Trinitarianism

[Williams]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

[Goat]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

It is not connected to Judiasm. Early Chrisitanity?? That is debateable.

[bernee51]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

Trinitarianism is based in very ancient beleifs/philosophies. Hinduism has its own version which predates the Xian version by millennia.

The concept is based in the Vedantic view of the nature of being - the unity of which is made up of the knower, the known and the act of knowing.

In christianity these can be seen as:

the knower - god the father
the known - the son
the act of knowing - the holy spirit.

[Williams]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

Trinitarianism is based in very ancient beleifs/philosophies. Hinduism has its own version which predates the Xian version by millennia.

The concept is based in the Vedantic view of the nature of being - the unity of which is made up of the knower, the known and the act of knowing.

In christianity these can be seen as:

the knower - god the father
the known - the son
the act of knowing - the holy spirit.

I can see the underlying theme of a trinity of gods in faiths beside Christianity. But is it scriptural? I'm having a very hard time finding any evidence for the doctrine in scripture.

Debatable indeed...

[BrandenHarvey]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" Deut 6:4

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Matt 28:19

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." 2 Cor 13:14

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph 4:4-6

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." 1 Peter 1:2

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Tim 1:17

"Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Rev 14:7

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism? How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity? I just don't see evidence for it in scripture. Can anyone help? Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

Let me share with you an argument for the Trinity I wrote awhile back on this...I hope it helps...I do address the idea of polytheism in it.

The Holy Trinity

1.) There is only one true God.
2.) Scripture uses a plural noun (Elohim) to specifically describe the one true God.
3.) God’s nature is expressed as three distinct personages in Scripture: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
4.) Therefore the Godhead is a “trinity.�

Premise 1:
Scripture - Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 4:35,39; Deut. 6:4; Deut 32:39; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; 2 Kings 5:15; 2 Kings 19:15; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 37:16,20; Isaiah 43:10,11; Isaiah 44:6,8; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:9; Hosea 13:4; Joel 2:27; Zechariah 14:9; Mark 12:29-34; John 17:3; Romans 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Tim 2:5; James 2:19;

Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.�

Furthermore, if God is infinite, He exists without limit. If He is without limit, then there can be no other gods. If there was more than one God, there would have to be some difference between them, and this would involved a limit, or point of non-being to which God exists. In other words, one god could not be what or where the other was. If there is more than one God, then the logical attributes of God’s nature break down and ultimately God could not be the Uncaused Being that created the universe. (Kreeft – Handbook)

Premise 2:
Throughout OT (Hebrew) Scripture, God is called Elohim. Elohim literally means “Gods� in Hebrew. It is the plural form of God. “el� or “elah� is the singular form of God. This is not simply a contextual instance that warrants the use of “Elohim.� God is never referred to as “el� or “elah� in Scripture. Why not? The language of the Bible is always deliberate when it uses “Elohim;� it is the ONLY way to properly express the unity of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) while at the same time consistently maintain the fact that God is one being.
For example,
Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.�
This literally translates, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord (Jehovah) our [Elohim], Jehovah is ONE.�

Now consider that “one� can often symbolize a unity within itself and it’s nature. Just as one day is made up of hours, one God (being/essence) can be made up of different personages. We cannot make this deduction however without examining all of Scripture. Since all of Scripture is profitable, we must explore both in the OT and NT to understand the nature of God. We know Scripture subsequently reveals that God’s nature is made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes it very reasonable to consider the use of “one� to essentially mean “a unity;� a “unity� composed of three revealed personalities, thus a “tri-unity� or what we call “trinity.�

Additional notes:
We consistently see throughout Scripture that God speaks of Himself in plural pronoun form (i.e. Gen 1:26; Gen 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; etc.) For example, “Let us make a man in our image, after our likeness.�

It is also interesting to note that in passages like Exodus 3:14 – “God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " – God did not say, “We are who we are.�

Finally, Joshua 24:23 dramatically contrasts the meaning of the word “Elohim� in the same verse:

“Now therefore put away, [said he], the strange gods (elohim) which [are] among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God (Elohim) of Israel.�

The plural form is deliberate, yet at the same time, all Scripture is very clear that there is only one God. Repeatedly throughout Scripture, foreign “gods� are called worthless and pagan rituals are despicable and are carried out in vain. I don’t believe the idea that the word “Elohim� was attributed to God in order to symbolize that the one true God was these entire gods together in one. That would imply to the pagans than indeed their abominable rituals were directed towards the right God. If Jehovah included their pagan god, then Jehovah would be pleased by their worship to this god. Of course, this idea was soundly refuted by the prophets who condemned any idolatry or worship outside of Jehovah’s specific Law and commands. The Jews who followed the one true God made no attempt to be associated with the pagans. I believe that the condemnation of idolatry and pagan worship in Scripture shows that any idea that the word “elohim� was used by Hebrew scribes to make a statement to the pagans that Jehovah was all their gods rolled into one doesn’t hold much weight. It gives the wrong idea about God and how He was to be worshiped. See Jeremiah 10:10-11; Acts 14:11-18; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 and Galatians 4:8.

This premise gives us only enough to conclude that Hebrew scribes deliberately used a plural noun when describing the one true God. This premise does not prove the triune nature of the Godhead (see premise 3).

Premise 3:
God’s Word reveals His nature to be expressed specifically in three distinct personages.
1.) God the Father
Matt 6:9; 11:25; John 17; 2 Peter 1:17

2.) God the Son (Logos)
John 1; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28

3.) God the Holy Spirit
Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Each personage is revealed as distinct from each other.
Matthew 28:19; John 14:16; 2 Corinthians 13:14

Matthew 28:19 is considered especially significant.

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,�

“name� here is singular, yet it is applied for 3 personages: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe this is the most revealing and deliberate expression of the Godhead in Scripture. We baptize in the name of one God, yet three distinct personages each considered God.

Now “distinct� does NOT mean immediately mean “separate.� Just as past, present, and future are distinct from each other, yet are not separate entities when considering time as a whole/trinity. Without one of these necessary parts, the whole essence would be incomplete. For example if we defined time into three separate parts (rather than distinct) and if we then excluded the past, then essence of time would be incomplete. In the same way, the essence or being of God is incomplete if any of His distinct personages is excluded.

Objection:
Jesus Christ never claimed to be God, and even so, was he praying to Himself? That’s absurd. He also said Himself that the Father was greater than He was. Therefore the Son/Word did not have infinite power (cf. Genesis 18:21).
Answer:
Paul explains how the Incarnation worked in Philippians 2:7-8. Jesus Christ, who was in the very nature God, “made himself nothing,� taking on the nature and appearance of a servant (man)…“he humbled himself.� The phrase “made himself nothing� literally means “emptied himself� which from the context of this verse indicates the independent use of His divine attributes which make up the nature of God. How exactly He did this is a mystery of Scripture and the Incarnation. But what is clear is that there is no question that Jesus Christ was described as true God.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ came to earth to become our perfect example of how we ought to live our lives. If He was to do this, He had to live the way He wanted us to live, and that included praying to God and stating that the Father had authority over Him.

Some Scripture on,
Christ’s omnipotence:
Colossians 1:16-18; John 1:3; Isaiah 44:24; Hebrews 1:3
Christ’s omnipresence:
Matthew 28:20
Christ’s omniscience:
John 21:17; Matthew. 11:27; Colossians 2:3

Regarding Genesis 18:21 and the objection that God is not omniscient/omnipresent is often used by skeptics who try to point out contradictions in Scripture. Any believer in the Bible would find how to reconcile this since God who knows all things (1 John 3:20, Psalm 139:4). This is another attempt to play the game of semantics with the language of the Bible in order to fit one’s presuppositions.
A very good response is found here: http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr99.html
Excerpt: “Anthropomorphic expressions such as these are not meant to suggest that God is not fully aware of everything. Rather, as in the case of Babel, such wording was used to show that He was “officially and judicially taking the situation under direct observation and consideration, it having become so flagrant that there was danger (as in the days of Noah) that the truth of God’s revelation might be completely obliterated if it were allowed to continue� (Morris, 1976, p. 272).�

Objection: The word “trinity� is not found in the Bible.
Answer: Yes. Trinitarians will concede the fact that the word “trinity� is a man-made word attached and believed to best explain the revealed nature of the one true God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To think of these personages as three separate beings or Gods, would be polytheism, which is soundly refuted in Scripture. The “Trinity� is simply believed by many to be the best way to adequately reconcile and explain God’s nature in the English language. To object to the Holy Trinity solely on the basis that the word is not found in Scripture is a game of semantics and does nothing to refute the actual revelation of the Godhead in Scripture.

Objection: The unity of the Godhead is like the unity of husband and wife in “one flesh.� Since husband and wife are two separate beings, then there can be separate Gods.
Answer: This analogy breaks down since this “mystical union� is just a clever attempt to dodge what it really is: polytheism. There is no escaping it through a game of semantics. Polytheism is defined as the worship of two or more separate gods. While a triune nature may be hard for us to grasp, it is unbiblical to consider the alternative of multiple Gods.

Not only is it unbiblical, it is illogical (see argument for God’s infinite nature by Peter Kreeft). There cannot exist two infinite (limitless) and eternal beings. But to posit the existence of two limitless beings is a logical contradiction because for the simple fact that if TWO beings exist, then there must be a limit to each before we could consider where one being ends and another begins. In other words, “two� of something presupposes a limit to each. If either being has a beginning and/or ending then this being is not infinite – it is finite and has a limit. If this being is finite with a limit, then it must have been created and/or given a condition for existence. Scripture tells us both the Word and God the Father is everlasting and eternal. So not only does Scripture testify to their being as one God, logic dictates that it is necessary.

Objection: When we become sons of God and a part of God’s family, the Trinity implies that we also will become God or a part of His being. Since we don’t become one being with God, how can you reconcile that with John 17:11 – one being or one “unity?�
Answer: No, it doesn’t imply that at all. The only thing the Trinity explains is the one true God’s nature as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When we become sons of God, we are adopted into God’s family (Romans 8:15; Galatians 3:26-29). Where Christ was literally begotten by the Holy Spirit; He adopted us.
In respect to John 17:11, I believe the study note of this passage in my Bible gives a good explanation:
“The latter part of this prayer strongly emphasizes unity. Here the unity is already given, not something to be achieved. The meaning is “that they continually be one� rather than “that they become one.� The unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son. It is much more than unity of organization, but the church’s present divisions are the result of the failures of Christians.�
And of course the only way we as Christians can continually be one is to be maintained in the faith by the Spirit, who enables Christians to worship in one mind through Christ (Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2; Philippians 2:2). It is through the Holy Spirit that we can live in Christ and maintain that steadfast relationship that the Father and the Son share.

[McCulloch]

There is only one true God.

What do you mean by that? That there is one entity that can be truly labeled as God?

Scripture uses a plural noun (Elohim) to specifically describe the one true God.

Are you implying that the writers of scripture were committing a grammatical error? Plural is a grammatical construct used to denote more than one. How can it be correct to describe the one true god as being more than one? Some say that is simply a form of pluralis maiestatis.

If the writers of scripture are actually referring to some kind of plurality within this one true God, then what are they referring to? Is it that there are three parts to God; that God is the combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that Father and Holy Spirit without the Son is not God? Or is it that the one God has three different faces or masks?

Furthermore, if God is infinite, He exists without limit. If He is without limit, then there can be no other gods. If there was more than one God, there would have to be some difference between them, and this would involved a limit, or point of non-being to which God exists. In other words, one god could not be what or where the other was. If there is more than one God, then the logical attributes of God’s nature break down and ultimately God could not be the Uncaused Being that created the universe. (Kreeft – Handbook)

So to be God, he must have all of the attributes of God: eternal, uncreated, all knowing, all powerful. So if the Son is not in a place where the Father is, then they both cannot be the eternal, ever present God. And if the Son does not know something that the Father knows, then the Son is not the all knowing god. Right?

Now consider that “one� can often symbolize a unity within itself and it’s nature. Just as one day is made up of hours, one God (being/essence) can be made up of different personages.

This is a bad analogy. A day is made up of hours, but we do not call each of the hours, a day.

Each personage is revealed as distinct from each other.

So Jesus is a God not God? Distinct.
OR Jesus is God but not a God? Unified.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

There is only one true God.

What do you mean by that? That there is one entity that can be truly labeled as God?

Yes.

Scripture uses a plural noun (Elohim) to specifically describe the one true God.

Are you implying that the writers of scripture were committing a grammatical error? Plural is a grammatical construct used to denote more than one. How can it be correct to describe the one true god as being more than one? Some say that is simply a form of pluralis maiestatis.

If the writers of scripture are actually referring to some kind of plurality within this one true God, then what are they referring to? Is it that there are three parts to God; that God is the combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that Father and Holy Spirit without the Son is not God? Or is it that the one God has three different faces or masks?

No, I'm not trying to imply the writers of Scripture were committing an error. Relating to the OT, it's always been a curious conversation as to why they always used the plural sense when talking about God, but taught there was only one God. There's really no question that Judaism is a monotheistic belief. The answer as to why they use a plural form of "God" is further revealed in Scripture. Some may say that it is pluralis majestatis (nifty term) but that idea is defeated if you consider all of what is revealed about God's nature in Scripture. Hard to further describe the Trinity more that I already have to my own ability. 3=1, it is a logical contradiction of sorts. My favourite analogy was the trinity of time being past, present, and future - separate and distinct, yet make up time as a whole. That's the best way to try and describe the concept.

Furthermore, if God is infinite, He exists without limit. If He is without limit, then there can be no other gods. If there was more than one God, there would have to be some difference between them, and this would involved a limit, or point of non-being to which God exists. In other words, one god could not be what or where the other was. If there is more than one God, then the logical attributes of God’s nature break down and ultimately God could not be the Uncaused Being that created the universe. (Kreeft – Handbook)

So to be God, he must have all of the attributes of God: eternal, uncreated, all knowing, all powerful. So if the Son is not in a place where the Father is, then they both cannot be the eternal, ever present God. And if the Son does not know something that the Father knows, then the Son is not the all knowing god. Right?

The Incarnation of Jesus is hard to understand and even harder to describe. We've seen in Scripture how Jesus "emptied Himself" and became flesh. However that occurred made it possible for us to see the distinct nature of God in three personages.

Now consider that “one� can often symbolize a unity within itself and it’s nature. Just as one day is made up of hours, one God (being/essence) can be made up of different personages.

This is a bad analogy. A day is made up of hours, but we do not call each of the hours, a day.

No analogy is perfect. Hopefully it may help others understand. Like I said, I prefer the other analogies used - i.e. time and space.

Each personage is revealed as distinct from each other.

So Jesus is a God not God? Distinct.
OR Jesus is God but not a God? Unified.

He is absolutely God in the fullest of God's nature. God made flesh through Incarnation. How that worked, I'm not quite sure.

[McCulloch]

There is only one true God.

What do you mean by that? That there is one entity that can be truly labeled as God?

Yes.

Then person is not entity according to your thinking. I am a person. To me a person is an entity that is a human. There is one me. I am one person.
God is an entity. There is one God. Yet, you maintain, God is three persons. It looks like three gods to me. I do not understand what you mean by three persons being one god. The only way that I currently understand more than one person being one entity is either that they are a collective or a split personality. A collective would be like a board of directors. There is one board, it is composed of more than one person, yet it can act separately from its members. The members collectively are the board, but not individually. With this model, God is the committee of the three persons, but each one is merely a member of the God collective, not individually God. The only other model I understand is like a split personality or Jungian persona. In this model, there is one God that wears three masks, depending on the role he chooses to play.

It seems to me that Trinity is neither of these models. I am apparently spiritually blind, I admit. But I really do not understand what you mean by three persons in one being.

No, I'm not trying to imply the writers of Scripture were committing an error. Relating to the OT, it's always been a curious conversation as to why they always used the plural sense when talking about God, but taught there was only one God. There's really no question that Judaism is a monotheistic belief.

Is the concept of Trinity consistent with monotheism? Is it consistent with the Jewish concept of monotheism? If there is one God, why would the writers use a plural noun? It is a grammatical error to refer to a singular entity with a plural noun. Even if that singular entity is composed of many parts.

The board is going to implement the plan. [singular]
The members of the board are each going to do their part. [plural]
The board are going to implement the plan. [error]

The answer as to why they use a plural form of "God" is further revealed in Scripture.

It would help if you would point out where in Scripture this answer can be found.

Some may say that it is pluralis majestatis (nifty term) but that idea is defeated if you consider all of what is revealed about God's nature in Scripture.

I'll grant that. Moving on....

Hard to further describe the Trinity more that I already have to my own ability. 3=1, it is a logical contradiction of sorts.

Yes, that is a logical contradiction. I do not believe logical contradictions without very very strong compelling arguments. So far, none have been provided.

My favourite analogy was the trinity of time being past, present, and future - separate and distinct, yet make up time as a whole. That's the best way to try and describe the concept.

You said that the answers could be found in Scriptures. Yet, an explanation for this apparent absurdity cannot be found in Scriptures so most Christian apologists resort to analogies from outside of the Scriptures, usually with some kind of caveat that it is not a good analogy and does not explain the concept well.

It does not wash. I'm not buying.

The Incarnation of Jesus is hard to understand and even harder to describe.

That is true. Usually when I find a concept that is hard to understand and even harder to describe, I look for a way to not believe it. It usually is not difficult.

We've seen in Scripture how Jesus "emptied Himself" and became flesh. However that occurred made it possible for us to see the distinct nature of God in three personages.

Are you saying that God became not-God when he became human? Or is it that part of God became not-God when he became human?

Each personage is revealed as distinct from each other.

So Jesus is a God not God? Distinct.
OR Jesus is God but not a God? Unified.

He [Jesus] is absolutely God in the fullest of God's nature.

What does that mean? Jesus is now absolutely God in the fullest of God's nature, but when he was human he was not God? Or that Jesus is now and has always been God in the fullest of God's nature? What is God's nature? Does that include omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence?

God made flesh through Incarnation. How that worked, I'm not quite sure.

Neither am I, but thanks for trying to explain. If you don't understand it, why believe it? I know that there are things we do not fully understand, but we believe, but in those cases, there are compelling reasons to believe. Perhaps it would be easier for you to explain why you believe in this logically contradictory dogma than to explain what it is you believe.

[wayseer]

Isn't trinitarianism a form of polytheism?

No - the Trinity does not imply three Gods.

How is the doctrine connected to Judaism and early Christianity?

It's not. The doctrine of the Trinity arose our of the council of Nicaea to counter Arianism which maintain Jesus was 'begotten' - there was a time when Jesus did not exist.

I just don't see evidence for it in scripture.

Matthew 28: 19 is the best on offer.

Can anyone help?

Probably not to everyone's satisfaction. The Trinity became a doctrine to combat heresy and was not really thought about until last three hundred odd years. I have heard all sorts of explanations, none of which satisfy me so I guess t it will be a bit of a thorn in the side for some time to come.

Maybe we can end up discussing it more in-depth in the debate forum.

Could be interesting.