What Scholars Say

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word  “trinity” itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’  ‘three-in-one,’ one ” essence “, and three “persons” is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy (Professor Shirley C. Guthrie, Jr. , Christian Doctrine- pp.76-77)

Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word ‘Trinity’, but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith … We must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian—- New Testament—- message. ( Emil Brunner, Dogmatics , Vol.1,  p.205 )

Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church; the Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual… Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world. (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol.3, 1944)

The Church’s doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be the farthest thing from [the New Testament writers] minds and today’s reader may well wonder if it is even helpful to refer to such a dogma in order to grasp the theology of the New Testament. When the Church speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, it refers to the specific belief that God exists eternally in three distinct ‘persons’ who are equal in deity and one in substance. In this form the doctrine is not found anywhere in the New Testament; it was not so clearly articulated until the late fourth century AD. (Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God, A Historical Survey, p.23)

It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness, as over against Unitarian  monotheism on the one hand, and polytheism on the other hand, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, ‘It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or in which there seems to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.’ This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, pp.108-109)

It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the Mystery of the Trinity … Historians of dogma and systematic theologians [recognize] that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought… it was the product of three centuries of development. ( Thomas Carson, “Trinity”, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, vol. xiv, pg.295 )

It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message. (Anglican theologian W.R. Matthews, God in Christian Experience, pg. 180)

Another difficulty stems from the categories used by those who worked out the doctrine of the Trinity that the church adopted. They used Greek categories such as substance, essence, and person, which had corresponding Latin concepts when translated into the forms of thinking that characterized the Eastern church. Over the years, questions have been raised regarding those concepts. One contention is that the Trinity is simply a product of those ancient Greek categories. It is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God. It is a Greek philosophical, not a Hebraic biblical concept. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons, pp. 19-20)

I cannot but think that the doctrine of the Trinity, far from being established, is open to serious criticism, because of both the modern understanding of the Scripture, and inherent confusions in it’s expression. Texts were torn from their contexts and misused to no small degree… Much of the defense of the Trinity as a revealed doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it… It is not a doctrine specifically to be found in the New Testament. It is a creation of the fourth-century church.        (Professor Cyril C. Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity: A Clarification of  What It Attempts to Express, pp. 16-17)

The Bible has many verses which “teach” justification, “teach” repentance, “teach” baptism, “teach” the resurrection, but not one verse in the entire Bible “teaches” the doctrine of the Trinity. No verse describes it, explains it, or defines it. When one considers just how different the Trinitarian view is from the traditional Jewish view of God, you have to ask yourself, where are all the arguments to get the Jew to change his view? Why, when the apostle Paul spends entire chapters getting the Jew to change his view of the law, isn’t there just one text to get the Jew to change his view of God? This vital, but missing piece, is the Trinity’s single biggest flaw …. The more I looked at the Trinity, the more I saw a doctrine rich in tradition, and passionately defended by brilliant and sincere people, but severely weak in reason and badly wanting in biblical support. (Robert A. Wagoner, The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, pp.88-89)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s