When did otherwise rational people begin believing that three persons equals one God? When and how did reasonable people begin accepting the idea that 1 does not really mean 1? What if I tried to give a dollar bill as payment for merchandise costing $3 and told the cashier not to worry, that even though it looked like only $1 it was actually worth $3? What would happen? Well maybe if the cashier had a good sense of humor, he or she might joke back with me. But the fact is, no thinking person accepts that kind of math when it comes to money, or anything else! Why then do we accept it when it comes to the subject of God?
For over 35 years as a Christian and student of the Bible, I never seriously considered that the doctrine of the Trinity could be false. I never understood it, but I always accepted it as true. My parents believed it, their parents believed it, my Pastors believed it, my Bible teachers and professors believed it. Like the majority of Christians today, I accepted this doctrine without question as the truth about the nature of God. The basis of this acceptance on such a wide scale, I think, is rooted in the notion that it's simply a "mystery" we must accept by faith since no one can expect to understand God in His totality! To question this divine revelation of "three Who's equaling one What", as suggested by the Bible Answer Man Hank Hanagraf, simply because it makes no logical sense to us, is futile and faithless. But is that right? Is that how we should approach the subject of the revealed nature of God? Is that actually what the Bible teaches? I don't think so!
Part of my “paradigm shift” concerns this Trinitarian concept of God. Until recently (roughly August '08) I believed in God the Father God the Son and God the Spirit, the three persons of the Trinity. I sang the songs and listened to the sermons referencing the three in one without bending an eyebrow. I was well aware that it made no sense, but I was content to be confused along with everyone else. When confronted with the irrationality of it, I considered the usual analogies of water, ice and steam, or depth width and height, or past, present and future, and of course the standard tripartite nature of man - body, soul and spirit.
One day those ideas just didn't work for me any longer. I was frustrated at having been a "Bible believing" Christian for so long and yet, having so few answers that satisfied my reason.
In my search for truth, I read some literature that so impacted me that I saw Scripture with new eyes. As I followed the Bible references with an open mind my thinking began to change. I can't say exactly what specific argument or premise brought about this sudden change but, overall, it just made good sense! In the past, I would never have allowed myself to read anything contrary to the orthodox view, but this time, I thought, if it's not true it can't hurt. Some might say I simply allowed myself to be deceived but I think, rather, I was just hungry enough to be curious enough to consider it. And having taken the time to consider it, I knew it was right!
Please understand that it is not my intention to be irreverent or cheapen in any way the Godhood of God! I do not deny Jesus as a genuine historical personality, nor do I question His virgin birth, his sinless life, or his Sonship; but I now see that I have gone beyond what the Bible teaches about him, or even what he says about himself. Rather than simply taking him at his word that, he is the Son of God, tradition has made him what he never claimed to be. As a result of this religious mysticism the theological waters have been muddied. Our concept of God is confusing, at best, and divisive to many who may otherwise be open to hear the gospel. Even in the gospel of John which provides the primary "proof texts" for the Deity of Christ, closes by declaring,
“but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
-- John 20:31 (ESV)
For the first time in my adult life, I have been willing to take seriously the arguments of those who refute the Trinity. And now as I study the subject on my own, the evidence just keeps “piling up” in favor of my newly adopted understanding that, God the Father alone is God, Jesus is His son, the only begotten, and the holy spirit, rather than a person, is the active, personal, power of God at work in the world and the lives of believers.
I will submit my arguments from Scripture for this view in future posts, but if you are reading this and you believe in the Trinity, I must concede that 1700 years of Church history are on your side! The Trinitarian view of God has been called "orthodoxy" since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and Trinitarian scholars would no doubt argue that the council only put down on paper what was already the accepted view by the majority of the Church.
However, it's not that simple. The history is complex. Other groups argued against the Trinitarian view for centuries after, with some later Councils overturning the Council of Nicea. But regardless of the current majority view, I believe sound reasoning and, more importantly, sound Scriptural evidence, will show that a Biblical Unitarian interpretation of Scripture is more faithful to the text of the Bible, more logically coherent to the Bibles message, and allows for a more exalted view of Jesus, the human Christ!
I'll be writing more on this later, but in closing I would like to quote from a Trinitarian source in order to make a point. In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under the topic “Trinity” we read as follows:
“The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it ... A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture...
As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him...” [emphasis mine]
Also, if "the sense of Scripture is Scripture", as the article puts it, I guess Scripture can mean whatever I want it to mean; that is, whatever my sense of it, that becomes Scripture! Can that be right? And, by the way, how can one “preserve the truth of Scripture” without preserving the “words of Scripture”? Isn't that just double talk? But this is typical when it comes to defining the doctrine of the Trinity. We must resort to all kinds of twisting and mutilation of words and reason.
It seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a revealed doctrine at all, but in fact, an inferred doctrine, and there is a big difference! If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important, and if God, indeed, intended to reveal Himself as a “triune” being, certainly He would have stated it plainly, and it would be made clear in BOTH Testaments. Indeed, we would not be left to “infer” anything!
"Three in one" is a great lubricant, but not such a great doctrine!
God bless,
Keith
