The concept that God provided revelation without clarifying His Own nature
grates painfully against our innate understanding of God as allmerciful, providing clear
guidance to all mankind.
Standard Trinitarian response? That people would believe if only they understood.
Standard Unitarian response? Nobody understands the Trinity—nobody. That’s why it’s
a religious mystery. Talk with Trinitarian clergy long enough, bring up the above
objections (and those that follow), and sooner or later the confirmed Trinitarian will
admit, “It’s a mystery.” The youjusthavetohavefaith defense is not far behind. The
Unitarian typically points out, however, that moments earlier the Trinitarian proposed
that people would believe, if only they understood. However, when a legitimate attempt
is made to understand, by way of seeking answers to relevant questions, the claim
transforms to one of a religious mystery (i.e., nobody understands!). A final defense is the
suggestion that, “The only way a person can believe is to have faith” (i.e., the only way to
believe is to believe). But if blind, unthinking faith is the methodology God bids us to
follow, why does He command us to reason (“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’
says the Lord …” Isaiah 1:18)?*
So what is a nonbiblical source? A person can safely assume that if it’s not from
scripture (that is, not from God), then it must be from the minds of men (and what does that equate to if not human imagination?). How much safer would it have been to have
modified church doctrine to conform with rational argument and, more importantly,
No doubt adhering to Trinitarian notions cemented the job security of Trinitarian
clergy, albeit upon questionable tenets of faith clothed in the mantle of church approval.
Likewise, no doubt confidence in church teachings waned in the minds of thinkers like
Arius—thinkers who continued to highlight the fact that Jesus never claimed sonship or
partnership in divinity, and for that matter, neither did his disciples. Furthermore,
evidence suggests neither did Paul.*
After admitting reliance upon “nonbiblical categories” to define the church’s
view of Jesus Christ’s relation to God, the New Catholic Encyclopedia outlines some of
the constructed doctrines, such as consubstantiality, begotten and not made, etc. Next,
they make the unbelievably straightfaced assertion that Augustine sought the ideology
most compatible with inbred human understanding (i.e., “Augustine sought in man’s
psychology or way of knowing the natural analogate for understanding the eternal
generation of the Son.”
Nobody can be faulted for reading that statement and muttering, “They … are …
joking—they must be.” After all, isn’t this the doctrine responsible for the Medieval and Spanish inquisitions, the eight waves of the Christian Crusades, and countless forced
conversions of natives during the age of colonialism? The doctrine that makes so much
sense that over twelve million died under torture in denial of the tenets of Trinitarian
faith? Twelve million! The doctrine that makes so much sense that, to this day, African
natives have to be coerced into conversion through baiting with food and medicine?
The average person on the street might conclude that if torture and coercion are
required to refresh memories, someone needs to redefine the meaning of “innate
And why not? A lot of values have been redefined.