That would depend on the congregation you attend. Creeds of the church / some dogma supports the Trinity - it's tradition and some people actually believe in it??? Go figure. Some congregations do not support the notion of the Trinity. You'll find the United Church has a spectrum of diversity behind its doors.

Whoa! How can this be???

Narrow is the road to life. There cannot be many ways within the church to suit everyones tastes.

Audj,

The United Church of Canada does adhere to the Doctrine of the Trinity and it is expressed in the following article of faith taken from the Basis of Union:

2.1 Article I. Of God.
We believe in the one only living and true God, a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being and perfections; the Lord Almighty, who is love, most just in all His ways, most glorious in holiness, unsearchable in wisdom, plenteous in mercy, full of compassion, and abundant in goodness and truth. We worship Him in the unity of the Godhead and the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons of the same substance, equal in power and glory.

This does play out differently among individuals and congregations for a number of different reasons. Even so, the above is the 'official' doctrine of the United Church of Canada.

John

Why would anyone want to be a part of a faith that claims to be Christian and yet it uses false doctrines as foundations?

The trinity doctrine was introduced in the 3rd century. So it is not something that Jesus himself believed. And it is not a Biblical doctrine. In fact, the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible anywhere.

Audj,

Hi.

You wrote:

"Why would anyone want to be a part of a faith that claims to be Christian and yet it uses false doctrines as foundations?"

I'm presupposing you are speaking in general terms but I can't speak for everyone so I am going to respond in personal terms.

I do believe that the United Church of Canada is a part of the universal catholic church. Is it the healthiest part of that larger body? Probably not. Even so, it has not been proven yet, that whatever afflicts the United Church of Canada (UCCAN) is irreversible.

With respect to 'false' doctrines I don't agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

You also wrote:

"The trinity doctrine was introduced in the 3rd century."

Technically this is not true. While the doctrine of the Trinity was essentially finalized at the council of Nicea, discussion and debate about the Trinity had been ongoing before that point. I suspect what made that particular debate about that particular doctrine so notable was that it was one of the first Church discussions to happen under the protection of a secular empire.

You also wrote:

"So it is not something that Jesus himself believed."

I think that is a debateable point. In the great commission of Matthew 28: 19 Jesus explicitly instructs the apostles to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

You further wrote:

"And it is not a Biblical doctrine."

If by 'Biblical Doctrine' you mean it is not explicitly stated as doctrine within the Hebrew or Greek writings we call scripture you are correct. That does not actually prove your point though. We have no one place in scripture which states which books are supposed to be contained in the Bible and depending on which branch of the Christian family tree you hang from you might have more or less books in your Bible than others. Which canon we appeal to is a point of doctrine which cannot be argued to be 'Biblical' even though it focuses on the Bible itself.

And then you wrote:

"In fact, the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible anywhere."

You are correct. The word Trinity does not appear anywhere in scripture but I fail to see how that determines whether or not doctrine is considered 'true' or as you argue considering the doctrine of the Trinity 'false.'

Support for the doctrine can be found in the Bible without doing serious damage to scripture.

John

If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.

What comes through very clearly to someone who has no partiality is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.

Deuteronomy 6:4 reads: "Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh." In the grammar of that verse, the word "one" has no plural modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one individual.

The Christian apostle Paul did not indicate any change in the nature of God either, even after Jesus came to the earth. He wrote: "God is only one.""”Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory." (Isaiah 42:8) "I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." (Italics mine.)"”Exodus 20:2, 3, JB.

Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? What purpose would that serve, except to mislead people? Surely, if God were composed of three persons, he would have had his Bible writers make it abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt about it. At least the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who had personal contact with God's own Son would have done so. But they did not.

Instead, what the Bible writers did make abundantly clear is that God is one Person"”a unique, unpartitioned Being who has no equal: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5) "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.""”Psalm 83:18.

Hi RevJohn,
You seem to think that Jesus believed in the Trinity - based on Matthew's Great Commissioning. You might know, if you are a minister, that this Great Commissioning was added later to the document as well, even if it hadn't been added later - Matthew is written in the 80's ... 50 years after the fact of Jesus death. So, let's say we all gather back here on this blog in 50 years and we'll review exactly what everyone said 50 years earlier ... oh wait, we'll have a written record of it, unlike what happened to Jesus. No matter, maybe I can use my own agenda to tell the world what RevJohn said on Nov. 8 2006, when I retell the story on Nov 8 2056 ...

That's if we still have computers, text, written language such as it is, or for that matter an Earth.
All in good fun, cheers

Audj,

Hi,

You asked?

"If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own?"

As it stands right now it would not be an impossibility.

I only say this because the doctrine does exist and has been around for some time. Presumeably it began to be part of the discussion of the early Christian Church before some of the gospels had been committed to the printed word.

It was also formulated by folk who had only the Hebrew scriptures and some Greek writings that claim specific authorship. The canon of scripture had not been set by any branch of the Christian Church at the point in time when the discussion of the Trinity was being had.

Further, we have no definitive proof when the discussion of the Trinity started do we? No minutes from a Church meeting where somebody says "what do you think of this?"

We can speculate, and accept that we do so at risk, that the conversation about the doctrine of the Trinity is something that began in the later years of the first generation of Christianity. We can study the Patristics for their thoughts on the matter and recognize that on the one hand the writings of the early church fathers are not authoritative but they are historical and they were happening in the same time period that the gospels were being finalized.

We have testimony from some of these early church fathers that they were the students of the actual Aposltes. We have a choice, to trust that they are being honest with us or assume that they must be lying. Maybe I'm too gullible but I trust that they are honestly trying to pass on what they have been taught.

Bizarrely we debate about this particular doctrine and whether or not it exists in Scripture without recognizing that much of the Newer Testament was not even committed to paper when the discussion may have begun.

John

JM,

Hi,

You wrote:

"You seem to think that Jesus believed in the Trinity - based on Matthew's Great Commissioning."

Based on that particular text I think that it is possible that Jesus did believe that he was part of the Trinity.

You also wrote,

"You might know, if you are a minister, that this Great Commissioning was added later to the document as well, "

I'm a little uneasy with what you are communicating here with the "if you are a minister" comment. I recognize that we have never met but wonder why my vocation is automatically suspect.

With respect to what I might, or might not know. Biblical Scholarship is a very diverse field and it is anything but unified in its understanding of what constitutes 'good' scholarship. There is a political dimension to it and alongside of that partisanship. I only offer this to point out the reality of Biblical study, not everyone agrees but pretty much everyone believes that they are right in their understanding. The first bit of critical thinking that needs to take place with respect to Biblical scholarship is to be critical of the scholars.

I am aware that the authenticity of Matthew 28: 19 is contested.

I'm don't find the arguments that refute the authenticity of this passage to be very convincing. Particularly the argument that hinges on English Grammar.

With respect to your point that the Trinitarian formula is a later addition I have no resource readily available that informs me that the manuscript evidence against exists. That leads me to believe that the majority of scholars who study the available manuscript evidence accept it belongs.

You also wrote:

"Matthew is written in the 80's ... 50 years after the fact of Jesus death."

Well that is the earliest date given--some dates are a little later and others later still.

I think there needs to be some consideration to the fact that while there is a literal culture forming at this time in the area there is still a strong aural culture in place.

You also wrote,

"No matter, maybe I can use my own agenda to tell the world what RevJohn said on Nov. 8 2006, when I retell the story on Nov 8 2056 ..."

True. You can use your own agenda and put words in my mouth. Should I be concerned that you intend to do just such a thing? Even so, no matter what you intend you have to deal with people who will operate out of a foundation of doubt or a foundation of trust.

If you want to misrepresent me you are going to have to count on people essentially believing you are lying out of the gate. Some people (operating out of a foundation of trust) will believe what you say I said and be suspicious of me or anything attributed to me automatically.

Even if you intend in 2056 to faithfully reproduce this conversation you are going to have the same problem aren't you. Those who operate out of doubt are going to assume you are telling lies to suit your own purposes and those who operate out of a foundation of trust will accept whatever you say as being true.

If this forum exists, or our hard drives have not been wiped we might be able be able to reproduce the discussion for others to examine and they can judge for themselves.

You finish with:

"All in good fun, cheers"

Thanks for the banter. Grace and peace to you.

John

I have more to say about this but don't have the time at the moment. I would like to quickly mention though that whether or not the Gospels had been completed at the time the trinity doctrine was being introduced is not important. As a minister, I will assume you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. If the Gospels hadn't been written yet, that is only further proof that the doctrine is false. Otherwise, why wouldn't it have been included in the Bible (since this would have been a hot topic of discussion)?

Audj,

Hi,

You wrote:

"I would like to quickly mention though that whether or not the Gospels had been completed at the time the trinity doctrine was being introduced is not important."

Possibly you are right. The possibility also exists that you are not. Both possibilities extend to me also. The gospels were written to explain something of the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of John acknowledges that there was much more to what Jesus said and did than was recorded.

Does that mean that a lot of what Jesus said and did is not important? Not at all. It means that the Gospel writers just didn't write it down. It also does not mean that there was a conspiracy to cover up the hidden or real teaching of Jesus.

You also wrote:

"I will assume you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God."

I do believe that. We may disagree on the mechanics of how inspiration works though.

You also wrote:

"If the Gospels hadn't been written yet, that is only further proof that the doctrine is false."

No it is not. What it would be proof of is that there was no consensus on how the Trinity worked or what it really means. It may also mean that the doctrine of the Trinity did not present as a problem within the early life of the church until it began to run up against the gnostics.

"Otherwise, why wouldn't it have been included in the Bible (since this would have been a hot topic of discussion)?"

It doesn't really become a hot topic of discussion, at least not in the Pauline epistles. Paul has other stuff that seems to be at centre stage. The gospels are not intended as doctrinal literature they are accounts of one man's life, we borrow from them to build doctrine within the church. The Johanine literature addressed other issues.

While it is true that we have closed the canon of scripture that is not the same thing as saying it addresses all issues. While I believe that all of scripture is God breathed I do not think all of scripture speaks to every issue otherwise Genesis would have been enough wouldn't it?

Jesus came to call us and to teach us sooner or later the student has to step out on their own and use what they have learned so that they might learn more.

John

I think you may have missed my point. Since you are saying the gospels were not completed, if the trinity was in question at the time of their writing then God would have inspired the trinity doctrine to be put in the gospels. How could something such as the nature of God be of little importance? The whole point of the Bible is to glorify His holy name, Jehovah! Even Jesus instructed us to pray for the sanctifying of His Name.

For you last statement:

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent completely equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)

The Bible DOES address every issue.

Further, the coptic translation, one translated at a time when the Greek of the Bible was still spoken and has similar grammar as our language (English), agrees that Jesus is not part of a trinity.

Even a Bible that has had the divine name removed from it agrees that there is no such thing as a trinity.

Note what a Protestant publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.""”New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Audj,

You wrote:

"I think you may have missed my point."

That is a possibility.

You then wrote

"Since you are saying the gospels were not completed,"

To be precise I only suggested that the writing of the gospels and the discussions of the Trinity happened in the same time frame. I made no claim to know that this was happening for a fact.

You claim:

"if the trinity was in question at the time of their writing then God would have inspired the trinity doctrine to be put in the gospels."

I'm not so confident that I know the mind of God well enough to make statements like yours.

You asked:

"How could something such as the nature of God be of little importance?"

That is a little presumptuous I think. The nature of God is important and yet it may not have been first priority at the time. Issues about the character of God seem to have been primary.

You then claim:

"The whole point of the Bible is to glorify His holy name,"

Well, yes and no. The Bible is not just an extended praise tract right? It has a teaching function which suggests it might have more than one purpose or point.

Then you claim:

"The Bible DOES address every issue."

No it does not. We, extrapolate from issues that the Bible does address and see if we can apply what is being taught to other things.

Does the Bible address Nuclear War? Not directly. We (the church) have to look to scripture for guidance and we have to look to portions of scripture which we think are the most applicable. So, we can say that God doesn't like Nuclear War because God doesn't like murder or we can say God is indifferent to Nuclear War because Jesus said there would always be wars and rumours of wars. We could even argue that God is for Nuclear War because our God is a man of war.

Then we would pull bits and pieces of other Biblical text together to support our position.

But none of us can say point to book, chapter or verse and say with absolute certainty that that book, chapter and verse speak directly to Nuclear War.

While it is important to know Biblical content it is also important to know Biblical context otherwise we can make spectacular statements like the Bible says, "there is no God."

You wrote:

"Further, the coptic translation, one translated at a time when the Greek of the Bible was still spoken and has similar grammar as our language (English), agrees that Jesus is not part of a trinity."

Can you point me to a resource for this information. I've been surfing and not able yet to find much on this coptic translation that you mention. A lot of references to the gnostics and the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Judas.

I'll keep looking but would appreciate if you could help me out on this point.

Not being familiar with the document that you are referencing it would be difficult for me to agree or disagree with you out of anything other than ignorance.

You also wrote,

"Even a Bible that has had the divine name removed from it agrees that there is no such thing as a trinity."

Which Bible would that be?

You repeated from an earlier post:

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

Which I have not contested and I believe I was the one who first mentioned that what happened at Nicea was a formalization of the doctrine of the Trinity which suggests that discussion about the doctrine was happening well before Constantine.

So I'm puzzled as to why we are here repeating material that we have alread raised and agreed upon.

You also wrote,

"And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.""”New Catholic Encyclopedia."

That is easily answered by my pointing out that as a member of the United Church of Canada I belong to the Protestant branch of the Christian family and so do not always agree with the doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

My Bible also does not include Tubit, Judith or 1 & 2 Maccabees.

Thanks for the discussion so far.

John

My Bible does not contain those books either.

Here are a couple of sites about the Sahidic Coptic translation:

http://www.integlogic.com/sahidica/sahidica.htm#Head02

http://copticjohn.com/

I apologize for my repetetiveness. I must have misplaced my head :~)

Audj,

Hello and thanks for the links.

I'm attempting to wade through the Sadhidica: Sahidic Text with Koine Parallel at the moment.

I'm not to thrilled about having to deal with a transliteration I'll mention that up front. So it may take a while for me to get back to you and address your concerns.

Once again, thanks for the links and I'll get back to you soon

John

I've tried to wade through the conversation thus far and find it both fascinating and baffling, which is what I've always thought of the doctrine of the Trinity. Kant, I believe, called it "incomprehensible". I truly enjoy tangling with the doctrine because of it's poetic and logical balance, three independent entities that are made perfectly whole only in complete unified interdependence, Ah, if humanity were only made in that image!!! Wait a minute...???

I think it might be helpful to distinguish between an ontological reality (one God in three persons) and it's description (the doctrine). The word "Trinity", and the various doctine/descriptions that slough along with it, are merely human attempts at trying to describe something that indescribably exists. The word is not the thing itself. Just because the word/doctrine came along later doesn't mean it isn't otherwise described, nor that it doesn't exist. Rosensweig did a lot to try to describe this complex co-mingling of God in Godself/ God with humanity in "The Star of Redemption". He would never have used the term "Trinity" (though he was probably more familiar with the implications of the word/concept than most Christians). When the early church had to explain what it means to have an omnipotent God who condescends to participate in human suffering and talk about e.g. the temptations such as we read in Luke and Matthew (where the Trinity is subtly but clear described without the use of a word that did not yet exist), there evolved in time a recognition, followed by language, that was meant to help us understand that in Jesus we worship a God that participates in Creation, within Creation, in suffering love... the rivalry and acrimony in developing the concept had/has a lot more to do with frustration over the sheer difficulty of trying to get people to understand that which is described in scripture and perceived in faith. Hey, I mean... if Kant couldn't understand it!!!!!???? Blessings.

Rev Dave Before the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ heaven was closed, God spoke through the prophets. With the coming of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, As Christ was with God at the beginning of creation, Christ by his death opened up the gate to Heaven, as He told his disciples He would not leave them comfortless, but send the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, points us to Christ as the redeemer, who brings us back into the presence of God, by being the mediator for us. Therefore God the Father, Christ the Son and Holy Spirit.

In the Gospel 18:19 it says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And 2Corinthians13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and love of God and fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." That looks like 2 examples right there in the bible mentioning the Trinity.

Fascinating! I am amazed by the necessity of some people to explain away every thing that can truely only be understood by faith. The Trinity remained a very odd and difficult doctorine for me to understand for many years. However, recently I was listening to a speaker explaining the passages from the Bible that discuss Jesus calming the waters and walking across the water into the ship of the fishermen. Now of course to understand my next statement you must believe that this occurence of calming the waters, stopping a storm and walking on the water is no metaphor, so if you believe the above then Jesus could do all this because he is God. Just as he is the Holy Spirit. The separating out of the Trinity into three things is what kept me baffled for years. The Trinity is 3 parts of the great I am.

I do not consider that belief in the Trinity is essential to salvtion. The notion of love as summarised in Jesus' good news is what is needed. I do rationalise my own idea of the Trinity to help me understand and appreciate the complexity of God. It is not dogma for me.

Audj,

You said...."What comes through very clearly to someone who has no partiality is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God."....

You're right, God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, But He reveals Himself to us in a human way (Jesus) so that we can relate to Him and He lives in us as the Holy Spirit so that He can steer us if we allow it. John 14:16 + John 15:26

If you have trouble with a plurality of persons in the oneness of God. remember that in the beginning "God said let US make man in OUR image.' (Genesis 1:26). This is a plural 'God." ('elohim') who is referred to by plural pronouns.'us' and "our."

Or think about Deuteronomy 6:4. 'The LORD our God is one LORD. Here the word from the Hebrew translated 'LORD' is Jehovah or Yahweh.

Yet the word 'God" is the plural. "elohim".

Further the Hebrew word for "one'.'echad" is a word that communicates a plurality. For example, you would use it to say there is one bunch of grapes. There is a plurality in God as there is a plurality in a bunch of grapes. except that in the case of God. the Bible reveals that the plurality is limited to three equal persons of the Godhead who all share the exact same divine characteristics or essence.

The bible does not say that Jesus was a created being, let alone subordinate to God. He showed us as example how to be servants. And the bible says that Jesus was fully God and fully human. Do you believe in a limited God who could not perform all of this? Isaiah 40:3 + Matthew 3:3.

Jesus is "I AM" John 8:58. Now I know your translation says "came into existence" but most other translation say "I AM"

1 John 5:20 says that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.

Even thought the bible does not use the word Trinity it is reflected inside of me. I can't prove that to you but it is real.

Also the word "Rapture" is not in the bible and people will get their underwear in a knot over that but it is just a Christian term to define an action in the bible. Same thing with the word "Trinity".

Be Blessed,
IB

Audj- the only major denomination that I know which has openly rejected the Trinity is the Unitarians. Do the Jehovah's Witnesses of which you are a part hold to this doctrine?

JWitnesses don't believe Jesus was Divine or that Christians go to heaven except for 144,000.

Must have been full a long time ago.

Not all inclusive at all!

i don't do the doctrine thing. although i believe in the one yet three description of God. however i don't have faith in doctrines, but God himself.

Audj - Would you join the UCC if it dropped the Trinity? I don't know if my church really believes in the "Trinity" in the same sense as the statement of Faith of the Church would suggest.

Maybe we should let the Evangelicals and the JW's and Mormons fight this one out!

I got really excited when I saw this as I thought it was about Carrie Anne-Moss.

IF you want a fundamentalist church that does not believe in the trinity, you could try one of the sub flavors of Evangelical Unitarians.