Some Reasons I don't Believe in a Trinity.

[Donny Cage]

First let me start by saying, I don’t think any differently of any of you no matter what you believe. You have your reasons for believing what you do, and that is between you and God. If you believe God is a trinity that’s your business. I don’t believe God is a trinity. Below is just a few reasons why.

Almost every argument to support trinitariansim, either relies on preconceived ideas (forethought going into scripture), assumptions, and sometimes just outright ideas that are foreign to biblical teaching.

Let’s take a a look at a few that are most common…

Argument 1. Genesis 1:26. “Let Us make man in Our image.” Let’s stop right there, and not not read the rest, where it says “God made man in HIS own image”…

So we have “Let Us make man in Our image”. Well, if we go into this with a preconceived idea that God is multiple in persons, we would say “aha! There it is, he’s using plural language! So he must be a trinity!” Yet the verse doesn’t promote trinitarianism. You are attempting to support/create a doctrine, based on a presupposed assumption. Trinitarians may say something like, “it was the Father speaking to the Holy Spirit and the Son”… yet that’s NOT what the scripture says. The scripture says “God said…” So if God is a trinity, then the trinity said…

Furthermore, if you want the “Let us make man in our image” to mean, the speaker is speaking to someone else… then God would be speaking to someone OTHER than God. Either way you look at it, it doesn’t support trinitarianism.

So who was God talking to? It doesn’t say. So why assume? You should be basing doctrine on what scripture DOES say, and not load the scripture with what you think it SHOULD’ve said. (They do the SAME thing with John 1:1, which we will talk about later)

I think it’s okay to guess, and wonder… Just as long as your guessing and wondering doesn’t create an “essential” doctrine, especially from silence of scripture.

One thing we don’t have to guess on, is this…

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

This verse is explicitly clear that the LORD who makes all things said He did these things “ALL ALONE” (Not “with two others”) and “BY MYSELF” (not “ourselves”). Singular language. There is no guessing here, no presumptions. No preconceived ideas needed. No twisting. Just the plain reading of scripture.

Of course Trinitarians will grasp the plural usage in Genesis 1:26 “let us”, and create a doctrine from silence of scripture, then completely ignore this, when singular language is used elsewhere (like the very next verse in Genesis).

Argument 2. Then some of you say “Well, the word God (Elohim) is plural”… I love this one. Guess what the plural of God is? That’s right, its “gods”. So if you want to use this argument to support your case, you would not be supporting an idea of One God in three persons, you would be supporting MULTIPLE GODS. There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING about the word “Elohim” that means “one in three” or “multiple in one”. It means “God” (The one true God) or “gods”, depending on the context.

In fact, a perfect example of this, is right in the ten commandments….

"I am the LORD your God [elohim], who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. "You shall have no other gods [elohim] before Me.

The exact same word is used both times.. One is the one true God [elohim] that said, He is the ONLY God [elohim] (Isaiah 45:5) And that’s the SAME word used for multple gods {ie: false gods}. Again. Nothing about the word elohim means “multiple in persons”. Only the one true God. Or Multiple gods. That’s it. So if you are wanting to use the plural argument (once again) you would be promoting polytheism. Not one God in three persons. Because that’s NOT what elohim means.


Argument 3. Then some of you point to Genesis 18. Where the LORD appeared to Abraham, he turns around to see three men.

First off, most orthodox, studied up Trinitarians wouldn’t dare use this as an example, as it would be promoting more of a tritheistic view of God, rather than a trinity. Which is why the president of the Christian research institute [a highly recognized Trinitarian organization] does not believe this is the three persons of God, but rather the LORD showing up, with two angels (As scripture demonstrates [see v22]) It should also be noted, that if this is the collective trinity showing up, scripture states, “they said…” Yet, everytime scripture shows God speaking, it never says “They said” it’s always “HE said…” (Because there is only one God)

Another thing to note, which we can talk about later, is when Trinitarians use this to promote their trinity, they catch themselves in a problem, as another one of their arguments is, “No one has ever seen the Father, yet God was seen”. Well if that’s the case, then the three men standing there, could not be Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because you believe the Father has never been seen. So do we have a fourth member? Or do we have 2 of the three members, and someone else decided to come along? Either way, this verse doesn’t promote trinitarianism.

Argument 4. Then some of you point to Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.

It amazes me how many Trinitarians attempt to use this as a proof text. The mere fact that one would use this to support multiplicity would tell me one of two things. A. They don’t understand omnipresence. Or B. They are attempting to promote more than one YHWH (Which is polytheism).

This scripture is merely showing who is doing the raining, and where He is raining from. If someone wants to use the argument, that “one YHWH was on earth, while the other was in heaven”, then once again, they would be attempting to demonstrate more than one YHWH which is not only polytheism, but downright heresy. If you say “no it’s just one YHWH, in two different places” well… then that doesn’t support trinitarianism! That supports OMNIPRESENCE. Scripture demonstrates God’s omnipresence (Psalm 139:8). God can be in more than one place at a time. So nothing in that scripture necessitates multiple persons.

Continued, next post

[Donny Cage]

Argument 5. This one is reaching. And reaching hard. Some of you say, “The word echad [one] is a compound unity” This is a similar tactic they use with elohim. Which once again, relies on context. While the word one {echad} CAN mean compound unity , doesn’t mean it always does. In fact, when God took one [echad] of Adam’s ribs, are we to conclude that he took a compound unity of ribs (Genesis 2:21)? Of course not. The word one means one. Or I’m sure “one” [echad] of Lamech’s wive’s (Adah) could’ve possibly been a trinity (Genesis 4:19) or some other type of compound unity! I can list a plethora of scriptures where the word “one” [echad] means just that. ONE.

So why do they pick this verse Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the LORD is ONE.” To be a compound unity? Because they want it to be a compound unity. They need it to be a compound unity. Yet the Jews for thousands of years, and in their own language have read this verse, and not one time came away from this verse thinking God was multiple in persons.

And what is interesting, even though as the Trinitarians would have us believe that the Jews had it wrong this whole time… What was the first thing out of Jesus’ mouth when He was asked what the greatest commandment was? That’s right. He repeated Deuteronomy 6:4, before He even got to the commandment.

"Which is the first commandment of all?" 29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/)Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/)And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.

Now wouldn’t this just be the perfect opportunity to set the record straight? When someone asks what the greatest commandment is, what better time to let the Jews know they had it all wrong this whole time, and that “one” in this verse, really doesn’t mean “one”, but rather a compound unity! And that God, this whole time is actually a trinity! But He doesn’t. Apparently He is to let certain councils debate amongst themselves, and unveil this secret long after He died, and long after the last pages of scripture were written. This concept of the trinity wouldn’t come until much later through gradual progression and through much debate and controversy.

Argument 6. Now let’s get into the New testament… which is where most of the confusion began to stem from.

John 1:1. When a Trinitarian brings this one up, it’s a perfect example of how they read things into scripture with preconceived ideas. What the scripture says is “In the Beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God..” That’s what the scripture says. And the Trinitarian points to this and says “Aha! See! Multiple persons!”

Okay, so let’s roll with that for a second. Let’s say this scripture is speaking of multiple persons. Who does it mention?… That’s right, the Word and God. So if John 1:1 is mentioning multiple persons, then for one, it’s only two mentioned, not three. And the TWO mentioned are The Word and God. And if these are two distinct persons, then that means the Word is NOT God.

AHH! But trinitarianism can’t have that, so they read into this text with a preconceived idea. What they WANT this verse to say, and what it says are two completely different things. What they WANT it to say is, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God[ the Father] and the Word was God[ the Son].” That’s what they want it to say, and that’s probably what they think the writer meant to say, but that’s NOT what it says. The scripture speaks of the Word and God.

So again, if you have two persons here, then your two persons is WORD and GOD. And that would make the Word NOT God. Furthermore, if GOD is a trinity, and this verse is speaking of the Word and GOD (whom they claim is a trinity) then that would mean the Word is with the trinity, and the Word was the trinity. Are there 6?

Problems just compile with trinitarianism. But even if this verse somehow did promote two persons, then you would have a duality. Not a trinity.

Without going into a full theological discussion about this verse, I’ll just throw in this two cents… The new testament cannot contradict what was already written. If God already stated He did all of this “by MYSELF” (not “Ourselves”) “all alone” (not “with two others”), then if our understanding of a verse creates a contradiction, then we change OUR UNDERSTANDING, and not create a new conflicting doctrine.

The Holy Spirit did not make a mistake when inspiring John to write those words.

Our understanding can be wrong. But God’s word cannot.

Argument 7. They say “scripture says no one has seen the Father (John 6:46), but God was seen”. I love this one too.

Scripture also states that no one has seen GOD at any time. (1 John 4:12)

So if Jesus was God, how was He seen, when scripture states that no one has seen God at any time?

Then sit back, and watch the Trinitarian answer their own problem, for you..

It’s also interesting to listen to a Trinitarian use this argument, even after they try the Genesis 18 argument (where supposedly the three persons of the triune god showed up). Or when they point to Revelation 5, where John saw One sitting on the throne, and the Lamb. Or when they point to Daniel, where one like the son of man came to the Ancient of Days. Or when Stephen gazed into heaven and saw God and Jesus sitting on the right hand of God…

The fact of the matter is, they are inconsistent with their own arguments.

I could answer this argument, but that’s not my point here. My point here is to show the inconsistencies in Trinitarian logic. And problems with these arguments.

[Donny Cage]

Argument 8. The analogies they use. Every single one of them fails. Every time. Let’s just use one so you can get the feel for what I’m talking about…

The Egg: 1 Egg, 3 parts. The problem with this analogy (and almost every other analogy they use) is it’s inconsistent with their theology. You cannot take the shell and say that is the entire egg. Because it’s not. Their doctrine doesn’t state that each person of the Godhead are 1/3rd God. Each one is 100% fully God! They do not hold to the idea that the Father is only one part of God, but rather the Father is fully God. (Same with each member of this so called trinity)

So the egg analgy and any other analogy like it, fails. Clover, Government, ect.. They all fail. Which is why trinitarian proponents such as Hank Henegraff urge trinitarians NOT to use analogies when explaining the Godhead.

Then the Trinitarians that try to bring out the water, steam ice analogy, are getting a little closer to oneness thinking, even though, that analogy doesn’t make a bit of sense either. I understand the steam (Spirit) and I understand the Ice (solid, which would be Son), but what is the water? The only one left is The Father. Why is the Father water? Why would he be anything other than steam since God is Spirit (John 4:24). Finally this analogy doesn’t require multiple persons, but rather multiple modes.

Argument 9. they say the Son eternally existed with the Father throughout eternity.

This means that the Father and Son existed for the same length of time… Which would NOT make them Father/Son it would make them Brothers (triplets including the Holy Spirit).

I actually presented this argument to a trinitarian one time, and almost fell out of my chair when he said, “Well, yeah that would mean they were brothers, but one of them decided to become a Son”. <- THAT is what you are dealing with folks. When someone points out a clear and obvious problem, instead of dealing with the problem and saying, “You know what? That doesn’t make sense” they just make something up, to keep believing it!

Furthermore, this idea rips the very meaning of “Son” and “Begotten” right away. This would mean Jesus never really was the Son of God in all actuality. But it’s just a fancy metaphorical title, that really doesn’t mean what it says (like ‘sons of thunder’)

Yet the Bible clearly demonstrates that He truly is the only Begotten Son of God (Luke 1:35; 2 John 1:3; John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5). He really is the Son of God, this isn’t just some title.

I almost landed on my head, when I went to the Trinitarian board, and studied up Trinitarians were saying “the Man, Christ Jesus had no father, only a stepfather” !!!!!WHAT!!??? (If anyone wants links, I will provide them)

“You are My Son, Today I have Begotten you.” Folks, TODAY is a point in time.

These are just a few. There are SO many more reasons why I reject the man made doctrine called "trinity", but these are just a handful that came to mind real quick.

[davidkc]

I like the points you made

I majored on point 6 in my book Is God a Trinity?, and more generally the trinitarian confusion between 'God' and 'the Father' in biblical use. I spent a chapter looking at the biblical use of 'the Father', 'God the Father' etc. and concluding that they always refer to God Himself and never to some trinitarian 'First Person'. I have noted the seeming absence of any trinitarian scholarship which distinguishes which occurrences of 'the Father' refer to God Himself and which identify the 'First Person'

The trinitarian 'fall-back' position is to abandon trying to prove a Trinity in the OT and concentrate on the NT. When confronted with the absence of teaching of a Trinity in the gospels or in the epistles (and the absence of any controversy in Acts with Jewish converts over some new trinitarian understanding of the Godhead), the 'last ditch' defence is the 'descent of the Son', 'pre-existence of the Son', 'creation by the Son' passages in John, Col 1, Phil 2 and 'the Father calls the Son God' in Heb 1:8.

Oneness people need to have an answer to passages like these. (I discuss them in my book).

Blessings

David

[Donny Cage]

I like the points you made

I majored on point 6 in my book Is God a Trinity?, and more generally the trinitarian confusion between 'God' and 'the Father' in biblical use. I spent a chapter looking at the biblical use of 'the Father', 'God the Father' etc. and concluding that they always refer to God Himself and never to some trinitarian 'First Person'. I have noted the seeming absence of any trinitarian scholarship which distinguishes which occurrences of 'the Father' refer to God Himself and which identify the 'First Person'

The trinitarian 'fall-back' position is to abandon trying to prove a Trinity in the OT and concentrate on the NT. When confronted with the absence of teaching of a Trinity in the gospels or in the epistles (and the absence of any controversy in Acts with Jewish converts over some new trinitarian understanding of the Godhead), the 'last ditch' defence is the 'descent of the Son', 'pre-existence of the Son', 'creation by the Son' passages in John, Col 1, Phil 2 and 'the Father calls the Son God' in Heb 1:8.

Oneness people need to have an answer to passages like these. (I discuss them in my book).

Blessings

David

Nice. I'd like to check out your book. Is it in stores, or can it be purchased online?

I also wrote somewhat of a book... it's more of a composition (never published)... I basically put together a pile of the biblical evidence supporting the biblical doctrine of God's oneness (there's so much, and I'm constantly adding to it). And also compiled an exhaustive list of every argument used against it (With the full biblical rebuttal). I divided it into two parts... One is arguments trinitarians use... and one is arguments JWs and unitarians use... It's a handy tool. I originally made it for myself, when speaking to people online... just to have a quick reference guide for scriptures I need... But I keep meaning to get it from my zip disk, to computer, so I can hand it out to people.

When you've talked to as many trinitarians/JWs/Unitarians as I have (which I'm sure you have), you find that most of these same arguments repeat themselves over and over again... I truly feel I've heard just about every argument against the oneness of God. And none of them... no not one of them, holds up against scripture.

You'll also notice something I find extremely interesting... When you are talking to a trinitarian... You'll find that MANY of the arguments he will try to use against you, will be used against him, if he's talking to a JW or Unitarian. The trinitarian finds himself defending against his own arguments.

If you want to see for yourself, spend some time in a oneness board, listen to the trinitarians argue against oneness... Then go to a trinitarian board, and listen to JWs and Unitarians argue against trinitarianism. It's very interesting. It's almost like trinitarians almost turn oneness when speaking to an arian... But then almost turn tritheistic when speaking to a oneness... It's strange.

For instance... I was just in a trinity board (I can give you the link if you want)... and a trinitarian was trying to convince a unitarian that Jesus is God... What scripture does He use? John 10:30, "I and My Father are one" This is a TRINITARIAN. Now, you and I both know what would happen if a oneness brought this SAME verse to a trinitarian... he would respond with John 17:22 "they may be one as We are one" (Which is exactly what the unitarian did to the trinitarian).

They are inconsistent. When speaking to oneness, they want the verse to mean "one in purpose" and use John 17:22 to prove it. But when speaking to an arian they want it to mean "one in substance". Completely inconsistent.

I could go on and on, there are SO many examples of arguments they try to use against oneness, that gets used against them. "Not My Will, but Your Will be done", "My Father is greater than I", "Did God die on the cross?", "Son doesn't know the time, but only the Father"... The list goes on and on.

[Rulkiewicz]

Nice. I'd like to check out your book. Is it in stores, or can it be purchased online?

I also wrote somewhat of a book... it's more of a composition (never published)... I basically put together a pile of the biblical evidence supporting the biblical doctrine of God's oneness (there's so much, and I'm constantly adding to it). And also compiled an exhaustive list of every argument used against it (With the full biblical rebuttal). I divided it into two parts... One is arguments trinitarians use... and one is arguments JWs and unitarians use... It's a handy tool. I originally made it for myself, when speaking to people online... just to have a quick reference guide for scriptures I need... But I keep meaning to get it from my zip disk, to computer, so I can hand it out to people.

When you've talked to as many trinitarians/JWs/Unitarians as I have (which I'm sure you have), you find that most of these same arguments repeat themselves over and over again... I truly feel I've heard just about every argument against the oneness of God. And none of them... no not one of them, holds up against scripture.

You'll also notice something I find extremely interesting... When you are talking to a trinitarian... You'll find that MANY of the arguments he will try to use against you, will be used against him, if he's talking to a JW or Unitarian. The trinitarian finds himself defending against his own arguments.

If you want to see for yourself, spend some time in a oneness board, listen to the trinitarians argue against oneness... Then go to a trinitarian board, and listen to JWs and Unitarians argue against trinitarianism. It's very interesting. It's almost like trinitarians almost turn oneness when speaking to an arian... But then almost turn tritheistic when speaking to a oneness... It's strange.

For instance... I was just in a trinity board (I can give you the link if you want)... and a trinitarian was trying to convince a unitarian that Jesus is God... What scripture does He use? John 10:30, "I and My Father are one" This is a TRINITARIAN. Now, you and I both know what would happen if a oneness brought this SAME verse to a trinitarian... he would respond with John 17:22 "they may be one as We are one" (Which is exactly what the unitarian did to the trinitarian).

They are inconsistent. When speaking to oneness, they want the verse to mean "one in purpose" and use John 17:22 to prove it. But when speaking to an arian they want it to mean "one in substance". Completely inconsistent.

I could go on and on, there are SO many examples of arguments they try to use against oneness, that gets used against them. "Not My Will, but Your Will be done", "My Father is greater than I", "Did God die on the cross?", "Son doesn't know the time, but only the Father"... The list goes on and on.

You could upload it and publish in on lulu.com. For a small fee, you can have the book searchable by barnes and nobel, amazon.com... and a lot of other book webstores.

[mizpeh]

Redeemed,

Your assessment of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity comes with a very understanding heart. The doctrine of the Trinity does not come from pagan origins but I believe it comes from seducing spirits. I don't like to accuse Trinitarians of teaching a doctrine of devils because I believe they do so in ignorance and blindness of mind. They need a revelation from God just like we all do. Matt 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.