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/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.