Problems with the Trinity.

[Hilltrot]

As I've studied the Bible I've come to disagree more and more with the Trinity. Now I'm on the cusp of openly denying it. Unfortunately, most forums actually go out of their way to prevent people from discussing the Trinity. I found it awfully surreal when I read an incomplete list of reasons why Isaac Newton was looking into the problem as well. Yet, even he couldn't discuss because most Trinitarians are murderous.

The Trinity is not something one can discuss in churches except to affirm it. The second one questions it, one is thrown out. So I can't really discuss it with Trinitarians since they refuse to do so unless I declare to be a Muslim. Then, they will talk to me?!

The first problem I find with the Trinity is that it is never explained in the New Testament. Now notice, I didn't say mentioned, I said explained. Most of passages people use to support the Trinity are not about the Trinity. Rather, passages about something else entirely are used to support the Trinity. "Calvinism" does something similar.

The second problem I find with the Trinity is that the idea is first fully explained in a non-heretical way in the fourth century. Calvinism is similar.

The third problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians have burned and destroyed books which disagreed with them. In fact, they have gone farther. They have actually changed passages in the Bible - see 1 John 5:7 and Luke 3:22. While Calvinists haven't gone so far as to falsify scripture, they have definitely burned books and twisted the meaning of words in scripture.

The fourth problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians use many terms which don't exist in the bible to explain what they mean. For example, Trinitarians say that Jesus is fully man and fully God. The terms "fully man" and "fully God" are not in the Bible. When I ask what they mean by "fully God", they will often say "fully God means fully God" as if that explains anything. Calvinists also often say "God is God" thinking that that explains their beliefs. Calvinists will use terms from the Bible but they won't mean the same thing the Calvinists are making them into.

The fifth problem I have with the Trinity is the problem of square circles. Jesus died. Did God die? Jesus knew less than other humans before growing up. Can the same be said of God? Calvinists like to say God controls everything but is not responsible for any sin. Both Trinitarians and Calvinists use mystery or flawed logic to explain their beliefs.

The sixth problem I have with the Trinity is that many Trinitarians believe that is you don't believe in the Trinity, you're going to Hell. Many Calvinist believe the same about Calvinism. Yet, none of the apostles ever said this. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." is not Trinitarian or Calvinist.

The more I argued with Calvinists, the more I've found that Trinitarianism has the same if not greater problems.

You'all are welcome to convince me otherwise but I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.

 

[God's Truth]

As I've studied the Bible I've come to disagree more and more with the Trinity. Now I'm on the cusp of openly denying it. Unfortunately, most forums actually go out of their way to prevent people from discussing the Trinity. I found it awfully surreal when I read an incomplete list of reasons why Isaac Newton was looking into the problem as well. Yet, even he couldn't discuss because most Trinitarians are murderous.

The Trinity is not something one can discuss in churches except to affirm it. The second one questions it, one is thrown out. So I can't really discuss it with Trinitarians since they refuse to do so unless I declare to be a Muslim. Then, they will talk to me?!

The first problem I find with the Trinity is that it is never explained in the New Testament. Now notice, I didn't say mentioned, I said explained. Most of passages people use to support the Trinity are not about the Trinity. Rather, passages about something else entirely are used to support the Trinity. "Calvinism" does something similar.

The second problem I find with the Trinity is that the idea is first fully explained in a non-heretical way in the fourth century. Calvinism is similar.

The third problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians have burned and destroyed books which disagreed with them. In fact, they have gone farther. They have actually changed passages in the Bible - see 1 John 5:7 and Luke 3:22. While Calvinists haven't gone so far as to falsify scripture, they have definitely burned books and twisted the meaning of words in scripture.

The fourth problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians use many terms which don't exist in the bible to explain what they mean. For example, Trinitarians say that Jesus is fully man and fully God. The terms "fully man" and "fully God" are not in the Bible. When I ask what they mean by "fully God", they will often say "fully God means fully God" as if that explains anything. Calvinists also often say "God is God" thinking that that explains their beliefs. Calvinists will use terms from the Bible but they won't mean the same thing the Calvinists are making them into.

The fifth problem I have with the Trinity is the problem of square circles. Jesus died. Did God die? Jesus knew less than other humans before growing up. Can the same be said of God? Calvinists like to say God controls everything but is not responsible for any sin. Both Trinitarians and Calvinists use mystery or flawed logic to explain their beliefs.

The sixth problem I have with the Trinity is that many Trinitarians believe that is you don't believe in the Trinity, you're going to Hell. Many Calvinist believe the same about Calvinism. Yet, none of the apostles ever said this. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." is not Trinitarian or Calvinist.

The more I argued with Calvinists, the more I've found that Trinitarianism has the same if not greater problems.

You'all are welcome to convince me otherwise but I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.

The Trinity doctrine is false. But, you haven't said what you believe about who Jesus is. Could you explain what you believe about Jesus?

 

[God's Truth]

The third problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians have burned and destroyed books which disagreed with them. In fact, they have gone farther. They have actually changed passages in the Bible - see 1 John 5:7 and Luke 3:22. While Calvinists haven't gone so far as to falsify scripture, they have definitely burned books and twisted the meaning of words in scripture.

.

Those scriptures don't prove the trinity doctrine. You don't want to be just as bad as you say the trinitarians are do you? Think about it. You say those scriptures aren't right. You are the one changing the scriptures.

 

[Hilltrot]

Those scriptures don't prove the trinity doctrine. You don't want to be just as bad as you say the trinitarians are do you? Think about it. You say those scriptures aren't right. You are the one changing the scriptures.

First, are you KJVO?

 

[Lon]

I have a thread, in this section, on the trinity, but your question isn't generally in the 'exclusive' section (might be moved to general).

The Triune thread isn't for arguing over the trinity (nor is this one as long as it is in this section). It presents many compelling verses and truths that I believe demonstrate clearly that a Christian who understands truths and scripture, will have no other doctrine than that there is only one God, and that Father, Son, and Spirit are called God.

I use the term 'tri-une' or triunity because tri- usually gets emphasis rather than -une in most discussions and laity aren't as equipped arguing or discussing the difference.

In two sentences: God is presented as one in all of scripture thus '-une' is indisputable for all of Christendom.

The presentations of God are given in the Bible: Father Son Spirit. Paul, without flinching calls the Lord Jesus Christ our "Great God and Savior." Thomas, in John 20 calls Him "Lord of me and God of me!" The Spirit is also called God.

Whatever position we call it, the position that recognizes that scripture gives these two truths, whoever adheres to these scriptural givens, are called 'Trinitarian' or 'Triune.'

 

[Lon]

!

The first problem I find with the Trinity is that it is never explained in the New Testament. Now notice, I didn't say mentioned, I said explained. Most of passages people use to support the Trinity are not about the Trinity. Rather, passages about something else entirely are used to support the Trinity. "Calvinism" does something similar.

First, leave "Calvinist" behind. It is not part of this discussion and will only muddy the waters. You mention Calvinism a lot. Calvinists are a small portion of Christianity and that discussion is only going to confuse discussion here.

The second problem I find with the Trinity is that the idea is first fully explained in a non-heretical way in the fourth century. Calvinism is similar.

:nono: Not true. The early Church fathers began formulating ideas of what they believed. While it is understandable that one will wrestle with ideas presented in scripture, the church councils came to classify what scripture allows and what is outside of the parameters of those scriptures. As I've given above, the two truths are: One that scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one God and scripture is abundantly clear the Father, Son, and Spirit are/is God. Logic? It is simply to take scripture at its face value and neither ADD nor SUBTRACT from them, whether it SEEMS logically tenable to do something. Why? Because logic on this side is from man. Revelation is from God thus it was at the time of the councils, forbidden to go beyond or trounce upon, any scriptures God has given. Good rule, no? (yes, we don't want to even attempt to trample God with anything we believe).

The third problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians have burned and destroyed books which disagreed with them. In fact, they have gone farther. They have actually changed passages in the Bible - see 1 John 5:7 and Luke 3:22. While Calvinists haven't gone so far as to falsify scripture, they have definitely burned books and twisted the meaning of words in scripture.

If revisionist history is given its head, then there are all kinds of problematic take-aways from the revision. All books, even by orthodox theologians were forbidden at that time. Only church sanctioned books were allowed. Next, not all the books were destroyed, a good many circulated BUT the people were not literate so even those books were not available to the masses. Be careful with your indictments and only go so far as actual offenses allow. Next, there is a 'suspicion' in academic circles about how we have two different set of texts. While you may suggest that the scritpures were twisted, this isn't true. What is true of all texts is that some verses are left out. This does not indicate adding or revision. We've no idea what happened, can but make educated guesses. That's it. You cannot go further without it being untenable and generally a lie/inaccuracy. You don't want to change your position based off of even an exaggeration, because an exaggeration is not of God. It means, if you use this particular 'third problem' for changing, you are doing so upon an exaggeration.

The fourth problem I find with the Trinity is that Trinitarians use many terms which don't exist in the bible to explain what they mean. For example, Trinitarians say that Jesus is fully man and fully God. The terms "fully man" and "fully God" are not in the Bible. When I ask what they mean by "fully God", they will often say "fully God means fully God" as if that explains anything. Calvinists also often say "God is God" thinking that that explains their beliefs. Calvinists will use terms from the Bible but they won't mean the same thing the Calvinists are making them into.

This is just called language. A good many of the terms DO exist in the bible if you understand the term. For instance: Omnipotence. Is it in the bible? No, not "Omnipotence" but its equal "Almighty" is and that is exactly what omnipotence means. All it would take is for a translator to put "Omnipotence" in a bible in place of "Almighty." Then it'd be in a bible but Omnipotence IS, in fact a biblical term and taken directly from the Bible. Trinity likewise is not given, but "Godhead" is, and "I and the Father are one" is.

The fifth problem I have with the Trinity is the problem of square circles. Jesus died. Did God die? Jesus knew less than other humans before growing up. Can the same be said of God? Calvinists like to say God controls everything but is not responsible for any sin. Both Trinitarians and Calvinists use mystery or flawed logic to explain their beliefs.

This is modalism: equating the Father as the Son. Your problem isn't a square circle, it is how you are able to grasp truths given in scripture whether you can explain them or not. There are many things given in scripture I cannot explain. I cannot explain God's eternal non-beginning. I cannot explain how the physical world came from Spirit. It doesn't mean I'm not intelligent or that I'm ignoring answers. Part of our Faith, is faith. A trust in God where I cannot rely upon myself. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Way to the Father.

The sixth problem I have with the Trinity is that many Trinitarians believe that is you don't believe in the Trinity, you're going to Hell. Many Calvinist believe the same about Calvinism. Yet, none of the apostles ever said this. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." is not Trinitarian or Calvinist.

Question: If I give someone a scripture, and they do not believe it, though it is in the Bible, does that make the person a Christian? Are they trusting God? Are they trusting Christ when they throw out that one scripture, whatever it may be? Would I say "going to hell?" I believe the problem is willful disregard for something God said, and it certainly is a problem. Does it condemn one to hell? I'd think rather, that God will bring about the change needed. The Holy Spirit indwells and guides His own, and so I don't think one with Him inside can resist for very long. Who can argue with God? The Lord Jesus Christ said He'd guide us into all truth.

The more I argued with Calvinists, the more I've found that Trinitarianism has the same if not greater problems.

Stop doing both? The issue is to know scriptures and continue to follow the Spirit's guidance in your life. He is not going to cause you to be in friction with the majority of the Body of Christ, that doesn't make sense but a good many heterodox and worse, fall exactly in that category. The Holy Spirit led Martin Luther, not to abandon the church, but to love it and try to reform it. The separation happened because Catholics forced the separation.

You'all are welcome to convince me otherwise but I'm pretty close to completely renouncing the Trinity.

It isn't important what you decide, but rather if and as the Holy Spirit leads. He can and does, only lead in truth. If you are growing bitter, less loving toward the Body of Christ, it is a sign you probably aren't being led by the Spirit into all truth. Truth is the only direction He leads. I believe the scriptures given in the Triune thread and believe they are clear.

 

[God's Truth]

First, are you KJVO?

No, not only KJV; but, definitely a must have.

By the way, glad you can see that something is wrong with the trinity doctrine and Calvinism too.

 

[Hilltrot]

I have a thread, in this section, on the trinity, but your question isn't generally in the 'exclusive' section (might be moved to general).

Read the sticky.

"The new standard for the "Exclusively Christian Theology" is to allow anyone to post here who considers themselves to be Christian and considers the Bible to be inspired by God."

I am posting in the right section.

 

[Hilltrot]

No, not only.

In that case I'll go ahead and answer your question.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Was added to scripture and not in the original text.

Luke 3:22 ESV
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.”

Was changed to

Luke 3:22 ESV
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

to conform with the Nicene Creed

 

[Hilltrot]

:nono: Not true. The early Church fathers began formulating ideas of what they believed. While it is understandable that one will wrestle with ideas presented in scripture, the church councils came to classify what scripture allows and what is outside of the parameters of those scriptures. As I've given above, the two truths are: One that scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one God and scripture is abundantly clear the Father, Son, and Spirit are/is God. Logic? It is simply to take scripture at its face value and neither ADD nor SUBTRACT from them, whether it SEEMS logically tenable to do something. Why? Because logic on this side is from man. Revelation is from God thus it was at the time of the councils, forbidden to go beyond or trounce upon, any scriptures God has given. Good rule, no? (yes, we don't want to even attempt to trample God with anything we believe).

You don't need to go on and on. Just give be a single counterexample before the 4th century. The hypostatic union, equal standing between the Son, God and Holy Spirit, the son eternally begotten, etc. Just a clear explanation of the Trinity before the 4th century.

And no, no explanation exists in scripture.

 

[Hilltrot]

Next, there is a 'suspicion' in academic circles about how we have two different set of texts.

This is something pushed by the KJVO crowd for quite some time. The truth is far more complicated than that.

 

[Hilltrot]

While you may suggest that the scritpures were twisted, this isn't true. What is true of all texts is that some verses are left out. This does not indicate adding or revision. We've no idea what happened, can but make educated guesses. That's it. You cannot go further without it being untenable and generally a lie/inaccuracy. You don't want to change your position based off of even an exaggeration, because an exaggeration is not of God. It means, if you use this particular 'third problem' for changing, you are doing so upon an exaggeration.

It's not true that in all texts verses are left out. However, scriptures are twisted. Sometimes in translation. But it is clear that Trinitarian verses have been added and others changed to support the trinitarian view. I am not exaggerating.

 

[Hilltrot]

This is just called language. A good many of the terms DO exist in the bible if you understand the term. For instance: Omnipotence. Is it in the bible? No, not "Omnipotence" but its equal "Almighty" is and that is exactly what omnipotence means. All it would take is for a translator to put "Omnipotence" in a bible in place of "Almighty." Then it'd be in a bible but Omnipotence IS, in fact a biblical term and taken directly from the Bible. Trinity likewise is not given, but "Godhead" is, and "I and the Father are one" is.

Omnipotence does not mean almighty. They mean very different things. Are you a Calvinist? Do you even know what Omnipotence actually means?

"Godhead" is not in the Bible unless you are using a twisted translation like the Amplified Bible.

"I and the Father are one" is a phrase and not a trinitarian term like hypostatic union or eternally begotten. When read in context, I don't consider it to mean what you think it means.

 

[Hilltrot]

This is modalism: equating the Father as the Son. Your problem isn't a square circle, it is how you are able to grasp truths given in scripture whether you can explain them or not. There are many things given in scripture I cannot explain. I cannot explain God's eternal non-beginning. I cannot explain how the physical world came from Spirit. It doesn't mean I'm not intelligent or that I'm ignoring answers. Part of our Faith, is faith. A trust in God where I cannot rely upon myself. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Way to the Father.

An appeal to mystery. If it is a mystery, why are Trinitarians so adamant that people have to believe it.

 

[Hilltrot]

Question: If I give someone a scripture, and they do not believe it, though it is in the Bible, does that make the person a Christian? Are they trusting God? Are they trusting Christ when they throw out that one scripture, whatever it may be? Would I say "going to hell?" I believe the problem is willful disregard for something God said, and it certainly is a problem. Does it condemn one to hell? I'd think rather, that God will bring about the change needed. The Holy Spirit indwells and guides His own, and so I don't think one with Him inside can resist for very long. Who can argue with God? The Lord Jesus Christ said He'd guide us into all truth.

You have just reinforced my 6th point.

 

[God's Truth]

In that case I'll go ahead and answer your question.

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Was added to scripture and not in the original text.

Luke 3:22 ESV
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.”

Was changed to

Luke 3:22 ESV
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

to conform with the Nicene Creed

Could you show what exactly you think is different?

 

[Hilltrot]

If you are growing bitter, less loving toward the Body of Christ

You're projecting.

 

[Lon]

This is something pushed by the KJVO crowd for quite some time. The truth is far more complicated than that.

:sigh: No, it is not pushed by only the KJVO crowd. I'm not KJVO. The truth isn't THAT complicated, the family trees of texts aren't an easy wade, but it is not that complicated. The two main lines of thought in all of Christendom are these: That the Byzantine texts are better, because they were recorded all the same thus 'right' or that the Alexandrian texts were, because they have 'less' than the other. It isn't more complicated than that but it is foolhardy to make doctrines that differ from one another out of that.

You don't need to go on and on. Just give be a single counterexample before the 4th century. The hypostatic union, equal standing between the Son, God and Holy Spirit, the son eternally begotten, etc. Just a clear explanation of the Trinity before the 4th century.

And no, no explanation exists in scripture.

You are simply asserting. I didn't go "on and on" lain: You are already starting on a less than 'holy spirit' inspired direction. Why do cultists think they are following the Holy Spirit when they begin lacking grace? If this is the mark of your departure, you may want to examine it. If it isn't producing Godliness and a love for God's people, you are going the wrong direction, however 'right for you' it might seem to be. Take it as a warning flag.

Your short venture through those who posture over this is not academically accepted and is ad hoc.

See here and here IF you are open to being corrected. If not, there is no point to discussion. As you said, your mind is made up, regardless of facts and truth. God doesn't lead that way, however. He leads us to care and concern over the Body and points that unify us, not separates. Anytime you see 'separation' you should worry and question. I'm not part of the Catholic Church and have quite a bit of disagreement, but if my desire is not to see their holiness and walking with God, something isn't right. The Spirit produces holiness and, as with the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther, a deep love and longing for those who aren't getting it, to get it.

 

[Lon]

An appeal to mystery. If it is a mystery, why are Trinitarians so adamant that people have to believe it.

It isn't the mystery they are adamant about. It is the scripture. I am adamant that John 1:1, 3,12; 20:28 are in my bible, whether anybody gets it or not.

 

[Lon]

You're projecting.

No, and why did YOU make such an assertion? It would mean exactly what I'd said. Do I need to posture? Debate? :nono: Your mind is made up. Your thread will likely be moved btw. It isn't Christian and it is going to end in vitriolic debate. You aren't open to discussion at this point and are posturing. You've said as much BUT you invited someone to change your mind. :nono: You aren't showing with this kind of posturing that you are open to anything. While a LOT of my triune thread is posturing instead of scriptures (like I'd hoped), it is yet full of many scriptures that prove God is Triune for anyone who has ears to hear. I'm not going to go on with banter here with you. I was very disappointed that is what my thread contained. Toward the end I began ignoring Arians and Modalists and just posted scriptures. There is no point in arguing with a closed mind. It isn't projecting, it is exactly what you are doing here. Did you bother reading the links yet? :think: Scriptures given here? :think: