• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Early Christians Rejected the Trinity

Cherub786

Member
باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III


Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?


In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus


In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III

Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?

In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus

In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.

The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:
1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?
3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?
Fair questions. I say:
#1. If, and only if, the believer affirms the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.
#2. So it would seem.
#3. Moot.

Now, let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with:
Salvation from Hell (Arabic: Al Najun Min Al Nar, also translated as Saved from the Inferno) was a militant Islamic organization which operated in Egypt in the 1980s?
Salvation from Hell - Wikipedia
 

Cherub786

Member
The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed

May I have your source on Ignatius?

I believe you are engaging in a straw man argument here. My argument is that the majority of the Christian community (not necessarily theologians or Church fathers), meaning the laity in particular, were non-Trinitarians, as Tertullian has indicated, and furthermore, they opposed the Trinity doctrine, considering it contrary to the Divine Unity.

The quote from Justin Martyr is interesting, I shall try to verify its authenticity, but it does not necessarily affirm the Trinity doctrine.

The Gospel of John never spells out the Trinity doctrine either. At most it can be said that it, and certain statements in the New Testament (which were clearly written many decades after the crucifixion of Jesus), teach a doctrine that Jesus was some kind of divine being.

The Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed is plainly not evident in any of the Christian Scriptures or any statement of the early Church fathers up to the 2nd century CE. Let me remind you, the Trinity as defined in the Athanasian creed claims that the three persons of the Trinity are uncreated, unlimited, eternal, omnipotent, and perfectly equal to each other. You will be very hard pressed to deduce these ideas from the Christian New Testament, including the Gospel of John.

And what are your answers to my three questions in the OP?
 

Cherub786

Member
Fair questions. I say:
#1. If, and only if, the believer affirms the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.
#2. So it would seem.
#3. Moot.

Now, let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with:
Salvation from Hell (Arabic: Al Najun Min Al Nar, also translated as Saved from the Inferno) was a militant Islamic organization which operated in Egypt in the 1980s?
Salvation from Hell - Wikipedia

You have written "moot" for my third question. Is that not an admission that the Trinity doctrine is not plainly evident in the Christian Scripture and the teachings of Jesus's Apostles?

The group from 1980s Egypt you have mentioned, I am not that familiar with it apart from what I have read in Gilles Kepel's old book Muslim Extremism in Egypt: The Prophet and Pharaoh (quite an impressive book, I recommend for anyone interested in the subject).

I chose that title for my blog and will soon try to re-register it as a domain name. For now you can access my blog here
Islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
You have written "moot" for my third question. Is that not an admission that the Trinity doctrine is not plainly evident in the Christian Scripture and the teachings of Jesus's Apostles?
My third answer is an acknowledgement that you have, in this thread, raised a topic that evokes irreconcilable differences that will never, ever be resolved or reconciled in this world.
Screenshot_2020-07.png

Nothing more, nothing less.

I chose that title for my blog and will soon try to re-register it as a domain name.
Smart move, IMO.
Now, given your apparent acknowledgement of a Hell [or domain of post-mortal punishment and discomfort], and keeping in mind that you are a self-acknowledged adherent of Islam, do you suppose that the Christian God will send all Trinitarians to Hell if believing in the Trinity is the only false thing that they believe?
 

Cherub786

Member
Now, given your apparent acknowledgement of a Hell [or domain of post-mortal punishment and discomfort], and keeping in mind that you are a self-acknowledged adherent of Islam, do you suppose that the Christian God will send all Trinitarians to Hell if believing in the Trinity is the only false thing that they believe?

How can I speak for the "Christian God" when I'm not a Christian? After all, I don't believe in the "Christian God".
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed

You listed the establishment authorities that at their time eradicated those opposing the establishment orthodoxy. Before this there was a diversity of views including non-trinitarian Christian believers.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
May I have your source on Ignatius?

I believe you are engaging in a straw man argument here. My argument is that the majority of the Christian community (not necessarily theologians or Church fathers), meaning the laity in particular, were non-Trinitarians, as Tertullian has indicated, and furthermore, they opposed the Trinity doctrine, considering it contrary to the Divine Unity.

The quote from Justin Martyr is interesting, I shall try to verify its authenticity, but it does not necessarily affirm the Trinity doctrine.

The Gospel of John never spells out the Trinity doctrine either. At most it can be said that it, and certain statements in the New Testament (which were clearly written many decades after the crucifixion of Jesus), teach a doctrine that Jesus was some kind of divine being.

The Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed is plainly not evident in any of the Christian Scriptures or any statement of the early Church fathers up to the 2nd century CE. Let me remind you, the Trinity as defined in the Athanasian creed claims that the three persons of the Trinity are uncreated, unlimited, eternal, omnipotent, and perfectly equal to each other. You will be very hard pressed to deduce these ideas from the Christian New Testament, including the Gospel of John.

And what are your answers to my three questions in the OP?
It is listed on my post but here it is again and it lists all the info and where the got it from for each of the names:

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed\


In the Beginning was the Word.... and the Word was God.... can't be any more clear
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You listed the establishment authorities that at their time eradicated those opposing the establishment orthodoxy. Beeefore this there was a diversity of views including non-trinitarian Christian believers.
yes... there were many false doctrines and the bully by the gnostticists...That is why they had to come together and establish the Nicean creed.

And using what the Father's had said, the gospels, the OT and the Epistles, they came up with what was commonly accepted by most of the Christians.
 
Last edited:

Cherub786

Member
It is listed on my post but here it is again and it lists all the info and where the got it from for each of the names:

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed\


In the Beginning was the Word.... and the Word was God.... can't be any more clear

It's not clear in defining the Trinity, which is the subject under discussion here.
I'm not an expert in Greek, but as I understand it there is a difference in meaning between the two words Theon and Theos. It has been suggested that John 1:1 actually purports to say that the Logos which became flesh is theos but not theon, in other words, a lesser deity, which is quite contrary to the Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed.
 

Cherub786

Member
Ahhh, ... so you don't "have a dog in the race", so to speak, but just want to watch dogs race, eh?
Cool. Have fun.

Well let me put it this was (as a question to you): If the Trinity doctrine is false in the Sight in God, and it is nothing but tritheism, would God not dispatch those who believed in it to Hell for violating His very First Commandment: "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before Me", "Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One"
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
In Jeremiah 17:5-8, I read (from the English Standard Version):
  • 5 Thus says the Lord:
    “Cursed is the man who trusts in man
    and makes flesh his strength,
    whose heart turns away from the Lord.
    6 He is like a shrub in the desert,
    and shall not see any good come.
    He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
    in an uninhabited salt land.
    7 “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
    whose trust is the Lord.
    8 He is like a tree planted by water,
    that sends out its roots by the stream,
    and does not fear when heat comes,
    for its leaves remain green,
    and is not anxious in the year of drought,
    for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
And in Proverbs 10:25, I read:
  • When the tempest passes, the wicked is no more,
    but the righteous is established forever.
I say "the righteous" survive a tempest and drought because they trust in the Lord. I also say someone who believes in the Trinity can be righteous and trust in the Lord. I say so, because I have personally known and owe my life to some. Because they died in this world, whether I am allowed to join them or not, I am confident that they are with the Lord and are not in Hell.
 

Cherub786

Member
I also say someone who believes in the Trinity can be righteous and trust in the Lord. I say so, because I have personally known and owe my life to some. Because they died in this world, whether I am allowed to join them or not, I am confident that they are with the Lord and are not in Hell.

I cannot say definitively either way. I can't presume to judge on behalf of the Lord God Almighty. However, in my Islamic theology, people who worship multiple gods without repenting from that before the Angel of Death comes for their soul, are condemned to Hell. At any rate, how is it righteousness for someone to continue believing in a false doctrine when it has been made plain to them that it is utter falsehood? Here I'm not speaking about those who are genuinely unconvinced and sincerely believe in the doctrine due to ignorance. I'm speaking about someone who knows in his or her heart that this is a false belief, yet continues to profess it. Such a person is not righteous in my view.
 

February-Saturday

Devil Worshiper
Here I'm not speaking about those who are genuinely unconvinced and sincerely believe in the doctrine due to ignorance. I'm speaking about someone who knows in his or her heart that this is a false belief, yet continues to profess it. Such a person is not righteous in my view.

Do I smell psychological projection?
 

Cherub786

Member
That would be odd indeed: Professing something to be true while believing it to be false.

Again let me turn the tables on you. Islam is the closest world religion to Christianity. We share many beliefs, even if the extremists on both sides labor to downplay those similarities and focus on differences instead. We Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lion of Judah, and a Prophet of God. We value his moral and ethical teachings that are present in the Christian Gospels. We are not Christian because we don't believe in the doctrines of original sin and that Jesus died as an expiation for our sin. Do you believe Muslims ought to burn in Hell for this doctrinal disagreement?

Interestingly, I have never come across a verse in the Christian New Testament where Jesus of Nazareth says in order to be saved you must confess that I will die for your sins. On the contrary, Jesus and John the Baptist spoke of repentance, being reborn of the spirit, doing the will of God in Heaven, being more righteous than the Pharisees and Scribes, and becoming innocent like children as the means for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's not clear in defining the Trinity, which is the subject under discussion here.
I'm not an expert in Greek, but as I understand it there is a difference in meaning between the two words Theon and Theos. It has been suggested that John 1:1 actually purports to say that the Logos which became flesh is theos but not theon, in other words, a lesser deity, which is quite contrary to the Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed.

yes - there are two camps on this subject but there are many more for than against.

my point is simply that the concept started from the very beginning and not later as suggested
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Do you believe Muslims ought to burn in Hell for this doctrinal disagreement?
I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not convinced that there is a Hell. Instead, I say: Only heaven awaits us in the next world; hell awaits those who don't want to be there.
We Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lion of Judah, and a Prophet of God.
Big deal. IMO, your Allah and Jesus' God were not the same God.
Interestingly, I have never come across a verse in the Christian New Testament where Jesus of Nazareth says in order to be saved you must confess that I will die for your sins.
He didn't have to say so. It's enough for true Christians that he said, in John 14:6:
  • “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
and that, as Peter said, in Acts 4:12:
  • "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
 
Top