My research on the topic of the Trinity began around 1970 when a friend of mine thought he would consider becoming a Jehovah Witness.  I didn’t know much about them at the time, but one thing about them stood out and that was that they did not believe in the Trinity, and they did not believe that Jesus was God. 

I began looking into why they didn’t believe in such a long-standing doctrine of the church and read about their own beliefs on the being of God and Christ.  This eventually evolved into a life-long search for truth on this important doctrine.  

There are some denominations who do not believe that the Bible is the final source or authority of all doctrines and teachings.  Some think that only bishops should make these decisions. While others think that this is the responsibility of prophets or elders who they believe are appointed by God just for this purpose.  But for the purpose of this paper I am assuming that both myself as well as the reader believe that the Word of God as recorded in the Bible is the source and authority of true doctrine and teaching.  Yet, I also believe that each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we practice.  There are enough resources today to be able to see if certain doctrines are clearly written in scripture.  And if there’s any question on a doctrine, we ought to simply withhold belief until it becomes clear without intimidation from others.  If we don’t feel certain about a doctrine, we should not have faith in it. This is exactly what Paul taught the Christians at Rome when it came to the eating or abstinence from meat offered to idols.

Romans 14:23 (KJV)
²³ And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

IS THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE

DEFINITION

The definition of the Trinity is really very complicated, but most people reduce it to the belief that God is three separate and distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each has the essence of God and are co-equal with one another. 

In order to justify the Trinitarian doctrine as stated, the Son is presumed to be an Eternal Son without a beginning.  He always existed as a Son, and there was never a time when he did not exist as a Son.

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
³⁸ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is also another baptism recorded that helps bring this all together.

Acts 10:48 (NKJV)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

So, by using only Scripture we can see that it clearly teaches us that the only name that was used in baptism was Jesus.  This was the original and true Baptismal Formula. 

Based upon the first 2 examples we can then determine that Acts 10:48 also refers to the name of the Lord as being the name of Jesus.  It was Peter who made the statement in Acts 10:48 as well as Acts 2:38. But notice that Peter used the word Lord when referring to the name of Jesus.  This supports the idea that Jesus is, in fact, God and nothing less.  And that any time we see the phrase “name of the Lord” it refers to the name Jesus.

Example:

Romans 10:13 (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

We can see the importance of this connection when we link it to the Old Testament.

Joel 2:32 (NKJV)
32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.

This comes from the Old Testament, and it specifically refers to the name YHVH (‏יהוה) (LORD in all caps).  This also equates the name Jesus with the name Yahweh as the name of the LORD.

So, the original and Biblical baptismal formula was to baptize in the name of Jesus or the Lord Jesus.  It is therefore, this name that traces back to the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we’ll look at this in more detail later. See The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19.

WHEN AND HOW DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD?  

Now let’s take a look at what scripture says about the existence of the Son.  Was the Son created at some point in time, before time, or did he have an eternal existence as a Son? 

The Trinitarian belief that was stated earlier said that Jesus was always the Son of God and therefore there was never a time when he was not the Son.  Let’s take a look to see if this doctrine is found anywhere in Scripture.

I think that the best place to begin such a search is to look at the scriptures that speak about the actual birth of Jesus during the time that Mary was visited by an angel.

The angel Gabriel clearly tells Mary that it was because the Holy Spirit would come upon her that this Child would be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-32 (KJV)
31  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

All of the verbs in this promise to Mary are in the future tense.  She will conceive.  His name will be Jesus.  He will be great.  He will be called the Son of the Highest.  And he will be given the throne of David.

But no reference is made that leads us to believe that he was already the Son of God coming down into the womb of Mary as a pre-existent Son of God.  And the verse that says David would be his father was meant in a physical way to show that this was to be a flesh and blood relationship with David.

Luke 1:35 (NASB)
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the [a]holy Child will be called the Son of God.

And in this verse Gabriel makes it clear what the reason was that he shall be called the Son of God.  It is because the Holy Spirit comes upon her and overshadows her—and the thing that shall be born will be called the Son of God, not that he already was the Son of God and being somehow transmigrated or transferred through her.²

It is becoming more difficult to find a meaningful translation of this verse probably because it could strongly suggest that the beginning of the sonship of Christ began in Mary’s womb.  But with a little effort I found the proper translation in the New American Standard Version.  It translates the Greek words “dio kai” (διὸ καὶ) correctly as “For that reason.”  Other versions simply use the word “therefore” which means the same thing, but is much weaker and more ambiguous than “for that reason” which refers directly to what Gabriel just said as the reason he would be called the Son of God (See BDAG pg. 250).

Just to make it clear again.  There is no reference to Jesus being the Son of God prior to his incarnation.  If the Son of God already existed as a Son, Gabriel should have made this clear.  He could have said that the Son of God shall enter into you and come through you in childbirth.  But he didn’t say anything like that. We therefore, shouldn’t speculate about something as important as the origin of the Son of God.

There are also three references given by Paul and the writer of Hebrews taken from Psalm 2 that declare that the Son was begotten in time and not eternal.

Psalm 2:7 (KJV)
⁷  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

References are also found in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5.

Of course, if we are set in our minds that Jesus was already the Eternal Son of God, one might look at it differently.  An example of this is the belief that Jesus was an angel held by the Jehovah Witnesses. In spite of the phrasing of the verses in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, they insist that Jesus is still an angel. But in all my dealing with heretical beliefs and cults, I’ve learned that I have to force them to first establish the likelihood of their belief being true before they can manipulate other less clear scriptures to say what they want them to say.  In other words, there needs to be irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed as the Son prior to his incarnation.  There has to be some scripture that actually says this.  Without that we are twisting scriptures to to conform to our beliefs.  I have yet to hear any such clear, irrefutable evidence in the form of scripture that makes the pre-existent Christ an eternal son.

For more information on the Son of God please click on the link below: Word Study on the Only-Begotten Son (Hypostasis) 

A RULE FOR INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE

A basic rule of interpretation that we must apply when we study scripture is noted by the John Knox Institute which says that we must use clear scriptures to interpret ambiguous ones. Here is a quote directly from their website, JohnKnoxInstitute.org:

“The answer can be summarized in a single phrase: Always interpret the obscure in light of the clear. In other words, always interpret difficult and more obscure passages by comparing them to simpler and more plain passages.” (JohnKnoxInstitute.org)

Jesus was the only revelation of God that was actually born through the flesh of child-birth by Mary.  This not only made him the only Son, but made him a unique Son as well. That is the clear teaching of Scripture and my own understanding as well.

Earlier I said that there was only one verse in the Bible that mentioned the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unity, and in this verse there was clearly no mention of them being three persons.  Then what verses speak about a Trinity as the Being of God existing in three persons?  Actually—none.

Neither the word Trinity nor the concept of God being three different persons appears anywhere in the Bible.  It does not appear in John 1:1 where he says that the Word was with God and was God.  Why not?  Why did John decide to say that the preexistence of Christ was the Word and not as the Eternal Son in a Trinity of three persons?

It does not appear in Phil 2:5 where Paul teaches that Jesus was actually in the form of God, but says nothing about him being a person in a Trinity or a preexistent Son. Why not?  It seems to me a likely place to have put it.  

It does not appear in Hebrews 1:3-5 where the author spends a lot of time describing who Christ is, but nowhere mentions the Trinity of three persons.  Why not? 

If this was so important, I would think that these authors would have made sure that it was memorialized into the Holy Scriptures.

One of my favorite tests of doctrine is not simply finding where it appears in the Bible, but also questioning why it doesn’t appear in the Bible.  In my years as a Bible teacher, I found that there are many false doctrines that people believe that don’t exist in the Bible.  They simply don’t understand that it would have been so simple for Paul or others to simply have written those beliefs down clearly in one sentence, especially if it was so important.  Yet, they didn’t.  

Let’s see if we can understand more about the Biblical version of the Trinity if we look deeper into the name that Jesus was referring to in his statement in Matthew 28:19.

WHO WAS YHVH AND HOW DOES HE RELATE TO THE SON OF GOD?

By now you might be thinking that I do not believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but you would be very wrong.  I believe in both.  But I do not believe in the Trinity the way Athanasius, or the Roman Catholic Church defines it, and how it is taught today in many churches.  So, what do I think is the true definition of the Trinity?

Because of the problem with the lack of Jewish scholarly input from the early church, they have drifted away from the understanding of God’s Old Testament revelations under the name YHVH a.k.a. Yahweh.  The idea of God revealing himself as YHVH had taken a backseat if not disappeared altogether in the Gentile church.

Even today the idea of YHVH has been phased out by the Trinitarian doctrine.  YHVH has always been the name of God as he revealed himself to Israel. Each revelation of himself was progressively closer to the revelation of Jesus as the Savior of Israel. But scripture never teaches that YHVH was one of three different persons. He was taught as being God himself.

There was no understanding of God being three persons according to any Jewish understanding of God nor any Old Testament scripture that I could ever find.  As a matter of fact, I searched the entire Bible and couldn’t even find one reference to God as even being one person anywhere.  And there’s a reason why.

To label God as a person would be to diminish his divine power and glory.  In order to truly know God’s essence, we would have to see God face to face, which we cannot do according to the Bible.  Therefore, we must be satisfied with God simply being God.  Perhaps it’s natural for men to want to create a god in their own image and I believe that is what happened in the 3^rd Century and contiues today.

Isaiah 40:18 (KJV)
¹⁸ To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

We have to stop trying to define God as though he were some kind of philosophical idea that we can control through definition. In the Jewish understanding of things, if Jesus was a true revelation of God, he would have to be YHVH and nothing else.

There is no such record in the Old Testament showing that God had a Son prior to his birth through Mary.  There are references to sons of God, but these are either of angels or believers.

God had only one name and that name was YHVH (Yahweh). Jesus confirmed this by reciting the prayer called The Shammah in Mark.

The Shammah: Hear Oh Israel.  The LORD our God, The LORD is one!

Mark 12:29 (KJV)
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Why didn’t Jesus simply say:  Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is three persons?!

THE NAME OF GOD

Philippians 2:9 says that Jesus was given a name that was above all names. He was given the one name of God which was YHVH.  There is no other name greater than that name.  This name comes to us in the form of YESHUA or Jesus which means Yahweh Our Salvation.  There is only one name of God because there is only one being of God who has been revealed in numerous revelations as the name of YHVH (Yahweh).

Scripture says that there is only one name by which we are saved:

Acts 4:12 (NKJV)
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

There aren’t three names that save us as in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only 1 name—Jesus!

So why does the church make this doctrine the litmus test for authentic Christians?

1. It is not a belief taught by Paul, Peter, James, John, or any other Bible author.
2. It doesn’t exist as a teaching in the Bible—either in the Old or New Testament.
3. But it is the result of early Gentile philosophy and possibly a Pagan understanding of God blended into a doctrine and forced upon the believers in the church.
4. Failing to accept this doctrine resulted in not only excommunication but also to torture and murder carried out by the church in the name of God. (See the story of Michael Servetus) Click here.

It is time to reunite our LORD under one name and that name is Jesus. 

The story doesn’t end here.  There is so much more to say that would fill up an entire book.  But few would actually buy it and even fewer would read it because the church would never let that happen.  Instead they put fear into the believer who challenges or even tests or questions this doctrine.  

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT TESTING DOCTRINES?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
²¹ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:1 (KJV)
¹ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

We must test any belief that takes away from the glory of Jesus’ name being YHVH.  Our faith is in Jesus as our LORD and not in the Trinity.  There is no such scripture that prevents a person from salvation because they don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are scriptures warning us against believing in anything other than Jesus as being our LORD and the incarnation of God. 

We must hold fast to the idea that God in Christ is a mystery:

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 2:2 (NET1)
² My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love, may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches that assurance brings in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ,

Christ is the mystery that must capture our faith as well as our imagination and awe–not the Trinity of Nicaea.

Please see my other posts relating to this topic:

History of the Trinity

1. Matthew 3:16,17, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, ↩︎
2. The idea that God already had a Son that was to come down through her was not an idea that Mary would have been able to understand unless Gabriel had told her this outright. Scripture cannot mean something to us today that it didn’t mean to the one originally intended to hear it. ↩︎