The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Even if you disagree, this is THE case for Unitarianism

I’m sorry for the length - it’s a 10 minute read, though, not too bad - it is an excerpt from Wm. Ellery Channings essay on Unitarian Christianity.

I post this not out of a spirit of contentiousness, nor as simply an intellectual exercise, but as an example of clear-headedness, eloquence, and honesty in the presentation of a position that is, I think, worth taking a few minutes to read.

Please, friends: I am not attacking the ‘sacred cow’ of Trinitarianism, (well, there’s a strange combination of words and worlds), because quite frankly I am not yet decided on the issues and perhaps will not be for some time. I have written Akimel in a PM and expressed my thanks to him for his clear presentation of the Trinitarian position; others on this forum have also expressed it well. [tag]Akimel[/tag] :smiley:
I am pleading with you: let us enter this as friends and exit this as friends. Let’s just call this a ‘thought experiment’ and not hang the weight of the universe on it (like I sometimes stupidly do on other subjects).

As a whole, however, this presentation has a power and cohesiveness that to me is very persuasive. I’ve underlined a bit of what really stands out to me, and edited out a number of paragraphs.
So here goes:

II. Having thus stated the principles according to which we interpret Scripture, I now proceed to the second great head of this discourse, which is, to state some of the views which we derive from that sacred book, particularly those which distinguish us from other Christians.

  1. In the first place, we believe…that there is one God, and one only. The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us exceedingly plain.
    -We understand by it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong.
    -We conceive, that these words could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and uncultivated people who were set apart to be the depositaries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair- breadth distinctions between being and person, which the sagacity of later ages has discovered. We find no intimation, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God’s unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings.

We object to the doctrine of the Trinity…
-According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
-Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other’s society.
-They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh.
-Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and, if this mark fails us, our whole knowledge fall; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?

“To us,” as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, “there is one God, even the Father.”
-With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. “God sent his Son.”
-“God anointed Jesus.” Now, how singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision. But where does this statement appear? From the many passages which treat of God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are told, that he is a threefold being, or that he is three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the contrary, in the New Testament, where, at least, we might expect many express assertions of this nature, God is declared to be one, without the least attempt to prevent the acceptation of the words in their common sense; and he is always spoken of and addressed in the singular number, that is, in language which was universally understood to intend a single person, and to which no other idea could have been attached, without an express admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.

We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God’s unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said, implying that objections were brought against the Gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity.

(Note: I am here, for the sake of brevity, deleting two long paragraphs. I may refer to them later on in another discussion)

  1. Having thus given our views of the unity of God, I proceed in the second place to observe, that we believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and equally distinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes; Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character.

According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain, that this is to make Christ two beings.

  • To denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose him made up of two minds, infinitely different from each other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent natures.
  • According to the common doctrine, each of these two minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will, its own perceptions. They have, in fact, no common properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants and sorrows of the human, and the human is infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine. Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct? We have always thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by one consciousness. The doctrine, that one and the same person should have two consciousness, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other, this we think an enormous tax on human credulity.

We say, that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part and an essential part of revelation, it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be composed of two minds infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We find none.

Other Christians, indeed, tell us, that this doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and that to reconcile these, we must suppose two minds, to which these properties may be referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving gross absurdity. We are to find our way out of a labyrinth, by a clue which conducts us into mazes infinitely more inextricable.

  • But where do we find this instruction? Where do you meet, in the New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books, and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of two natures in Jesus? Where does this divine teacher say, “This I speak as God, and this as man; this is true only of my human mind, this only of my divine”? Where do we find in the Epistles a trace of this strange phraseology? Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. It was demanded by the errors of a later age.

-We wish, that those from whom we differ, would weigh one striking fact. Jesus, in his preaching, continually spoke of God. The word was always in his mouth. We ask, does he, by this word, ever mean himself? We say, never. On the contrary, he most plainly distinguishes between God and himself, and so do his disciples. How this is to be reconciled with the idea, that the manifestation of Christ, as God, was a primary object of Christianity, our adversaries must determine.

If we examine the passages in which Jesus is distinguished from God, we shall see, that they not only speak of him as another being, but seem to labor to express his inferiority.
He is continually spoken of as the Son of God, sent of God, receiving all his powers from God, working miracles because God was with him, judging justly because God taught him, having claims on our belief, because he was anointed and sealed by God, and as able of himself to do nothing. The New Testament is filled with this language.

**Now we ask, what impression this language was fitted and intended to make? Could any, who heard it, have imagined that Jesus was the very God to whom he was so industriously declared to be inferior; the very Being by whom he was sent, and from whom he professed to have received his message and power? **

Let it here be remembered, that the human birth, and bodily form, and humble circumstances, and mortal sufferings of Jesus, must all have prepared men to interpret, in the most unqualified manner, the language in which his inferiority to God was declared. Why, then, was this language used so continually, and without limitation, if Jesus were the Supreme Deity, and if this truth were an essential part of his religion? I repeat it, the human condition and sufferings of Christ tended strongly to exclude from men’s minds the idea of his proper Godhead; and, of course, we should expect to find in the New Testament perpetual care and effort to counteract this tendency, to hold him forth as the same being with his Father, if this doctrine were, as is pretended, the soul and centre of his religion. We should expect to find the phraseology of Scripture cast into the mould of this doctrine, to hear familiarly of God the Son, of our Lord God Jesus, and to be told, that to us there is one God, even Jesus. But, instead of this, the inferiority of Christ pervades the New Testament. It is not only implied in the general phraseology, but repeatedly and decidedly expressed, and unaccompanied with any admonition to prevent its application to his whole nature. Could it, then, have been the great design of the sacred writers to exhibit Jesus as the Supreme God?

I am aware that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most established and obvious principles of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey very different ideas, when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon BUILT the temple in a different manner from the architect whom he employed; and God REPENTS differently from man. Now we maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively few passages which are thought to make him the Supreme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such texts by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God’s fulness. These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ.

Trinitarians profess to derive some important advantages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnishes them,they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it shows them an infinite being suffering for their sins. The confidence with which this fallacy is repeated astonishes us. When pressed with the question, whether they really believe, that the infinite and unchangeable God suffered and died on the cross, they acknowledge that this is not true, but that Christ’s human mind alone sustained the pains of death. How have we, then, an infinite sufferer? This language seems to us an imposition on common minds, and very derogatory to God’s justice, as if this attribute could be satisfied by a sophism and a fiction.

We are also told, that Christ is a more interesting object, that his love and mercy are more felt, when he is viewed as the Supreme God, who left his glory to take humanity and to suffer for men. That Trinitarians are strongly moved by this representation, we do not mean to deny; but we think their emotions altogether founded on a misapprehension of their own doctrines. They talk of the second person of the Trinity’s leaving his glory and his Father’s bosom, to visit and save the world. But this second person, being the unchangeable and infinite God, was evidently incapable of parting with the least degree of his perfection and felicity. At the moment of his taking flesh, he was as intimately present with his Father as before, and equally with his Father filled heaven, and earth, and immensity. This Trinitarians acknowledge; and still they profess to be touched and overwhelmed by the amazing humiliation of this immutable being! But not only does their doctrine, when fully explained, reduce Christ’s humiliation to a fiction, it almost wholly destroys the impressions with which his cross ought to be viewed. According to their doctrine, Christ was comparatively no sufferer at all. It is true, his human mind suffered; but this, they tell us, was an infinitely small part of Jesus, bearing no more proportion to his whole nature, than a single hair of our heads to the whole body, or than a drop to the ocean. The divine mind of Christ, that which was most properly himself, was infinitely happy, at the very moment of the suffering of his humanity. Whilst hanging on the cross, he was the happiest being in the universe, as happy as the infinite Father; so that his pains, compared with his felicity, were nothing. This Trinitarians do, and must, acknowledge. It follows necessarily from the immutableness of the divine nature, which they ascribe to Christ; so that their system, justly viewed, robs his death of interest, weakens our sympathy with his sufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable to a love of Christ, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for mankind. We esteem our own views to be vastly more affecting. It is our belief, that Christ’s humiliation was real and entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part of him, suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep and unmixed agony. As we stand round his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor our sensibility weakened, by contemplating him as composed of incongruous and infinitely differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite felicity. We recognize in the dying Jesus but one mind. This, we think, renders his sufferings, and his patience and love in bearing them, incomparably more impressive and affecting than the system we oppose.

Dave, what you have described here is NOT the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by ecumenical Christianity. In fact, it would have been emphatically rejected by the Church Fathers as tritheism.

I do not object to this sentence, but I do want to mention that “person” here can be misleading. It does not translate well the Greek term hypostasis, which is the term that came to be used to designate each of the “persons.”

No. The Fathers do not speak of the hypostases as three centers of consciousness. They would have judged such a view as tritheistic.

It is absolutely true that only the eternal Son becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ; but all ad extra activity of God is accomplished inseparably by the Three: the Father creates through the Son in the Spirit; the Father redeems through the Son in the Spirit; the Father sanctifies through the Son in the Spirit; etc.

Once again, what you have described is tritheism. Met. John Zizioulas thus summarizes the patristic understanding:

It’s ironic that you posted this today. I just returned from the cigar store, where I (re-)read St Gregory of Nyssen’s tract “On ‘Not Three Gods’.” Not an easy read, but Gregory’s presentation is markedly, indeed dramatically, different from what you have described.

Ok. Thanks Akimel.

My only answer at this time is - I think Channing made a cogent argument; I’m not persuaded at all that he was choosing a straw man to attack.

If he did attack a caricature of a more ‘nuanced’ position, I have yet to read such a position that makes any sense at all to me - Yet - or that does anything to reduce the force of his arguments.
Every apologetic for the Trinity that I have read, has been based on subtleties that do not, IMO, stand up to the rather basic but pointed remarks Channing made, and which I won’t reiterate here.

But this is just me. As I stated, I hope it is all FIFO - friends in, friends out. :smiley:

edit: Even Gregory admitted the difficulty, and stated the following, which I think is very telling:
Even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.

May I commend to articles that I write a while back on St Basil of Caesarea and the development of the term hypostasis to designate the three “persons”:

The Three Men I Admire Most

The Search for Hypostasis

I think you will see why the the word “person” is a problematic term to designate each of the Triad. It’s almost impossible for us moderns not to think of “person” as a center of individual consciousness. A better translation of hypostasis would be “subsistence.” Lutheran theologian Robert W. Jenson proposes the word “identity” as a contemporary replacement.

Thanks, I will read those.
We crossed paths here - I just posted a comment of Gregory’s as an edit to my post above.

Al, I’m not completely unacquainted with subtle thinking (nor am I - by a long , very long shot - the master of such thinking :smiley: ) - but the quotations in those articles you linked to just flat out made no sense to me. At all. I could not understand them in such a way as to make it likely that they are saying anything that important. I fully recognize that the shortcoming could very well be in me.

I see that the authors are trying to avoid the accusation of tritheism. But, as I see it, they have painted themselves into such a corner with - I’m going to say sophistry - that they have recourse only to the most tortuous and labyrinthine ‘reasoning’ to try and get themselves out of it.

Channing is much much clearer, and the points he makes - even if I granted, which I don’t, that he has set up straw men - would also apply to the more ‘sophisticated’ opponents’ arguments. IMO.

Well, people are going to make up their own minds. In any case, a metaphysical argument is not a necessity for salvation or the preaching of the Gospel, since people were converted like crazy in the book of Acts with the ‘simple’ preaching of the cross, and most of them were too simple to even understand the mental gyrations of future councils anyway. God spoke to them where they were and to them as they were, and He still does.

Can we agree to disagree, or is the issue of such importance, in your opinion, that more good-natured jostling is necessary? :smiley:

Dave, I’m happy to agree to disagree, just as long as you agree that what you have presented above as the doctrine of the Trinity is not the doctrine of the Trinity, because it just ain’t. :slight_smile:

I think they do. Otherwise, you don’t have Trinitarianism; you have Modalism.

Jesus prayed to His Father, His God, as to another individual. Or was He praying to Himself?

  1. Tri-Theism teaches 3 separate centres of consciousness in disunity.
  2. Trinitarianism teaches 3 separate centres of consciousness in unity.
  3. Modalism teaches a single centre of consciousness expressed in 3 different modes. (Modalists compare this to a human actor who appears on stage at different times wearing 3 different masks.)

Earliest Christianity took a position which differed from all three. Before all ages, the Father begat (or generated) a Son exactly like Himself (Heb 1:3) and for that reason may be called “God” (or “divine”), but not “The God”. The expression “The God” refers only to the Father. The Holy Spririt is the extension of the divine Personality of the Father and of the Son.

This is one of those discussions where people look at each other and all say - Well, fer cryin’ out loud, it’s as plain as the nose on your face!! Why can’t YOU SEE IT? :laughing:
This issue will not be settled, and while a good verbal jostle is always fun, I think we’ve laid out our cases, gave a couple of good tweaks, and not advanced the question one whit. However, it was worthwhile, and hopefully others will find it of use.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5.

Paidion, I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree. The folks who can tell us what the doctrine of the Trinity is are the Church Fathers are developed the doctrine. And they did not understand the Trinity as a community of three consciousnessess. They just didn’t. If you can provide patristic testimony to the contrary, I’d be delighted to see it.

The Church Fathers distinguished the Father, Son, and Spirit by their relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten by the Father, the Spirit is generated by the Father. What you will not find in their writings is the claim that God is “3 separate centres of consciousness in unity.” They do not think or talk that way, as evidenced in the adoption of the word hypostasis (originally a synonym for ousia) to designate the Three.

What you have described as Trinitarianism is in fact a modern version, commonly called “social Trinitarianism,” that has been advanced by some 20th century Protestant theologians (Moltmann, Pannenberg) and analytic philosophers (Swinburne, Plantinga); but this social Trinitarian version would have been rejected by the Church Fathers as tritheistic, as noted by Zizioulas (quoted above). The Zizioulas quotation is important, because he is often described as a social Trinitarian himself. For a thorough recent analysis and discussion, see Stephen Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity.

If I’m correct about this (and I’m fairly confident that I am), then this means that it is probably best to avoid “center of consciousness” language when contrasting Modalism and orthodox Trinitarianism. Perhaps the Modalistic Deity (given that Modalism collapses into unitarianism) may be described as a single center of consciousness; but the Triune God is not properly described as a community of three individual persons (three consciousnesses, three minds, three wills).

For a couple of decades I would have described myself as a social Trinitarian; but I had to rethink my position after I started reading the fourth-century Church Fathers.

That being the case, I don’t think I have ever heard a definition of trinitarianism as the early church fathers would have understood and articulated it. The modern notion of the trinity, however, I certainly can’t agree with. Against that understanding, I think the author is absolutely right. I will withhold judgment on the church fathers’ understanding of trinity until I have seen a clear argument for it. I do think that this article presents, at least, a very strong argument against the modern formulations of trinity that I grew up with.

The essence of much of my objection to trinity revolves around the clearest statements of scripture themselves (especially in regard to how Jesus referred to The Father vs. himself), in addition to the idea of names of God vs. “persons”. Do I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all, in some sense, God? Yes; but I don’t think that this constitutes a trinity any more than “Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” constitutes a “Quadrinity”.

I too would like some clarity on the ECF ‘definition’ of the trinity - at least, the ECF of the 4th century or so.
Keeping in mind that we know that most of the "earliest "of the ECF - up until 4th century or so - held to a ‘small t’ trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and, after that time, the ‘large T’ Trinity theory developed.

About 6 years ago I visisted a Binitarian congregation that believes Jesus and God are two seperate persons, but the Holy Spirit is tht Spirit of Christ. And I know plenty of Oneness believers whom I consider fellow Christians. And frankly, I don’t think it should be an issue that we use to separate us. In fact, I don’t think “issues” separate us, but what separates us is our pride, selfrighteousness, fear, and a tragic lack of grace, mercy, and love. That being said, I think of God as a tri-part being, kinda like I think of myself as being a tri-part being of spirit, soul, and body. But I could certainly be wrong.

I am with you, Sherman.
Really, the whole concept came about because Scripture is rather confusing on the topic (there is plenty of evidence for and against the Trinity, to my mind…though i personally think there’s a bit more CLEAR evidence for it). Certainly it is a later doctrine, hammered out over years of trying to make sense of the Scriptural words about God’s relationship to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But it’s merely an attempt to understand that.

Unitarians, Binitarians and Trinitarians are likely all coming at the same issue from different angles, and likely we all get a bunch right and a bunch wrong.

I am happy that God doesn’t judge us by the rightness of our theology (so long as it doesn’t keep us in chains or make us arrogant), but by our hearts (though i get that wrong too often enough)

Thanks guys. That was why in the OP I made a plea for non-contentiousness and friendliness. There is a place to be stubborn, and a lot of places we don’t need to be stubborn. This is one of the places where, since I don’t know for a certainty a) what the truth of the matter is or b) whether it makes that much difference, I’m not going to be THAT stubborn.
All a man can do is choose what to believe. :smiley:
I’m always open to learning, though…

Yep, same.
i did a Bible study once with the Christadelphians, who are Annihilationist Unitarians with a VERY high view of Scripture (i think their plain reading puts Reformed plain reading to shame, but that’s just me). I thought their arguments against the Trinity were well thought out and logical. I wasn’t ultimately convinced of them, but i learned to respect a difference in interpretation from them. And i owe them a lot, because Annihilationism was a step on the path towards the more Biblical and logical belief in Universalism (here’s a point where i will be stubborn, but hopefully in a loving way :laughing: ), and they helped me formulate some thoughts on why i too doubt the existence of a “personal” devil as traditionally understood.
As for the Trinity, however, i still think that Scripture affirms some odd things about Jesus claiming divinity, and it being affirmed from On High as well.
It’s likely one of those areas where tension between the different schools of thought might actually lead to the wisdom to understand something about God’s mystery, so long as we remain loving and respectful to each other, as you’ve urged.

I once went into a Oneness Pentecostal service with a few Christian brothers and sisters of mine (none of us knew it was Oneness). Before the service began I the thought entered my mind, “This is a oneness pentecostal church”. I hadn’t seen anything to tell me that it was (I believe it was the Holy Spirit telling me). When I entered the sanctuary there was prayer already going on, people then began to weep as worship started, the pastor preached with passion (not the best message, but not bad either). The fellow believers who had come with me were very happy with how everything had gone (I had thought it was great as well). Still I could not shake the oneness feeling (even the message had not given it away). So going upfront I asked the pastor what he believed about the trinity, he answered that it fell outside their beliefs. I had a civil talk with him about how I saw it in Scripture, he clearly said he saw the opposite and we left it at that. When I told my Christian friends that it was a Oneness Pentecostal church they were all very shocked. Every one of us had felt that the Holy Spirit was moving in that service.

I never forgot that, because it showed me something. It showed me that God is not limited by our conception of Him. If He wants to move among people He will. Do I believe our understanding of God is the most important thing about our lives? You better believe it! Do I think the trinity is a core doctrine that Christians should believe? Yes. But just like newborn babes, if their knowledge is incomplete, if they do not grasp the truth of it, then I believe the Spirit of truth is patient with them. However (and this is the controversial part for some) I believe if someone believes and loves Christ, then they will learn the truth. To me this is the trinity, without which our understanding of God is quite lacking.

I appreciate those remarks. I’ve not been to a Oneness church, or even talked to a Oneness believer, actually.
I guess we are ALL lacking in our knowledge of God, in some respect(s) or other?
Ach…I almost went into my stubborn-I-must-be-right mode. But I won’t do that, as really, there’s no point. People heavily invested in the doctrine of the trinity will not change their mind unless God does it for them, right? :laughing:
I will stick with Channing’s arguments, as I have seen nothing yet that answers them. And really - to state that the many believers who do not attach much importance to an obscure and obscurely stated 4th century doctrine - that they are lacking in knowledge of God for that reason - well, I just don’t know if that is fair.
But as an opinion, certainly you are welcome to it, and you stated it fairly and with a good spirit, and I appreciate that as well. :smiley:

Most important is that we love one another, so the world will know we are His children.

And, keep in mind that my anti-Trinitarian stance is just how I see things currently, and is purely a logical consideration. I’m still open to my mind being changed, but I’m definitely leaning away from that understanding. I certainly don’t see the issue as a reason for division, only for discussion. :wink:

Do Unitarians Understand the Trinity?

Just for you, Dave? :slight_smile: