Why I'm not a trinitarian

Either you are not really thinking about what you are writing, or you have cognitive dissonance which is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.

That would be the former. I am indeed thinking very little about what I'm writing, seeing as how the subject bores me.

You have "very little use" for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you write as one of its staunchest supporters here on CARM.

Wrong. You have me mixed up with someone else. I have typed thousands of posts here and this thread is one of the very few times I have even discussed the doctrine of the Trinity. I have very little interest in doctrines. You should have read what I told you before about why I reluctantly came to this thread.

Also, you are ignoring my answers. Are you just looking for me to agree with you or are you actually reading my answers to your questions? Maybe it would help if you read my entire post first before taking things out of context.

When you ask is Jesus praying to Himself or delivering the Kingdom up to Himself you are setting up a question for which the answer is only accepted by you if one first accepts your flawed view of the nature of God.

Rubbish. Quit stalling and give me an answer and THEN we can see if I accept it and if your unfounded prediction about how I will only accept it is true.

You came here looking for a fight, but you came to the wrong person. I have no passion to attack your silly and boring Oneness doctrine. Nor do I have any passion to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. What I DO have passion for is my worship of the Father and His Son Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit.

PS: you said I "did not address its instruction to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Are you kidding I gave you nine scriptures concerning baptism in the name of Jesus and a diagram and you completely ignore it.

I absolutely DID ignore it, Were you thinking those nine verses somehow negate Matthew 28:16? Perhaps you think Jesus meant:

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of Me, Myself and I."
 
The main reason that I'm not a trinitarian is because of how God expressed himself in the Old Testament in the first person singular, I, me, mine, myself, over and over again.
God's chosen people, the Israelites, understood and passed down to their children that God was one "person". (Ex 3:14, Deut 6:4) For God to be three persons/one being would mean that God, the God who loves truth (Num 23:19, Zech 8:19,1 John 5:6), misrepresented himself to his chosen people by letting them believe that He was one person and not three. If this were true, the Israelites gave false witness of God. (Isa 43:1-13) This is misleading and deceitful. God has no reason to be either.

Therefore, I read the NT with the understanding that God is an "I" just like I am an "I". One personal being. This is how Jesus' disciples would have understood God also. The doctrine of God is fundamental. Why didn't Jesus explain the trinity to his disciples so that they would give a proper witness to the truth of God? (Jer 9:23-24) Instead it took over 300 years to come to a full of expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

@stiggy wiggy
The "Trinity" is the first thing we encounter in the Bible Genesis1:1. God-eloim (plural subject) created - Bara (singular verb) so we have a "Plural God" performing a "SINGULAR work". the Trinity in a nutshell.
 
That would be the former. I am indeed thinking very little about what I'm writing, seeing as how the subject bores me.



Wrong. You have me mixed up with someone else. I have typed thousands of posts here and this thread is one of the very few times I have even discussed the doctrine of the Trinity. I have very little interest in doctrines. You should have read what I told you before about why I reluctantly came to this thread.



Rubbish. Quit stalling and give me an answer and THEN we can see if I accept it and if your unfounded prediction about how I will only accept it is true.

You came here looking for a fight, but you came to the wrong person. I have no passion to attack your silly and boring Oneness doctrine. Nor do I have any passion to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. What I DO have passion for is my worship of the Father and His Son Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit.



I absolutely DID ignore it, Were you thinking those nine verses somehow negate Matthew 28:16? Perhaps you think Jesus meant:

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of Me, Myself and I."

Posting here is a minor part of my life but that is all you know of me. The study of Christology is very enriching and to grow in knowledge of Christ is part of worshipping the Father in Spirit and in Truth (John 4). Studying the nature of Christ is certainly better time than worrying about house bills. Perhaps Jesus would ask you today as he did his disciples in John 14, "have I been so long with you that you have not known me, he that has seen me has seen the Father".

All "doctrine" means is teaching. There can be false teaching (like the Trinity) or there can be truth which exalts Christ so we become complete in Him as Colossians 2:10 says.

Oddly you said I "somehow negate Matthew 28:19". You missed the point of what Jesus was saying. He wasn't saying to be like a clapping seal and repeat those words, but to actually use the Name he is talking about. To baptize by calling on the name of Jesus is fulfilling Matthew 28:19. The singular name of Matthew 28:19 is JESUS. That the Apostles all baptized saying the name of Jesus is a reason to stir you to realize who Jesus really is.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. ISAIAH 9:6


Jesus is the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6, Rev 21:6)
Jesus is the son (Isaiah 9:6: Luke 1:35)
Jesus is the Counselor/Holy Spirit (Isaiah 9:6; Romans 8:5-9; 1 John 2:26-27)
 
Jesus is the Everlasting Father

You are wasting your time trying to convince me of that. There is zero chance that I will EVER believe Jesus is His own Father. Please peddle your propaganda elsewhere. I would wish you luck, but I cannot in good conscience root for the success of a heresy.
 
You are wasting your time trying to convince me of that. There is zero chance that I will EVER believe Jesus is His own Father. Please peddle your propaganda elsewhere. I would wish you luck, but I cannot in good conscience root for the success of a heresy.

Yet you believe in an eternally begotten Son? How does that work and where is that in the Bible? What is "eternally begotten"? There is zero chance I will believe in a man-made trinitarian term you insist upon.

ETERNALLY: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning
BEGOTTEN
: Bring (a child) into existence. Give rise to; bring about:

You would rather believe the absurd than the difficulty of accepting that Jesus is both divine and human and how his humanity related to his deity. God caused the miraculous conception of the Son according to Luke 1:35. The man Jesus Christ was not his own Father. You insist on ignoring his humanity.

By the way, the invention of non-Biblical Trinitarian terms that you use, and the redefinitions of terms and pronouns is a common tool used among those known for using propaganda effectively like the "Woke Mob", Communists and other radicals. Among the woke mob, a "he" can become a "her" because of "feelings". Among those that believe God is a Trinity, three "who's" becomes one "he" because of "feelings" or cognitive dissonance.

I've helped hundreds of people see that God is truly one and their need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Perhaps you will too someday.
 
Last edited:
The "Trinity" is the first thing we encounter in the Bible Genesis1:1. God-eloim (plural subject) created - Bara (singular verb) so we have a "Plural God" performing a "SINGULAR work". the Trinity in a nutshell.


The OT uses the title elohim for the false god Dagon (Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7) too. According to history, Dagon was not a Trinity but just one false god. The one idol was cut up by the one true God. If you consult a Hebrew or Bible dictionary, you'll see that it can refer to the one true God, a false god, even an angel or a human judge. The plurality implies strength and might and it is a huge mistake to rip its hebrew language meaning apart to support a three person deity.

Bob, you're better than that.
 
Last edited:
Yet you believe in an eternally begotten Son? How does that work and where is that in the Bible? What is "eternally begotten"? There is zero chance I will believe in a man-made trinitarian term you insist upon.

Good. Since I insist upon nothing at all, you shouldn't. In fact, you can't if you expect me to be your polemical sparring partner in this dull Trinity vs. Oneness debate.

Poor boy. You came to this thread looking for a potential convert to your favorite doctrine, THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OF ONENESS! Unfortunately, you were met with my apathy.

I'm not your Huckleberry.
 
Good. Since I insist upon nothing at all, you shouldn't. In fact, you can't if you expect me to be your polemical sparring partner in this dull Trinity vs. Oneness debate.

Poor boy. You came to this thread looking for a potential convert to your favorite doctrine, THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OF ONENESS! Unfortunately, you were met with my apathy.

I'm not your Huckleberry.
Apathy is not a virtue. To change the subject a bit. How is Jesus both a Lion and a Lamb? One Jesus but both?
 
Apathy is not a virtue.

I never either said nor implied that it was. But nor is it necessarily a vice. Depends on the object. Are you passionate or apathetic about Bulgaria's soccer team?

To change the subject a bit. How is Jesus both a Lion and a Lamb? One Jesus but both?

He's both. Kind of like how my Dad was both an insurance salesman and a Cub Scout leader. But He never talked to his salesman self as a Cub Scout leader. And neither part of him begat the other.

You're hard up to find someone here to argue about Oneness, aren't you?
 
I never either said nor implied that it was. But nor is it necessarily a vice. Depends on the object. Are you passionate or apathetic about Bulgaria's soccer team?



He's both. Kind of like how my Dad was both an insurance salesman and a Cub Scout leader. But He never talked to his salesman self as a Cub Scout leader. And neither part of him begat the other.

You're hard up to find someone here to argue about Oneness, aren't you?

You give a good example, but an incomplete one so I want to respond. Your example shows that you are thinking about God as you would just people. Your dad had different roles. God, of course, has many different roles too. But your dad was just human, right? But, God existed in two forms both divine and human. You get the idea that God can perform different roles, however, you are missing the important part in that Jesus is both God and man. One God but existing in two different ways simultaneously. The limitations of God as he existed in the flesh were real. So more happened with the incarnation (Luke 1:35) than role playing. HIs humanity was authentic.

It wasn't like God put on a human suit like you put on a coat and God was inside the suit looking out like you would go into a cabin and look out the windows. You are in the cabin but not actually the cabin. That is not the incarnation. God actually became one of us.
 
Last edited:
You give a good example, but an incomplete one so I want to respond. Your example shows that you are thinking about God as you would just people. Your dad had different roles. God, of course, has many different roles too. But your dad was just human, right? But, God existed in two forms both divine and human. You get the idea that God can perform different roles, however, you are missing the important part in that Jesus is both God and man. One God but existing in two different ways simultaneously. The limitations of God as he existed in the flesh were real. So more happened with the incarnation (Luke 1:35) than role playing. HIs humanity was authentic.

It wasn't like God put on a human suit like you put on a coat and God was inside the suit looking out like you would go into a cabin and look out the windows. You are in the cabin but not actually the cabin. That is not the incarnation. God actually became one of us.

All that makes a good speech, but you're preaching to a choir off one. I already believe in the Incarnation. God became man. And you know what else? This Man was God. And this Man was the Son of God. He was not the Son of Himself.
 
The idea of God suddenly developing a split personality kind of creeps me out.
The incarnation didn't cause God to have a split personality. I don't equate person with personality. "Personality is a set of qualities that make a person... distinct from another while person is an individual..." I think you might agree with this definition of personality in the setting of the incarnation of God.
When you say "God" what do you mean? Trinitarians use the word, God, to mean many things. I use it to mean only one thing, one divine person.
But I guess that's not a good reason to object to your strange notion that the Incarnation forever altered the essence of God.
Can you explain to me how God becoming a human did not alter his essence? How do you define essence?
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!"
Jesus was used by the Spirit in prophecy since he was a prophet. The one spoken of by Moses.

Deut 18: 15-19 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. 16 This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ 17 Then the Lord replied to me, ‘They are right in what they have said. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.

In context, the verse above starts with "32 He said to them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work. 33 Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ 34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus knew his identity was that of God but I don't believe he had prior recollections of his life before the incarnation until his Father revealed those things to him. John 5:19-20

John 14:10 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.



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.
Yes, but we know that God created when he spoke. "Let there be..."
Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1, 14
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."
How is this verse a problem for Oneness believers? We see a distinction between Father and Son.
 
No problem. Thanks for the explanation. I don't necessarily expect a reply and read nothing into not getting one.
Thanks
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:
It was enough passion to cause the girl doing drugs to quit.
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:
I think Stephen only saw Jesus with great power and authority. He didn't see God who is invisible. No man has seen God. We will only see God when we see Jesus. Heb 1:3

55 But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
 
Caroljeen, I guess I'm not a Trinitarian either for many of the reasons you stated.
But I believe you said that you don't believe Jesus pre-existed?
I don't believe the Son preexisted as the Son of God from eternity. I do believe that Jesus preexisted as God.
He claimed that he did at least twice:
John 8:58, ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
And
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Do you believe that Jesus no longer had the glory he once had with the Father before the world was? Why or why not?
How do you see Jesus now after his resurrection? As sort of a co-regent?
Jesus is the King of kings. The Father and Son both rule as one. The throne of God belongs to Jesus, (the lamb). I believe the only God we will ever see in eternity is Jesus, the Son of God.
 
The OT uses the title elohim for the false god Dagon (Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7) too. According to history, Dagon was not a Trinity but just one false god. The one idol was cut up by the one true God. If you consult a Hebrew or Bible dictionary, you'll see that it can refer to the one true God, a false god, even an angel or a human judge. The plurality implies strength and might and it is a huge mistake to rip its hebrew language meaning apart to support a three person deity.

Bob, you're better than that.
BUT I'm no closer that YOU are about fully understanding the total nature of God. Maybe I will be - later, on the other side. WHat I KNOW is that the Bible presents a FATHER GOD, a SON who is the physical manifestation of the WORD, who was WITH GOd and who WAS God, and the Holy Spirit has always been WITH us, and since Calvary is also IN us.

So "Theology" not withstanding, that's three functional entities (which we call "Persons") of God. I just found it interesting that the First vaerse in the Bible goes nicely along with that.

YOU can believe whatever lights your fire. It's nothing but "Theology", after all. ALL God's chilluns gots "Theologies".
 
YOU can believe whatever lights your fire. It's nothing but "Theology", after all. ALL God's chilluns gots "Theologies".
I realize that I'm always learning and likely do not have it all correct. My desire is to walk with the Lord in spirit and truth. I want to walk in the same light that He is. I'm not interested in any other type of theology.
 
BUT I'm no closer that YOU are about fully understanding the total nature of God. Maybe I will be - later, on the other side. WHat I KNOW is that the Bible presents a FATHER GOD, a SON who is the physical manifestation of the WORD, who was WITH GOd and who WAS God, and the Holy Spirit has always been WITH us, and since Calvary is also IN us.

So "Theology" not withstanding, that's three functional entities (which we call "Persons") of God. I just found it interesting that the First vaerse in the Bible goes nicely along with that.

YOU can believe whatever lights your fire. It's nothing but "Theology", after all. ALL God's chilluns gots "Theologies".

1 Corithinians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

This is not an excuse for saying things that have no basis in fact. We can know some things, especially things revealed to us in God's word. Some things like Bible prophecy can be difficult and people have different interpretations that are within bounds. I understand that. In regards to theology some things are implicitly taught and other things need to be interpreted using context and what we know from the rest of the Bible.

The word ELOHIM is not one of the those things that need to be interpreted. The definition is plain and the translation is clear and its usage in the rest of the bible is clear as well. It simply doesn't support a plurality of persons in its definition. Anybody can say anything they want about what the bible says, but as a regular contributor to CARM, I'm surprised that you are so sloppy taking the word ELOHIM and making it say what you just did. It's not right to say things that are explicitly not right and then tell everyone to just sing kumbaya. Paul tells us in Colossians 2:8-10 that we can and should discern truth and use the brains God gave us.

The 7,000 plus singular pronouns referring to God in the OT at the exclusion of a plurality of persons implicit in its teaching.
 
I am indeed thinking very little about what I'm writing, seeing as how the subject bores me.
If you don't want to discuss this, I'm fine stopping now. No need to respond to my posts from today. Discussing a topic with a bored Stiggy is a futile endeavor even if it is only for the sake of understanding.
 
The main reason that I'm not a trinitarian is because of how God expressed himself in the Old Testament in the first person singular, I, me, mine, myself, over and over again.
God's chosen people, the Israelites, understood and passed down to their children that God was one "person". (Ex 3:14, Deut 6:4) For God to be three persons/one being would mean that God, the God who loves truth (Num 23:19, Zech 8:19,1 John 5:6), misrepresented himself to his chosen people by letting them believe that He was one person and not three. If this were true, the Israelites gave false witness of God. (Isa 43:1-13) This is misleading and deceitful. God has no reason to be either.

Therefore, I read the NT with the understanding that God is an "I" just like I am an "I". One personal being. This is how Jesus' disciples would have understood God also. The doctrine of God is fundamental. Why didn't Jesus explain the trinity to his disciples so that they would give a proper witness to the truth of God? (Jer 9:23-24) Instead it took over 300 years to come to a full of expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

@stiggy wiggy

This is a fair argument on face value, but I think all of your concerns were answered in how you responded to @stiggy wiggy

When you say that "He is One", what do you mean? "One" what?

Do you see the confusion you have? The Trinity isn't a simplistic concept for a human to accept in a vacuum. It requires contemplation of multiple passages to start comprehend. So, if the Trinity is true, and if it is be difficult to explain to men while minimizing the errors of Oneness, Arianism, and Polytheism, how would God reveal this reality about himself to men? He would introduce the topic in types and shadows. He would allow the ignorance of his people in the short term as he raised them up to point where they could understand the Truth of the Trinity. And with the incarnation of Christ, God fully revealed this true.

FYI, you really should drop the whole 300 years nonsense. It's historically niave at best. It has great rhetorical value, but to anyone familiar with the actual history, you couldn't sound more ignorant. The term was coined in like 170 ad in Greek and like 200 in Latin. That's 140-170 years, not 300. Not to mention all the Church fathers who taught all the tenets of Trinitarianism from the beginning of the 2nd century. Prior to that, you only have Scripture. History supports the Trinitarian narrative: The apostles taught the specifics of the Trinity without a name for said doctrine. The early Church Father's continued to teach it. After a while, while arguing with various heretics, the doctrine was named.

Likewise, if one person in the Trinity speaks, it makes perfect sense for him to refer to himself using the first person singular. It is also interesting that not a single passage in all of Scripture denies multiple persons being the one God, but Scripture does present a plethora of evidence for the Trinity as evidenced by all these discussions.

God Bless
 
This is a fair argument on face value, but I think all of your concerns were answered in how you responded to @stiggy wiggy
I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you see the confusion you have?
I was asking what Stiggy meant by "He is one". I understand what trinitarians mean by that but not what Stiggy means by it. I've never discussed this subject with him and not every trinitarian has a full understanding of trinitarianism.
The Trinity isn't a simplistic concept for a human to accept in a vacuum. It requires contemplation of multiple passages to start comprehend. So, if the Trinity is true, and if it is be difficult to explain to men while minimizing the errors of Oneness, Arianism, and Polytheism, how would God reveal this reality about himself to men? He would introduce the topic in types and shadows. He would allow the ignorance of his people in the short term as he raised them up to point where they could understand the Truth of the Trinity. And with the incarnation of Christ, God fully revealed this true.
I agree that God kept some things secret until his incarnation and that there was a progression of revelation which was revealed in the last days by the Jesus and the apostles. I will continue to argue that the way God presented himself as one person to his chosen people, the Israelites and their fathers, was a true representation of himself, who he is. The only thing that changed upon his incarnation was that he began to exist as a man and at the same time remained as he always had been transcendent to his incarnation. I use the kenotic theory to explain it.
FYI, you really should drop the whole 300 years nonsense. It's historically niave at best. It has great rhetorical value, but to anyone familiar with the actual history, you couldn't sound more ignorant. The term was coined in like 170 ad in Greek and like 200 in Latin. That's 140-170 years, not 300. Not to mention all the Church fathers who taught all the tenets of Trinitarianism from the beginning of the 2nd century. Prior to that, you only have Scripture. History supports the Trinitarian narrative: The apostles taught the specifics of the Trinity without a name for said doctrine. The early Church Father's continued to teach it. After a while, while arguing with various heretics, the doctrine was named.
I've read some of the ECFs. I've read Against Praxeas by Tertullian a few times. He wrote it ~ 210. He was the first to coin the term, the Trinity. If you have read it, you would see that his explanation of the trinity is different than that of today in how he explains the development of the Son, the Word, and the inequality of the three persons.
I've read a book on the trinity by Roger Olson and Christopher Hall and the sections concerning the development of the Trinity in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig and discussed it for hours online. The doctrine developed slowly over time and became fully expressed at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The apostles didn't teach the doctrine of the trinity, imo. The doctrine of the trinity would have been foreign to them as Jews. If they truly thought that God was a trinity, they would have openly taught that doctrine since it would have been a new revelation given to them by Jesus or the Holy Spirit. They would have shared it with the church. A truth like that which revealed the nature of God as a trinity would have been taught more clearly. It would have been a foundational doctrine. The apostles revealed secrets that were kept hidden by God from the foundation of the world. The doctrine of the trinity was not one of them.

Likewise, if one person in the Trinity speaks, it makes perfect sense for him to refer to himself using the first person singular. It is also interesting that not a single passage in all of Scripture denies multiple persons being the one God, but Scripture does present a plethora of evidence for the Trinity as evidenced by all these discussions.

God Bless
The scripture does not have to deny multiple persons when, in reality, there are none.
 
Back
Top