Barna Poll: Most Americans - Including Church Members - Reject the Trinity

[Wrangler]

It’s beginning to turn into an argument. This was supposed to be a clinical, unemotional, education on the development of historical orthodox trinitarianism in and by the church. I’m close to requesting that the thread be closed.

I agree and was tempted to make a similar post.

The trinity dogma invokes such passion, is so near and dear to people's hearts, they struggle to achieve the objectivity to realize it has evolved over time. This, even though you've done a great job in this thread showing that evolution. "Defender of the Faith" is noble but don't question too much what faith one is defending.

 

[Matthias]

I agree and was tempted to make a similar post.

I don’t want to do it but I will if it becomes necessary. A moderator may step in at any moment of their own accord and close it anyway.

The trinity dogma invokes such passion, is so near and dear to people's hearts, they struggle to achieve the objectivity to realize it has evolved over time. This, even though you've done a great job in this thread showing that evolution. "Defender of the Faith" is noble but don't question too much what faith one is defending.

I believe in the constraints of history. They ground us.

It would be better if a trinitarian member walked us through it but that’s part of the problem. Church history is of little interest to most people.

 

[Wrangler]

This poll shows only 11% of Christians in America believe in the trinity. Some excerpts:

• Poll conducted by Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University
• responses collected from 2,100 adults in January.
• Overall, just 40% of respondents believe that God exists and affects people’s lives.
  • That figure rises to 53% among self-identified Christians,
  • 60% among theologically-identified born-again Christians, and
  • 100% among Integrated Disciples.
• (59%) believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, a significantly smaller share of adults (29%) believe in the Holy Spirit.
  • Honestly, this doesn't seem plausible.
• Belief in the trinity increases to 16% among self-identified Christians. (Makes me wonder how the 11% are defined?)
  • 24% among theologically-identified born-again Christians and
  • 62% among Integrated Disciples.
• CRC Director of Research George Barna

A Pew study on religion was much more vague in its questions. This poll shows 62% of the nearly 2,000 people polled said that the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Triune Godhead, but is rather simply a vague representation of God’s attributes.

Barna conducted another survey (here) that shows Seven out of 10 US adults call themselves “Christians” and yet only 6 in 100 (6%) actually have a biblical worldview. Perhaps this is basis for the 11% v 16% discrepancy above? I take it as a given that we all rely on the Bible as our source of authority. This polls reveals there are "nominal" or cultural Christians.

 

[Wrangler]

Church history is of little interest to most people.

Most people aren't interested in history. So, they are doomed to repeat it per Lord Acton's quip.

 

[Matthias]

This poll shows only 11% of Christians in America believe in the trinity. Some excerpts:

• Poll conducted by Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University
• responses collected from 2,100 adults in January.
• Overall, just 40% of respondents believe that God exists and affects people’s lives.
  • That figure rises to 53% among self-identified Christians,
  • 60% among theologically-identified born-again Christians, and
  • 100% among Integrated Disciples.
• (59%) believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, a significantly smaller share of adults (29%) believe in the Holy Spirit.
  • Honestly, this doesn't seem plausible.
• Belief in the trinity increases to 16% among self-identified Christians. (Makes me wonder how the 11% are defined?)
  • 24% among theologically-identified born-again Christians and
  • 62% among Integrated Disciples.
• CRC Director of Research George Barna

A Pew study on religion was much more vague in its questions. This poll shows 62% of the nearly 2,000 people polled said that the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Triune Godhead, but is rather simply a vague representation of God’s attributes.

Barna conducted another survey (here) that shows Seven out of 10 US adults call themselves “Christians” and yet only 6 in 100 (6%) actually have a biblical worldview. Perhaps this is basis for the 11% v 16% discrepancy above? I take it as a given that we all rely on the Bible as our source of authority. This polls reveals there are "nominal" or cultural Christians.

Whatever stock we put into such polls, they point to some degree of educational failure.

 

[Wrangler]

I believe this is true and is a reflection of freedom. Barna: Most Americans Create a “Customized Worldview”

It makes talking to people more difficult because the frame of reference has to be established. I suppose it also makes conversation more interesting. There is not a lot of passionate discussion and political debate that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Matthias]

Most people aren't interested in history. So, they are doomed to repeat it per Lord Acton's quip.

So what does that produce in this case?

It produces the spectacle of a trinitarian parade being led by a Jewish monotheist drum major who knows the history.

A trinitarian member who knows the history should be leading the parade. In their absence, I’m filling the gap.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes.

so what do you do with the fact the Jews accused him of calling himself God. and the fact. Jesus did not correct Thomas when Thomas called him God?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It’s beginning to turn into an argument. This was supposed to be a clinical, unemotional, education on the development of historical orthodox trinitarianism in and by the church. I’m close to requesting that the thread be closed.

How about what the bible says?

but Yes. these debates will get heated. its sad.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I would like for us to get back to the creeds. We left off with the Apostles’ Creed. Would one of the trinitarian members post the original Nicene Creed here for us?

again, what about what the word says

Any creed is not inspired. I would hope we are not relying on some creed for our doctrinal truth.. or am I missing something?

 

[Matthias]

so what do you do with the fact the Jews accused him of calling himself God. and the fact. Jesus did not correct Thomas when Thomas called him God?

That’s a fine question but it falls outside of the focus of this thread.

My answer to your question doesn’t have anything to do with educating people about the doctrine of the Trinity. Right?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don’t want to do it but I will if it becomes necessary. A moderator may step in at any moment of their own accord and close it anyway.



I believe in the constraints of history. They ground us.

It would be better if a trinitarian member walked us through it but that’s part of the problem. Church history is of little interest to most people.

That's because we have precedence

Jewish history would prove Jesus was a Hypocrite. a blasphemer (he called himself God) and a false teacher.

so why would we want to risk making the same mistake?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Most people aren't interested in history. So, they are doomed to repeat it per Lord Acton's quip.

I love history

and am trying NOT to make the same mistake. by relying on uninspired history. and relying on the word of God

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So what does that produce in this case?

It produces the spectacle of a trinitarian parade being led by a Jewish monotheist drum major who knows the history.

A trinitarian member who knows the history should be leading the parade. In their absence, I’m filling the gap.

But your using a flawed history.

The Jews tried this, and crucified Christ because they used flawed history and not the word of God

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That’s a fine question but it falls outside of the focus of this thread.

My answer to your question doesn’t have anything to do with educating people about the doctrine of the Trinity. Right?

Actually yes it would.

If Jesus is God. and as we have seen, the HS (a seperate entity) is God.

well the trinity is confirmed.

It does not matter what historical words of men say.

 

[Matthias]

again, what about what the word says

The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written by Jewish monotheists. Trinitarianism is built upon those writings.

Any creed is not inspired.

I don’t agree with that and I doubt that those who recite the trinitarian creeds will agree with you about that.

I would hope we are not relying on some creed for our doctrinal truth.. or am I missing something?

 

[Wrangler]

so what do you do with the fact the Jews accused him of calling himself God. and the fact. Jesus did not correct Thomas when Thomas called him God?

That's because we have precedence

Jewish history would prove Jesus was a Hypocrite. a blasphemer (he called himself God) and a false teacher.

so why would we want to risk making the same mistake?

You want to debate theology rather than discuss history.

I love history

Your posts don't reflect love of history.

 

[Matthias]

But your using a flawed history.

I’m using church history. Why do you believe church history is flawed?

The Jews tried this, and crucified Christ because they used flawed history and not the word of God

 

[Matthias]

That's because we have precedence

Jewish history would prove Jesus was a Hypocrite. a blasphemer (he called himself God) and a false teacher.

so why would we want to risk making the same mistake?

Jewish history doesn’t prove Jesus was a hypocrite, a blasphemer and a false teacher.

The church began as a sect of Judaism. It was comprised almost entirely of Jewish monotheists who believed that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. That’s primitive Christianity.

The history of Christianity begins in Jewish history.

 

[Wrangler]

I love history

Then you'd enjoy Why Christianity Must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong. He details how when Jesus became the son of God varied in the Apostolic writings and says it is embarrassing that the church does not admit this embarrassing fact. That the later the writing, the earlier Jesus was identified as the son of God. The oldest writing is after the resurrection. Then at his baptism. Then at birth. Finally, at the beginning of creation. The trend is unmistakable.

You'd also enjoy When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein, that delves into the political drivers of our modern doctrines.