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

[Michiah-Imla]

None of the New Testament writings mention a trinity.

None of the New Testament writings mention a belief in a trinity as a way to discern true believers.

 

[Matthias]

I don't find this particularly troubling. All of the statements affirmed here are true. Perhaps they don't constitute Trinitarianism, but being true is enough for me.

If it’s true then it should be believed, no matter who says it. As I pointed out, the largest branch of unitarianism believes it is true. Everyone should know what the church which affirms the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity thinks about that and why it thinks what it does about that. This is a where proper education on the Trinity is needed.

I’ll have to find the quote and post it (somewhere) in which a trinitarian clergyman asserted that the majority of trinitarians aren’t trinitarian but rather functionally unitarian. Like me, he didn’t need the poll to tell him that only 16% of Christians believe in the Trinity.

Do we really need some kind of -ism with which to exclude each other?

That’s a question which I’ll take as rhetorical. The post-biblical church, dominated by gentiles, insisted upon it. Those who have been properly instructed in church history and trinitarian doctrine will know this. Those who haven’t been may or may not know this. It’s not at all uncommon to hear even trinitarians recoil on -isms.

Again, this doesn't seem like a pressing problem. Church history is more often a cautionary tale, than something to emulate.

Those who don’t emulate it are renegade.

Personally, I find studies of the early church rewarding, and the later we get in history, the more questionable it becomes.

Where anyone establishes the line for “later” has consequences. For me, ”later” is virtually synonymous with “post-biblical”. That’s not all the case with those who affirm the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

I'm not convinced that a nuanced understanding of the Godhead is all that important.

The church which affirms belief in the Trinity thinks it’s extremely important. There was a time went it went to great lengths to enforce it. That, too, is something which I assert should be taught in every church. It raises some disturbing questions, and that might be a reason that it typically isn’t.

If there was one area where I'd like the church to be a little more educated, it would be understanding what Jesus actually taught. How can one be a follower of Christ, if they don't know what He taught in the first place?

Another poke in the already blackened eye of the trinitarian (and in some cases, non-trinitarian) clergy.

It wasn’t long ago that a Christian member of the forum was insisting, against the constraints of history, that neither the prophets nor Jesus, the apostles and the earliest Christians were Jewish.

“Moses the trinitarian”, to name only one for example, is fiction. Understanding what Jewish monotheists “actually taught” is dangerous ground that should be taught in every church.

 

[Matthias]

None of the New Testament writings mention a trinity.

None of the New Testament writings mention a belief in a trinity as a way to discern true believers.

I understand your position; the trinitarians do too. It’s been beaten to death.

What you stated is potentially going to provoke the argument which I explicitly stated in the OP is not the intention of the thread. (I’m not a trinitarian but your comment put me on the brink of doing what a zealous trinitarian will be almighty tempted to do. I’m asking them to exercise restraint.)

If that argument happens, I’ll ask the moderators to close the thread.

Educating Christians (and non-Christians) who reject the Trinity about the Trinity is for the purpose of enabling people to know and understand what the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity teaches so that they can make an informed decision. I’m not attempting to push people into trinitarianism and I’m not trying to pull people out of trinitarianism.

P.S.

I know this is asking a lot from everyone. It’s an emotional issue and good people on both sides will struggle to confine themselves to the focus which I established in the OP. What I’m asking for is going to require a great deal of restraint from us all. I have my doubts that it’s possible in this environment. I’m trying to make something sterile and clinical which normally is not.

What does the historical orthodox doctrine teach? That’s it. That’s all.

I don’t care if someone thinks what it teaches is right or is wrong. I only want people to know and understand what it teaches, and church history is the vehicle which will get us there.

That is why I’m calling for it to be taught in churches and in homes.

 

[Wick Stick]

Those who don’t emulate [church history] are renegade.

Disagree - most churches today aren't trying to emulate the early church. They are looking for something "relevant to today."

Where anyone establishes the line for “later” has consequences. For me, ”later” is virtually synonymous with “post-biblical”. That’s not all the case with those who affirm the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

Academia draws that line at Nicea; with Eusebius. If you purchase a library of Early Church Fathers, the first set is Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The church which affirms belief in the Trinity thinks it’s extremely important. There was a time went it went to great lengths to enforce it. That, too, is something which I assert should be taught in every church. It raises some disturbing questions, and that might be a reason that it typically isn’t.

The history of the Catholic church is often off-putting and political. I assume they don't teach their parishioners about that one time they exhumed the corpse of a former pope and put the cadaver on trial for crimes.

“Moses the trinitarian”, to name only one for example, is fiction. Understanding what Jewish monotheists “actually taught” is dangerous ground that should be taught in every church.

Seems like Moses was a monolatrist.

 

[Matthias]

Disagree - most churches today aren't trying to emulate the early church. They are looking for something "relevant to today."

Most people today believe they are emulating the early church in their theology. Most clergy are focusing their attention on “Christian living”, not on teaching church history.

A very good friend of mine is a trinitarian pastor. We’ve discussed the matter a few times. He once told me that people don’t attend church to listen to sermons on church history and doctrine.

Academia draws that line at Nicea; with Eusebius. If you purchase a library of Early Church Fathers, the first set is Ante-Nicene Fathers.

I purchased the set a quarter of a century ago. For the past two years I’ve documented my journey of reading and rereading it on the forum while encouraging my readers to do the same. Every church should be doing it. No one is interested.

The history of the Catholic church is often off-putting and political. I assume they don't teach their parishioners about that one time they exhumed the corpse of a former pope and put the cadaver on trial for crimes.

Seems like Moses was a monolatrist.

We can discuss it another time. I’m trying to focus in this thread on what the historical doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

The thread is going to be particularly difficult for those members who reject the Trinity to navigate. They’re itching to argue against it, which the rules prohibit “Christian” members from doing.

Many of the arguments I’ve seen between those who affirm the Trinity and those who reject the Trinity involve ignorance about what the historical doctrine teaches on the part of both parties. The purpose of this thread is to clinically educate both sides, which is what I’ve been calling for all churches to do.

 

[soberxp]

So please begin your lecture on the interpretation of the Trinity.

 

[Matthias]

So please begin your lecture on the interpretation of the Trinity.

Thank you for the invitation but this thread has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Trinity. When I taught the doctrine I played it straight. The doctrine teaches what it does no matter what I think about it.

[Anyone who has been a member here for a while knows that I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.

I have a signature which appears at the bottom of every message that I post. This post is #18,899 for me. That‘s now 18,899 times for people to see, know and understand that I’m “the hound of Jewish monotheism.” I’ve concealed it from no one. (Around 20 years ago a trinitarian bound and determined to publicly degrade and humiliate me - it’s a word play, a hound is a dog - pinned that moniker on me. I soon came to embrace it, even to the point of having it engraved on my tombstone one day.)]

 

[soberxp]

Thank you for the invitation but this thread has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Trinity. When I taught the doctrine I played it straight. The doctrine teaches what it does no matter what I think about it.

[Anyone who has been a member here for a while knows that I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.

I have a signature which appears at the bottom of every message that I post. This post is #18,899 for me. That‘s now 18,899 times for people to see, know and understand that I’m “the hound of Jewish monotheism.” I’ve concealed it from no one. (Around 20 years ago a trinitarian bound and determined to publicly degrade and humiliate me - it’s a word play, a hound is a dog - pinned that moniker on me. I soon came to embrace it, even to the point of having it engraved on my tombstone one day.)]

I don't understand....
I have no such thoughts as the one you mentioned.

 

[Wick Stick]

Most clergy are focusing their attention on “Christian living”, not on teaching church history.

It depends on your church. Catholic priests preach in homilies - that is they recite large swaths of the Biblical text with a small amount of commentary attached. Good Catholics also learn catechism, which is more about tradition than history per se. Finally, Catholic services are in no small amount about performance, rather than teaching. Catholicism is sacramental, after all.

Topical sermons are most popular at Protestant churches, but most things are meant to be hortatory - to give hope and encouragement to their parishioners that they can take into their everyday lives.

Side note - though a Protestant, I find homilies superior to topical sermons. It is easy to go into error teaching a topic across scattered verses. It is hard to go wrong teaching people the text of the Bible.

A very good friend of mine is a trinitarian pastor. We’ve discussed the matter a few times. He once told me that people don’t attend church to listen to sermons on church history and doctrine.

I agree. As a former pastor/Sunday-school teacher, I'd say that sermons are the part of church that people endure to get to the good stuff. People come for the fellowship, the singing, the after-church pot-lucks. They'll even show up for early Sunday-school before the main service if you provide donuts and orange juice.

And you know what? They're right. The fellowship and community IS what it's all about. Church is not primarily an educational endeavor. We are not gnostics; nobody gets educated unto salvation.

I purchased the set a quarter of a century ago. For the past two years I’ve documented my journey of reading and rereading it on the forum while encouraging my readers to do the same. Every church should be doing it. No one is interested.

Oh... people aren't merely disinterested. They're actively set against it. Church-goers distrust the early-church-fathers, the deuterocanon, church history, and anything else "religious" that isn't explicitly Scripture.

We can discuss it another time. I’m trying to focus in this thread on what the historical doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

The thread is going to be particularly difficult for those members who reject the Trinity to navigate. They’re itching to argue against it, which the rules prohibit “Christian” members from doing.

Many of the arguments I’ve seen between those who affirm the Trinity and those who reject the Trinity involve ignorance about what the historical doctrine teaches on the part of both parties. The purpose of this thread is to clinically educate both sides, which is what I’ve been calling for all churches to do.

You earlier mentioned the creeds. Would it be helpful to post the text of those creeds?

 

[Matthias]

I don't understand....
I have no such thoughts as the one you mentioned.

The trinitarian was calling me a dog. A dog is an unclean animal in scripture. He was dehumanizing me.

To hound is also to pursue something relentlessly. In my case that something is Jewish monotheism.

That’s the word play: He was saying in a thinly guarded way that I’m nothing but an unclean animal, a worthless dirty dog, who harassed people by relentlessly speaking to anyone who would listen about Jewish monotheism. He wanted my voice silenced. It became a phrase of endearment to me. I’m not at all offended by it.

It could have been worse. He publicly asked the forum administrator to require me to begin every post shouting the words Unclean! Unclean!, like a leper. The administrator - who was himself agnostic but enjoyed discussing theology - publicly declined his request.

There are members here who from the beginning wanted (and still want) my voice silenced.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches what it does no matter who teaches it - even the hound of Jewish monotheism.

 

[Matthias]

It depends on your church. Catholic priests preach in homilies - that is they recite large swaths of the Biblical text with a small amount of commentary attached. Good Catholics also learn catechism, which is more about tradition than history per se. Finally, Catholic services are in no small amount about performance, rather than teaching. Catholicism is sacramental, after all.

Topical sermons are most popular at Protestant churches, but most things are meant to be hortatory - to give hope and encouragement to their parishioners that they can take into their everyday lives.

Side note - though a Protestant, I find homilies superior to topical sermons. It is easy to go into error teaching a topic across scattered verses. It is hard to go wrong teaching people the text of the Bible.

I agree. As a former pastor/Sunday-school teacher, I'd say that sermons are the part of church that people endure to get to the good stuff. People come for the fellowship, the singing, the after-church pot-lucks. They'll even show up for early Sunday-school before the main service if you provide donuts and orange juice.

And you know what? They're right. The fellowship and community IS what it's all about. Church is not primarily an educational endeavor. We are not gnostics; nobody gets educated unto salvation.

Oh... people aren't merely disinterested. They're actively set against it. Church-goers distrust the early-church-fathers, the deuterocanon, church history, and anything else "religious" that isn't explicitly Scripture.


You earlier mentioned the creeds. Would it be helpful to post the text of those creeds?

Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to post the text of those creeds. That’s a very good suggestion. You could do it, I could do it, anyone who wants to could do it. It doesn’t matter who posts them. The trinitarian creeds teach trinitarian orthodoxy.

If I was going to do it I would begin with the original Nicene Creed and the amended / revised Nicene Creed.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to post the text of those creeds. That’s a very good suggestion. You could do it, I could do it, anyone who wants to could do it. It doesn’t matter who posts them. The trinitarian creeds teach trinitarian orthodoxy.

If I was going to do it I would begin with the original Nicene Creed and the amended / revised Nicene Creed.

I might start at the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

Although I must admit, it isn't exactly Trinitarian. There is nothing there of the Spirit.

 

[Matthias]

I might start at the Apostle's Creed:

Although I must admit, it isn't exactly Trinitarian. There is nothing there of the Spirit.

That’s fine. Many trinitarian churches recite the Apostles’ Creed. The trinitarian church I was raised in (Southern Baptist) isn’t creedal. It was quite a while before I even became aware (in a short Bible study led by the pastor) that there were any such thing as creeds. It’s not that the church doesn’t agree with what the creeds teach - it does. I didn’t know it because we didn’t recite them and I was oblivious to the fact that other trinitarian churches do recite them. That Bible study is what kick-started me into learning about church history and proved to be a critical moment in my spiritual development.

As a Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, I have no issue that would prevent me from reciting the Apostles’ Creed with a clear conscience. If we could stop there … but we can’t. The church didn’t. The theological shift is still in progress. With the Apostles’ Creed we haven’t yet reached trinitarian orthodoxy and I’m still in the church. But Nicaea is lurking - and that is going to cause a problem for me; even though it falls short of establishing trinitarian orthodoxy, as we will see.

 

[Hepzibah]

@Matthias is correct about one important thing, that the doctrine of the Trinity being taught in the western part of the church, is NOT that which was taught from the beginning, though not as he explains it which was condemned as heresy. The west as a whole, are following wrong teaching which became systemic once the split between east and west occurred in the 11th Century.

The early church taught Monarchial Trinitarianism. Briefly, it says that there is only one God the Father, who is unbegotten (not like the Son), and unproceeding (not like the Holy Spirit) and from whom all things have their source.

Once I read the Orthodox explanation, and compared it to scripture, I knew that I had been subject to this wrong teaching and would never return to it.

I am not going to debate this subject as the OP says he does not want this, I am just presenting the most scriptural teaching on it for consideration.

 

[Debp]

None of the New Testament writings mention a trinity.

None of the New Testament writings mention a belief in a trinity as a way to discern true believers.

Likewise I don't wish to debate. But must say the concept of the Trinity is in the Scriptures.

Jesus spoke of His Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Likewise I don't wish to debate. But must say the concept of the Trinity is in the Scriptures.

Jesus spoke of His Father and the Holy Spirit.

Don't you realize that speaking of something does not make the trinity doctrine? Jesus spoke of many things. We don't roll up everyone he ever mentioned into a multiple-person person. It's a simple Biblical fact that Jesus did not teach the trinity or that it is important to believe it. Maybe that's why the poll result is what it is.

 

[JohnDB]

Barna releases and promotes the most Christian hating surveys of any opinion institution.

It has in fact created the imfamous push polls. And taught others how not to do polling.

I take anything they say with little regard.

That being said,
If you do not believe in the Trinity
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

Then you are not a Christian.

Christian means "little christ" or like the Messiah. And if Jesus wasn't God then the sacrifice for sins was insufficient...and we have no atonement before God the father. And if the Holy Spirit is not God then you do not believe Jesus who declared it so and the Apostles many miracles were the work of Satan.

So....no Trinity and "Houston, we have a problem".

 

[Rockerduck]

There have been polls that have shown that even born-again from above Christians have a lack of biblical knowledge now, more than in the past 100 years. I say 100 yrs. because every church, school, and college taught bible. Movies in the 1930's had biblical references. In the 1800's, you could openly discuss the bible anywhere. Preaching was an honored profession, like and doctor. The pastor came to people's houses to preach to the children. etc.

If you read the bible, with the Holy Spirit as a teacher, you will see the Trinity plainly in the scriptures.

 

[JohnDB]

There have been polls that have shown that even born-again from above Christians have a lack of biblical knowledge now, more than in the past 100 years. I say 100 yrs. because every church, school, and college taught bible. Movies in the 1930's had biblical references. In the 1800's, you could openly discuss the bible anywhere. Preaching was an honored profession, like and doctor. The pastor came to people's houses to preach to the children. etc.

If you read the bible, with the Holy Spirit as a teacher, you will see the Trinity plainly in the scriptures.

There's a lot of people who claim Christ but don't know the first thing about what it means to be a Christian. They don't go to church or if they do its something akin to Joel Olsteens Church where they do not even mention God or Jesus on a regular basis. (It really is not part of their lessons and MANY copycat churches like his).

You being from Marietta....
Most Churches in GA have 75 or less members total. Of which ⅓ to a quarter are there on Sunday mornings. (If they meet every week)
There are literally tens of thousands of these churches.
Larger churches with hundreds of members or thousands....they are the backbone. They provide all the "fun stuff" like Awana and summer bible school programs for children.

 

[Rockerduck]

There's a lot of people who claim Christ but don't know the first thing about what it means to be a Christian. They don't go to church or if they do its something akin to Joel Olsteens Church where they do not even mention God or Jesus on a regular basis. (It really is not part of their lessons and MANY copycat churches like his).

You being from Marietta....
Most Churches in GA have 75 or less members total. Of which ⅓ to a quarter are there on Sunday mornings. (If they meet every week)
There are literally tens of thousands of these churches.
Larger churches with hundreds of members or thousands....they are the backbone. They provide all the "fun stuff" like Awana and summer bible school programs for children.

I've been to a lot of Churches in the south. God calls me to a church. I agree with your assessment on the size of the churches, but in the 1960's in the South, the typical size was also 75 or less also. The difference was how many times they went to church. In the 1900's, before ww1, Church attendance was every day. It was the Christian social place to be away from the world. The elementary school began at the Church. Most attended the same church for life and was buried in the church cemetery.

I attend a big Church now, and the Sunday school classes have around 35 members and are strong, baby boomer, Christians. Case to the point- the whole church of 1000"s are now going through a Sunday School curriculum of the entire bible, because of the lack of fundamental doctrinal understanding in the younger generations. Of course, the older Christians are teaching, many retired pastors attend this church, some are evangelists, which there aren't anymore.