Any ideas why some Protestants reject the trinity and some accept it?

[PRmerger]

So you mean one person just picked up a bible, had their own interptetation and decided to start their own church? That sounds sort of like how a cult gets started

I don’t know if that’s exactly the model, but something like that. Someone reads the Bible, says, “I don’t think my pastor, who is fallible and therefore going to be wrong, is preaching that verse correctly.” And then this leads to some affirmation by others who didn’t agree…and pretty soon a new denomination is started.

The above is a simplified version, of course, but that’s the essence of how it works.

 

[gazelam]

Does anyone have any idea why some Protestants reject the trinity and others accept it?

While not Protestant, I reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it does not stand up to Biblical scrutiny. Take John 17:22 (KJV) for example.

Jesus is praying to the Father over his disciples. He says…

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

My understanding of the Trinity doctrine is that it consists of three persons, but one being (a being that existed before time and space). Is Christ really petitioning The Father to make His disciples all one single being that existed before time and space like He and the Father are per Trinitatianism? I doubt it.

However, accepting the doctrine that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and also two separate persons, but one in purpose, this verse makes sense because Christ’s disciples can also be one in purpose with the Father and the Son.

I hope this help you understand us non-Trinitarians better.

 

[LivingWaters7]

My understanding of the Trinity doctrine is that it consists of three persons, but one being (a being that existed before time and space). Is Christ really petitioning The Father to make His disciples all one single being that existed before time and space like He and the Father are per Trinitatianism? I doubt it.

Indeed. The problem is, I doubt Trinitarians would agree with that interpretation of their beliefs and how it relates to that verse.

However, accepting the doctrine that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and also two separate persons, but one in purpose, this verse makes sense because Christ’s disciples can also be one in purpose with the Father and the Son.

What does it mean that they are “two separate beings and also two separate persons”? What does it mean that they are separate beings and separate persons? What makes them separate as beings and as persons?

I think the answer to that would demonstrate a misunderstanding of how Trinitarians are using those words (I think you’ll remember my thoughts in the LDS-related thread on the Trinity recently).

 

[Major_Tom]

I’ve always been confounded by the trinity, the paradox of being three and one at the same time. Perhaps someone could help, if it’s not too off-topic. Would a prayer, asked separately of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, be answered the same way?

 

[ltwin]

I’ve always been confounded by the trinity, the paradox of being three and one at the same time. Perhaps someone could help, if it’s not too off-topic. Would a prayer, asked separately of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, be answered the same way?

I would think so. All three are God, so praying to one is praying to all three.

However, I have heard people say that in Scripture prayers are always addressed to the Father (like the Lord’s prayer which is how Jesus taught us to pray). So, a Trinitarian way to pray is to the Father, through the Son (in the name of Jesus), by or in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dorothy]

I’ve always been confounded by the trinity, the paradox of being three and one at the same time. Perhaps someone could help, if it’s not too off-topic. Would a prayer, asked separately of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, be answered the same way?

Yes, a prayer asked of any of the Three Persons would be answered in the same way.

Genesis 1:26

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

---

God is family! First Person (Father)
Second Person (Son)
Third Person (Holy Spirit)

The Father did not come before the Son - the Trinity exists forever at the same time.
Their love generates the Third Person (Holy Spirit).

That is the best way I can theologically describe what the Church teaches.

 

[andrewstx]

Well I guess what I’m asking is where does this idea come from? Why would an Anglican welcome the belief of the trinity and then an apostolic refuse it? does it have to do with the age of the church? Also why would some churches not accept non trinitarians as Christians and they themselves consider themselves 100% Christians?

“Jesus only” or “Jesus name” or as you say apostolic churches reject the Holy Trinity seemingly as a matter of principal. Why I have no idea. But the very word Christian implies acceptance of the Holy Trinity, Protestant and Catholic alike.

While the United Pentecostal church is relatively new the concept they have is an ancient heresy going back to about then 4th century AD.

Problem is I can’t remember the name of that old, old, heresy.

In hope someone can help me out here.

 

[JerryZ]

“Jesus only” or “Jesus name” or as you say apostolic churches reject the Holy Trinity seemingly as a matter of principal. Why I have no idea. But the very word Christian implies acceptance of the Holy Trinity, Protestant and Catholic alike.

While the United Pentecostal church is relatively new the concept they have is an ancient heresy going back to about then 4th century AD.

Problem is I can’t remember the name of that old, old, heresy.

In hope someone can help me out here.

In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.

which goes to prove that all these “NEW” sects, churches are indeed rethreading OLD heresies which were fought by the Church Fathers soo long ago.

How’s that saying go “those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes”

Peace

 

[andrewstx]

I really doubt that the new sects are well aqainted with Christian History at all.

I think that with them they rely on solo scriptura and that alone. So it’s like open your bible and re-invent Christianity for the very first time.

 

[po18guy]

Indeed.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of asking, “If you lived on a desert island and a Bible was dropped in your lap, would you be able to glean the concept of a Trinitarian god from its pages?”

And their point is a valid one.

It is indeed true that if one who had been isolated from churches/traditions read the Bible without any lens whatsoever, he would NOT be able to extract the concept of a Trinitarian god.

However, as Catholics we ought to look askance at this view presented by the JWs and say, 'Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to read the Bible without any guidance as to how it should be interpreted? In fact, we Christians never have to be in that position of reading the Bible as if it were dropped in on us from the heavens without any context."

My question to the JWs who appear at my door: What authority did Charles Taze Russell have to privately interpret scripture apart from the Sacred Tradition? Zero. He had a 7th grade education, and zero theological or ministerial training. Ignorant. He was sued for business fraud and sued for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife. Unstable.

What were the two qualities which Saint Peter gave us regarding those who twist and distort the scriptures? (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Indeed.

**Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of asking, “If you lived on a desert island and a Bible was dropped in your lap, would you be able to glean the concept of a Trinitarian god from its pages?”

And their point is a valid one.**

It is indeed true that if one who had been isolated from churches/traditions read the Bible without any lens whatsoever, he would NOT be able to extract the concept of a Trinitarian god.

However, as Catholics we ought to look askance at this view presented by the JWs and say, 'Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to read the Bible without any guidance as to how it should be interpreted? In fact, we Christians never have to be in that position of reading the Bible as if it were dropped in on us from the heavens without any context."

There are a number of references, particularly in the New Testament, that refer/allude to the ‘personages’ in the One God.

I’ll give you a list if you are not able to do your own searches.

 

[po18guy]

There are a number of references, particularly in the New Testament, that refer/allude to the ‘personages’ in the One God.

I’ll give you a list if you are not able to do your own searches.

In part, I am certain, Jesus taught to baptize in the name (singular) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The Angels proclaim that the Lord is “Holy, Holy, Holy” (Revelation 4:8), three times holy.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

While not Protestant, I reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it does not stand up to Biblical scrutiny. Take John 17:22 (KJV) for example.

Jesus is praying to the Father over his disciples. He says…

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

My understanding of the Trinity doctrine is that it consists of three persons, but one being (a being that existed before time and space). Is Christ really petitioning The Father to make His disciples all one single being that existed before time and space like He and the Father are per Trinitatianism? I doubt it.

However, accepting the doctrine that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and also two separate persons, but one in purpose, this verse makes sense because Christ’s disciples can also be one in purpose with the Father and the Son.

I hope this help you understand us non-Trinitarians better.

No, Jesus is not asking God to make the disciples one single being in the literalistic manner you describe; however it does not logically follow that that must mean that the Father and the Son are separate beings. In fact, such a conclusion would directly contradict scripture from the very same gospel you are quoting (St. John):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth."

-John 1:1, 14 (NABRE). This (and all the omitted verses in between) clearly teaches that God the Father and God the Son are one in being with each other.

The Holy Trinity is an extremely difficult thing to wrap our minds around and and is a concept that we cannot hope to understand in our limited human capacities as it literally defies the logic of the natural order of things. So I can understand the temptation to want to find another explanation that makes more sense to our limited human minds, but it is just one of the beliefs we must accept with the assent of faith recognizing that the mystery of God and His supernatural existence is something we cannot fully understand in this life.

 

[PRmerger]

There are a number of references, particularly in the New Testament, that refer/allude to the ‘personages’ in the One God.

I’ll give you a list if you are not able to do your own searches.

The JWs would say, validly, that you only see the Trinity in those verses because you already believe in the Trinity.

(And, actually, that is the correct way to read the Scriptures–the Scriptures reflect our dogma. Our dogmas are not gleaned from the Scriptures.)

Point: reading the Bible, by itself, would not give you any conclusive belief in the Trinity.

That belief comes from the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

My question to the JWs who appear at my door: What authority did Charles Taze Russell have to privately interpret scripture apart from the Sacred Tradition? Zero. He had a 7th grade education, and zero theological or ministerial training. Ignorant. He was sued for business fraud and sued for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife. Unstable.

What were the two qualities which Saint Peter gave us regarding those who twist and distort the scriptures? (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[gazelam]

What does it mean that they are “two separate beings and also two separate persons”? What does it mean that they are separate beings and separate persons? What makes them separate as beings and as persons?

I think the answer to that would demonstrate a misunderstanding of how Trinitarians are using those words (I think you’ll remember my thoughts in the LDS-related thread on the Trinity recently).

Well, I was attempting to adopt Trinitarian vernacular learned from early posts to describe the LDS view. Perhaps I fell short. Help me out here. Given the LDS belief that the Father and the Son have separate spirits, and separate bodies, would the phrase “separate and distinct” work here. And since the Trinity can be described as “three persons, one being”, couldn’t a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead be “three persons, three beings”?

 

[SteveVH]

Well, I was attempting to adopt Trinitarian vernacular learned from early posts to describe the LDS view. Perhaps I fell short. Help me out here. Given the LDS belief that the Father and the Son have separate spirits, and separate bodies, would the phrase “separate and distinct” work here. And since the Trinity can be described as “three persons, one being”, couldn’t a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead be “three persons, three beings”?

A non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead can be anything the human imagination wants to come up with. That doesn’t make it true. Man did not invent the concept of the Trinity. We have a difficult time even coming close to grasping it. It was revealed to us and therefore we believe it and do our best to define it in human terms. We will always fall short of understanding until we are face to face with God.

What we do know is that there is only one God, not many. Therefore there can be only be divine Being. At the same time it has been revealed that when we see the Son, we see the Father. How can this be? We find Jesus praying to the Father and the Father telling us that he is well pleased with his Son? Two Persons. And then we have the Holy Spirit Who is described as the Spirit of the Father and also as the Spirit of the Son. How can we have one Spirit that is the Spirit of more than one Person?

One must ask the question: Why would a Church invent a doctrine it could not explain? If it came from man, it would be understandable in human terms, or at least understandable to those who invented it. It is not unreasonable that we cannot understand the nature of a Being who is eternally above our ability to grasp. But we can believe it, even though it will remain a mystery until we arrive at our final destination.

 

[andrewstx]

To be honest I was brought up and dunked in a non-Mormon “restorationist” sect that claimed believe in the Holy Trinity but really did not. They used “godhead” exclusively and never would use the word “Trinity”.

There reasoning was since the word Trinity was not contained verbatim in 66 book Protestant bible it was verboten to say it.

These people were the ultimate in fundamentalism .

 

[SteveVH]

Well, I was attempting to adopt Trinitarian vernacular learned from early posts to describe the LDS view. Perhaps I fell short. Help me out here. Given the LDS belief that the Father and the Son have separate spirits, and separate bodies, would the phrase “separate and distinct” work here. And since the Trinity can be described as “three persons, one being”, couldn’t a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead be “three persons, three beings”?

One other point. I think the difficulty in a Mormon trying to wrap his mind around the Trinity stems from the difference in our concept of God in a general sense.

The Catholic view is that God is “wholly other”. He is a Being unlike any other being. And he is unlike any other being because he is the only divine Being; the only One who has existed from eternity; the Creator of everything that exists.

The Mormon view is that God is just like us other than his level of progression. This makes it difficult to image a Being that is beyond our comprehension, even in his very nature. It makes it impossible to imagine the Trinity when one views God much the same as one views human beings. We cannot, by our very nature, be three persons in one being. But God is not at all like us. Yes, he made us in his image and likeness. We have the divine attributes of a rational mind; free will; the ability to love. But we are not God, nor will we ever be God.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think it’s likely that some of the Protestant denominations that reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity rejected it out of extreme suspicion of the Catholic Church and since the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes from the Catholic Church. Some anti-Catholics, who after realizing that the bible came from the Catholic Church, even become suspicious of the Bible and start believing that they can pick and choose which parts they believe weren’t influenced by Catholicism. They each believe that the Holy Spirit is giving them guidance on this. I actually have a relative that believes this way. This opens up a big can of worms since it means that each individual basically ends up defining God essentially in their own image.