CHRISTIAN APOSTOLIC ANSWERS

trlitteral@usa.net

Things that must be true if there is a Trinity.

Someone somewhere in the Bible would have mentioned it.

As the previous exercise has shown, no one in the Old or New Testament specifically mentions the Trinity or a triune God. If you have taken the first part of this challenge you have also seen that no body has described the Trinity either. If being a Trinitarian is so crucial to salvation why didn't Jesus stress the importance of adherence to this teaching? Why didn't Paul explain the nature of the Trinity when he was explaining the Godhead to the Colossians and others?

If the doctrine of the Trinity is true then God withheld this information from Jesus and the Apostles.

Are we to believe that God has seen fit to reveal such a monumental truth to the authors of the Nicene Creed and not to Jesus or Paul? Are we to believe, as those of this doctrine profess, that Jesus withheld this part of the gospel from the Apostles and that through a "new" revelation God has shown this doctrine to the "early church fathers"? Was Jesus in the dark about the Trinity? Apart from the absurdity of that question consider: Matthew 11:25-27, "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]. " Jesus Himself says that no man will have any revelation or knowledge of the Father unless He gives it to them and that "all things" are given unto Him. By the context of this passage He means all knowledge of who the Father is. Those who formulated the Trinitarian doctrine, and it was "formulated" as I will discuss at a latter date, never claimed Divine inspiration but were in a pinch to present a unified front before the Emperor Constantine.

Consider that Paul nor any other Apostle ever preached the Trinity. Now consider this statement: Galatians 1:6-8, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. " The answer is simple: the doctrine of the Trinity is a different one than Paul preached. I have been accused of being intolerant and dogmatic and as you can see this puts me in the company of Jesus and the Apostles for which I am unworthy but grateful. Jesus said that He is "the" way, not "a" way. This is intolerance at in it's purest form. The plan (Logos or Word) of salvation is totally, supremely exclusive to any exceptions. Paul said that if even he himself were to change what he had already preached to the Galatians that they (or himself) should be consigned to Hell forever. I'd say that is pretty dogmatic.

If believing in the Trinity is the only way to be saved then Jesus failed in His mission.

If Jesus was ordained by the Father to bring the way of salvation to mankind and believing in the Trinity is the only way to be saved then why didn't Jesus say so? Jesus never even hinted that one must believe in a triune God to be saved. Why would He leave such a crucial element out of the formula? I have heard it said that mankind wasn't ready for the "whole" revelation of the truth. If Jesus came in the "fullness" of time did He indeed come with a partial revelation to a people incapable of understanding the plan of salvation? I think we answered that above but consider: John15:15, "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." Here Jesus says He has told everything to the Apostles that He has heard of the Father. Also consider: Matthew 13:10-11, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. " in which Jesus says that the Apostles are the ones 'given to understand the kingdom of God." Excuse me but I don't find where Jesus explain the Trinity anywhere and neither can you. Are we to believe that Jesus had the job of delivering the words of life to God's most prized of all creation and left out the most important part. If Jesus and the Apostles never required a belief in the Trinity to be saved I like to would know on what authority anyone can require it today.

If the Trinity were so crucial then why did Jesus say "I and my Father are one" and not "I and my Father are three in one." Let me say at this point that the word "one" in the Old and New Testaments means just that: one. It grieves my heart when a so called preacher will try to imply that the evidence for the Trinity is "hidden" in the subtle meanings of the ancient text. This is just the attitude of the Scribes of Jesus' day. I heard one such man say that the word "echad" translated "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4 was also used in the text that says a man and his wife are "one" flesh. He then went on to have his wife stand after making a display of searching for her making it obvious that they were "two" and not one. First, this gives the impression that this is the only two places in the Old Testament this word appears. The word "echad" appears 951 times in the Old Testament and it always means "one". One rib from Adam, one sheep, one tree, one rock, one man and one God. What about the "preachers" demonstration?

Come out of your carnal mind for a moment. Consider if you will that my hand is one flesh with my shoulder. The connection to my shoulder and thereby the rest of "me" is achieved by means of my arm. The arm is my hand's flesh connection to the rest of my body making hand, arm, shoulder and the rest one flesh. I am not a collection of independent parts living in harmony but one part with areas of diverse function or different uses. Now imagine if you will a wedding. When a man and woman are "united" God establishes a spiritual link just as real as my arm is to my hand between the man and his wife making them truly one flesh.

If there were to be a new revelation it would have been predicted.

The revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity would be on a par with the first advent or arrival of Christ. Where are the prophesies that predict the "unveiling" of this "deeper" understanding of the Godhead? I have heard it said that the Trinity was so accepted among the Jews that there was no need to mention it. In this day when even the doctrine that sin in any form in any person is unacceptable but forgivable is questioned, I find it hard to believe that God was so short sighted as to leave such a monumental thing as the Trinity out. He went to such trouble to explain in great detail many other aspects of salvation that were perfectly obvious so as to leave no room for error. Why would He skip such a "trivial" point as the Godhead?