Can Christians be Nontrinitarian?

[mjs2001]

Jesus is not God in substance. He is not God incarnate. He is simply not God. However, Jesus seems to be a manifestation of Gods person and who God is. He is the human manifestation of God. See what I am saying? I do believe God can be worshiped through Jesus.

The fundamental question is do you believe that Jesus is God? If the answer is no, then you are not a Christian. In Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, he quotes a rabbi who authored a fictional dialogue between two rabbis, one of whom followed Jesus and was reporting to the other: “What does Jesus take away from the faith?” “Nothing.” “What does Jesus add to it?” “Himself.” This rabbi succinctly noted the defining characteristic of Christianity: it is the belief in the divinity of the Messiah who is Jesus.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Can an Atheist the believe in God?

By the standards of historical Orthodoxy if you deny the trinity you are not Christian.

 

[chimo]

I’m a Nontrinitarian. Well, I actually do believe that God being a trinity is possible, but based on my study of the scriptures it seems to me that God is not a trinity. But anyway, are groups such as Oneness Pentecostal and Jehovah Witness considered Christians in Catholicism? I consider myself nondenomination, but I was baptized Catholic as a baby and do have deep respect for the Catholic Church. Anyway, what do you think?

I do not know why the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to know. Perhaps you need a simpler understanding. If God was going to create the human race by what model would God use to create it? I thought about this and if God was to design us He would design us after the only model which God knows and it is the Trinity. It is very simple to understand. The Holy Trinity is a family of three Divine Persons sharing the same nature. Now the important thing we need to know is God is a family. When God decided to create us He designed us after the only model He knew which was the Trinity so God designed the human family as a trinity on earth. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is found within the creation of each family on earth. In fact the best example of this is the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The Holy Family represents the Holy Trinity, Jesus representing Himself, Mary representing the Holy Spirit and Joseph the Etenal Father. Every family on earth owes its existence to the Holy Trinity and is an example of the Holy Trinity. Every father represents the Eternal Father, the mother represents the Holy Spirit and every child represents the Son of God. It would be very important in this understanding that all Christians to believe in the existence of the Holy Trinity for it parallels their own existence of what is a family.

 

[BartholomewB]

We accept the inerrancy of Scripture.

When you say “we”, do you mean that all Lutherans use the expression “the inerrancy of Scripture”, and affirm that as their belief?

 

[Kliska]

I am nondenominational protestant and I agree with the majority view; if one denies the Trinity, if one denies that Jesus is God, one cannot be considered Christian. Jesus is the very logos of God, the very Wisdom of God made manifest, Who struck up a tent in human flesh. It is only by being God and Man that His sacrifice could be efficacious in the manner it was.

Not only do NT writings point to this fact, but also OT writings.

 

[Vico]

The fundamental question is do you believe that Jesus is God? If the answer is no, then you are not a Christian. In Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, he quotes a rabbi who authored a fictional dialogue between two rabbis, one of whom followed Jesus and was reporting to the other: “What does Jesus take away from the faith?” “Nothing.” “What does Jesus add to it?” “Himself.” This rabbi succinctly noted the defining characteristic of Christianity: it is the belief in the divinity of the Messiah who is Jesus.

There are also binatarians which believe Christ is God, but do not accept that the Holy Spirit as God, such as: General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day), Living Church of God and the United Church of God. These ecclesial communities also have invalid baptism.

 

[BartholomewB]

There are also binatarians which believe Christ is God, but do not accept that the Holy Spirit as God, such as: General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day), Living Church of God and the United Church of God. These ecclesial communities also have invalid baptism.

“Binatarians.” That’s a new one to me. I had naively assumed that “non-Trinitarian” was simply a synonym of “Unitarian”.

Thank you for that.

 

[Usige]

I was baptized Catholic, so to your Church I am still Christian.

Actually, as far as the Church is concerned you are still Catholic.

This is what I meant by what do you consider is essential to being a Christian. Through a Trinitarian baptism we would hold that you are ontological a Christian. But you also subscribe to an adoptionist Christology which has been denounced as heresy multiple times since the second century. So while an non-trinitarian might ontologically be Christian (assuming a Trinitarian baptism), they can hold heretical beliefs that would make some of their beliefs non-Christian.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Have you failed to read my responses though? Paul and the Synoptics do not hold trinitarian theology. And I would say Hebrews holds a kinda proto-Arian theology. I like to read the Bible from a historical critical perspective, not just from a faith perspective. I recommend New Testament scholars such as James D. G. Dunn and John Dominic Crossan. James Dunn is a minister in the Church of Scotland, and John Dominic Crossan is a former Catholic monk who now describes himself as nondenominational like myself. Frankly, if I’m only a Christian because of my Catholic baptism and not because of my faith in Christ, then we might as well say an Atheist who has been baptized Catholic is still a Christ follower i. e a Christian ‎Χριστιανός ]. The trinity is not an esstential doctrine for Christianity. Well, maybe for some of the “orthodox” Christian doctrines it is, but it clearly wasn’t for the very very early Church and many other Christian groups throughout history who have loved Christ and have made it their lifes goal in always following him.

 

[Usige]

Have you failed to read my responses though?

I have read them, and like the majority of Christian theologians in the past 1800-1900 years, reject your conclusions. There is a reason that nontrinitarian beliefs mostly disappeared or were rooted out in the first several centuries. While one can argue that early parts of the new testament were not emphatically trinitarian that does not prove that revealed truth points to a triune God.

Again, please describe what marks a non-trinitarian Christian as a follower of Christ as distinct from a particular sect of Judaism. It can be argued that trinitarian Christology is what seperated Christians as distinct from modalist Jews.

 

[steido01]

The whole topic can get very complicated, and who is Christian or non-Christian may depend on the person or religious denomination who evaluates the situation. Incidentally, it is likewise not totally clear-cut who is regarded as a Jew or not.

That is not correct. Orthodox Jews view all Jews as legitimate Jews. Their quibble is with the rabbis of Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Judaism, who, they believe, are leading their congregations astray.

Not to derail further… but Israel’s Supreme Court has made several rulings on the topic; generally, how much weight is afforded to their decisions by most Rabbis? I expect it varies widely?

 

[thephilosopher6]

I have read them, and like the majority of Christian theologians in the past 1800-1900 years, reject your conclusions. There is a reason that nontrinitarian beliefs mostly disappeared or were rooted out in the first several centuries. While one can argue that early parts of the new testament were not emphatically trinitarian that does not prove that revealed truth points to a triune God.

Again, please describe what marks a non-trinitarian Christian as a follower of Christ as distinct from a particular sect of Judaism. It can be argued that trinitarian Christology is what seperated Christians as distinct from modalist Jews.

And yet the earliest of theologians had no concept of the trinity. The New Testament scholars I mentioned before themselves are theologians. What the earliest parts of the New Testament give us is no trinitarian theology. Christianity in the 1st century spread rapidly. Not only did it spread rapidly, it evolved rapidly! There were Pauline Christians who took up Pauls theology. There were early Jewish Christians lead by James the brother of Christ who held their own theology. There were Johanine Christians who were a sectarian group of Christians probably living in the areas of Asia Minor. The Johanine Christians were probably one of the first to divinize Christ. It would even make some sense because of the context of their time. It seems to be by the early 2nd century The Fathers mashed these theologys all together.

Nontrinitarians believe Jesus is the messiah, Son of David, Son of God, who preached the coming kingdom of God, died on the cross, and resurrected three days later, and ascended into heaven 40 days later, and hopefully will come again. That is what marks us different. And Jews being Modalist? Uhh… yeah I don’t think you’re going to make Jews happy by calling them modalist since they are strictly Unitarian… And I would argue that whether or not we should follow the Law of Moses is what seperated Christianity from Judaism.

 

[steido01]

And yes, I know the Church Fathers taught the trinity, or whatever form it was in before Niceae.

Without question.

But, the divinity of Christ seems to be a late 1st century developement.

How do you figure?

There is no indication of it in Paul or the Synoptics.

What New Testament are you reading? The Synoptic Gospels are chalk full of examples where Jesus claims, and exercises, power reserved only to God. Performing miracles on the Sabbath? Claiming to be The Way? Forgiving sins? Driving out demons by His own power? Stating quite explicitly; “Before Abraham existed, I AM?” And Paul is just as clear; “God was manifest in the flesh.”

But we can see it evolve in the New Testament. Paul and the Synoptics seem to view Jesus as exalted by God to the status of Son of God. Then, we have Hebrews presenting Jesus as more then an exatled man and more of a demigod. Actually, Hebrews may be presenting a form of primitive Arianism. Once we get to the Johanine literature (Gospel of John, 1 2 3 epistles of John, and Revelation) the theology seems to present Jesus as equal to God and perhaps Jesus as God himself. So it even evolves throughout the New Testament and by the end of the 1st century to the start of the 2nd century, most Christians see Jesus as God or equal to God in some way.

I’ve read positions like this before, but typically from crackpot sources like the notorious Bart Ehrman, who posit that Jesus never even existed. (He’s the equivalent of a snake-oil salesman. He pops up now and then, usually around Christmas and Easter, with a new “Come Laugh at These Totally Duped Christians” expose, which we can all buy for just $29.99 at the nearest Barnes & Noble. He’s been peddling this ish for years, despite the fact that archaeological evidence has disproved his more baseless theories, and despite the fact that he’s been shuttered from most academic communities because of his tendency toward libel and academic bullying.) Whatever one believes regarding Christianity and the admittedly multiple Christologies that have challenged the traditional Christian view, especially in its early days, one thing that is not debatable is that a man named Jesus existed, and clearly claimed to be God. Yet folks like Ehrman make the novel assertion that Jesus, if He existed at all, never claimed this – and all their work hinges on this assumption. Aside from 1)entirely ignoring the non-synoptic Gospel of John, as well as 2)numerous extra-canonical, 3)non-canonical, and even 4)Gnostic manuscripts which prove Jesus’ existence, they 5)ignore dozens of indisputable instances in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus quite plainly claims powers and authority that a Jew in that time could only understand as belonging to God.

 

[steido01]

As a Catholic, no is the most simple and accurate answer.

Let me quote a creed with bold.

[Athanasian Creed]

Catholic in today’s context simply would mean “christian.”

Just for fun: 1 John 3:7
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”

3 distinct entities, at the same time 1. That is the foundation for the trinity.

Lutherans agree.

 

[Usige]

Suffice it to say and argue all you want, I hold that some may follow Christ who still hold heretical beliefs. Some early Christians may not have been strictly trinitarian, but once it was put forth the vast majority of Christiandom accepted this as revealed truth. Read through the early parts of the old testament and you will see a blossoming of the understanding of God. This is the same with our understanding of the triune nature of God. Sometimes we only recognize truth after reflection.

I simply hold that once truth is revealed, that denying the truth shears the limb from the tree.

And Jews being Modalist? Uhh… yeah I don’t think you’re going to make Jews happy by calling them modalist since they are strictly Unitarian…

I never said that Jews, in general, were modalist. What I said is that a Jew who holds a view of different modalities of God is in a similar position to a Christian who rejects the Trinity. If Judaism is strictly unitarian, yet a Jew holds a modalist belief are they still Jewish? The same with non-trinitarian Christians. If the Nicean creed is the yard stick of Christianity then those who reject those tenets are in a similar boat. In otherwords who defines the minimum to still be Jewish and conversely who defines the minimum to be Christian? If a minority of nontrinitarians can define the minimum for Christians then could not a minority Jewish group also define the minimum to be Jewish?

 

[thephilosopher6]

Without question.

How do you figure?

What New Testament are you reading? The Synoptic Gospels are chalk full of examples where Jesus claims, and exercises, power reserved only to God. Performing miracles on the Sabbath? Claiming to be The Way? Forgiving sins? Driving out demons by His own power? Stating quite explicitly; “Before Abraham existed, I AM?” And Paul is just as clear; “God was manifest in the flesh.”

I’ve read positions like this before, but typically from crackpot sources like the notorious Bart Ehrman, who posit that Jesus never even existed. (He’s the equivalent of a snake-oil salesman. He pops up now and then, usually around Christmas and Easter, with a new “Come Laugh at These Totally Duped Christians” expose, which we can all buy for just $29.99 at the nearest Barnes & Noble. He’s been peddling this ish for years, despite the fact that archaeological evidence has disproved his more baseless theories, and despite the fact that he’s been shuttered from most academic communities because of his tendency toward libel and academic bullying.) Whatever one believes regarding Christianity and the admittedly multiple Christologies that have challenged the traditional Christian view, especially in its early days, one thing that is not debatable is that a man named Jesus existed, and clearly claimed to be God. Yet folks like Ehrman make the novel assertion that Jesus, if He existed at all, never claimed this – and all their work hinges on this assumption. Aside from 1)entirely ignoring the non-synoptic Gospel of John, as well as 2)numerous extra-canonical, 3)non-canonical, and even 4)Gnostic manuscripts which prove Jesus’ existence, they 5)ignore dozens of indisputable instances in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus quite plainly claims powers and authority that a Jew in that time could only understand as belonging to God.

I recommend you read James D. G. Dunn’s book titled, “Christiology in the Making.” You may be able to find a pdf online. If you can’t just order ot from Amazon or something. That is just the answer to your first big paragraph. John is not a synoptic gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptics. John is a theological gospel created by a sectarian Christian sect somewhere in Asia Minor. John seems to be a theological response to certain gnostic heresies as well as to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Almost no historian or scholar considers The Gospel of John to be historical. And… what are you talking about with Ehrman? He argues for the existence of Jesus. He wrote a whole book proving the existence of Jesus. In his own words he has said multiple times, “No serious scholar or historian denys the existence of Jesus.”

 

[thephilosopher6]

Suffice it to say and argue all you want, I hold that some may follow Christ who still hold heretical beliefs. Some early Christians may not have been strictly trinitarian, but once it was put forth the vast majority of Christiandom accepted this as revealed truth. Read through the early parts of the old testament and you will see a blossoming of the understanding of God. This is the same with our understanding of the triune nature of God. Sometimes we only recognize truth after reflection.

I simply hold that once truth is revealed, that denying the truth shears the limb from the tree.

I never said that Jews, in general, were modalist. What I said is that a Jew who holds a view of different modalities of God is in a similar position to a Christian who rejects the Trinity. If Judaism is strictly unitarian, yet a Jew holds a modalist belief are they still Jewish? The same with non-trinitarian Christians. If the Nicean creed is the yard stick of Christianity then those who reject those tenets are in a similar boat. In otherwords who defines the minimum to still be Jewish and conversely who defines the minimum to be Christian? If a minority of nontrinitarians can define the minimum for Christians then could not a minority Jewish group also define the minimum to be Jewish?

I misunderstood you in regards to the Jewish thing. And yes, I would say they are still Jewish as long as religious scholars are defining them as Jewish.

 

[DCNBILL]

No No No

 

[steido01]

John is not a synoptic gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptics.

Uh… I think you may want to re-read my post. You might be confused about what you read; I know my Gospels quite well. As for your reading suggestion, I typically don’t enjoy conspiracy theories.

John is a theological gospel created by a sectarian Christian sect somewhere in Asia Minor. John seems to be a theological response to certain gnostic heresies as well as to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Almost no historian or scholar considers The Gospel of John to be historical.

I don’t understand what you mean by that statement. It serves a different purpose than the others, that is obvious. It was intended for teaching rather than recounting. But that doesn’t make it any less accurate, if that’s what you’re insinuating? Perhaps you’re trying to discredit John since it doesn’t fit the view you’ve imposed on Christianity-- so, like Ehrman, you just ignore it? Fine. There is proof enough in the Synoptic Gospels, as I already mentioned.

And… what are you talking about with Ehrman? He argues for the existence of Jesus. He wrote a whole book proving the existence of Jesus. In his own words he has said multiple times, “No serious scholar or historian denys the existence of Jesus.”

I brought him up because he’s the most prominent of today’s Gnostic-shock writers. He wrote Did Jesus Exist (the book I believe you’re referring to?) essentially as a plea to those who had stopped taking him seriously. His sensationalist, blanket condemnations of modern Christians had placed him in camp with fringe-science fools who doubted not only the origins of orthodox Christianity, but also whether Jesus even existed. He’s been particularly loud about distancing himself from “mythicists” ever since. He’s even been clever enough to include orthodox Christians as another sort of “mythicist” – you know, because they’ve been duped into their mythic God-Jesus for over 2000 years. If only the Western world had a Bart Ehrman to set us straight back then, eh?

 

[thephilosopher6]

Uh… I think you may want to re-read my post. You might be confused about what you read; I know my Gospels quite well. As for your reading suggestion, I typically don’t enjoy conspiracy theories.

I don’t understand what you mean by that statement. It serves a different purpose than the others, that is obvious. It was intended for teaching rather than recounting. But that doesn’t make it any less accurate, if that’s what you’re insinuating? Perhaps you’re trying to discredit John since it doesn’t fit the view you’ve imposed on Christianity-- so, like Ehrman, you just ignore it? Fine. There is proof enough in the Synoptic Gospels, as I already mentioned.

I brought him up because he’s the most prominent of today’s Gnostic-shock writers. He wrote Did Jesus Exist (the book I believe you’re referring to?) essentially as a plea to those who had stopped taking him seriously. His sensationalist, blanket condemnations of modern Christians had placed him in camp with fringe-science fools who doubted not only the origins of orthodox Christianity, but also whether Jesus even existed. He’s been particularly loud about distancing himself from “mythicists” ever since. He’s even been clever enough to include orthodox Christians as another sort of “mythicist” – you know, because they’ve been duped into their mythic God-Jesus for over 2000 years. If only the Western world had a Bart Ehrman to set us straight back then, eh?

I just said John is not synoptic to make sure others reading know that…

Discredit John? John is a beautiful peice of work produced by a group of Christians probably somewhere in Asia Minor. Their way of writing suggest they wrote 1 2 and 3 John. It is also possible they had something to do with Revelation. I am not trying to discredit John, I am only putting forward the general consensus of many scholars. Even N.T Wright doesn’t seem to think it is all historical. He is a largley orthodox scholar. Although, he does say the material in John may lay on histroical foundations. But John is clearly theological in nature. It’s not just regarding the the divinity of Christ, but other things. The group that wrote the Johanine literature was clearly sectarian. Much evidence for this is in their writings. I even believe Raymond Brown, a Catholic New Testament scholar, helped put forward this much accepted theory.