think God is on the throne and Jesus is at this literal right hand?

Yes. Unless we are so literal that we think that implies that our Father has literal hands. Jesus has two, both with holes in them:


God is a Spirit who fills the universe and beyond. He cannot be limited to one place.

AMEN, Sister!
 
Literally? No. The "right hand of X" is a figure of speech. Are you that same type of literalist with the verse about how one "believes with the heart?" Do you think a cardio pump can think?

If you are going to contend that Father and Son are One and the same, i.e.synonymous, you're going to need to explain Acts 7:55. How can anyone stand to the right of himself?

Help me understand what I see are two contradictory statements coming from you:

1. You say, "Literally? No. The right hand of X is a figure of speech".

Ok, I'm with you and understand and agree with you on this, but...


2. Then you say, "How can anyone stand to the right of himself".

You just said "Literally? No. The right hand of X is a figure of speech", it begs the question as to why you are asking how anyone can stand to the right of himself when you already said it was a figure of speech. Is the right hand of power a figure of speech or is this a literal person that Stephen sees next to Jesus?
 
Help me understand what I see are two contradictory statements coming from you:

1. You say, "Literally? No. The right hand of X is a figure of speech".

Ok, I'm with you and understand and agree with you on this, but...


2. Then you say, "How can anyone stand to the right of himself".

You just said "Literally? No. The right hand of X is a figure of speech", it begs the question as to why you are asking how anyone can stand to the right of himself when you already said it was a figure of speech. Is the right hand of power a figure of speech or is this a literal person that Stephen sees next to Jesus?

No. I'm saying that our Father in heaven does not possess a literal hand. But Jesus stood to the right of His Father, and Stephen saw that. As I told Caroljeen, however, I DO believe Jesus has a literal body. He will return to earth in one.
 
No. I'm saying that our Father in heaven does not possess a literal hand. But Jesus stood to the right of His Father, and Stephen saw that. As I told Caroljeen, however, I DO believe Jesus has a literal body. He will return to earth in one.

So we both agree that Stephen didn't literally see a 2nd body or right hand of this person. What did he see? He saw Jesus in the position of power and he saw the "glory of God".

The body of Jesus is the body of God the Father, for He tabernacled among us, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily according to Colossians 2:9. God is an omnipotent and everywhere present Spirit being, so to say this Spirit is on the right or left or somewhere else than here is not accurate. God's presence can move or not move upon a person or thing but His presence can't be contained in one place or body. For the glory of God to be manifested with the body of the resurrected Christ while simultaneously doing other things doesn't require multiple persons. The essence of God is both in and outside the resurrected body of Christ. God is omnipotent, not multiple "persons".
 
So we both agree that Stephen didn't literally see a 2nd body or right hand of this person.

Correct.

What did he see?

We are TOLD what he saw. He saw Jesus standing to the right of God.

The body of Jesus is the body of God the Father, for He tabernacled among us, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Obviously Jesus and the Father are not synonymous. Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden. Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy? Are you suggesting that Jesus' last comment on earth can be interpreted as "Into My own hands I commend My Spirit?" Before that did He say in effect, "Myself, forgive them for they know not what they do?"


All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily according to Colossians 2:9. God is an omnipotent and everywhere present Spirit being, so to say this Spirit is on the right or left or somewhere else than here is not accurate.

Who said that? Not I.

God's presence can move or not move upon a person or thing but His presence can't be contained in one place or body. For the glory of God to be manifested with the body of the resurrected Christ while simultaneously doing other things doesn't require multiple persons.

Who said it did? Not sure with whom you are arguing here.
 
Correct.



We are TOLD what he saw. He saw Jesus standing to the right of God.



Obviously Jesus and the Father are not synonymous. Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden. Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy? Are you suggesting that Jesus' last comment on earth can be interpreted as "Into My own hands I commend My Spirit?" Before that did He say in effect, "Myself, forgive them for they know not what they do?"




Who said that? Not I.



Who said it did? Not sure with whom you are arguing here.

We seem to be going around and around with who was Jesus standing next to. Right hand of God means a place of authority and we both agreed on that multiple times. Stephen saw the glory of God and Jesus in a position of power. That's what it means to be at God's right hand. So, what did Stephen see? Did he see a Michelangelo like portrait of the Trinity with an old man and a young man next to him and a bird hovering nearby? Of course not, and I think you would agree with that.

From a Oneness perspective, Stephen saw the glory of God and Jesus in a place of power and then Stephen called upon God by saying "Lord Jesus..."

There is nothing in what Stephen saw to suggest a Trinity.

Any distinction from what Stephen saw is said to be that of Jesus and "God". The text doesn't say God the Father, simply "God". To further complicate your theory, also remember that Jesus Himself is God, so which person of God was Jesus next to?
 
Back
Top