Why Don’t Proponents of the Trinity Put Forward a Straightforward Biblical Case for It?

While the Bible stresses Christ as the proper focal point for all seekers of God, post-apostolic church leaders stress the Trinity instead.  I have recently attempted to get proponents of the Trinity to present a scriptural case for it, but so far they have not done it.

Instead, proponents of the Trinity tend to assume it’s true and then proceed to read it into all sorts of Bible verses that don’t say anything about a Trinity.  And when you don’t agree with these proponents, they tend become offended rather than offer a gentle explanation of the concept (a la 2 Timothy 2:24-26).

For example, I recently wrote a short post, The Biggest Problem with the Trinity.  I made a comment similar to it on two blogs that I respect for their stand for Christ.

The first was Triablogue by Steve Hays (and others).  You’ll find our exchange here (I show up as “blogforthelordjesus” in the comment string).  The other was Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth by Nick Norelli.  You’ll find that exchange here (I show up as Mike Gantt in the comment string.)  (By the way, I always try to comment in my own name – that is, Mike Gantt – but different blogs have different, and sometimes confusing, outputs when you enter comments.)

Note that neither Steve nor Nick wanted to engage on the subject, even when I tried to narrow the focus to something that would take less time.  I don’t know why these proponents of the Trinity do not make a biblical case for their concept, but it’s clear that they didn’t.

Maybe I’ll try them again.  And I’ll try others as well.

Be assured that I raise this topic for the purpose that we might better know and obey God.  Mere philosophical discussion wastes precious time.

To learn more about Christ versus the Trinity, see:

There Is No Trinity; There Is Christ

Posts to Date on the Trinity Versus Christ

7 Replies to “Why Don’t Proponents of the Trinity Put Forward a Straightforward Biblical Case for It?”

  1. Mike: I’m a bit taken aback by your dishonesty here. I engaged you on the subject and even when you changed the subject I engaged you. You then proceeded to repeat yourself and reassert things that you falsely attributed to me. I saw no need to continue repeating myself.

    I’ll also note that you are operating with the presupposition that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible. Your argument seems to go something like this: The Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it just isn’t. So when people attempt to show the Trinity in the Bible they’re reading a prior held belief into the Bible because the Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it just isn’t. See how circular that is?

    1. Nick: I myself am taken aback by your accusation of “dishonesty.”

      For me, the subject all along was Christ versus the Trinity. I did try to narrow the focus along the way because I sought to make the discussion productive, looking for areas of possible agreement rather than just harping on what we disagree about. But that only narrowed the subject – it didn’t change it.

      I may have erroneously attributed something to you (i.e. done so unintentionally), but I would never falsely attribute something to you (i.e. done so intentionally). In fact, I’m still not convinced I did so erroneously but you ended that discussion, so I didn’t pursue it.

      Since then I wrote you a comment on your most recent post about Father’s Day. I hope you receive it in the spirit in which I wrote it: that is, to advance the discussion without trying your patience.

      If I am in error about the Trinity, please give me a decent chance to find out where. That’s why I asked for your single best resource for a biblical case for the Trinity.

      I respect you greatly – mainly because of your love for the truth and your personal commitment to Jesus Christ. As for the Trinity, anyone who has accumulated that kind of bibliography (over 200 resources!) obviously cares about the subject matter and knows a lot about it. You should not be surprised if I, or others, want to interact with you on it – even if to challenge your position. I know that I take challenges on my blogs frequently.

      Most of all, Nick, I appeal to you that we let the emotion drain out of our interaction. I have not an ounce of animus toward you and even if our disagreement about the Trinity remains undiminished to even the slightest degree, I would like to go on assuming that each of us has the other’s best interests at heart and that neither of us is acting “dishonestly.”

    2. P.S. As for your challenge that I’m being circular in my reasoning on this subject, I don’t think that’s true. It would be true if I were to disallow any attempt to show that the Trinity is in the Bible. On the contrary, I am actively seeking someone to show me where it is in the Bible. As I recall, the verses you and Fr. Robert quoted were ones that could be viewed positively from a Trinitarian viewpoint, but because those same verses could also be viewed positively from a non-Trinitarian viewpoint it’s clear that the verses themselves don’t teach a Trinitarian viewpoint.

      Again, I hasten to say that I am not opposed inferential truths. I myself believe truths that I have inferred from Scripture. I was simply saying that the truths about Christ are much more explicit and much more abundant than teachings about the Trinity. And therefore, one’s view of Christ can be built directly from Scripture without first adopting the traditional concept of Trinity. For example, if I say Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and that He is Lord, you or I can take people to Scriptures that will explicitly confirm this statement. And there is much more we could learn about Christ in just this way. To insist that one must embrace the Trinity first is simply to put the cart before the horse – and a cart that may or may not be worth pulling, at that.

      I hasten to say that I know by now that you disagree with this. However, I am not at this point trying to convince you that I am right. I’m only trying to demonstrate that I’m not being circular in my reasoning about it. In any case, I hope I have not offended you again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.