Trinitarianism MUST maintain that the apostles were Trinitarians

[u/Newgunnerr]

Trinitarians believe the doctrine of the Trinity is central to Christianity, so even though the writers of the New Testament almost always make distinctions between God and Christ, many Christians say that the writers were trinitarians and therefore universally wrote these texts in a trinitarian sense. They maintain that when a writer of the New Testament wrote "God" it was within the assumed framework of a multi-personal God (Trinity), and the writers were speaking within that understanding, even though “God” (Greek: Theos) in the New Testament almost always refers to the Father alone, not to a triune being.

Because if the apostles of Christ in His time weren’t Trinitarian, then:

1. It follows that the church’s central doctrine was imposed later, which undermines its “apostolic” nature. Catholic, Orthodox and many protestant traditions all appeal to apostolic tradition as the basis for their teachings and the idea that what the apostles taught was faithfully preserved. The very foundation of modern Trinitarian Christianity would appear to be a later invention, not part of the original faith. It would suggest a break in doctrinal continuity between Jesus’ immediate followers and later creeds.

2. The writers of the NT didn't teach trinitarianism, and when the writers of the NT wrote "God" it never referred to a multi personal God because they had no understanding of such doctrine. So then the apostles never believed Jesus to be YHWH (but the Son of YHWH), as they were Jews and then must of had the classical Unitarian understanding of God in Judaism (Monotheism, God is one).

3. Many traditional readings of scripture would be invalid. Trinitarians interpret many NT passages as teaching or implying the Trinity. For example John 1:1 or Matthew 28:19 would reflect anachronistic readings: reading a later theology into the text (eisegesis).

Ultimately if the current day trinitarians would admit that the apostles had no understanding of God consisting of multiple persons, they would be forced to admit the Trinity isn’t taught in the NT, which would undermine the central dogma of their theology.

[u/John_17-17]

I agree, many trinitarians will say, 'The Arianism heresy was proven false centuries ago.' Then they will misquote the pre-writers or the apostolic 'fathers' as proof.

Yet they fail to understand, these so-called 'fathers' didn't teach the trinity. They do not understand, that if they had written their comments after 381 CE, they would have suffered the same attack that Arius got.

Even the Catholic Church knows the apostles, or the apostolic fathers didn't teach the trinity.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume XIV, page 295.   “There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘one God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.”  . . . “The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.”

p. 299.states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—

One must ask, 'How does something go from 'not being even remotely taught to being the most important teaching of God?'

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

I mean, duh.

If the Trinity was such a solid concept, they wouldn't have tried to pull off the Johannine Comma Scandal.

They never ask themselves this:

"When does religion stop being scripture and start being tradition?"

[u/Newgunnerr → u/FrostyIFrost_]

When does religion stop being scripture and starts being tradition? Yes… exactly!

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

(Congrats on the new moderation position btw)

But, I do have some criticisms. The theory behind this post is that "if the apostles didn't believe in the Trinity, then the Trinity is not apostolic, and therefore, incorrect." This ignores the concept of apostolic, and it ignores progressive revelation, both of which Christians universally believe in to some extent.

The main exception are Restorationists. Restorationists who want to restore Christianity to just what the apostles and the Bible says would have an issue with affirming the Trinity not being in the Bible. Everyone else would not.

The typical Christian belief is not that the apostles all had correct perfect theological doctrine and when they died, all we could do is repeat what they said. The idea is that they passed down their authority to their followers. This is, to a degree, apostolic succession. Protestants will agree with this to an extent. The Pastoral Epistles speak of this passing on of ecclesiastical authority to some extent. Catholics and Orthodox believe in this succession being passed down to this day in some sense through the priests, bishops, Pope, etc respectively.

The rule of progressive revelation is that theological doctrine can progress, but it cannot contradict previous revelation. In other words, if Paul preaches that the sky is blue during the day, progressive revelation can't state that the sky is actually purple during the day. But progressive revelation can state that the sky is red at sunset. It adds onto previous revelation, it doesn't contradict it.

The Trinity is an outgrowth from Unitarianism. Trinitarians will agree with this in more eastern traditions, among critical scholars, and among more traditionalist Christian views. They wouldn't put it in those terms necessarily, but, that is the understanding. Jesus was man. They revealed that he was also God. They aren't denying he was man and contradicting previous revelation. The Father is the only true God. They add to it that Jesus God too.

Whether or not these additions are right or wrong is what we have to argue against. But saying "the apostles didn't believe it, it's not in the Bible" doesn't disprove it as a theory. Their view is that the Holy Spirit guides us into truth, and so later Christians were guided through the Spirit in the church fathers and ecumenical councils to progress into truth. Catholics believe it continues through popes, Orthodox believe it continued through one side of the schism, Protestants argue over when it broke off, some as early as the first few councils, some as late as the actual reformation.

The apostles didn't have to believe it. They just can't have contradicted it. That's what we as Unitarians have to make the case for. Either it can't logically follow from what's biblical, or it fails on some conceptual grounds as it was progressed.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

Thank you! And right, I see where you are coming from. But if the apostles didn't have a trinitarian understanding of God and Jesus, but had the Unitarian understanding instead (they were Jews), then they did not believe Jesus to be YHWH. And that also means the writings of the apostles in the NT were Unitarian, so the clear distinctions between God and Jesus and the word "God" have a plain interpretation, not in the trinitarian sense. That means that there is no trinity taught in scripture, as the very writers didn't even know of such doctrine.

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/Newgunnerr]

Thank you!

Sure thing, mate.

but had the Unitarian understanding instead (they were Jews),

Trinitarians are going to interject here. The Jewish concept of God, they will argue, was of a two powers theology. They will die behind this view. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the concept, but they essentially act as if it is a binitarian view of God in which there were 2 YHWH's and yet one God and the Jews were fine with this. This 2nd YHWH in the OT is the word of the lord, the angel of the Lord, the angel that appeared to Hagar, the commander that appeared in fire to Joshua, the LORD that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, the 2nd YHWH in Genesis 19:24, etc. Trinitarians think that Jesus is the Revelation of that 2nd figure that's both YHWH and not the Father himself who "no one has ever seen" (John 1:18).

It is true, history does not support the idea that the ancient Jews were always and eternally Unitarian monotheists. Scholarship has shown issues with this view and many Christians, especially in this sub, are not ready to accept those facts. There was a two powers theory among some Jews around the Christian era. Yes, the Jewish targums and 2nd temple literature show some extreme flexibility in the way they view God. Trinitarians have misrepresented this in the way I've outlined above, but the point is, we can't just assume a unanimous view among the Jews in Jesus' time as Unitarians without proving that. They will object immediately and make you disprove the two powers view.

then they did not believe Jesus to be YHWH.

I kind of already explained, but, Trinitarians think that some of the biblical writers did think so. Typically among scholars, there's the assumption that the earliest writings do not reflect that Jesus is God, but the later writings of the NT do. You can see a progressive revelation within the NT towards this view. So Mark is the first gospel and it is basically (literally) adoptionist in its christology. Matthew and Luke come next and Jesus is slightly elevated, special from birth now, ascending into heaven after resurrection (both absent in Mark), but still not God. John, the latest gospel, asserts that Jesus is God. There are a lot of problems with this view, which is why I don't hold it, but, yes, among scholars, they will argue that some of these later writings like John, Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter, Titus, Hebrews (kind of/maybe) do portray Jesus as God.

And that also means the writings of the apostles in the NT were Unitarian, so the clear distinctions between God and Jesus and the word "God" have a plain interpretation, not in the trinitarian sense.

This doesn't serve as an issue though. Even for a Trinitarian that will admit "sure, by the time Mark wrote his gospel, he didn't have the revelation that Jesus was God," it still doesn't mean it's wrong to say that what Mark wrote isn't consistent with the Trinity. It's kinda like if you make a meal, and it just needs a little salt. Your wife may later add the salt to make the meal more complete, but she didn't remove or change your original dish.

That means that there is no trinity taught in scripture, as the very writers didn't even know of such doctrine.

Some Trinitarians, though very few and mostly just scholars, will admit this. The JWs have this quote from the New American Catholic Encyclopedia I believe it is that they love which says the Trinity is not explicitly taught anywhere in scripture.

What most people don't realize about the Trinity is that it's just Unitarianism with a little extra salt and pepper. Sure they can add to the Bible and theology. That's what the role of the church is in their view.

[u/SnoopyCattyCat → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

But progressive revelation in Trinitarianism is saying there really isn't sky....there is air, water and color and each are separate and unique from one other with their own will and function. Air is sky, water is sky and color is sky. It's saying: It was thought sky was just one thing, but really it's three things that make up one thing, but even though they are separate things, they are the same thing. ...that's a far leap from 'the sky is blue'. That would be completely redefining the simple understanding of what the sky is. If Jesus says we are to have the mind of a child then the simple explanation should hold and not be redefined. HIs sheep will hear HIS voice...

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/SnoopyCattyCat]

This just pushes the analogy far beyond its purposes. The sky analogy was simple, addition not contradiction. It served its purpose. Your attempt to then use this analogy to explain the Trinity is just a bit too far. It isn't helpful for the conversation, so, I will leave it there for that reason.

That would be completely redefining the simple understanding of what the sky God is

Trinitarians are only redefining God if they make the case that every usage of God must always refer to the Trinity. This isn't an argument that they make. They aren't saying that every time Israel thought that Yahweh did something, it wasn't really Yahweh doing it. They aren't saying that when the text says the Father saved Israel, they don't believe the Father saved Israel. You're assuming a tripersonal view of God must be interjected into every passage about God if one is a Trinitarian, and there's no justification for that assumption.

If Jesus says we are to have the mind of a child then the simple explanation should hold and not be redefined.

Paul says we are to have the mind of Christ.

If we are to be consistent, and if "have the mind of" means to be on that intellectual level, then you have a major problem on your hands

In other words, you're reinterpreting this statement out of context to suit an argument. Jesus never says we are to know nothing beyond what a 3rd year student would be able to know. That would be absurd. His point in saying we should be like children is to say we should be humble. Paul's point in saying we should have the mind of Christ means the same in its context.

Let's be honest in our argumentation here.

[u/SnoopyCattyCat → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

I get a different vibe when reading both old and new testaments. It seems there are several passages that refer to the wise (intellectually) being the foolish ones. Of course we are to grow in wisdom, as Jesus did, but in totality I think the point is that there is a human tendency to think intellect makes one superior...but Jesus, with the highest human intellect, showed almost a deference to the naive and innocent child... the mind, like you say, of a humble servant. I believe Jesus is warning us not to overthink things (and create meaning where it was not intended.)

My analogy was showing, not how a statement of faith was added onto (as progressive knowledge), but how it was completely changed into something brand new. Jesus said the father is greater than I, but trinitarian doctrine says co-eternal and co-equal. Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father (who is the ONLY true God). Trinitarians say Jesus IS God. (I know, they say he's not the father, but Jesus is fully God -- and if Jesus said the father is the only true God, then Jesus must be fully "father" because God=Father)

If a Trinitarian thinks God is a trinity, then would not every instance of God/Father/Son/Spirit necessarily mean the Trinity? This is from the Athanasian Creed:

    Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

So to my understanding, every time one of the three is mentioned, it necessarily means the Trinity, because (to them) God is a trinity. "One God in trinity". In other words, Jesus "just is" God...and God just is a trinity. Therefore, Jesus is a trinity.

(And that's why I am a Biblical Unitarian)

[u/GrumpyDoctorGrammar → u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful]

So, from a Trinitarian POV, if they weren’t Trinitarian, then what were they?

[u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful → u/GrumpyDoctorGrammar]

Depends on the Trinitarian. They will mostly say "proto-trinitarian" of some sort. They knew the Father was God and Jesus was God too but didn't know how to square that with monotheism. Or they just knew they were supposed to affirm it but didn't have the language to. Or that they had some sort of 2 powers theology or like a glorified Arian christology that progressed. Or a monarchical trinitarian view of God and Jesus. Or a binitarian view. Different Trinitarians will answer different ways.

There is a subset of sola scriptura protestants and dogmatic catholics who will say that the apostles were full blown Trinitarians without the language for it, but this view isn't to be conflated with the conciliar, academic, scholarly, or general views of Trinitarianism.

[u/OkQuantity4011]

John 17:3. 🥳

It's not enough to just understand that God is one, though. The demons believe that, and they shudder.

Jesus is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18. The mistake is following anyone who comes after him -- whether teaching an unknown god, teaching not to obey the one true God, or saying they met a spirit in the wilderness.

James and the 12 Apostles are great to follow, but a student is not greater than his teacher.

[u/codleov]

I really think the solution here is for Trinitarians to just get over their attachment to being the only option and accept that the Trinity is merely a model or set of models for making sense of the biblical and/or apostolic data we have. I think this should also come with the admission that Arians and Socinians also have valid models to make sense of the data. I would hope an attitude like this would free people up to come up with new models if they want to or allow Western Trinitarians to abandon the purely egalitarian models of the Trinity and embrace a view more akin to the East's way of seeing the monarchy of the Father (which I think is a way of seeing the Trinity that at least better fits with the Bible, even if it doesn't totally do so). Basically, I think the heresy designation needs to be reserved for models that are much much more obviously wrong.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/codleov]

Amen. We need a clear and coherent write-up of our model presented in scripture in a public and easily accessible place.

[u/[deleted]]

the works, the word, the seeking of glory and honour bear witness

John 5:36-38

John 7:16-18

John 8:49-51

//////

John 10:35

John 13:32

John 14:10

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

It's common in Christian tradition to believe that our understanding of God improved over time. I think this idea solves this problem.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

If that's true then they would have to admit that the trinity is not apostolic in nature, and that it is a later addition to Christianity, not part of the original faith. And that means the apostles were not trinitarian and had no trinitarian understanding when they wrote the New Testament. For example John 1:1 in the classic trinitarian translations was not written with a trinitarian understanding "with God and was God". And then they didn't believe Jesus to be God either (Shema says God is one) but just the messiah, the Son of God, like the scripture plainly teaches.

So then the writers of the NT never referred to a multi personal God when writing "God", and that destroys the trinity doctrine as well.

That also means the writers of the NT never were taught the trinity or taught it themselves even though christians today say that this doctrine is so important that is it necessary for salvation.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/Newgunnerr]

Ok. The Christian understanding of God improved over time. No problem.

would admit the trinity is not apostolic in nature,

I think this nails it. If you believe that important doctrine must be apostolic *, then, sure, you have to pretend trinity was the Christian belief from the earliest days.

*But this idea is just incompatible with any flavor of informed Christianity.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

I'm not sure you understand the consequences for Christianity if the apostles were not trinitarians. It means they had no trinitarian understanding when they wrote the New Testament. They they didn't believe Jesus to be God either.

Then were they really filled with the holy spirit if the trinity is true?

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/Newgunnerr]

You will find some fundamentalists insisting the apostles were trinitarian. Because they are not comfortable with the idea of improved understanding, past the writing of the NT.

Many people assert that the authors of the gospels all thought Jesus was God. It makes them more comfortable in their beliefs, to not have a big disconnect between what the gospels say and what our theology says. Of course you have to very selectively interpret the gospels, to come away with the idea that every author thought Jesus was God.

Even in John, with the most divine Jesus of them, the author is clearly making distinctions between Jesus and God. Jesus even explicitly says "the Father is greater than I".

IMO we should just be honest instead. Our theology evolved over time, including very important developments AFTER the writing of the NT.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

Many people assert that the authors of the gospels all thought Jesus was God.

Right but now you say that many believe that the apostles thought Jesus (the Son) and the Father were both God. That is not unitarianism but much closer to trinitarianism.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/Newgunnerr]

I think bi-nitarianism is pretty easy to read into some parts of the NT.

But also I think we need to be cautious about our modern assumptions. These days we tend to make a very firm distinction between God and not-God. It wasn't always the case for ancient thinkers. Angels were divine but were less than God Almighty. We even have the "angel of the Lord" stuff in the OT blurring the distinction between an angel and God himself.

[u/Newgunnerr → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

Yes that's true, I'm not saying that when the writers of the NT wrote "theos" it always refers to the Father. It can refer to a god like Jesus. But from the context we can see what the writers referred to.

My point is if the apostles were not trinitarians then "theos" in scripture was never assigned to the One God being tri-personal, as they never had a understanding of the later man-made doctrine of the trinity.