The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine

Is God a Trinity? ^ | Various | Various

[Truth2012]

Who needs all that pages of info? The idea came from the Word.

[OneWingedShark]

There is not a single verse or chapter in Scripture that teaches that the Scripture is the ONLY repository of revelation. The claim that ONLY Scripture is to be consulted for knowledge of God and God’s will is a HUMAN TRADITION. It is not found in the Bible.

I believe you are right, for to assert that they are exclusively the repository of God's revelation is to repudiate John 14:26 (which I just looked up)
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

To be taught indicates revealing what is not already known, though it might also be the transmission of a portion of the already-known body-of-knowledge to one who does not know it. To claim that the latter possibility excludes the former is to claim that the Bible contains the totality of the revelation of God to man... this is unsatisfying in that it strongly implies that the finite 66 books wholly describe the infinite. (That is if God is infinite, and if it is in God's nature to reveal Himself to his people, then that is very, very weak.)

[DouglasKC]

In Genesis, “we made man in our image.” Who is “we”?
The Church Fathers interpreted this as evidence for the Trinity.
The Jews interpreted this as God and His angels, which is the only interpretation they could give. But obviously this “we” could only be figurative. And it’s hard to see how the angels could participate in creation from nothing, even in a figurative sense.

Thanks for your response...the "we" could also be the father and son as seen in the glimpse of the Godhead in Daniel 7:13,14.

[DouglasKC]

Mmm, mmm . . . historicists vs. restorationists.

ha ha... :-)

[DouglasKC]

Who needs all that pages of info? The idea came from the Word.

I found it interesting about how much controversy there was and how long it took to get settled...not to mention the characters and intrigue!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Yes. It only proves more than one Person in the Godhead.

[reed13k]

Bfl

[count-your-change]

Since the trinity doctrine wasn't drawn from the Scriptures it finds no support there leaving the fall back position that this makes no difference as it is a “mystery” incomprehensible to the human mind.

But search as we will the Son is always spoken of as being inferior to the Father in the Scriptures.

[kosciusko51]

You might want to read "Early Christian Doctrines" by JND Kelly.

[District13]

“Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly. Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error.”

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - one in purpose but having individual personalities and functions. (I am a Mormon heretic.)

Thank you for posting this article. It was very enlightening.

[martiangohome]

God refers to Himself as a plurality in Genesis 1.

---

Actually, when God speaks there he refers to himself using the “royal we”...it has nothing to do with Christian beliefs in the Trinity and is a common misunderstanding for Christian apologists. Check out...

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/elohim.html

[DouglasKC]

But search as we will the Son is always spoken of as being inferior to the Father in the Scriptures.

The son certainly seems to point toward the father in all things...maybe inferior isnt' the right word but certainly there seems to be a deference to the father.

[DouglasKC]

You might want to read "Early Christian Doctrines" by JND Kelly.

Thanks...I'll put it on my reading list.

[DouglasKC]

Thank you for posting this article. It was very enlightening.

Thanks...I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

DouglasKC wrote: “Note: This could be a controversial thread. Let’s remember to act in a Christian manner and exhibit the fruit of the holy spirit to those who might be reading this.”

---

It’s important for everyone to note that the “church” DouglasKC represents is a non-Christian religious cult, which claims that they alone possess the Holy Spirit due to their rejection of the Trinity, their embrace of dietary laws and Jewish festival observance, their denial of everlasting torment in hell, their affirmation of the possibility of salvation after death, and their doctrine that the Holy Spirit must be passed on by right-believing ministers of the UCG by direct physical contact, amongst many other disturbing facts. IOW, they believe that they are the one true church of God, and we are all members of a counterfeit religion.

However, what is most relevant to this thread is their view of God and monotheism. They are not even dualists as he falsely seems to be implying in this thread (though that is bad enough); they are, in fact, polytheists. They do not believe there is only one God, but two Gods joined together in a collective sense in a “God Family.” Below is a long post I wrote to Douglas previously, which he never addressed, but nevertheless documents the UCG’s stance on this issue.

The first part is a quick review of Trinitarian scripture, followed by information on the UCG’s views of their “open” Godhead:

That the Trinity is in the scripture, that cannot be questioned:

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.

Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

That Jesus is literally God, there is no question of it:

Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

That the Father and Son are distinct, and yet one God, cannot be questioned:

Joh 8:17-18 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. (18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Joh_10:30 I and my Father are one.

God Speaking in the Old Testament:
Isa_41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Jesus Christ speaking in the new, calling Himself by the same name. Not two different gods who are made “one” by being in the same family, but One God:

Rev_1:17 ... Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Rev_22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

That the Holy Spirit is God, and not an inanimate “force,” cannot be questioned:

1Co_3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Act_13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

At the center of all of this is the fact that Christianity is monotheistic. We believe in only one God, as clearly taught in the scriptures. Is YOUR religion monotheistic? Let’s find out:

According to the papers on the UCG website, their war with the Trinity actually centers on their rejection of God being limited to “only one being” (11). According to the UCG, God is one in the sense of collective unity, when 2 different beings are one in a collective sense, as sharing common goals, but not one in substance:

“This idea of collective unity is clearly demonstrated in Genesis 2:23-24, “And
Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one [echad] flesh.” Here two distinct individuals are
“one” flesh. This is not talking about one in number but one in collective unity, harmony, peace
and the sharing of common goals.” (10)

Thus, the idea of there being only one God, is changed to merely a devotion to but one God, but leaves the door open for many gods to exist, citing various scriptures to allege that they are “problematic if one concludes there
is only one being called God in the Old Testament” (14). And more:

“The purpose of Deuteronomy 6:4 is to show ancient Israel that their Elohim is the only
God and that all the pagan gods are to be rejected. Thus the purpose is not to explain the nature
of God but to show that He is unique and the only God to worship.” (11)

Due to the obvious problems of this theology, your religion uses the concept of the “God Family,” and the “collective unity,” in order to maintain the idea that they are yet “one” God, though there are actually two separate beings in the Godhead (the Holy Spirit is simply done away with, since His name does not fit the “Family” concept), as they say here: “God can be defined as a family—one God family, although currently consisting of two beings” (15).

The logic follows from hence, after they deny the idea of “adoption,” that we will partake of divinity and join with God in the God-Family, IOW, become “one” in the Godhead the same way their version of Jesus and the Father are one:

“Thus, the Godhead is not a closed Trinity, nor an absolute unity of only one God, but a dynamic family unity that allows for Spirit-born believers to become the very children of God.” (41)

http://members.ucg.org/papers/NatureofGod.pdf

Throughout those entire 40 something pages, not once were any of the scriptures addressed which refute their claims. What does the scripture really say of these ideas, in brief?

That there is only one God, not defined as a “family unit,” but having no other “God” beside Him:

Isa_44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

This unity utterly precludes the possibility of there being “two” separate beings who are merely “united” in the sense of cooperation. There is only one God, united in substance, and yet not contradictory to when Isaiah writes the phrase “The Lord GOD, and His Spirit hath sent me.”

Neither can there be any other gods formed. There are no other gods joining the godhead, no “open” trinity. It is utterly closed. There is, and always will be, and always has been, just one God:

Isa_43:10 ... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

None formed before, none formed after.

The UCG’s view, therefore, is a thinly veiled polytheism, very similar to the Mormon concept which argues that they themselves are monotheistic, because there is one Godhead, but that the Father literally had sex with a goddess wife and produced the Son. They make the same argument against “strict monotheism,” and veil it with the same concept of strict devotion to just one God, but not that there are not any other gods.

[dangus]

That quote is believed to be a gloss by unitarians. (”Unitarians,” here, refers to those who deny the doctrine of the trinity, not necessarily from the Unitarian Universalist Association.)

It’s eventual inclusion into the bible demonstrates the necessity of apostolic authority throughout church history, to continue to assert the truth of Tradition, including the Tradition of what comprises the bible.

[DouglasKC]

Actually, when God speaks there he refers to himself using the “royal we”...it has nothing to do with Christian beliefs in the Trinity and is a common misunderstanding for Christian apologists. Check out... http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/elohim.html

Thanks...I enjoyed that article. Do you happen to know who or what the Jewish people think the "son of man" and the "ancient of days" is in these verses:

Dan 7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
Dan 7:14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

[count-your-change]

Given the Father has superior knowledge, authority and power to the Son and their relationship is described by both is father and son, I should think “inferior” is a suitable and accurate term.

[DouglasKC]

Thanks for the excellent response and the great links you provided my new friend!

[DouglasKC]

Given the Father has superior knowledge, authority and power to the Son and their relationship is described by both is father and son, I should think “inferior” is a suitable and accurate term.

Yes I agree...it's just that the word "inferior" conjures up such a negative image..at least for me!