Have you wondered about the Trinity? Here are five major problems about the Trinity that need answers. I presented this at a conference in 2011. It has received more than 200k views on YouTube.
Scroll down to see my original notes in outline form.
For more podcasts and videos challenging the Trinity see:
- The Trinity before Nicea: Did Christians before the Council of Nicea in 325 believe in the Trinity? Learn about the christologies of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen.
- Is God a Trinity? This presentation explores three questions: What is the Trinity? How did the Trinity develop? How does it fit with the Bible?
- The Father Is Greater Than I: The Bible regularly and unapologetically presents the Father as greater than the Son. Can “eternal functional subordination” or “the economic Trinity” adequately handle all these texts?
- Trinity Controversy in the 4th Century: Get a blow by blow account of how Trinitarian ideas like homoousios formed the battleground for a theological civil war from 325 to 381.
- One God Over All: This 14-session class builds a biblical case for subordination while explaining the most commonly misunderstood texts.
If you prefer audio, check out the Restitutio podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at the RSS feed.
Follow Restitutio in our Facebook group or on Twitter.
Notes
1. Jesus Was a Jew
A veritable revolution in Jesus scholarship in the last century occurred when scholars began taking seriously that Jesus and his earliest followers were Jewish, living in a particular socio-political Sitz im Leben, which is typically designated as second temple Judaism.
The Case:
- the radical monotheism of Deuteronomy (4.35, 39)and the Shema (Deut 6.4-5)
- if Jesus was a Jew then he should agree with Judaism’s core creed? right?
- don’t have to guess (Mark 12.28ff)
Rebuttal:
- Jesus challenged the belief of how God is one (John 5.16-18; 8.57-58; 10.29-31)
- he plainly did not agree with Jewish monotheism
Response:
- John 5.16-18
terminating the quote here is deceptive, read v19 - John 8.57-58
Jesus did not comment on how God was one here whatsoever and was not claiming to be Yahweh, if he did he would have called himself ὁ ὤν (cf. LXX of Ex. 3.14) - John 10.29-31
this text has nothing to do with ontology but function - there is no place where Jesus redefined how God is one, but there are several texts in which Jesus clearly and explicitly agreed with the 1st c. Jewish doctrine of God’s oneness.
2. Where Is the Trinity Taught in Scripture?
Let’s assume God really is a Trinity and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit really did reveal themselves as a Trinity in the New Testament. Where is it explained? Why is the doctrine so dependent on personal interpretation?
The Case:
- what is the Trinity?
1. one God in three persons
2. co-eternal
3. co-essential
4. co-equal
5. eternal generation
6. dual natures of Christ in one person
7. in their union each nature preserves its distinction in nature
8. two wills in Christ, both divine and human that never conflict - the Trinity is never explained in Scripture
- quote the chapter or verse that explains this?
- the Bible can be used to support the Trinity, just like it can be used to support brutal slavery or anti-semitism or any number of bad ideas
- if we place the Trinitarian grid on top of Scripture it will line things up in a sort of way but without this a priori framework one does not read the Trinity out from Scripture (exegesis vs. eisegesis)…give a non-Christian a Bible to read and they will not come up with the Trinity
- its like an oral tradition that must be taught alongside Scripture
The Rebuttal:
- the Trinity is not taught in one place but throughout Scripture
- the post-biblical Christians developed the doctrine to correctly explain all the biblical data
- God led these Fathers of the Church to the truth
Response:
- so you have granted our point? the Trinity is nowhere taught in Scripture, it is only superimposed upon Scripture from later Christian thinkers who were highly influenced by Greek philosophy
3. No Controversy Over the Trinity in the First Century
If Jews hear a new definition of God aren’t at least some of them going to put up resistance? If someone confessed the Shema multiple times a day for his or her whole life and then suddenly someone preached that this needs to be replaced by a three-in-one confession, wouldn’t that at least cause some questioning?
The Case:
- the NT is not shy about controversies
1. speaking in tongues controversy in Corinth
2. controversy over accepting Gentiles into Christianity
3. controversy over whether or not justification comes through Torah observance
4. controversy about women’s role - where’s the controversy over the three-in-one God?
- three options
1. the Trinity did not exist yet
2. they believe it but thought it was not necessary so never taught it
3. they taught the Trinity but everyone accepted it without question, but to think it wouldn’t cause controversy is totally naïve (conspiracy theory)
Rebuttal:
- the myth of Trinitarian primacy
- they all believed in it
- only once heretics came did were they forced to articulate it
Response:
- this assumes the Trinity to prove the Trinity (circular reasoning)
- look at history…observe all the councils and controversy
- 325: Nicea I (is the son eternal?)
- 381: Constantinople I (is the holy spirit the third person?)
- 431: Ephesus (was Mary the bearer of Christ’s divine nature?)
- 451: Chalcedon (did Christ have one or two natures? how?)
- 553: Constantinople II (how can we interpret the dual natures w/o dividing Christ into two)
- 681: Constantinople III (did Christ have one or two wills?)
- 787: Nicea II (can icons of Christ be worshiped? how?)
4. All Those Singular Pronouns
If God is a “he” not a “they” then he is a singular person not multiple persons right?
The Case:
- God is always addressed in the 2nd person sg or spoken of in the 3rd person sg.
- When God speaks he always says I (except for the four times where he includes others in his action using “us” Gen. 1.26; 3.22; 11.7; Is. 6.8)
- tens of thousands of singular personal pronouns leave the read to think of God as a singular person
Rebuttal:
- sure God is one…the Trinity teaches this, but he is also three
Response:
- But the biblical authors thought he was one person not three, who should we listen to?
5. Jesus Was Not Omniscient!
Jesus said he didn’t know the day or hour of his return though his Father did know it
The Case:
- Mark 13.32 “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
- Jesus didn’t know something => Jesus was not omniscient
- Omniscience is a necessary property of deity, so if Jesus was God he would have been omniscient, but according to him, he wasn’t!
Rebuttal
- in his human nature he was limited in knowledge but in his divine nature he really did know when he would return
Response:
- but I thought there was only one person subsisting in two natures!?
- he cannot have two minds, one that knew something and another that did not know something, unless we now want to make the absurd claim that mind and person are not correlated
- so if Jesus was God, he did know everything and lied about not knowing the day of his return…but if Jesus lied then he cannot be God, for God cannot lie (Titus 1.2)
- Jesus did not know everything because he wasn’t God
Rebuttal 2:
- Jesus emptied himself of his divine qualities
- thus, he really didn’t know
Response:
- so are you saying Jesus stopped being God for thirty odd years?
- the kenosis theory has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians and even if it wasn’t, it clearly shows how the Trinitarian must multiple explanations to cling to the theory when the Bible contradicts it (kind of like duct tape holding on the bumper of a car)
by Sean Finnegan (May 2011)
Presented at Restoration Fellowship’s 20th Theological Conference
—— Links ——
- Support Restitutio by donating here
- Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF
- Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air
- Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here
We agree LORD (YHWH)GOD (Elohim) is the Father. Every Old Testament Prophet in the Bible calls God, LORD GOD, YHWH, Elohim.
When you compare Rev. 22:6, the angel sent in Rev. 1:1, with Rev. 22:8,9, you will discover this angel is a Prophet. It’s a little unclear as to who sent the angel (Old Testament Prophet) to John, in Rev. 1:1, but you would assume that would be God, the Father, correct? Yes, of course you would. However, JESUS says in Rev. 22:16 that He sent the OLD Testament Prophet, angel. What did that Old testament Prophet say in Rev. 22:6? Well, he said the LORD GOD of the HOLY PROPHETS sent him. Do the math. Since the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy, Rev. 19:10 AND in Rev. chapters 2 and 3 the Testimony of Jesus through the angel (Prophet) he sent ends with “He that has an ear let him hear what the SPIRIT says to the churches”. You are going to have difficulty convincing me that there is not a Trinity. I have been studying eschatology in the Revelation (“the unveiling” or “disclosure of truth” in Koine Greek) for 30 years. So your topic is not my specialty. One night as I was rummaging around in Rev. chapter 22 for something to tie to earlier chapters, I saw Rev. 22:6 and Rev. 22:16 in answer to a dear lady’s request to show me Jesus is GOD. I had already failed to do that and gave up on it. I just sat there dumbfounded for several minutes thinking “I’ve studied this vision for thirty years and never saw this?” I consider this a starting point to which we have to reconcile all the scripture quoted that seems to be contrary to what is said in the Revelation.
There are two verses in the Revelation that no one seems to want to deal with, but I am going to remind you of them. In Rev. 22:18,19 it is clear that if you add to what is written there, the plagues written in the book will be added to you. If you subtract from what is written there you will lose your eternal life. I happen to agree with the scholars that claim if you add to, YOU HAVE SUBTRACTED FROM, and vice versa. Please give this comment some serious consideration and pray for guidance.
It’s much more simpler than you are putting together here. It’s basic delegation. Meaning that God is not a God that dictates and some totalitarian God. He delegates. He hands down assignments and revelations. In Rev 1:1, God gave to Jesus who then “delegated” down the revelation to eventually be given to John. It’s super simple.
I’m afraid i don’t see that your use of these scriptures in Revelation answer any of the valid questions raised in the lecture. Rev 1v1 clearly indicates a chain of authority. Jesus was GIVEN the revelation by God( ELOHIM,YAHWEH,YHWH,JHVH,JEHOVAH).Jesus then used angels to deliver this to John. The fact that the angel is said to be sent by Jesus and by god in no way proves a trinity, any more than if a Company director issues an instruction to his staff which is relayed by various line managers, with varying degrees of authority indicates that all the a managers and the director are the same person, although all could be said to have sent the instruction. Even if your interpretation were to be correct, it is in contradiction to the rest of scripture. When Christ himself recognised himself as being subordinate to God by his being SENT by god, by speaking of God being HIS god, and by clearly saying that “the Father is Greater than I” . These are just some of the texts which contradict the trinity doctrine. Whilst you say that you feel it would be difficult to convince you that there is no trinity, I on the other hand can see absolutely ne need for the trinity doctrine , and fail to see how the description of them as Father and Son can lead to any view of them as described in the heretical, confusing, unnecessary and in fact ,Satanic doctrine of the trinity.
If there is one God Who created the heavens and the earth and Jesus created the heavens and the earth, then Jesus is the one God who created the heavens and the earth. How is that not simple.
If God is Spirit and Holy Spirit is God then the father is The Holy Spirit.
God thought charles
The key word here is ‘IF’.
God is a spirit being.
Holy spirit is not God, but the active force that he uses to accomplish his will. This why humans are spoken of as being filled with holy spirit that is given them by God.
So the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit but is the provider of it.
Consider this, at Jesus baptism, the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus as a sign of Jesus being given that spirit by god. If Jesus was God then, why would he need to be given Holy Spirit? and Why would God then confuse people by saying that Jesus was his son?
I hope this is helpful.
Romans 8:9-11 declares that the Holy Spirit IS God.
Because God is a Spirit. He brought his Son forth on the first day. Out of the multitudes of water. Then (just as in The Messiah’s Baptism) The Spirit of God descended upon Him and God started creation.
But everything in heaven and on earth was created by God Yahweh through (through) his son.
So God the Father is the Creator! Watch the context of the Bible! It’s easy if we don’t take some scriptures out of context! Jesus used the Father’s, holy spirit, Yahweh’s power, strength!
There’s no mention in the bible quote ‘created by God Yahweh through (through) his son’
In Col 1:16 For in him, all thigs were created. That ‘him’ refers to Jesus.
That means Jesus is the creator, the Almighty.
If you look at the previous v it says that Jesus is…the firstborn of creation. So clearly Jesus was created, in fact, is the first creation. Whilst in the Greek ‘in’ is used at the start of the verse, a different word is used when it says that “all things THROUGH him and into him it has been created”.
Clearly then, God created Jesus. Jesus as God’s “master worker”(PROV 8v30) worked with God to carry out his wishes. This is also why God in Genesis says “let us make…”.
GEN 1v1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
PROV 8 describes Jesus in his pre-human existence as being with god during this creation , which explains when God said let US make…. In PROV 8 Jesus also calls himself God’s master worker at this time.
Col 1v15 calls Jesus the FIRSTBORN of creation which is also in harmony with these earlier scriptures, but in contradiction of any idea that Jesus is co-eternal.
I hope this helps
It is super simple. So clear and simple, in fact, that the entire regime of naysayers must completely denounce John 1:1, 3, 14, and mangle the interpretation of it significantly, in order to maintain their case that Jesus is not God – which cannot be maintained at all in the light of plain Scripture.
God bless.
FATHER is Spirit
SON is manifestation of the Father
HOLY SPIRIT is Spirit
FATHER is not Son or Holy Spirit
SON is not Father or Holy Spirit
HOLY SPIRIT is not Father or Son
Do we have two spirits here? Spirit who is the father and Spirit who is the Holy Spirit? Because we are told father is Spirit BUT NOT Holy Spirit. Isn’t this a different spirit from the Holy Spirit?
I came here trying to find some clear statements off belief. Like maybe a “Statement of beliefs” page? Esp. as concerns being a restorationists compared to established evangelical faith, and I still have not found anything but video after video and article after article which basically give descriptions of the discussion and ask more questions, but not statements on beliefs.
Requiring readers to go thru videos or articles indicates a tactic of hiding controversial beliefs since indoctrination is necessary.
So does Sean Finnegan believe:
In the Divinity of Christ, as the uncreated Son of God, being one in nature (if not in position) with the Father and Spirit?
The Holy Spirit as a Divine person?
Eternal punishment of the lost in the Lake of Fire?
Salvation by effectual faith being counted for righteousness (if not OSAS)?
After looking through some of the articles & following some of the links, I feel it is safe to inform you that the “BASIC” beliefs here are Unitarian. Does that mean these authors agree with every principal of every Unitarian church in the US or a denominational outline of said group. No! They are their own, but they do fall within the basic description of “Unitarian.”
So what is your Belief Daniel?
John 5:46 For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Acts 3:22 For Moses said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; listen to all that I have spoken to you.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hearken unto the prophet, shall be cut off from among the people.
Revelation 22: 6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants those things which must shortly be done.
If Jesus was a prophet foretold by Moses, he could not be the god of the prophets.
That doesn’t follow at all. Other passages say he IS that same God. It WOULD follow if Unitarianism were true (though even then, a Modalist version of Unitarianism could still have a manifestation acting as a prophet), but in Trinitarianism this is no problem, as Jesus the Son, as a distinct Person from the Father yet in the same Being, acts as a prophet intermediary for the Father.
Note also that Moses said to obey whatever this Prophet says. This is subtle but it requires that this prophet be inerrant in everything he ever says or does, which clearly isn’t the case about mere-human prophets like Moses who sinned at various points such as striking the rock when he was ordered instead to merely speak to it, or Jonah who sinfully tried to flee God out of hatred for those God would seek to cause to repent, etc.
Deu 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
16 just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’
17 And the LORD said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
Someone could argue that this is merely when Jesus speaks something like “God told me to tell you such and such a thing”, but it’s very rare in the NT for him to say that, and he says that he says nothing that he doesn’t see God saying. John goes into this in great detail. And in verse 15 here, it doesn’t include that qualification; simply saying that people should listen to him.
The “just as” could be taken as saying in exactly the same way as Moses, so just saying the identity of which person to listen to, as opposed to other people, but verse 16 clarifies the “just as”; it means that the people wanted an intermediary.
Verse 17 even affirms that it’s good to have such an intermediary. This likely implies that God in his beginningless foreknowledge has always known this is good; this would be one major reason WHY God has always been a Trinity. He has always known it would be good for created beings, that he would create when he creates linear time, to have an intermediary, and one who cannot err — one who is God, thus isn’t created and has no beginning.
Besides all that, Jesus claimed to be God, so if you reject this, you aren’t listening to all that he has spoken to you! So the very passages you cited would suggest that you would be cut off from among the people — Unitarianism is a heresy. Don’t treat it lightly; don’t be so careless as to fall for fallacies such as the non sequitur you used here.
God is an Eternal Primary Supreme Being without parts i.e. a self-existent Monad. How is this compatible with a Trinity of Persons who are neither attributes nor modalities but quite distinct with specific separate functions?
Persons aren’t Parts, quite simply. They’re distinct, but not separate or separable. The functions are focuses, not separate powers; that claim in your last few words is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. All are omniscient, all are omnipotent, etc., but the Father tends to focus on omniscience, the Son on omnipotence, etc. There are statements in the Bible of all possessing all of these traits. Google it; many have listed them.
HS not mentioned in salutations .
HS spirit of God
God the son filled with God ( God the Spirit ) and God the father ( =
The son ( = the spirit ( = the father ) says this is my Son in whom I am well pleased ?
God give himself as Spirit as gift to christians and indwell them permansntly ?
Jesus literlally died as man so God died for 3 days ?
Jesus ascended into heaven with a spiritual , yet flesh and bone body , but He is God and God is Spirit
Pardon if I’m misinterpreting you but it looks like you’re trying to use these as arguments. I think you aren’t the same David as above who is a Trinitarian. Sorry if I’m misreading you, but the following will be written as if you’re arguing against the Trinity, in case you are, for the sake of anyone wondering the answers:
HS indwelled Christians so it would be weird to include him in salutations. (And it’s weird that this consistently flies over the heads of Unitarians who use that as an argument…) Salutations are normally from those who are (or in God’s case, Persons who focus on as if being) more distant; greetings from afar. Kind of like saying “Your lungs send their greetings from here in Rome, dear person in Jerusalem!”
Being filled with the Spirit implies the Son =/= the Spirit… Maybe you aren’t aware that Trinitarianism doesn’t claim that the 3 Persons are each other. The Person of the Son =/= Father =/= the Spirit, but Son = God (same Being), Father = God (in the sense of Being), Holy Spirit = God (same Being).
“My Son in whom I am well pleased” teaches personal distinction, about Jesus who is said to be sent by God. The Spirit is also said to be sent by God, thus is also personally distinct from the Father. Yet both are also said to be God. This is Trinity.
Yes, God gave himself as Spirit as gift to Christians to indwell us permanently. Problem?
Next, you literally said Jesus “died as man” yet seem to imply that this would mean that “God died.” If you mean God experienced everything a human death entails, yes, and Christians do sometimes summarize that as “God died” but if you mean God in his infinite timeless divine nature ceased to exist for a duration of time, obviously that’s not our view… Nor what the Bible teaches.
It means Jesus’ incarnated human nature experienced full human death despite being sinless (because he is God), functioning as atonement for our sins as humans ourselves — wages of sin as death etc.
Your final apparent argument seems to imply that being Spirit or being God means that God is NOT omnipotent and can’t even create a theophany, even though he can create a universe. Makes no sense.
How’s this for simplicity…
My name is Jenny
I am a daughter
I am a mother
Am I 3 different persons? Or do I have 3 different roles in 1 human flesh form?
If people would start looking at it like that, then there will be less of an argument.
Perfect explanation!
Yes, but YOU ARE NOT YOUR DAUGHTER AND MOTHER
You may be a daughter or mother but your are not them
Because we are merely finite. God’s infinite. He can be both the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son, without beginning (and the Spirit). (Indeed, he has to be, to solve the Loneliness Problem. Look it up.) Analogies like that aren’t meant to show a complete equivalence, just that Unitarian arguments based on equivalence fail to show that one being can’t have multiple roles. Even we can do that.
Yes, you’re Jenny, but you’re not also your own daughter and mother as well.
Do you pray to YOURSELF Jenny?
Do you talk about Jenny the daughter and Jenny the mother as 2 separate distinct entities?
Is Jenny the daughter subservient to Jenny the mother?
It’s called schizophrenia
Is Jesus the son of the God?
This is a very important question. If Jesus is God then to worship Him is right, but if He isn’t then to worship Him is idolatry and breaks God’s commandment to worship Him alone.
So does the Bible teach that Jesus is God and should be worshipped?
Jesus is not the son of God The language of Bible is metaphorical For example Jesus said in Mathew 15:24. “I sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Were Israelites animals? -No, But the language is metaphorical lost sheep means misguided servant of God.It’s the same thing with term son of God which means righteous servant of God. Metaphorically not literal. Many of the prophets in bible called sons of God.
Jacob is God’s son and firstborn: ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’(2 Samuel 7:13-14).
Ephraim: ‘for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.’ (Jeremiah 31:9)
Is God’s firstborn, common people are called the sons of God: ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God’. (Deuteronomy 14:1)
WHO IS THE FIRST SON OF GOD?.
Exodus 4:22 says ISRAEL is the FIRST son of God!.
Psalms 89:27 David is the first son of God
Jeremiah 31:9 says EPHRAIM is the FIRST son of God!
so, God is being called the father metaphorically of all people not only Jesus. God has no God. God is one, but Jesus has God to whom prayed and asked help.
No one should be called son of God in real sense. It is an objectionable term to reduce God to a human level.
Is it objectionable for God to call Jesus his son? Is that reducing himself to human level? Perhaps God does this to illustrate, as you say , his relationship with Jesus for us to understand. If God himself describes Jesus as His son, tells us to view him as His son, then it should not be objectionable for us to use this term. In fact, it may be offensive to God to resist using a term that He has prescribed.
Countless Major Problems with these Unitarian Bad Arguments:
– Opens first response with John 5:19 (Jesus does what the Father does), yet fails to note that the same is said of the Spirit in John 16:13, and most Unitarians including IIRC Sean Finnegan admit that the Holy Spirit is God:
Jhn 16:13 – When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Verses 14 and 15 may even imply that the Spirit is hearing this from the Son (who hears it from the Father) rather than directly from the Father:
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
There’s also a needless attack in claiming it is “deceptive” to stop a cite before John 5:19, but the same game could be played by accusing Finnegan of deceptively stopping short of 5:23’s “so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father”!
That wording is also attacking a strawman as if verse 19 isn’t actually part of our model — it is; these are divine hypostases, with Jesus as the beginningless literally personified Wisdom of God (knowledge in action) and the Spirit as his action, as the NT makes clear by many re-uses of OT and Intertestamental (IT) literature phrases about Wisdom but replacing Wisdom with Jesus.
Finnegan has even recently admitted on YouTube to all of this except the beginningless part. Though he did say more that he’s leaning toward it, but this is an admission that the evidence is strong, and we have several clear statements that Jesus is without beginning, such as John 1:3:
All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
It’s vital to note that in Hebrew culture (whether expressed in Greek as here or not), they did have a nonliteral all. But the way they emphasized that it was literal was to go out of their way, like in this case, to overclarify it. Repeating the point, saying it several times in different ways, and repeating terms that mean all (not one thing not) are ways they indicated a literal all. (Including John 1:1-2 as well.)
Finnegan could argue that this is still just not enough over-repetition and that he can read an exception into it anyways, but he removes this option for himself (perhaps, to be fair, unnecessarily) by arguing “Why is the doctrine so dependent on personal interpretation?” Yet this is exactly what Finnegan is doing throughout this argumentation!
– “Weirdly” (suspiciously) fails to note that Trinitarians argue that early Jews DID teach Trinitarianism, or at least a “Two Powers” view, and cite them. Such as the telling removal of Memra from countless cites in later (post-Christian) texts, likely due to a later deviation from pluripersonality of those like Philo as a reaction against Christians’ stronger focus on it.
This actually flips most of Finnegan’s arguments on their head and argues against him, since it is so clear in many NT passages that this was taught right in front of Jews of the time, yet as he notes, the controversy about it is curiously missing.
Even if Finnegan wants to continue to claim that they aren’t taught, they nevertheless do APPEAR to teach it, and it would have been important for them to constantly and carefully clarify, yet this is missing at well. Finnegan traps himself here.
– Missing that the word for “one” in the Shema was used foundationally of marriage of two people (in fact, two beings, even) in Genesis 2:24. A wider study of this word shows that it actually has essentially the same ranges of meaning as English “one” — it can mean unity in the sense not merely of “unitarianism” but unity between multiple persons.
While that case does mean two beings (which Unitarians also often strawman us as believing, although Finnegan fence-sits on this by admitting we don’t, then claiming he can’t imagine how we don’t), and we do agree the Shema is teaching one being (in that it uses singular as well), it certainly shows that you can’t use the Shema to argue one way or another on this.
The other context decides between these, and it is universally in favor of Trinity (tri-unity).
– Re: “Before Abraham, I Am”, this doesn’t engage with the view that Jesus is alluding not directly to Exodus 3:14, but to Isaiah 43:10 (ego eimi, matching John 8:58). Plus the very next verse says that they tried to stone him for this, clearly recognizing it as a statement of divinity, the same charge he was later executed for!
Also this wording does NOT properly admit that Exodus DOES include ego eimi! This should have clarified that it is in the longer phrase “ego eimi o on”; it’s trying to say that the shortening should be “o on” only but Isaiah 43:10 shortens to ego eimi, showing that this is appropriate in Greek and in Hebrew translations to Greek, which John would likely be aware of even if Sean is not.
– The claim that John 10:29-31 is only about function is uncited and unsupported (and self-refuting since it means Finnegan must admit that “are one” can be pluripersonal!). I don’t see how that can work since Jesus earlier in the same chapter Jesus says he is the good shepherd yet Jesus also teaches that only God is good (Mark 10:18) in one of his other claims to divinity (ironically often ignorantly cited as if it was a denial of it!). It’s also a likely allusion to Psalm 23 which says the Lord is the Psalmist’s shepherd. It’s about identity, not merely function. Note again that the hearers try to stone him to death for it — those who actually belonged to that culture (unlike Finnegan) knew what it meant.
– We agree Jesus didn’t redefine (though he gave more detail)! This argument begs the question that OT/IT Jews were Unitarianism, which goes against all the evidence including clear Trinitarian teachings right from Genesis 1-2.
– No citation on the claim we have to believe in two wills in Christ. (Though if they never conflict, this might not be problematic, but I don’t recall seeing this so far. Jesus merely says “my will” when contrasting with the Father’s will. The Bible thus requires three wills, one per Person, but it doesn’t require four as far as I yet know?)
– Begging the question again with “never explained in Scripture”. Since he knows full well we do think it is, this looks like an unfair manipulative tactic or intentional misleading. And Finnegan does many things like this. These are major red flags about him. Why not be reasonable? If his case is strong, he wouldn’t need cheats like this. Though they alone do not disprove his case… But it shows he feels the need to shore it up with bad-faith tactics. This is a concern.
– The Bible can be used to support Unitarianism, just like it can be used to support brutal slavery or anti-semitism or any number of bad ideas.
– If we place the Unitarian grid on top of Scripture, it will line things up in a sort of way but without this a priori framework one does not read the Unipersonality out from Scripture (eisegesis). Give a non-Christian (such as the early Europeans who Finnegan claims invented Trinitarianism) a Bible and they will not come up with the Unipersonality. (Finnegan admits this by saying that they did come up with the Trinity!)
– Finnegan says that the Trinity is “like” an oral tradition — meaning it is not one!
– Unitarianism is not taught in any place, let alone one place. Unitarians must claim that many different passages teach different details about Unitarianism and sew it together into a highly awkward patchwork (that they have yet to explain in a consistent way as far as I’ve been able to find, not for lack of searching, as seen with examples of the Son and Spirit both doing what they’re told, yet only in the Son’s case do Unitarians take this as evidence of non-divinity!). Yet this is the same thing Unitarians accuse us of and then say this is a problem. Proves too much.
– Saying that it is taught but not all in one place is not granting the Unitarian point if the Unitarian point is “the Trinity is nowhere taught in Scripture” — rather, it means it’s taught all over the place in Scripture! Yet again, crystal clear bad-faith word games by Finnegan. Why?
– Nowhere that I know of is the premise taught in Scripture that any particular doctrine must be taught in one place, let alone singling out the Trinity.
Why would teaching about the infinite God be expected to be all or mostly all in one narrow place? This is just bizarre. It’s often-repeated, but that does nothing at all to make it logically sensible. If anything it makes it all the more weird that Unitarians never try to back it up. I for one like to search for Scriptural evidence all the more when I hear a thing repeated more…
It also gives no such guidance at all about just how detailed it all must be in one place (except that if it comments on it at all, Jesus’ “you are in error because you do not know the Scriptures” pushes exactly the other way and confirms that it ALL should be read in context of it all! As of course it should!).
We could choose many passages that concisely rule out Unitarianism, and in normal English terms, it would be fair to say that these teach it in one place, such as Psalm 110 which has the Lord refer to the Lord as “you”, which Jesus cited, trapping his opponents (who know this second Lord is God from wider context).
The normal complaint is to pick out details it doesn’t say. In that case, the second term translated “Lord” is Adonai, for example, not YHWH of the first which is translated usually all-capitalized, so admittedly we do need to bring in other passages that clarify that the Messiah is God, like Psalm 43:6-7 (“your throne, O God”, “therefore God, your God, has anointed you”). But we can do the same with Unitarianism (and so far in cases like “does what told” I haven’t even gotten or been able to find a cite that would even answer it).
In other words, this argument is both moving the goalposts and self-refuting.
– NT not being shy about controversy is a problem strictly for Unitarians, not us, as shown above. Notice option 3 claims that it would be a conspiracy theory if everybody accepted it. I don’t see how it fits the definition of conspiracy? It was in their public statements! (Such as Philo. This wasn’t some secret-knowledge document.)
– Fails to notice that the Unitarian view is being assumed in order to support it (especially in the cases of assuming the Shema is Unitarian and assuming OT/IT/early-NT Jews were Unitarians, which goes against all the evidence).
– Somehow thinks it’s weird that Europeans had controversies about it. Their religions were unitarian per each god in their polytheism (though not as exclusively as some Unitarians think, not sure if Finnegan is aware of this, but they did think that their gods could create new gods who were literal personifications of their own traits, which is essentially Finnegan’s view of Jesus). If the Bible was Unitarian none of this history makes sense. The controversies were because Unitarian pagans who converted had trouble with the Bible’s Trinitarianism! And note that all these controversies were settled with exegesis from the Bible. This is yet another fatal flaw in Finnegan’s self-refuting arguments.
– Finnegan’s constant error of missing that Jesus and Spirit are beginningless literally-personified traits of God the Father explains why he thinks singular “he” is a problem. It isn’t. In most cases just one Person is in view, especially the Son when “the Lord” is used in many cases and the Father often when God is used, though as those two Psalm cites above show, these could be used interchangeably too (again backing up triunity; tri-personal unity of Being).
Also, this is self-refuting. If singular pronouns are inherently about persons rather than beings, then all of the “Lord, you are Lord”, “O God, your God” etc. passages prove plural personality.
(I don’t say they do; I have no need for a fanciful rule that pronouns are always strictly personal in all languages all the time, though in English they are indeed usually called personal pronouns! So this is evidence of the Trinity, and many other passages complete the evidence beyond it, but by itself not proof in the sense of fully beyond reasonable doubt before the context is brought in to confirm it, but when it is, the Bible does indeed teach it far beyond any reasonable doubt.)
– With the possible exception of Isaiah 6:8, the “us texts” do not work as including other beings in the action. In Genesis 1:26, for example, the context shows that it is God who creates, and other passages clarify that only God creates; angels are not delegated mini-creators. 1:27 (is this “deceptively stopping short” since Finnegan curiously leaves this out of his cite??) says “God created man”. Not God and angels. So “Let us make man” from 26 is God.
Note others attempt to get out of it by claiming a plural of majesty but Hebrew scholars reject. No such thing for verbs and pronouns in Hebrew. Also, the argument would imply that only a plurality is actually majestic, so Unitarianism would imply God was deficient.
(Also may miss how the plural of majesty came about in the first place; it would be more parsimonious if it came about precisely because the most majestic being possible has plural personality in one Being.)
– Notice the blatant assuming of Unitarianism to argue Unitarianism: “But the biblical authors thought he was one person not three, who should we listen to?”
Whether they thought that is precisely what’s at issue here. That can’t be used as a premise to support itself as a conclusion! We show conclusive evidence they thought God is three Persons in one Being (one God), and ours doesn’t require circular reasoning (despite bald assertions to the contrary while mysteriously failing to show (hiding or ignorant?) our cited evidence that debunks it like the Memra, etc.); I go with that!
– Jesus not accessing his omniscience is a valid reading of his “no one knows” passages; it pushes too far to claim that this means he “was not omniscient.”
Also, “knows” in Hebrew including cases in the OT like at Abraham’s passing of the test on Moriah which is said of God himself clearly has a connotation at least sometimes of experiential knowledge. At Moriah, God is saying that now he is experiencing the witnessing of Abraham passing the test, not that he didn’t foreknow in the predictive sense.
– Note that if Jesus’ words here are a literal all (well, a literal none), he would also be denying that the Spirit knows, yet Unitarians generally concede he is God (though they weirdly deny a personal distinction despite many clear Scriptural teachings like the one I started with here).
There is indeed over-repetition here, but since it’s of the type that is listing examples and since the Spirit isn’t listed, we can’t really be sure one way or another. But I do take it as possible evidence that the Father’s focus is on knowledge, in both senses, and on timelessness, which would fit naturally in with the patterns explicitly stated about Jesus being God’s eternally personified Wisdom (knowledge in action) and the Spirit his personified action principle.
This would be saying that the Father is experiencing the future fulfillment right now, while the Son and Spirit may focus more on the present moment, though all three Persons have all the traits of God equally and this would only be a role focus (part of the reason they are distinct yet inseparable personalities, explaining the Trinity).
At the very least, since Hebrew (whether expressed in Greek by Hebrew authors or not) has two sense of “know,” we can’t assume which sense is intended here. Nothing in the context specifies which of the three it is, so that’s eisegesis.
Logical deduction does show it must be one of the other senses, since other passages do clarify that Jesus is omniscient, such as John 16:30-31:
30 “Now we know that you know everything and do not need anyone to ask you anything. Because of this we believe that you have come from God.”
31 Jesus replied, “Do you now believe?”
– Note that this does NOT require appeal to his human nature, though that, too, can’t be ruled out, and Finnegan fails to respond to it even though he has two “responses” after it. No reason is given why his human nature not knowing would make him two persons, nor two minds. It seems to be yet another case of begging the question. The closest to an argument is only to lob an unexplained insult of “absurd” (but even that may be to a straw man; we don’t need two minds as far as I know; at least support why we do!).
Isn’t it fairly simple that Jesus’ human brain is finite and that his mind has different regions, including his human brain? (Not parts, but inseparable yet distinct regions.)
Since God is omniscient, we already know that he has different regions of infinite storage of each fact, so this is already the case within him, and when he manifests a finite theophany (including the Spirit’s indwelling in Christians), biblical theology already has no need for all his infinite knowledge regions to be seen as packed into that manifestation; why single out Christ’s human manifestation for this weird rule? (AKA it’s special pleading fallacy.)
– No, not accessing the knowledge and using that normal definition of “not knowing” is not lying. Only if you think he must always use all definitions of every word at once. Then by that logic, “Where are you, Adam?” would be a lie, or “Where is Abel?” Finnegan accidentally accuses God of lying in these cases where even he admits this is God speaking.
Good grief what lovely concise rebuttal :-). your argument follows the traditional trinitarian method of throwing words at something to muddy the waters and confuse. As PROV 10:19 states ” when words are many, transgression cannot be avoided.”
I would love to rebut each of your arguments in turn, but frankly who has the time?
Suffice to pick just a few:
Your use of John 5:23 You partly quote the verse(another trinitarian ploy) so that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father” this does not mean the two are the same person as is clear as the verse continues ” whoever does not honour the son does not honour the Father who SENT him” it would be disrespectful to God to not ascribe the appropriate honour to His son. Nobody would argue that God and Jesus are not worthy of honour, but that does not mean that they deserve the same degree of honour. Look how many times in that chapter Jesus refers to his being SENT by his Father, clearly and undeniably a subordinate role. He speaks about his being “GIVEN authority”, having life within himself “GRANTED” to himself.
V30 ” I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me”, clearly two different entities.
Let us also consider your comments on creation. COL 1:15 Jesus is called the “the firstborn of creation”, clearly he was created, THE BIBLE SAYS SO. Prov 8 describes Jesus’ presence beside God as a master worker. Having been “brought forth” I am incredulous that you seem to suggest that God did not Create the angels. Surely these are part of the heavens that he created in the beginning. The Bible is NOT trinitarian as you claim. The entire Bible clearly describes An almighty creator, creating a firstborn SON, who then work together to create the rest of creation. This is why God says let US make man.
You have to have a very devious mind to twist scripture to embrace a belief which had its origins in the pagandom of Egypt and Babylon.
If God wanted us to view and understand him as a trinitarian deity, why use the Father and Son analogy ? Surely if you wanted to use the Family as a starting point you might use identical or even conjoined twins, or triplets if you want to include the Holy Spirit. Don’t get me started on that .
No wonder Jesus warned of those rising up after the passing of the apostles to speak twisted things, to draw disciples after themselves. This trinity doctrine is abhorrent and Satanic, like the immortality of the Soul, hellfire and other beliefs that reduce God’s glory and paint him as a tyrant. The trinity also undermines the working of the ransom. The whole principle of Christ’s ransom hangs on the equivalence of Jesus death as a perfect man and what Adam lost. Christ proved the Devil a liar, and that it was possible for Adam to have done what Jesus did. If Jesus was an uncreated God who always had life in himself , then there is no equivalence with Adam and the Ransom does not work. It also means that Jesus did not really die as a third or even half of him was still alive in heaven and able to regenerate himself. Adam could not do that.
These things are so important that I do not say lightly that the trinity doctrine is a teaching of Demons
They certainly don’t seem to teach logic in theological schools, or divinity studies.
If you look at the previous v it says that Jesus is…the firstborn of creation. So clearly Jesus was created, in fact, is the first creation. Whilst in the Greek ‘in’ is used at the start of the verse, a different word is used when it says that “all things THROUGH him and into him it has been created”.
Clearly then, God created Jesus. Jesus as God’s “master worker”(PROV 8v30) worked with God to carry out his wishes. This is also why God in Genesis says “let us make…”.
not created but begotten… huge difference
This is a very informative lecture; I enjoyed it very much. But isn’t this what Jehovah’s Witnesses have bean preaching for over 100 years?