Trinity on Trial An in-depth examination of Trinitarian doctrine
A Personal Testimony

by K.N. Stovra

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

This is my personal testimony concerning my journey through and out of Trinitarianism. I had been a Trinitarian for nearly 40 years of my life. But all that changed one day when I decided to challenge my own beliefs and see if they were really true. Trinitarians have a very persistent propensity for spending every ounce of their energies convincing themselves why they should believe in this doctrine and rarely, if ever, spend any effort investigating why they should not. So I decided to do that one day and since that day everything changed.

The teaching of the Trinity was one of the first theological doctrines I ever learned. The verse at the bottom of this page is the first Bible verse I ever memorized. When I was about four or five years old in my Lutheran Sunday school, I looked over at a print hanging on the wall of a man looking up to God and asked my Sunday school teacher, my mother, to tell me who he was and she told me it was God's Son Jesus. I knew who that was right away so I then asked her if she would show me a picture of God. She kindly told me there was no picture of God but that Jesus was God and he was also God's Son. I distinctly remember thinking that day that something was not quite right about that statement. But I made no objections and listened in quiet submission to the teaching. When I was 12 years old, I began a year and a half of "Confirmation classes." The doctrine of the Trinity was one of the main teachings that we had to know and understand. By the time I was 14 years old I had a solid understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, a good comprehension of that doctrine according to Trinitarian criteria. I knew what it meant and how it was formulated. Shortly after this, I left Lutheranism and attended what are commonly called "Evangelical churches," a loose term for those denominations which have a distaste for historically mainstream denominations.

Years later I spent a considerable amount of time evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses on the streets and in my home, and sometimes chasing down the occasional Mormon for a little variety and apologetic fun. I evangelized their elders in my house and knew all the apologetic ropes and angles and so on and so forth. There was little I didn't know about defending the doctrine of the Trinity and many of them went home embarrassed when their tactics were met with very forceful counter arguments. Obviously, winning debates is not a measure of truth, especially when both parties are wrong. Some years later, I attended an evangelical Bible College and Seminary for a few years. And here my beliefs on this doctrine were further polished with respect to both historical and philosophical terms. Right about this point in time, I had purchased a book on evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses which contained a significant amount of information on Trinitarian apologetics. I was witnessing to a JW elder at the time. Something about this book really began to bother me as I was preparing my strategies. It was something which can be found in many Trinitarian apologetic books but it was here I really noticed it clearly for the first time.

Trinitarian apologists often accuse JW's of intentionally twisting and bending the truth to suit their belief system. It greatly disturbed me when I began to carefully observe that this type of apologetic seemed to be quite okay for us, but not for them. We Trinitarians seemed to have a double standard. We did the very same thing they did, but just denied that we did it. I began to note that many of the JW argumentation styles and methods, which were considered by us to be lame attempts at avoiding the truth, were the same type of thing we would do if necessary, and the only real difference was that our strategy appealed to our own belief system and their strategy to their system. We just denied it just as they denied it. It all seemed to come down to who could create the best "sounding" argument and so it was a matter of persuasiveness and not an earnest desire to be realistic and truthful. The real truth did not seem to really matter very much when it came to apologetics. It was all about "winning" and the tactics used where often less than pure. We simply assumed we had the truth and they simply assumed they had it. It was really a matter of picking sides, not a matter of choosing the truth. It was a matter of competitition, not a matter of actual truth seeking. This seemed terribly hypocritical to me and also seemed to advocate a self-righteous "let us do evil that good may result" disposition. I voiced my concern about these things to other Trinitarians but they did not seem to really care. Their main concern seemed to be that we "won." Contrive, contrive, contrive. Deny, deny, deny. How we went about it was quite irrelevant as long as appearances were good and the methods were deemed "ethical" according to our own standards of ethics. It disturbed me that other Trinitarians advocated things that were so plainly biased and unfounded and then we had the audacious gall to accuse the JW's of committing a crime when they were only doing the same thing as we were doing. As it was, we were simply getting from them a taste of our own medicine, our own bitter gall.

Nevertheless, like any other Trinitarian, I simply believed that we just couldn't be wrong and didn't wish to entertain that we could be wrong. After all, we had "scholars" in high places that "said so." And we made sure we exalted these scholars as if they were infallible on the matter, another troublesome thought. I still believed John 1:1 and John 20:28 were untouchable. The JW interpretations of those verses were obviously wrong. Being blinded between choosing their interpretation or ours, I was quite wrong and did not realize there were other options besides the Trinitarian, Modalist and JW type interpretations of those two passages. I did not realize that the Biblical truth was "none of the above." I did come to accept the fact that we Trinitarians were being quite disingenuous concerning some matters, and the JW's who were dishonest with some interpretations, were also likely more honest with other passages, such as Romans 9:5, especially in view of the fact that many other groups, and scholars, agreed these passages did not support Trintarianism. Something also bothered me about Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 but I could not quite yet put my finger on it. Perhaps it was the fact that Trinitarian translation scholars themselves did not think these passages referred to Jesus as God and their own Bible translations reflected that reality. So I resolved for myself not to get involved in anymore of that type of hypocrisy and tried to humbly admit that we Trinitarians really did have nothing for those particular verses and many others as well. Our apologetic should not be an illusion built on shakey ground but based on truth. Two wrongs did not make a right. And true Christians simply did not do evil that good may result either. Hypocrisy did not appeal to me although I am sure I will never be far beyond its reach. But it did not matter very much. We still had Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1 John 20:28, and perhaps a few others, or so I thought.

As I pursued my own studies after College hours, and as I continued my personal studies after I finished College, I began to notice something else which really bothered me. First there was the matter that scholars disagreed with each other on a whole variety of important theological questions. Scholarly credentials obviously did not equate to fact and truth. This eventually became quite easy to see because one scholar would disagree with another so it was common sense that at least one of them was wrong. One only had to compare Baptist scholars with Catholic scholars to see that reality in living color. Scholarship then was a very poor measure of truth. But more to the point, I noticed that many so-called "scholars" were rather disingenuous with the truth on many different theological matters. They simply interpreted, wrote and argued to appeal to their preferred denominational belief system rather than really investigating to discover the real truth in any given passage of the Bible. When I started to carefully observe this behavior pattern, it became apparent to me that what they would decide to write was a foregone conclusion before they even read and interpreted any given passage. They simply wrote to meet the requirements of their favorite creed. In fact, one could practically predict what certain scholars would say about any given passage, especially if it was important to his creed, or if it was controversial. All I had to know beforehand was the name of a writer's denominational stripe and I could predict what he would say about any passage and it worked about 95% of the time. Predicting what they would say was a sure thing if they had an apologetic mission. The apologists were far worse than the academic scholars since their sole mission in life was hawking their creed, and it became patently obvious to me that promoting their creedal agenda was their goal and truth was self-declaration and not a humble discovery. It was pitifully predictable. Our scholars disagreed with each other on many things and they were conjuring interpretations to conform to creedal beliefs and kept right on doing it to rounds of applause from the peanut gallery. Approval among men. Could they also be doing the same thing with the doctrine of the Trinity then? The obvious answer was Yes. And then I noticed that some other men had a purer heart than these fellows and did no such thing. I also noticed this particular type of man was also quite rare. I admired them deeply. They had good hearts. Godly men.

There were some scholars who would interpret and translate certain verses of the Scriptures out of the conviction of a pure and honest heart, even if it did not agree with the creedal beliefs of their very own denomination where the worshiped, or the Seminary or College where they were teaching. In other words, their own interpretations did not always favor their own belief systems but they accepted what they thought they found to be the truth in spite of their own denominational creed and despite the consequences that might result. I grew to deeply admire and respect the honor and courage of such men. I did not always agree with them on everything but that is not what really mattered. I could see what they were doing and their motives were an attempt to be as honest as they knew how rather than keeping one eye on their favorite creed. They were not afraid to go out on a limb. They were not looking for the favor of their peers nor were they looking to exalt and confirm a creed by their own authority, as if such a thing could be done. They were looking for the truth and the favor of God no matter what the consequences might be. One man whose attitude greatly influenced me was a well known scholar named Joachim Jeremias. His work was painstakingly detailed and completely exempt from keeping one eye on his creed while he prepared his work. And he was always prepared to admit an error. These were good humble men who were willing to admit the other "side" was right, or could be right, on some particular issue or even propose that the truth was being believed by no one. But their scholarly papers looked no different than the other men who predictably flogged their creedal traditions no matter what the cost to truth. And sadly, these honest men of courage seemed to be greatly outnumbered by the theological panderers. And even worse, these good men were often maligned for not towing the party line. The others, and many others, were plainly interpreting and translating to meet their own creedal agendas. In other words, they were not conforming their beliefs to the Scriptures; they were trying to conform the Scriptures to their belief system. If it were only a matter of a verse here or there it would be rather insignificant. But when all their writings were considered and put before me, their agenda became quite obvious. On every occasion, you could see they had only one goal and that goal was to confirm their belief system and attempt to make the Bible serve them in whatever way they found necessary.

And then I recalled again what had bothered me concerning the Trinitarian apologetic technique against the JW's. Here it was all over again. Now that I had some formal education under my belt, I was more prepared to see and accept that the distortions in the claims of these so-called scholars was a downright disturbing exercise in scribal manipulation and their writings were nothing more than a commentary preconceived by design to please people with itching ears. They had the papers of scholars but they were simply well-educated charlatans hawking a belief system rather than seeking the truth, men approving and affirming each other, simply to promote certain creedal concepts without any respect for the cost of truth. They were Paul's "super-apostles" masquerading as teachers of truth. They were simply men who were approved among other men who did the very same thing. These were the men who smiled upon each other when they gave each other "credentials." I then realized that my own degree would be a worthless paper. It was nothing more than a boys club conformity badge. They appeared to be good men, behaved like good men and may indeed have otherwise been good men. But they also kept a dark place in their hearts for the purposes of serving their creedal idol. And then it occurred to me that the scholars of Jesus' day were the scribes and teachers of the law - scholarly theologians. These men were dead wrong and Jesus illustratred this fact many times. These men of the Law had learning beyond what most modern people can imagine. It is the reason Paul himself had to stoop to write to everday people, and even then they still could not understand him, then, or now. Yet, their credentials meant nothing in the face of truth. Indeed, Paul considered it all rubbish compared to personally knowing Christ. Who then was a truthful scholar? It seemed anyone who promoted the beliefs of his own denominational creed in published documents was deemed to be one in the scheme of things. But then who ever said that false teachers were uneducated fools promoting an obviously errant teaching that anyone could point out with ease? Only a fool would suppose that to be the case. If that were so, we wouldn't then need to be so watchful for them would we? In fact, Jesus and the apostles did not teach these false teachers would be in a building across the street deceiving others. They taught us these false teachers would be among believers making merchandise of God's people with well-turned words. They taught us that the deceivers would be right among us not a conveniently identifiable group. And here they were in technicolor. And of course, the thinking person would know that these false teachers would claim to be the true ones and claim everyone else were false teachers. The false teachers Jesus warned about were mine. And oh how we Trinitarians lamented and mourned that the lost JW would not open his eyes to check and see if his own teachers were false teachers while failing to do it for ourselves. We could not see the log in our own eye. How then can we take the speck out of theirs? And what false teacher ever awoke in the morning thinking he was a false teacher and plotting to intentionally deceive? They were just as deceived as their victims. Intentional deceivers are easy to identify; the others are not. The false prophets were not just characters who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago. They were everywhere. And I remembered Matthew 23 and how Jesus spoke to them and did not mince words. The spirit of the Pharisees.

It is fashionable today to refrain from using the word "false prophet" to refer to any of these teachers, unless of course you are a Trinitarian apologist and then you have a license to label anyone a false prophet who does not conform to the Trinitarian creed. It is a ridiculous hypocrisy. Such men are indignant that anyone should label them a false prophet but in the very next breath they are labelling many other groups as false prophets and cults. But God forbid anyone say that about them. That in itself told me alot.

I knew that it was not up to me to lay judgment upon any one of these men in particular and each would find their due reward on judgment day before God, the only righteous judge. However, I could not deny that this type of thing was occurring in Christendom and it was not confined to any one denomination. Obviously, some men in the academic world were not being honest with the truth. It was one reason we had so many denominations. Some of them were spreading lies. Someone had to be spreading lies because they contradicted each other. Most of them likely did not realize it but it was still why we had so many opposing belief systems in Christendom. It would be naive to suppose that these false teachers just happened to be the ones in the other churches. The people in the other churches would be thinking the same thing. And scholars were not usually the type of people who are ignorant of the facts. But they are human and they could be just like any other human being having the propensity to deceptively convince himself of whatever idea he would like embrace as truth in a fog of his own denial when the truth is staring him right in the face. And most of them have a vested interest in their work. To turn from the doctrine of the Trinity would mean an end to their careers and humiliation among their peers, the same kind of humiliation and mockery experienced by Jesus. You will know them by their fruits. As I thought about this and was reminded of their writings, it became plain that the opinions of scholars in general had to be taken with extreme caution. Of course Trinitarian scholars say the Trinity is right. That's why they are Trinitarians. But a bigger reason they are Trinitarians is that most denominations insist you are a Trinitarian to even be a Christian and accepted among the group. And what about those scholars who did not agree? Was their opinion somehow invalidated because they disagreed with Trinitarians? To Trinitarians the answer was chanted "Yes." And this became very troubling to me. It became clear that the only measure of truth in Trinitarianism was whether or not one was conforming to Trinitarianism. Scholarly opinion really had nothing to do with it. This of course begged the whole question at hand. In fact, many Trinitarian apologists ignored or dismissed their very own Trinitarian scholars when they said something that was not congenial to their apologetic agenda. The attitude of these modern scribes simply left a very bad taste in my mouth that seemed too much like the experience of Jesus and the Pharisees. It seemed to me that Trinitarians were those folks who would have sided with the Jewish status quo establishment over and against our Lord. Listen to the teachers of the Law say the teachers of the Law and the followers of the teachers of the Law. Had the disciples listened to such advice, what a sorry state of affairs we would be living in today. And that is just what Trinitarians promote.

And then there was the old Trinitarian line about "essentials" mainly advocated in Evangelical Protestantism. This is the ultimate in lame Trinitarian apologetics and a concept especially advocated by the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the radio "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraff. Other associations and individuals have followed with a similar pattern. But the question before me was plainly obvious. Who defines these "essentials?" Hank Hanegraff? Hank Hanegraff and X number of people that agree with Hank Hanegraff? It was a ridiculous concept, a tradition of men. The Bible had no list of "essential" theological ideas to accept while other truths are inconsequential. To deny any truth is sin. All truth is of God. These men were simply deciding for themselves which of God's truths were noble and which were common. But this is not the way of truth. Truth is a light which shines in the darkness and slowly dissipates the further it travels from the source. There is no demarcation line where light is no longer light and suddenly ends where darkness begins.

In the minds of the "essentials" crowd, the poor misguided Seventh Day Adventist is on the borderline. Every evangelical Trinitarian apologist knows where they fit. The apologetic crowd, professional or otherwise, knows the oral tradition. Sabbatarians were in a grey zone out there with one foot in truth and the other in heresy. But since they apparently agreed with these "essentials," many Trinitarians reluctantly agreed we had to put them just on this side of the line along with the good guys. Indeed, it was this kind of question which resulted in the "essentials" farce in the first place. And all the others on the outside of the circle were deemed "cults." The JW's, and others, were therefore on the other side of this line. Indeed, they were ostracized worse than an atheist. Absurd. This was simply the childish mind of immature men trying to name things by putting them in black and white categories by an act of their own will just to make themselves feel better.

The "essentials" criteria was a pure invention of men complete with a set of twisted Scriptures. It was similar to the list of Catholic essentials from the Immaculate Conception to Transubstantiation, a created tradition of men. Indeed, the Baptist oral tradition had their mortal sins list along with the Catholics, "I don't drink and I don't chew and I don't go out with girls who do." And I began to see how this game of labelling others as cults by their own invented criteria was truly a cultic fear tactic. The real cultic behavior was not these conveniently defined "cults" outside the circle who denied the Trinity, but the Trinitarians who were using such cultic fear tactics to keep their own people in check by fear and threat of apostasy, fear of being shunned and shamed among their own peers, fear of humiliation of being one of "those" cults. They were training their own people like Pavlovian dogs to run in fear at the sound of the words "heretic," "cult," and "Arian" as they were shouted and they were expressly using such terms for that very purpose. The same tactics as they used down at the Kingdom Hall with the word "pagan." It was nothing more than the old fallacy of ad hominem attacks cloaked under a new name and a means of deceiving unsuspecting people and controlling them with fear. It became plainly obvious to me that God did not have such a demarcation line in His own mind, a line that defined a true Christian by his belief in a philosophical idea about Him, especially in view of the fact that the Trinity was developed over four centuries and the Bible does not even mention it. In effect, it made us the righteous judge and not God. And anyone can call someone else a "heretic" or "cult." Everyone is a heretic to someone and all these Trinitarian apologists were doing is creating a little mutual admiration society among themselves by affirming to each other they were right and others were wrong. The very same thing was happening down at the Kingdom Hall. This pitiful approval of each other made them feel they were doing the right thing. It was the old devilish "approval among men" self reaffirmation society deception by receiving glory from one another. It was a "fear of ostracization" versus "safety of the group" cultic mentality. And what if the truth was "out there" and not here? How could one ever find it unless he wandered from the comfort of his herd and took a look? Trinitarians and JW's were in the exact same predicament. Bondage.

The real question for me then was not what men decided for themselves to be right, so they could remain where they were and pay no cost of discipleship, but what God held to be true and to lay down everything to follow His Son. Yes, Jesus asked us to lay down everything to follow him. I laid down all my creedal beliefs and put it all up for grabs for the sake of truth long before I entertained the Trinity might be wrong. I also realized my faith rested in Jesus, not in theological ideas, and Paul taught that he, Jesus, was himself my Wisdom and not theological ideas about him. I realized that it is this fear of losing faith that creates a potential identity crisis in the hearts of Trinitarians and keeps them from entertaining any notion they just might be wrong. Their faith rested in an idea of Jesus and not Jesus. "If you want to save your soul lose it." To come to such a realization one might have his faith in the wrong place is a death of sorts. It would create all kinds of problems. Having been taught this doctrine was the central doctrine of their faith, they feel they might be abandoning their faith to even entertain the notion it might be a deception. It does not get any more cultic than this. And they would be ostracized and shunned by their peers, they would have to change churches, and their world would turn upside down. And so, this fear keeps them in check. Fear is not of God. And that identity crisis is just what Jesus is asking us to embrace so that we deny ourselves and pick up our cross and follow him. It is the only way we can say, "I no longer live but Christ lives in me." It is a road that Trinitarians do not want to entertain travelling. They fear being a heretic to their peers much more than being a heretic before God. They love the approval of men more than the approval of God.

Quite simply, Trinitarians are trained to shut off their mind to any notion their doctrine might be false. In this respect, they are no different than the brainwashed JW and his last line of defense Jehovah chant. This is pure cultic behaviour. But Trinitarians naively never entertain the notion that they might be involved with cultic behavior patterns. Trinitarians consider the JW unwillingness to listen to them and entertain their teachings to be a cultic form of mind-control, yet they do the very same thing and convince themselves it is not cultic and quite alright to do when they do it. They are blind to their own hypocrisy. The Catholic is found in an even more dire straits. He simply cannot handle entertaining the notion that his church has been responsible for creating and teaching a lie for hundreds and hundreds of years. And to top it off, his doctrine of Papal infallibility will disintegrate before him and everything else in his belief system is then also suddenly up for grabs. So he necessarily dismisses the notion off-hand. The consequences of even exploring the possibilities are too much for him and the ramifications too consequential to his comfort zone. He does not stop to realize that his Trinitarian teaching only began, not even at Nicea, but late in the fourth century. He accuses the Protestant of creating an imaginary history to suit his needs and then does the very same thing and creates for himself a similar type of early church father disinformation and convinces himself they indeed believed what he believes concerning Trinitarian concepts. And the Prots were helping the Catholics preserve the chief lie. The picture was unfolding before me. The Trinitarian looks for reasons to believe what he does believe and never looks for reasons he might be wrong. He does not seek as Jesus taught. He simply defends what he already has instead. He is afraid to let go. In the end, they are so busy protecting the pitence they have that they never find the treasure that awaits them and the devil laughs mockingly. This is the Trinitarian way - to presume he already has the pearl of great price. And therein lies his greatest folly. Having never seen the genuine he buys the counterfeit lock, stock, and barrel. Duped.

Then I began to realize how idolatry was grounded. Idolators create their own God and henceforth resorted to denial and self-deception in the face of any other suggested reality. Idolators name their God first, build it next, and defend it third. This is just what Trinitarians do. They name their God, collect the building materials for their God, then defend their God. True believers seeked out God and allowed God to defend them and Himself. An idol was not simply a stone image and likeness but any image of God in one's mind that one created and then one followed and served. The Trinitarian God was not a God but a doctrine, a concept, an image of God, an imagined God. I noticed that Trinitarians went around the Bible looking for building materials to make their God never realizing that a three person God is not once mentioned in the entire Bible. And then they imagined their created God back into the Bible where they thought they could insert this image. The Trinitarian God was not revealed in the Scriptures but created by taking Scriptures and building a God in man's own image, an image in his mind that suited him, the God of his imagination. This was also my God. My God was a graven image in my mind and not the reality of the Spirit in my heart. My God was a false God. My God was not the God of Jesus.

Even though I came to realize all these things, I was still a Trinitarian. Yet, these many troublesome issues of theological hyprocrisy plagued me. I had long before determined to find the real truths in Christianity against the lies within it, no matter what the cost. The Trinity was only one matter. Then one weekend, I had some extra time on my hands so I decided to seriously challenge my own beliefs. Instead of looking for reasons to defend the Trinity, this time I sat down and became my own prosecutor and cross-examined my beliefs. I critically examined the main Scripture passages in question very carefully. I did my best to try and interpret these Scriptures in context from the original languages as if I was reading them for the first time and then challenge the Trinitarian view as wrong. By the time the weekend was over I realized the Trinty was very likely false. All it took was an open heart and the willingness to accept that I just might be wrong. At first the light shone dimly and then brighter and brighter. I was wrong. Dead wrong. The Trinitarian interpretations of John 1:1 and John 20:28 completely disintegrated before my eyes when I realized what those words were really about in the context of the teaching of Jesus in John's Gospel. The scales came off my eyes. And the truth of these passages was something I had never ever heard before anywhere from anyone or any theological belief system. Thank you Jesus.

Since that weekend, I have used my spare time to examine the various teachings of Trinitarianism more and more carefully studying verse upon verse, context upon context, and pinpointing the precise locations of Trinitarian errors. There is so much blindness and ignorance in that belief system. Most of them do not even remotely comprehend the significance of the resurrection of Jesus and how that event has major implications on a true understanding of Jesus and the nature of Jesus. And the truth of the matter is so simple and basic to the Christian faith. This research has now amounted to hundreds upon hundreds of hours now. What I have found for myself is fascinating, yet very troubling. It is amazing to me that so many people are deceived by this teaching. But as I continue to research and learn it becomes more and more clear to me how it has been facilitated. It is nothing more than a host of cleverly adorned deceptions that have been honed over many centuries by contriving men. It is nothing but a system of nicely dressed false premises and fallacies. Now knowing the truth, that belief system has the appearance of a disjointed and mushed together set of incoherent notinos and a web of tangled knots having little sense at all as compared to the purity of the simple truth where no fudging is necessary and nothing is difficult to comprehend at all once that array of false premises is understood. Just as it would be hard to describe a big tangled ball of knots in human words, it is so with Trinitarian doctrine. And because it is so deceptive, and because they are caught in the web of only being able to look out of their own mental complex of illusions, it is very hard for Trinitarians to see their error unless they step back and challenge themselves very seriously and by doing so with a heart that is able to entertain the possibility they just might be deceived.

I also explored the teachings of the early church fathers more carefully and came to discover they simply believed the Father of Jesus was alone the one and only true God. I came to discover that Trinitarian claims about the beliefs of the early fathers were nothing but gross misrepresentations and disinformation. It was really not hard to see once I stopped looking for building materials from their quotations to build my idol and instead read their writings and honestly ask myself what they really believed. I also came to see quite clearly that the Trinity was indeed a concept developed over time by the foolishness of prideful men, the seeds of this false doctrine first appearing as knee-jerk reactions to the error of Sabellianism in the early third century, and then more errors fashioned in response to the error of Arianism in the fourth century, and then once Arianism was quashed by the decreed of the Emperor in 380 A.D., this teaching was fully developed and cast in stone in the early fifth century. Before the development started, it was considered an abomination of Gnosticism to suppose the Word was impassible and incapable of suffering and death. And by the time this false teaching was cast in stone, they affirmed the Word was impassible and incapable of suffering and death. I had really known it was a development all along and all Trinitarians know in their hearts this is the truth. But somehow, like all other Trinitarians, I had created an imaginary history of this development congenial to our doctrine, and avoided asking the obvious consequential questions, to satisfy myself and avoid the implications of these facts. The more I studied, the more I looked, the more I looked, the more I found, and the more I realized how terribly wrong I once was. And then I discovered something which set me back in awe. They were teaching what John warned about in his first letter. I was utterly shocked. And yet once I full realized what Trinitarians taught about the incarnation and death of Jesus, there it was before me as plain as can be.

Of course, the Trinitarian must conclude immediately that anyone who disagrees with him must have made a mistake or "misunderstood" his doctrine or something along those lines. This is the routine way for him to react. Or he may wish to conclude that someone like me has some sort of denominational agenda and I need to find ways to satisfying such an idol. Such ideas only reflect the reality of the darkness in his own heart. Or he may suggest to himself I have some kind of unknown need to be against his doctrine. These are things Trinitarians do in their minds to avoid looking into their own mirror. I once did too. He will of course be eager to label someone like me as an Arian, or Modalist, or something which suits his fancy and play a childish game of pin the label on the heretic. He would be wrong on all accounts but this does not really matter to him. All he needs is a reason to reject any notion to challenge the validity of his belief and anything he can dream up for himself will be valid since he is a Trinitarian and has issued himself that authority to create these straw men. His main reason of course is that he does not wish to entertain his doctrine might be false and so he refuses to open his eyes. He does not realize this mental game of his will do him absolutely no good before God.

God is pleased when you seek out and believe the truth. He is not pleased when you simply adopt something that pleases your eyes and label it for yourself as "truth." God is pleased when your desire is to believe the truth and your desire is for that truth. If you think you can simply adopt a belief system of your own liking, like a consumer who buys a new coat off the rack, and then stamp it with the name "truth," and God will then accept your stamp of validation, you are gravely mistaken. You have no such authority to define truth. You may only find it. Try and make truth and you are an idolator making your own gods. Sometimes the truth before us may not not necessarily be what we thought we would like it to be. Our preconceptions get in our way and we confuse what is good and pleasing to our fleshly human eyes as "truth." Sometimes a death on a cross is before us and this is what God wants us to endure. No, it isn't fun allowing a part of you to die inside so that truth may be born. But if you want to do the will of God it is necessary to lay down everything at the foot of the cross and follow His Son Jesus. Do not be deceived by those who say they have found the truth and you therefore never have to go searching for the gem in the field. Seek and you will find. Make no creed, no philosophy, no concept, to be your God. If you do, it will become your God and the true God is not served through images. Our God is not the image fashioned in our minds but a living reality who reigns in heaven and abides as a person in our hearts. He is not real concerned about your vain theological opinions and speculations but how well you know his Son. Our human theological wisdom is but foolishness to Him and we Christians run around behaving as if God is so pleased by our philosophies about Him simply because we call this human philosophy of God by the name "theology" and convince ourselves it is a "spiritual thing." Go and look for yourself. Name not what you will as truth but find it, cherish it, and know that truth is defined by God, and not by you.

I believed, I promoted, I defended, I taught the doctrine of the Trinity for many years. I came to find the doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely false and I do not have any doubts or reservations whatsoever. If you care to look you will find this too. But look carefully. The road ahead lays thick with the treachery of wayward men. Be very, very careful. No one can force you to look, God will not force you to look, and perhaps you are too afraid to look. Honestly ask God to lead you on this matter and He will lead you. It was not comfortable for me to leave that doctrine behind to follow Jesus. But I can tell you this. I will never turn back to that doctrine I had believed and promoted for nearly 40 years of my life and I know the invented Trinitarian threat of damnation is of no consequence to me. I have no creedal agenda to satisfy, no denominational stripe to please. Just God.

Read the verse below and realize that for Christians this eternal Word, your light, is the begotten Son of the living God abiding in your heart, not in written squiggles on a page, not in concept, but in reality of person. Realize it is Jesus himself your Comforter and Counsellor. The name of God is there within you and you may know him and thereby follow him even more intimately than Peter ever followed our Lord before he went up to the cross. He is the Word of God; He is the Light of the World; He is the Alpha and Omega of creation. He is all you will ever need. As His Father commanded, "Listen to Him."

Thank you Jesus for this first Bible verse I ever learned. And thank you for leading me through the darkness. Yea though I walked through the valley of death, God was with me. Immanuel.


April, 2004



"Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105).

HOME