Discussion with an
Angry Anti-Trinitarian

© Spotlight Ministries, Vincent McCann, 2006
www.spotlightministries.org.uk



It never ceases to surprise me just how antagonistic some people can be towards the doctrine of the Trinity. I can understand people disagreeing with a doctrine, and that is fair enough, but when someone is openly hostile, insulting, and ridiculing of a belief that is quite another thing. Throughout the years, this has often been my experience when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity with the various non-Trinitarian groups. It really does seem to bring out the worst in some people and an email discussion I had (see below) serves to illustrate this.

Romans 8:7 says that the natural nature of man (the sinful nature) is at enmity with God. Maybe many non-Trinitarians react so badly to the doctrine of the Trinity because it is their fallen nature that is reacting against God’s true nature? Just a thought.

The email discussion also illustrates that some people will pretty much refuse to listen to any apologetic counter-defence or any answers to common objections that they may have against this doctrine.

Anyway, here is the email discussion, starting with the first message I had sent to me through my website link:



Subject: Still Confused?
Date: 20/09/2006 09:37:04 GMT Standard Time
From: [Email]
Reply To:
To: VSpotlight



Still Confused?

Let's put this whole religion thing into proper perspective, shall we? You believe that Jesus Christ is a LOSER, and I don't. Bottom line -- Only LOSERS are stupid enough to believe in some defective idiot god who's a LOSER.

Is this a good time to do an idol worshipers "Alter-call" and recite your non-biblical LOSERS prayer?


Bills

PS -- Like Sir Isaac Newton, I too reject the Trinity!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 21/09/2006 22:40:58 GMT Standard Time
From: VSpotlight
Reply To:
To: [Email]


Hi,

Interesting email.

May I ask what your religion is?

Best regards to you,

Vince



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 22/09/2006 10:09:14 GMT Standard Time
From: [Email]
Reply To:
To: VSpotlight


Like you, and Sir Isaac Newton, I'm a Christian. Unlike you, and just like Sir Isaac Newton, I don't believe your incomprehensible Trinitarian garbage which is absent from every book of ancient scripture. This erroneous non-biblical philosophy was developed in the late second and third centuries AD, long after all the early Apostles were killed -- It's BOGUS!

Is this a good time to do an idol worshipers "Alter-call" and recite your non-biblical LOSERS prayer? All these erroneous concepts have NEVER been mentioned in scripture.

All the very best to you too,

Bills


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 22/09/2006 21:06:05 GMT Standard Time
From: VSpotlight
Reply To:
To: [Email]


Hi again,

Thanks for the charming email.

If you claim to be a Christian and believe in the Bible may I ask what is your view of the Godhead, if not Trinitarian? For example, I assume you believe in just One Almighty Jehovah God like me? That is a starting point. Now then, what is your view of Jesus? Do you view Him as God, a god, or neither? What of the Holy Spirit? Is He God, and is He even a person in your view?

Some more questions in answer to some of the things you asked last time -

Some of the grounds upon which you reject the Trinity are as follows:

A. Because it was formulated late.

B. You claim it is incomprehensible.

C. The Trinity is absent from the Bible.

Consider:

A. Just because a doctrine is formulated late does this give us grounds for rejecting it? If you feel that it does (as I assume you do from what you have said) then why do you hold to the 27 New Testament books as the Word of God? They too, as a canon, were formulated late, in the 4th century. And by the way, the first person to write a list of all the books that were to be accepted as canonical from then right up until now, was a Trinitarian defender - Athanasius. What is your take on that? You are reading from a NT Canon that was first recognized by a Trinitarian! Does God use Trinitarians to handle His Holy Word in this way?

B. You claim that the Trinity is incomprehensible? Let me ask you this: Do you believe that God is an eternal and infinite Being? Has He, in your view always existed and will never have an end? If so, how do you comprehend that with your finite mind?

C. You say that the Trinity is absent from the Bible. If by this you mean the word Trinity then I agree. But is this sound reasoning by which to reject it? No. Is the word 'millennium' in the Bible? No. Do you believe in it? Probably. What about 'theocracy? Do you believe in that? I am sure you do. Do you reject it? Probably not. Why? Because the concepts are in the Bible. Same is so with the Trinity.

Looking forward to your answers.

Best regards,
Vince


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 22/09/2006 22:25:04 GMT Standard Time
From: [Email]
Reply To:
To: Vspotlight

I believe like the early Arian Christians: "Before Jesus Christ there was God."

When I think of God I'm thinking the ultimate in attributes of Eternal PERFECTION -- NOT suffering and death. Clearly, Jesus himself testified he was the Son of God and the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Each of the early Apostles also testify to this important fact. He also stated that his Father was greater than himself. Was Jesus telling us a lie, or were you just confused over your own interpretive religious philosophy?

Paul said of him, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec."

If Jesus Christ has always been Jehovah God, why would he need to learn obedience, and to suffer, and to be made perfect? Your interpretive religious philosophy makes absolutely NO sense at all. Plainly put -- It's DOG VOMIT theology! I challenge anyone to explain the mysterious incomprehensible Trinity so that it makes sense. Care to give it a try?

In addition to the Bible, I believe the Word of God can be found in other ancient books of Scripture -- Like the Book Of Enoch. If Enoch is clearly quoted in both the Old and New Testaments, why was it intentionally out of the canon?

Is this a good time to do an idol worshipers "Alter-call" and recite your non-biblical LOSERS prayer?

All the very best to you,

Bills


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 26/09/2006 19:50:44 GMT Standard Time
From: VSpotlight
Reply To:
To: [Email]


Hi again,

The points you make about Jesus saying His Father is greater than He, and that He learnt obedience etc. are all to do with Jesus being a man on earth. These in no way detract from Him being God as well. He is God and man.

Have you ever considered John 20:28 where Thomas said to Jesus "The Lord of me and the God (ho theos) of me" (literal GK) Thomas was a Jew. Who was Thomas' God?

You believe in Enoch as Scripture because it is quoted in the Bible? If that is the case then do you accept the writings of pagan philosophers too as they are also quoted in the Bible?

It should be remembered that the Bible quotes from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts 17:28); Menander (1 Cor. 15:33); and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). If truth is being communicated, whether it is uttered by a heathen poet, a pagan prophet (Num. 24:17), or even a dumb animal (Num. 22:28), this in no way detracts from the truthfulness of the statement. However, it doesn't mean that it should be added to the canon either. Same is so for the book of Enoch.

What about the other books the Bible mentions: The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13); Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Book of Nathan the Prophet and Gad the Seer (1 Chron 29:29); Book of Ahijah the Shilonite and Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chron. 9:29); ...etc, etc. etc (I could go on). Do you happen to have any of these to lay your hands on? Again, just because a book is mentioned doesn't make it canonical.

You have said on three occasions now that the alter call prayer is non-biblical and "a losers prayer" (?) If you feel it is non-biblical why not simply say so? There is no need to lower oneself to ad hominem statements now is there? Be that as it may, the prayer is scriptural. Here are some of the scriptures that make it up (more could be added):

Repent (Mark 1:15; Acts 3:19)
Believe (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24)
Come to Jesus (Matt. 11:28; John 5:39-40, 6:35-37, 41-45, 65; 7:37-39)
Receive Jesus into your life (John 1:12; Rev. 3:20; Col. 2:6)

Rather than being a loser’s prayer, it is a winner’s prayer. Since praying that prayer 17 years ago God has lead me through winning situations.

How do you understand becoming a Christian? What body of believers do you associate with? If you don't associate with anybody then who baptized you? I also feel that you have been strongly influenced by either Jehovah's Witness or Christadelphian doctrine somewhere along the way, or possibly Oneness theology.

Have a look at my page on the Trinity as it may answer some of your concerns:

http://spotlightministries.org.uk/trinitydefended.htm

Best regards,
Vince


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 27/09/2006 06:57:30 GMT Standard Time
From: [Email]
Reply To:
To: VSpotlight


If I should disagree with your own interpretive religious philosophy, does that automatically label me as a cultist too?

Like Sir Isaac Newton, I don't believe your fraudulent incomprehensible Trinitarian idol god. Plainly put -- It's DOG VOMIT theology!

All the very best,

Bills


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 27/09/2006 11:29:07 GMT Standard Time
From: VSpotlight
Reply To:
To: [Email]


Hi Bill,

I see that you haven't addressed some of the questions I have asked but please at least look over the last couple of emails I sent and have a think about them (and maybe the URL with the articles on the Trinity too). Sure, the Trinity and the Deity of Christ are difficult doctrines, but there are many things about God we cannot comprehend. If we understood all there is to know about God we would be God would we not?

Why do you label the Trinity an idol God? Do you feel that it is linked to pagan philosophy or the like? Please let me know so we can discuss this.

In almost every email from you so far you have mentioned Isaac Newton. To be sure, he was a great man, but whether he affirmed or rejected the Trinity or not has very little to do with Trinitarian faith. The question is - Is the doctrine of the Trinity faithful to the Scriptures? I believe it is, very much so. In fact, after spending many years studying it, and carefully examining the other contenders for explanation of the Godhead (Arianism, modalism, unitarianism, etc) I believe it is by far the one that is most faithful to God's Word. To hold to a different view of the Godhead leaves one with some terrible and contradictory difficulties.

all the best,

Vince



Subject: Cultist?
Date: 27/09/2006 11:48:22 GMT Standard Time
From: VSpotlight
Reply To:
To: [Email]


Hi again Bill (or Bills),

Sorry, forgot to make comment on this in your last email:

In a message dated 27/09/2006 06:57:30 GMT Standard Time, Bills writes:

If I should disagree with your own interpretive religious philosophy, does that automatically label me as a cultist too?

The short answer to this is yes. Now before you discount the rest of my email let me explain. The body of the church throughout its history has held to certain time tested beliefs all of which find there grounding in God's Word. Since the Trinity was formulated in the 4th century it has remained as a doctrine (and be aware that I am saying formulated not invented as I believe that the evidence shows that the earliest Christians already had an inherent Trinitarian belief and that this only had to be defended and articulated in the 4th century when the Arians came along and forced the main body of the church to formulate what they meant).

By rejecting this you are cutting yourself off from the main body of believers throughout history. The only other option is to join one of the many non-Trinitarian groups about: JWs, christadelphians, the way international, oneness pentecostals, etc. All of these groups, however, as well as denying the Trinity, have numerous theological difficulties and are dogged by many scandals and doctrinal flip flops, false prophecies, etc.

So a cult is a cult from a theological perspective. But it can also be so from a sociological perspective too. Often, the above mentioned groups are both.

Now before you get angry, remember you asked the question about cults. However, you can only be in a cult if you belong to a group. So what group are you part of? Or are you an individual setting out by himself? If the latter, you cannot be a one man band as God has called us into a body - His Church, a fellowship of believers. Who will ever baptize you if you are in disagreement with everyone else?

Also, remember, that by applying the word cultist I am not being insulting. In fact, I have refrained from using such words as you have to me in our emails. A sampling of the words you have applied to me and my beliefs: “dog vomit theology, idol worshipper, fraudulent incomprehensible Trinitarian idol god, Only LOSERS are stupid enough to believe in some defective idiot god who's a LOSER.”

You are certainly entitled to say whatever you want Bills and if you feel the need to continue using these terms then feel free. However, bear in mind that I (someone you feel to be an idol worshipping loser) have not applied such terms to yourself. I personally do not feel that such terms are helpful in theological discussions as they do not get to heart of the matter of the discussion but rather aid in deviating from it.

All the very best to you,

Vince


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject: Re: Still Confused?
Date: 28/09/2006 12:25:37 GMT Standard Time
From: [Email]
Reply To:
To: VSpotlight


The point is -- You missed the point!

Cultist or not, I really don't care what you think. I'm fully capable of thinking and deciding for myself, with the aid of my own God given intelligence.

Regardless the number of years you have spent studying religious subjects and the Trinity, I still disagree with your personal interpretive religious philosophy. You are NOT God, or the final word on subject of religion!

All the very best,

Bills


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| Home Page | Religious Groups | The New Age Movement | The Occult, Wicca, Witchcraft, Paganism, etc. | Apologetics | Theology | Spiritual Abuse | Ethics & Issues | Links to Other Sites |