Dear Brother,
When you asked me this question the other day I found it was a one that I had sincere trouble answering. I do appreciate you asking since it has given me some things to think about. Since then I have put some thought into it and offer this as a belated explanation of why I had difficulty answering. As an explanation, I know it falls short but I did want to give my honest thoughts on the subject in hopes that there might be some understanding between us. I don’t present this as any kind of a last word, but more or less where my mind is at the present.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
I feel like I have been asking or being asked that question all of my life. As such I have to admit that it is probably one of my least favorite things to talk about. Perhaps a little bit of my background might explain why.
In case you didn’t know I grew up as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In case you didn’t know JW’s don’t “believe in the Trinity”.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
It feels like a test. If you answer correctly, you are “in”. It’s like a secret handshake to get in the door of the “orthodox” club. (Orthodox; from the Greek orthodoxos meaning “having the right opinion,”) If you answer wrong, well, you are “anathema”. (Anathema; a heretic, a detested person, someone who is, in other words, God damned.)
Conversely, when I was a JW, we believed we were the right religion because we did not “believe in the Trinity” and considered other denominations be “false religion” because of their belief in it.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
As a JW you never knew what would meet you when you went door to door. Most of the time it would be an empty house, or a “not-at-home” in JW jargon. You would mark “NH” next to the address on your “House To House Record”.
If someone did come to the door they would typically be:
a.) “Busy”. You would mark “CA” on your record for “Call Again”; they weren’t getting off that easy.
or
b.) “Not Interested”. They didn’t get put on the record — blotted out of the book of life, as it were until the next time JW’s came around.
It wasn’t easy to convert someone this way, but occasionally you would find someone who was willing to talk. This was a good thing, unless of course it was someone just wanting to convert you. Often this would include getting you to accept the Trinity.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?” they would ask.
As a JW, we were prepared for this. We carried a little book called Reasoning From the Scriptures which contained stock answers to practically any question or objection you might ever come across.
When someone asked that particular question one option, according to the Reasoning book, was to respond in return, “I find that not everyone has the same thing in mind when he refers to the Trinity. Perhaps I could answer your question better if I knew what you mean.’”
It was a good question to ask because even if a person claimed to “believe in the Trinity”, when put to the task they may have hard time actually describing what they claimed to believe. So too with the JW’s, often we would rely on arguments against the Trinity that betrayed our own ignorance of what the doctrine actually taught.
In leaving the JW religion, one benefit for me was being to dismiss their particular religious doctrines and instead look to find for myself what the Word of God had to say. While I may still hold some similar views as the JW’s, I can’t think of a single doctrine of theirs that I have completely kept. In particular how I view the person of Jesus would be considered heretical to Jehovah’s Witnesses, just as it is to other Christian denominations.
I certainly won’t tell you what you should believe but I do strongly feel that if you have accepted certain doctrines just because they have been taught by your denominational background as correct there is benefit of looking at the Word again to see what you find. Maybe you find your belief is true; maybe not. Either way, I find it is good to know what we believe and why we believe it.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
Some might suggest that you should because it has always been the orthodox Christian belief, which was affirmed at various councils, such as the famous one at Nicea. But if you look at the actual history, this view is a bit “rose-colored” if not fantasy.
The Nicea conference was a basically a debate about the nature and relationship of the Son of God with God, the Father. When the creed was written, Emperor Constantine suggested homoousios (of the same substance) to describe the two. This word doesn’t appear in the Bible, much to the consternation of some of the bishops that didn’t like borrowing a term from Greek philosophy to explain God.
Since the council of Nicea was not called to uphold the Trinity but rather to settle an argument over the relationship between the Father and the Son, it didn’t really touch on the so-called “third person of the Trinity”, the Holy Spirit. If you read the creed in its original incarnation the Holy Spirit seems to be tacked on to the end like an afterthought, simply stating, “We believe in the Holy Spirit”. This would be expanded upon in the Council of Constantinople, but still stopping short of granting the Holy Spirit full equality with Father and Son.
After Nicea the debate continued; the winning side tended to follow the personal beliefs of whatever emperor was in power at the time with proponents of the opposing belief persecuted and sent off into exile. If you lived in one part of the empire you might believe one thing while those in another part held the other view. Councils were assembled, and creeds were made, often repudiating what was decided at the previous council. During this extended time the theologians continued to hammer out their beliefs in the nature of God, sometimes using philosophy and sometimes scientific formula, and more often than not, using the power of the State to force their view on others. When the smoke cleared the doctrine of the Trinity had been established in its now familiar form. (Well the smoke didn’t exactly clear, it was still hanging in the air when John Calvin oversaw the burning at the stake, of Michael Servetus for a rejection of the Trinity doctrine.)
For me to say I “believe in the Trinity” would be to say that I agree with a theological construct that gradually developed and was articulated over centuries, while its current form was foreign to a good many Christians living in centuries before then. To say I “believe in the Trinity” it to say I subscribe to a doctrine that was born in fierce, even bloody debate.
[If you desire a more detailed account of this controversy, take a look at the books; When Jesus Became God; the Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein and A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Christian State by Charles Freeman]
Do you believe in the Trinity?
What does the Bible say? Like so many of the words that Christians use to encapsulate their beliefs, Trinity is not found in the source material. Neither can we point to one Scripture where the Trinity doctrine of a three persons in one Godhead is articulated. There are no Trinitarian formulas as would later be invented.
Knowing that I read a lot of the writings of the early “Church Fathers” another friend asked me if they supported the doctrine of the Trinity. I said their writings are much like the Bible, both sides of the debate could pluck select passages and claim support. Yes, what to do with those passages of Scripture that make trouble for your doctrine?
Opponents of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes call them to the carpet for how their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders John 1:1. Whereas most translations have some form of “and the Word was God” the Watchtower, to support their anti-Trinitarian theology, has translated this, “and the Word was a god.”
Pro-Trinitarians though have resorted to similar creative translating just a few verses down. Whereas the text says that Jesus was “the only-begotten Son” this presents some difficulty for a Trinitarian theology where Jesus is said to be co-eternal with the father. To be begotten implies a beginning, something that the Trinity denies for Jesus. To alleviate this doctrinal difficulty; modern translations have substituted “One and Only” and “the only one” in the place of “only begotten.” (Even the venerable King James Version is not immune to this kind of Scriptural tampering for it adds the Trinity formula at 1 John 5:7.)
Notice in both cases how the primacy of a doctrine alters the Scriptures. I have to ask, what then is more sacred, the doctrine of men or the written Word of God?
Do you believe in the Trinity?
I feel that the Trinity doctrine is basically inadequate, you can only look at is so close before the holes start to emerge. Even the most renowned theologians will fall back to saying that the relationship between, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a complex mystery. As Jerome famously put it, “The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it.” Now consider how we have taken Almighty God in all of his fullness and complexity and substituted a word, Trinity.
I don’t mind the mystery; nor, do I mind the complexity. I do mind that we feel the need to define and invent terminology to put it into context and that over the years the terminology has grown and obscured that which is was invented to describe.
We have then taken this terminology, blessed it, anointed it and made it God, praying and singing songs before it. I wonder if this appropriate or desirable. To me, it is plain in the Scripture that the Father is to be worshipped and the Son is to be worshipped, but I can’t see where the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped equally as the Nicene creed commands.
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
If I say yes am I bound by a definition? Is my acceptance the final word? Will I not be able to continue to search for myself? Must I be made to trust the thoughts and opinions of select theologians of the past? Must I put my faith in the rulings and preferences of certain Roman Emperors?
“Do you believe in the Trinity?”
I just have trouble answering that question.
I can say …
I believe in the Father
and I believe in the Son
and I believe in the Holy Spirit
I believe everything the Scripture says about these three
and everything my relationship therein has taught
and at the end of the day
I believe that is enough for now.
Your brother in Christ,
Anthony
Download a free copy of our 2005 album 
I appreciated this post a great deal. It had never occured to me before that some people might take the concept of the Trinity as an attempt to conform them to extra-biblical teaching, as some form of cultish code word or something… It really made me rethink some things…
But it is interesting, that there is this hesitance to give assent to this very plainly human-invented word (don’t think anyone disputes that…), but then you seem to affirm essentially the basic premise that the term was invented to describe… “it is plain in the Scripture that the Father is to be worshipped and the Son is to be worshipped” and “I believe in the Father
and I believe in the Son and I believe in the Holy Spirit”.…
Does using the term “Trinity” necessarily deprive God from the mystery that surrounds His being? Is the hesitation due to this uncertainty about whether or not we are to “worship” the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t the scripture refer to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ”? If so, I’m not sure how I can worship Jesus, and not therefore be worshipping the Holy Spirit, even if it’s unwittingly…
Yeah, the Bible doesn’t ever use the code word “Trinity”, so we shouldn’t be stuck on it either… (though it does seem more conveniant than saying, “I believe in the Father, and I believe in the Son, and I believe in the Holy Spirit” ever time!) But it seems that, like you mentioned in your post, the whole reason that the term surfaced in the first place was because of the question of Christ’s true identity.…
Was he just a man, or was He God incarnate? Was He only the most notable of Godly men to walk the earth, or the Creator Himself? That seems like the issue that is most worth investigating anyhow.…
Daniel,
First I find it wonderful that we can have dialogue on this. If we lived during the fourth century, depending on what year we lived in, in what part of the Roman Empire, and which Emperor was in power, either one of us could be silenced, branded a heretic, excommunicated, and sent into exile.
I was raised to believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. You may find such a thought ludicrous, but consider this:
I don’t believe this anymore, but if you only were to focus on those few scriptures, and ignoring quite a few others, and mix it with a dose of human reasoning you might draw the conclusion that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. In many ways this is how I feel about the Trinity doctrine.
The Trinity Doctrine is extra-Biblical in that it too exists outside Scripture. What I mean is that there isn’t a single scripture that articulates the Trinity doctrine. In order to get to the Trinity Doctrine you must stitch together a few different scriptures, ignore some, and add a dose of human reasoning, or in the case of the Trinity, Greek Philosophy. I challenge that anyone can just read the New Testament independent of religious teaching and come up with the Trinity doctrine. If this were the case it wouldn’t have taken four centuries to develop the doctrine and the power of the Roman State to make it orthodox.
Like many theologies, the Trinity doctrine is a package deal. It’s not Burger King, in that, you can’t “have it your way”. For instance, I can’t suggest that the Holy Spirit shouldn’t be worshipped equally with the Father and the Son, because that would go against a key point of the doctrine. Yet if I can’t find such a thought in Scripture, how can I accept the doctrine? I spent 30 years having one group of men dictate to me what the Bible says, I find that I’m not too eager to exchange that for another group of men. Now you can say that by worshipping the Father or Jesus we are indeed worshipping the Holy Spirit, but again this is reasoning independent of the Scripture. (Not that the thought is wrong, I can see your reasoning in this.) However, the Trinity doctrine has birthed a Christian faith that readily sings songs of praise to the Holy Spirit and addresses the Holy Spirit in prayer — I do not see these practices in the New Testament church. Again, why should I exchange what I see in the Bible in order to accept a doctrine?
You closed by mentioning that the important question is Christ’s true identity. In ancient history there were extreme views on both sides. Some believed him to be totally god, only appearing to be human. Some thought him as you put it, “only the most notable of Godly men to walk the earth.” The majority view was that Jesus had a divine nature. The question of the day was, was the Son in all respects equal with the Father or in some ways different.
Again, I appreciate you hearing me out, even drawing me out on something I don’t normally choose to talk about. A good many people will just dismiss you out of hand if they find that you have issues with the doctrine.
Yours,
Anthony
Awesome post, Anthony, as usual.
God isnt a cake recipe. And thats exactly what I feel about the Trinity. I dont view others who believe in it, any less than me — but to enforce it as a salvation issue, is a bit much.
Cheers brother — thanks be to God for another inspiring post!
Beau
Hello brothers, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject of the trinity and the Holy Spirit.
Here are some Scriptures I’ld like to share with you to see what you think concerning them:
The Spirit of YHWH
Exodus 23:20–23 Compare with Isaiah 63:8–14 and Acts 7: 37–38.……Psalms 103:19–22
.….…Psalms 148:5 .… Psalms 34:7–8 .… Psalms 104:4,30 … Isaiah 34:16 … Isaiah 40:8 .….. 1 Peter 1:23
Doing a word search, and using a concordance such as the Strongs Concordance, it is very interesting to see how many places we find the phrase “The word of God” or… “Gods’ word”. Deut. 30:14 God’s word has USUALLY been given THROUGH AN ANGEL, (a holy spirit) to a prophet. Then the prophet conveys God’s Word, to His people, the Jews. (Judeans) Deut. 18:18–19 … Isaiah 51:16
Here is what we learn concerning God’s Word:
God speaks, and commands, and things get accomplished. (See the scriptures above) Hebrews 4:12
The angels carry out God’s Word.
The angels are sent forth to give God’s Word.
See also Isaiah 45:23 … Isaiah 55:11 .… Is. 51:4–5 … Hebrews 11:3
God sends FORTH His spirit; the angels carry out God’s will. The scriptures speak of “the 7 spiritS (plural) of God.”
The angels are sometimes used as “An angel of God’s PRESENCE.” (See again Exodus 23:20–23 and Isaiah 63:8–14 ..Exodus 20:2 .. Exodus 33:14 ) God put’s His name on them, then they act in God’s place. Such as the angel that led Israel out of Egypt, and into the promised land. See also Numbers 20:16 …Deut. 31:3,6,8,20 Joshua 1:9 .… Exodus 14:19–20 …Isaiah 48:16,19 … Genesis 22:11–12 .…Genesis 18:1–14 … Genesis 21:17–18 .… Genesis 19:1, 12–13, 29 .……Acts 7:38 and compare with Exodus 19:2–6 … Exodus 24:9–17
The Law was given through the angels. Acts 7:37–38, 53 …Exodus 32:16
Mark 4:13–20
Moses laid his hands on Joshua and he was “filled with the spirit of wisdom”. See also Isaiah 11:1–3
I too, was a JW (born and raised) baptized in 1962 but left on account of the 1874 and 1914 doctrines (and other ones) in 1998.
I spent around 2 years studying into the trinity doctrine and could not find enough scriptural support for it either. I have concluded that John 1:1 is speaking about God’s word, which when it is sent FORTH, is accomplishes what God intends for it. His Word is the same as God himself giving it, and being a part of Him. The Word came THROUGH Christ. (Not the word *became* Christ) God sent His Word through His Son, and through the Holy Spirit which Christ was anointed with. Hebrews 5:1–5… Heb. 6:5 …
Isaiah 61
I could be wrong about what, or who the Spirit is, but I don’t think so. This is why those who believe the trinity get so confused concerning who or what the Holy Spirit is because when the scriptures speak of the holy spirit, they speak as if it (he) is God. Jesus said that people could sin against him and it could be forgiven but those who speak against the Holy Spirit are not forgiven in this “age” or the “age to come”. I have concluded that it is because the angels God sends, REPRESENTS HIM in His PLACE. They are STAND INS. And if people treat the Holy Spirit with disrespect, God considers it the SAME AS THEM DOING IT TO HIM.
Now Christ is the one who taught us this kind of concept when he says that those who treat even the least of his disciples is the way they HAVE TREATED HIM. Being THE BODY of Christ is a very strange concept that no doubt is very foreign to men. It is most likely that in the kingdom, the way people treat the saints who are sent by Christ to accompish a job (or rule a city or cities) Christ will consider it as himself being treated. Very possibly the way God considers His angels He PUTS HIS NAME ON. (The angel OF HIS PRESENCE)
Perhaps God considers this Holy angels (Spirits) whom He sends to accomplish His Word or will, the same as HIS body? Mmmmmmm
Anyway, I am leaning toward believing that both the trinitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong concerning their interpretation of John 1:1
(Again, I could also be wrong but somehow this makes some sense to me according to what I am seeing in the Scriptures.)
Just thought I’ld share this to see what you also may think about this and the Scriptures here.
Your sis in Christ,
Sheila Rae
Hi Anthony,
I enjoyed reading your blog and I believe as you do. If we seek The Word, God promises we will find it. Amen?
Hi Sheila Rae, I thought your comments were very valid but as we know today, there are hundreds of people who make debates out of the scriptures, but surly if they were meant for people to really understand the bible today, why do we have it?
I think logic plays a great part in the bible and logic and common sense tells ua, when Jesus died he was resurrected by his father, he could not resurrect himself if he was dead. God did not die but his son did. Just imagine if Jesus was in fact the father also, Satan would have made sure he was the almighty himself with God dead. Also at the time of Jesus baptism, God’s voice came down, this is my son, he had sent his first born to the earth as a ransom for what we lost through Adam. No man has seen God at any time, only the begotten son has seen him, making these two different beings, not one.
Let logic and common sense prevail.
I was disapointed to read Anthony, you put faith in the power, force of action belonging to the father as a person,the holy spirit, which is not indepentant from the father like the son is.
Heather,
You said,
“I was disapointed to read Anthony, you put faith in the power, force of action belong ing to the father as a person,the holy spirit, which is not inde pen tant from the father like the son is.”
I just scanned the article and don’t see where I said such a thing. Maybe you could point it out for me. My faith is in Christ.
I will say that limiting Holy Spirit to a mere “power” as per the WT is incomplete.
How pertinant to find this article again!
Belief in the Trinity concept for some is a salvation issue, and belief to the contrary means one is not a Christian…I cant agree with this.
Thanks Anthony, for reinforcing why I believe as I do!
Cheers mate!
Your Unitarian Heretic friend, and brother — Beau!
Greetings,
I have had my own experience with the “orthodox” christians who hold to a trinitarian perspective. The trinity was developed to justify the worship of Jesus with monotheism.
I, personally, do not hold to the doctrine. I think you could probably rightfully say that it is based on a misunderstanding the nature of messiah, and the holy spirit.
Appreciate the blog.
Jehovah Witness is a cult which came out of the false prophecy of the Great Disappointment. They are wrong about a great many things and the teaching of the Trinity found in scripture happens to be one of them.