This article compiles selected quotations from contemporary and historical Unitarian resources, presenting various arguments for a Unitarian view of Scripture. Those who have not been exposed to a thoughtful presentation of a Unitarian understanding of the Bible should read and consider them carefully, as many of them touch on rather uncontroversial Biblical facts and observations, and many of the conclusions drawn from those observations will seem intuitive for a person who is familiar with Scripture.
The following are from works published after the turn of the 20th century:
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Introduction
A further question must be asked: Was the apostolic Church made up of brilliant, sophisticated theologians? With the exception of the Apostle Paul, in the leadership of the early Church we see a cross-section of humanity represented - ordinary workers, businessmen and civil servants. Would they not have been every bit as mystified as we over the idea that God was two or three persons, and yet somehow still one being? Such an innovation would have required the most careful and repeated explanation for men and women who had been steeped from birth in the belief that God was one person only. It is undeniable that the idea of a sole, unique creator God was the most sacred tenet of Israel's national heritage. Their cardinal belief in One God could not have been quickly or easily dispelled. In fact, belief in the Trinitarian God would have been the most revolutionary and explosive concept ever to have rocked the first-century Church. Yet of that revolution, if it ever occurred, the New Testament gives us not one hint.
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Chapter 2, pg. 36-37
The earliest recorded history of the Church, the book of Acts, reports a whole conference held to decide such questions as Gentile circumcision, eating food containing blood, and the eating of meat from strangled animals. If these physical matters were considered worthy of formal discussion, how much more would a conference be necessary to discuss the explosive change from belief in the single-person God to that of a Triune God, among those fiercely monotheistic Jews, leaders of the early Christian community?
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Chapter 3, pg. 67
Where were his closest associates shortly after his death? When crucifixion seemed to end all hope of Israel's restoration and their own promotion to royal position in the Messiah's Kingdom, Peter and a number of them returned to their business venture. One would have thought that human curiosity at least would have caused them to join the women at the tomb to see what was going to happen to their dead "God." Their reaction, however, tells us that they viewed the death of Jesus as that of an extraordinary human being, ending the story of another fallen hero-Messiah.
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Chapter 3, pg. 86
It was never the intent of the original witnesses to Christ in the New Testament to set before us the intellectual problem - that of three divine persons - and then to tell us silently to worship this mystery of three-in-one. There is no trace of such an idea in the New Testament.
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Chapter 11, pg. 288
(Mark 13:32) This verse reports Jesus' statement that he did not know the day of his return. It seems plainly contradictory to assert that omniscient Deity can be ignorant in any respect. Some Trinitarians appeal to the doctrine of the divine and human natures in Jesus to solve the problem. The Son did in fact know, but as a human being he did not. This seems little different from saying that one is poor because one has no money in one pocket, though in the other pocket one has a million dollars. In this text it is the Son as distinct from the Father who did not know. It is therefore quite impossible to plead that only the human nature in Jesus was ignorant. The Bible anyway does not distinguish "natures" in Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man. Both are Messianic titles for the one person. If a witness in a court of law were to be asked whether he had seen the defendant on a certain day and he replies in the negative, meaning that he had not seen him with his defective eye, though he did with his sound eye, we would consider him dishonest. When Jesus referred to himself as the Son, he could not have meant a part of himself. The theory by which Jesus did and did not know the day of his future coming would render all of his sayings unintelligible. The plain fact is that a confession of ignorance is incompatible with the theory of the absolute Deity of Jesus.
One God, Three Persons, Four Views, Edited by C.A. McIntosh - Section I.4 (Dale Tuggy)
Fact 3: Clear assumptions, assertions, and implications that the one God (formerly called "Yahweh") just is the Father, and no clear assumption, assertion, or implication that the one God just is the Trinity
That the one God just is the Father himself, and not anyone else, does frequently and clearly seem to be assumed in the NT. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus refers to the Father as "the one who alone is God" (John 5:43-44) and as "the only true God" (John 17:1-3). While the peoples of the earth believe in various deities, Paul observes, "yet for us [Christians,] there is one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:6). The assumption here would be rendered in our present-day logic as: for any x, x is a god only if x just is the Father. In Acts, Peter preaches that the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13). The god mentioned is, of course, Yahweh, the only god, according to the Old Testament (OT), and in Luke's view, this is none other than the Father (Luke 6:35-36; 10:21-22; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56).
In sum, while the Trinitarian labors at length and uphill to show that the Bible as a whole implies or assumes that God is in some way a Trinity, Unitarians simply state their view using the words of the NT. As Channing observed, "We are astonished that anyone can read the New Testament and avoid the conviction that the Father alone is God." Put differently, in the NT, at first glance, the only god is supposed to be the one called "the Father," and there is no clear indication that the one God is the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is extremely surprising if (the Trinitarian hypothesis) is true, but it is fully expected if (the Unitarian hypothesis) is true. Thus, this fact strongly confirms (the Unitarian hypothesis) over (the Trinitarian hypothesis).
One God, Three Persons, Four Views, Edited by C.A. McIntosh - Section I.4 (Dale Tuggy)
Fact 4: Endorsement, not criticism or correction of core Jewish theology
In Mark 12:28-34 Jesus passes up a golden opportunity to correct what the Trinitarian imagines to be a too-restrictive Jewish monotheism. Asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus quotes the famous Shema, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." His interlocutor, a Jewish legal scholar, replies, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other.'" This Jew, who is not a disciple of Jesus, seems to agree with him about monotheism. Who is the "him" mentioned? It is of course Yahweh himself (Deut 6:4), who in the NT is called "the Father," "God the Father," or just "God."
Thus Paul writes that "I am grateful to God - whom I worship with a clear conscience, as my ancestors did," and the "God" here was just a verse before referred to as "God the Father" (2 Tim 1:2-3). And in the most quoted OT text in the NT, we read of "Yahweh's declaration to my lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet,'" (Ps 110:1) and Yahweh, called "the Lord" in Greek and in most English translations, is none other than the Father himself (Acts 2:33-35). In the NT, the young Jesus-movement and the rest of the Jews have a lot to disagree about, but this does not include who God is. Thus Jesus says that "It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, 'He is our God'" (John 8:54).
Long experience shows that Trinitarians feel the need to correct non-Christian Jewish monotheism as "too strict" or extreme or out of balance, or at any rate for having too few divine "persons." But the NT authors never do any such things, instead simply endorsing the core of Jewish theology, which would be very surprising if (the Trinitarian hypothesis) were true. But it is to be expected if (the Unitarian hypothesis) were true. Thus, this fourth fact strongly confirms (the Unitarian hypothesis) over (the Trinitarian hypothesis).
One God, Three Persons, Four Views, Edited by C.A. McIntosh - Section I.4 (Dale Tuggy)
Fact 7: The New Testament pattern of worship and/or honor
As illustrated by Trinitarian liturgies, a Trinitarian worships God the Trinity, and also each of the divine "persons." But in the NT, the Trinity is never an object of worship; this is neither stated, nor implied, nor portrayed, nor presupposed anywhere. Neither is the Holy Spirit an object of worship. The main and ultimate object of worship is the Father, a.k.a. "God," whom we approach through Christ (Eph 5:20; Col 3:16-17; Heb 13:15). There is no attempt to spread around the worship equally between the three. Jesus, especially after his exaltation, is worshiped (or some would say honored) too, but the reason cited for this is not his divine nature but rather his exaltation by God because of his perfect, self-sacrificing service to God (Phil 2:9; Rev 5:9), and this worship of Jesus is explicitly said to be "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11). One would not expect God to be worshiped to the glory of someone above him!
Fact 7 is shocking given (the Trinitarian hypothesis). It is at most a little surprising given (the Unitarian hypothesis) (because the man Jesus is honored or worshiped in addition to God). Thus, Fact 7 confirms (the Unitarian hypothesis) over (the Trinitarian hypothesis).
One God, Three Persons, Four Views, Edited by C.A. McIntosh - Section I.4 (Dale Tuggy)
Fact 16: The clear assumption and clear statements that the Father is Jesus's God
The god of the Jewish Bible is by definition top-level, as it were an immovable King of the Hill. Necessarily, he is above or over any other beings there may be, and so anyone who is under a god is someone other than him. Further, in the highest sense of the word "God," there is only one, Yahweh himself (Isa 45:18; 46:9), so there is no question of his being under a god (in the highest sense), since it is a contradiction to say that he is the god over himself (God-over is an irreflexive relation), and there isn't and can't be another god (in the highest sense) in addition to him. And any "god" in a lower sense couldn't possibly be the "god" over Yahweh, the one true God (i.e., the only one who is "god"/"God" in the highest sense of the term). Being "God" in the highest sense is, given a metaphysics of natural kinds, to be the only one with the kind-essence divinity/deity/godhood.
The NT authors teach that the Father is the god over Jesus (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17, Romans 15:6: 2 Corinthians 1:3, 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 1:17: 1 Peter 1:3, Hebrews 1:8-9, Revelation 1:5-6, 3:2, 3:12, 5:10). None of these texts contains any sort of qualification or warning designed to prevent the reader from deducing that Jesus is not the unique god, and that he lacks the sort of divinity had only by God. This would be shocking given (the Trinitarian hypothesis), but it is expected given (the Unitarian hypothesis). Thus, these facts strongly confirm (the Unitarian hypothesis) over (the Trinitarian hypothesis).
Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?, by Dale Tuggy and Christopher Date - Section 1.9
1.9 Same God or Different God?
There is also a problem here about how many gods there are. Remember that a thing which has the property divine nature is by definition a god. I would ask my opponent whether this god which is Jesus is the same god as the Father or a different god.
If there are two gods in his scheme, Mr. Date can explain why this should still count as monotheism. And if he says that the Father and the Son are the same god, how is this compatible with the Father and the Son simultaneously qualitatively differing from one another? Being the same god requires being numerically the same thing. But that requires that "they" never differ in any way. If they ever have differed in any way, that proves that they are not the same thing, and so that they are not the same god. And again, we all know that the Father and Son have differed.
Numerically distinct things can't be the same god; we should dismiss this suggestion as nonsense, and we should be afraid to attribute such nonsense to the authors of the Bible. Further, in the New Testament the Father is Jesus's god. No one can literally be the god over himself! And in a monotheistic religion, by definition "God" is not subject to any god. If my opponent thinks that the Father and the Son are the same god, let him explain how this one god can be subject to himself and also the god over himself.
Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?, by Dale Tuggy and Christopher Date - Section 9.3
When I cited Jesus's worship of and submission to God, Mr. Date offered the apologists' retort that of course being a man Jesus had to worship and submit himself to God (he couldn't be an atheist or a polytheist). This correctly assumes that any human must be a creature of God, but simply ignores that the one God of the Bible is subject to no one else, but rather all others are subject to him. Here, again following recent apologists, he is quick to accuse me of begging the question (assuming the very point at issue).
But noticing that Jesus worships and submits to another and calls him "my God" is not assuming the impossibility of someone being both human and divine. It is rather observing something which is (1) unsurprising if Jesus is God's human Messiah who is not divine, and (2) very surprising if Jesus is the one God. We would expect the one God, were he to be a man, to say "No one is god over me! I am God Almighty, the one true God, and all are subject to me!" We would not expect him to call someone else "the only true God" or to worship another, or to pray to anyone else, or to say that someone else is his god. One who provides evidence against your theory found in your own acknowledged sources is not begging the question against your theory, but is simply refuting it.
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 1
Although in his writings Erickson definitely seeks to defend the validity of the Trinity, on pages 108-109 he wrote:
The question, however, is this. It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness, as over against unitarian monotheism on the one hand, and polytheism on the other hand, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, 'It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or on which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.' This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons)
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 1
Speaking more candidly in this regard, one Christian writer, after having examined the most problematic scriptural issues relating to the Trinitarian claim, wrote:
The thoughtful student must ask himself: If it was hard for the Jews in the early church to let go of the Law, wouldn't it have been even harder to get them to change their view of God? Fifteen New Testament chapters are dedicated to changing the Jew's mind on the Law. And if it took that much to deal with the Law, shouldn't we find at least 1 or 2 chapters explaining the change in how God would be viewed from now on? But not a single verse suggests the Jew change his view of God... [In our examination we noted the] lack of a single verse which 'taught' the doctrine. The Bible has many verses which 'teach' justification, 'teach' repentance, 'teach' baptism, 'teach' the resurrection, but not one verse in the entire Bible 'teaches' the doctrine of the Trinity. No verse describes it, explains it, or defines it. And no verse tells us to believe it.
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 1
Undoubtedly, the theologians and apologists speak confidently with reference to the notion that "although no one passage teaches the doctrine, the Scripture taken in its entirety does teach it." But if the Bible itself positively and categorically identifies the one God as "the Father" (clearly and consistently placing the Father in a class of his own), and Jesus as the "Christ" or "Messiah" whom the Father "sent," and if the Bible never states that the "one Being of God is shared fully by three divine persons," or that the three divine "persons" are coequal and coeternal, how does the Trinity prove to be a natural and inevitable scriptural doctrine? And as we go on to consider each Scripture generally thought to tie the Trinitarian concept together, one will see that, in the end, such a confident claim amounts to nothing more than a dogmatic assertion without substance, a mere bluff in the context of theological argumentation. Of course, when endeavoring to convince Christians that the concept of the Trinity is biblical, its defenders speak eloquently and with a tone of intellectual and informed confidence, even professing to use the Bible alone to derive or infer the doctrine. Yet, in the end, we are still left asking: Where does the Bible teach the doctrine? Where does the Bible directly communicate to us that the one "being" of God is "shared" by "three persons"? The truth is, it never does - neither explicitly nor by necessary implication, neither in one text nor in the biblical writings as a whole.
If the doctrine of the Trinity were true, and required to believe upon for salvation itself, it may be pointed out that it is utterly unique in the sense that all other essential Christian doctrines are taught to us plainly in the Bible, whereas the truthfulness of the Trinity is somehow derived from "all of what the Bible teaches," without the Bible ever actually saying so. In this regard, the Trinity (and associated concepts) would prove to be the only essential though non-articulated, unannounced doctrine of the Christian faith, scripturally speaking.
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 1
Expressing a very similar conviction, another Bible student of the nineteenth century wrote the following thought-provoking words in light of the traditional Trinitarian claim:
It seemed strange to me, that our compassionate Heavenly Father, who so well knew the weakness of human nature, should require us to receive a doctrine, violating the common laws of that very reason which he has given us, without such an explicit statement of it, and such an authoritative command for its reception, as would leave no possible chance for human reason to gainsay or resist it... I am firmly convinced that no doctrine can be necessary to salvation which is not so plainly revealed that the conscientious inquirer after the truth cannot possibly mistake it. 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,' 'He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,' - about these plain statements there can be no mistake. Here is a glorious platform on which sincere Christians of every name can meet, and exchange the right hand of fellowship.
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 3
This is also why it is appropriate to ask: Why is it that whenever there was an occasion for discussing the identity of the true God, the authors and participants of Scripture always spoke of him as "the Father" and never as the "triune God" or the like? Why is it that every positively and deliberately-set-forth scriptural presentation of God's identity is always different from Trinitarianism's?
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 5
The question that should be asked today is: Why is it that whenever the writers of Scripture spoke deliberately about God's Son in the most distinctive and exalted ways (as in Hebrews 1:3) did they not "teach" what Trinitarianism teaches? If the Trinitarian concept is authentically true and biblical, then it follows that the most significant, most outstanding and most distinctive attribute of the Son of God is that he is, mysteriously, and amazingly, an "eternal partaker" of the Father's being - the one being of God. When the author of Hebrews was inspired to speak plainly about God's "being" and Christ's relationship to it, why did he not speak about such an extraordinary and amazing fact? Why did the author of Hebrews teach that the Son is a "copy" of God's being if he believed that God's being and the Son's being were the same being? Where is the consistency and where is the harmony?
Kegan Chandler - What do Trinitarians Mean by "Person"?
Many Christians claim that you are not a Christian unless you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. And when asked, they will define the doctrine of the Trinity as the proposition that there is one God in three Persons, or three Persons in one God.
When we ask if they are using the word "person" in the normal sense to mean an independent or individual intelligent being, they'll say, "No, that would be three Gods, that is Tritheism". When we ask if they are using the word "person" to mean merely a persona that an intelligent being could adopt, they'll say, "No, that would be Modalism". When we then ask about the sense that they are using the word "person", they very often can't tell us. This reveals that they are asking us to assent to a proposition, which for them, holds no intelligible meaning.
If they can tell us what they mean by "person", their answers will very often contradict those answers given by others who claim to believe in the same doctrine. All of this raises questions about not only which conception of "Person" we are expected to believe in, but about whether belief in this doctrine truly is necessary in order to make one a Christian, or to be saved.
The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, by Kegan Chandler - Chapter 8
Considering the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is not difficult to grasp how and why the Jews have affirmed their God to be a singular personality. He provided them every reason to (Exodus 8:10, 20:1-3, Deuteronomy 4:35, 4:39, 32:39, 6:4: 2 Samuel 7:22: 1 Kings 8:60: 1 Chronicles 17:20, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 37:20, 43:10, 44:6, 44:8, 45:5, 45:18, 45:21, 46:9, Zechariah 14:9, Malachi 2:10).
The language regarding God's unity in the later New Testament writings is remarkably consistent with this spirit (Mark 12:29, John 5:44, 8:41, 17:3, Romans 3:30, 16:27: 1 Corinthians 8:4, 8:6, Galatians 3:20, Ephesians 4:4-6: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2:5, James 2:19, Jude 1:25).
One must ask why the Supreme Being, who created language and designed the human mind, would choose to employ language which he knew the world would think meant that he was only one individual, when in fact he was a unified collective of individuals, a society? Even in the language of the New Testament, the documents which allegedly publicize the Triune God, we find no indication that the fundamental perspective of the Jews had been updated; the language of Jesus and his Apostles in regard to God is the same language of Moses.
The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, by Kegan Chandler - Chapter 8
A.E. Harvey reveals that "there is no unambiguous evidence that the constraint of monotheism was effectively broken by any New Testament writer," and these authors certainly take the reader's understanding of Jewish monotheism for granted. For the ancient nation of Israel, this particular model had been critical to their survival; whenever they strayed from its practice, tragic consequences swiftly followed. But there is no evidence that anything the Apostles encountered in the person of Christ posed concern for this traditional theology. If the later Gentile converts in the Roman era worried during their councils over the possibility of abrogating the monotheism of the Bible, how much more would the intensely devoted Jewish community of the first century have risen up in fiery contest at the suggestion that rabbi Jesus was not only their God, but that Abraham and Moses had been unknowingly worshipping three different Persons all along? The deafening silence of the lack of Apostolic debate, combined with the perfect maintenance of Old Testament language to describe God in the New Testament, strongly suggests that such a dramatic expansion of the Godhead was not promulgated by the earliest Christians.
The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, by Kegan Chandler - Chapter 9
Indeed, by the very fact that Christ is explicitly identified as the "servant" of God (Acts 3:13, 26, 4:25, 27, 29-30), his inferiority is clearly communicated. Jesus himself delivers the principle: "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master" (Matt 10:24), and again, "Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master'" (John 15:20), and again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him" (John 13:16). This becomes all the more clear as Jesus explains: "God sent me" (John 8:42).
The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, by Kegan Chandler - Chapter 9
1 Corinthians 11:3 is perhaps one of the most pointed and inescapable New Testament examples of Christ's inferiority and total subjugation to God. Here we have an equation of relationship: just as completely as every man is subject to the risen Christ, the risen Christ is subject to God. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 3:23 we read that "you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God."
The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, by Kegan Chandler - Chapter 9
Might the modern student be moved by the Messiah's stirring testimony that this one entity is always greater than he is (John 14:28), that he is "my God and your God" (John 20:17), that he is specifically "the Father" (John 4:23-24), and that this Father alone is "the only true God" (Mark 12:32, 34, John 17:1-3)? These straightforward claims, however, seem to have largely fallen on deaf ears in favor of extrapolations of subtlety which invariably lead, not into any practical revelation, but headlong into confusion.
Published prior to the turn of the 20th century:
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section II, pg. 46
But in regard to all such accounts of the doctrine, it is an obvious remark, that the existence of the Son, and of the Spirit, is either necessary, or it is not. If their existence be necessary, we have then three beings necessarily existing, each possessing divine attributes; and consequently we have three Gods. If it be not necessary, but dependent on the will of the Father, then we say, that the distance is infinite between underived and independent existence, and derived and dependent; between the supremacy of God, the Father, and the subordination of beings who exist only through his will.
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section III, pg. 67-68
There are few arguments on which more stress has been laid by Trinitarians, than on the application of the title "Son of God" to Christ. Yet one who had for the first time heard of the doctrine would doubt, I think, whether a disputant who urged this argument were himself unable to understand the meaning of language, or presumed on the incapacity of those whom he addressed. To prove Christ to be God, a title is adduced which clearly distinguishes him from God. To suppose the contrary, is to suppose that Christ is at once God and the Son of God, that is, his own son, unless there be more than one God.
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section III, pg. 77-78
Did they then believe their Master to be God, when, surprised at his taking notice of an inquiry which they wished to make, but which they had not in fact proposed, they thus addressed him? "Now we perceive that you know all things, and need not that any one should question you. By this we believe that you came from God." Could they imagine that he who, throughout his conversation, spoke of himself only as the minister of God, and who in their presence prayed to God, was himself the Almighty? Did they believe that it was the Maker of heaven and earth whom they were deserting, when they left him upon his apprehension? But there is hardly a fact or conversation recorded in the history of our Saviour's ministry which may not afford ground for such questions as have been proposed. He who maintains that the first disciples of our Saviour did ever really believe that they were in the immediate presence of their God, must maintain at the same time that they were a class of men by themselves, and that all their feelings and conduct were immeasurably and inconceivably different from what those of any other human beings would have been under the same belief.
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section III, pg. 79-81
But what have been stated are not the only consequences which must necessarily have followed from the communication of the doctrine in question. It cannot be denied by those who hold the doctrine of the deity of Christ, that, however satisfactorily it may be explained, and however well it may be reconciled with that fundamental principle of religion to which the Jews were so strongly attached, the doctrine of the Unity of God, yet it does, or may, at first sight, appear somewhat inconsistent with it. From the time of the Jew who is represented by Justin Martyr as disputing with him, about the middle of the second century, to the present period, it has always been regarded by the unbelieving Jews with abhorrence. They have considered the Christians as no better than idolaters; as denying the first truth of religion. But the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard, however, to this doctrine, which, if it had ever been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition, - with regard to this doctrine, there is no trace of any controversy.
But if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defense between those who assailed and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connection with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet, so far from any such clearness of statement and fulness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament in relation to this subject is (as I have before said) a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth.
The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in such a manner, that, if it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually.
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section III, pg. 83-84
The intrinsic difficulty of the doctrine in question is so great, and such was the ignorance of the first converts, and their narrowness of conception, that the Apostles must have continually recurred to it, for the purpose of explaining it, and guarding it against misapprehension. As a fundamental doctrine of our religion, it is one which they must have been constantly employed in teaching. If it were a doctrine of Christianity, the evidence for it would burst from every part of the New Testament in a blaze of light. Can any one think that we should be left to collect the proof of a fundamental article of our faith, and the evidence of incomparably the most astonishing fact that ever occurred upon our earth, from some expressions scattered here and there, the greater part of them being dropped incidentally; and that really one of the most plausible arguments for it would be found in the omission of the Greek article in four or five texts?
A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, by Andrews Norton - Section III, pg. 90-91
In the next place, I wish to recall another remark to the recollection of my readers. It is, that the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians, upon the supposition of their possibility and truth, must have been taught very differently from the manner in which they are supposed to be. Let any one recollect, that there is no pretense that any passage in scripture affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, or that of the double nature of Christ; and then let him look over the passages brought to prove that Christ is God; let him consider how they are collected from one place and another, how thinly they are scattered through the New Testament, and how incidentally they are introduced; let him observe that, in a majority of the books of the New Testament, there is not one on which a wary disputant would choose to rely; and then let him remember the general tenor of the Christian Scriptures, and the undisputed meaning of far the greater part of their language in relation to this subject. Having done this, I think he may safely say, before any critical examination of the meaning of those passages, that their meaning must have been mistaken; that the evidence adduced is altogether defective in its general aspect; and that it is not by such detached passages as these, taken in a sense opposed to the general tenor of the Scriptures, that a doctrine like that in question can be established.
Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity, by Henry Ware Jr., pg. 9-10
Let us consider, first, the language which is commonly used respecting our Lord Jesus. Is it such as implies that he is the same with Almighty God? Take his testimony respecting himself. - 'I came not to do mine own will.' - 'I can of myself do nothing.' - 'The Son can do nothing of himself.' - 'The Father that is in me, he doeth the works.' - He calls himself, 'he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent.' - He says, 'I am come in my Father's name.' And after his resurrection he says, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.' - Ponder these expressions; weigh these words; and say whether they be the words of one who would represent himself as the independent God.
Take the testimony of the Apostles. 'Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him.' - 'Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour' - 'at the right hand of God exalted' - 'made both Lord and Christ.' Because of his obedience unto death, 'God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name.' In the end he shall 'deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all.' Weigh these expressions deliberately, and consider whether it be possible that they should be used concerning Almighty God. Yet such as these are applied to Jesus in every part of the New Testament.
Consider the terms of faith in him which were required of his disciples. Were they such as implied his supreme divinity? Remember the confession of Peter - 'Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God;' - and with this Jesus was satisfied. Remember the confession of Martha - 'I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God;' - and he required no more. Remember the reason which John gives for writing his Gospel; 'These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.' Who does John say is born of God? 'Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.' Who does he say overcomes the world? 'He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God.' What was the preaching of the Apostles? Look through the book of Acts, and you will find the burden of it to be, 'Reasoning from the Scriptures and testifying, that Jesus is the Christ.' Now is it possible, that, in all which is thus said of the necessity and value of faith in Jesus, - when believers were to be received into the church and their immortal interests were depending - is it possible that they should not have been required to believe him the Almighty God; if he were so? Would he and the Apostles have so solemnly assured them that faith in him as the Son of God was sufficient, if in truth he had been the very God?
An Humble Inquiry Into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ, By Thomas Emlyn - Section 2.2
(Why Two-Natures Speculations Don't Help)
What can be said against these clear arguments? I imagine our opponents have only one move left for evading them, and that is a distinction which serves them in all cases: they say Jesus Christ says these things about himself "as man only," while he had another nature "as God," which he reserved and excepted out of the case, so that when he says "I cannot do this myself," or "I am not to be called the chief good," or "I do not know this," etc., according to them, the meaning is: "I don't have these perfections in my human nature, nonetheless I know and can do all unassisted, and am the chief good in my divine nature, which also is more properly myself."
I intend now to expose the futility of this tricky move by showing how absurd it is to suppose that this distinction of two natures removes the force of such expressions from Christ's own mouth which in their natural and ordinary appearance proclaim his inferiority to God, even the Father. And I shall dwell more on this because it's the most popular and common evasion, and comes in at every turn, when all other relief fails.
It's reasonable for us to ask what hint of such a distinction of two natures they can point us to in any of these discourses of Christ. Should we devise or imagine for him such a strange and seemingly deceitful way of speaking simply to uphold our own precarious opinion? But I have several remarks to make about this common answer.
My first objection is that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, if he was the supreme God in any nature of his own, he could not have said, it seems to me, consistently with truth and sincerity (which he always maintained strictly), that he could not do or did not know something which all this while he himself could do or did know very well - as surely as if he were the supreme God, he could and did. This would be to make him say what is most false and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner. Even if we should suppose he consisted of two infinitely distant natures, and so had two capacities of knowing and acting, yet since he includes them both, it follows that when he denies something of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words or other obvious circumstances, he plainly implies a denial of its belonging to any part of his person, or any nature in it.
Although we may affirm a thing of a person which belongs only to a part of him, as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it only be in one part, suppose, an arm - yet I cannot rightly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another. I can't say a man is not wounded because although one arm is shot or wounded yet the other is unharmed. For instance, I have two organs of sight, two eyes. Now suppose I converse with a man with one eye shut and the other open. If being asked whether I saw him, I should dare to say that I didn't see him (without any qualification) meaning (to myself) that I didn't see him with the eye which was shut although I saw him well enough with the eye which was open, I fear I would be criticized as a liar and deceiver, notwithstanding such a mental reservation as some would attribute to the holy Jesus. For knowledge is the eye of the person; Jesus Christ is supposed to have two of these knowing capacities, the one weak, the other strong and piercing, discerning all things. Now as such a one, the disciples come to him and ask him when the end of the world and time of his coming shall be. He answers them by giving them some general account of the matter, but says that he didn't know the particular day and hour, nor did any know them except the Father, meaning (say my opponents) that it wasn't included in his human knowledge, although he knew it well enough with his divine nature, at the same time that he said absolutely and without qualification that the Son doesn't know it.
If Jesus Christ had a divine knowledge and nature, no doubt his disciples (who, if anyone, must have believed it) would have directed their question to that divine capacity of his rather than to the imperfect human capacity, and yet in answer to their question he says he didn't know the day, which would not be counted as sincere or truthful in ordinary people. But surely we mustn't think Jesus Christ was dishonest in this way, for in his mouth was no guile. Let us not impute it to him.
An Humble Inquiry Into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ, By Thomas Emlyn - Section 3.2
Moreover, I judge that to assert Jesus Christ to be the supreme God destroys the gospel-doctrine of his mediation. For if I must have one who is both supreme God and man to be my mediator with God, then when I speak to Jesus Christ as the supreme God, where is the godman that must be my mediator with him? To say he mediates for himself is the same as to say that I must go to him without a mediator, and turns the whole business of mediation into a metaphor, contrary both to the common way of things, and to the Scriptures. And I would like to know what is this idea of going to God without a mediator, if it is just that he mediates for himself? Who ever doubted the exercise of his own wisdom or mercy, that these, in a manner of speaking, argue within him? But undeniably the Scriptures speak of a mediator outside of God when they set forth Jesus Christ as such.
Unitarian Christianity, by William Ellery Channing, pg. 32-34
We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by (certain) theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh.
Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and, if this mark fails us, our whole knowledge fall; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?
Unitarian Christianity, by William Ellery Channing, pg. 35-37
This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision. But where does this statement appear? From the many passages which treat of God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are told, that he is a threefold being, or that he is three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the contrary, in the New Testament, where, at least, we might expect many express assertions of this nature, God is declared to be one, without the least attempt to prevent the acceptation of the words in their common sense; and he is always spoken of and addressed in the singular number, that is, in language which was universally understood to intend a single person, and to which no other idea could have been attached, without an express admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.
We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said, implying that objections were brought against the Gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defense and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity.
Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, by John Wilson - Chapter 2, Section 1, pg. 109-111
The opinion generally entertained by Trinitarian commentators is, that, when our Lord declared ignorance of the precise time of his coming, he spoke only in his human nature. This opinion is well known to be founded on the hypothesis, that Christ possesses two natures, - the one human and the other divine: the former including all the sinless properties of humanity; and the latter, everything essential to the nature and perfections of the Deity. But as neither prophet, nor apostle, nor evangelist, nor any inspired person whatever, not even Jesus Christ himself, announced that he was in possession of these two natures, we dare not take for granted the truth of this opinion, even supposing the words under consideration could be explained in consistency with it.
The assumption, however, we are bold to say, would not answer the purpose intended. The strict integrity of our Lord's character - the moral perfection that shone so conspicuously in his discourses and behavior - forbids our conceiving him to assert, without the least apparent hesitation, - without the slightest modification of his own language, that he did not know the exact time of that event of which he had been treating; while he was conscious - as on Trinitarian principles he must have been conscious - of being acquainted with the precise moment of the fulfillment of his prophecy. To attribute to the righteous Jesus such an assertion of ignorance, and such a consciousness of knowledge, is surely imputing to him conduct which it will be difficult to clear from the charge of culpability. But, in truth, no plausible reason can be assigned for supposing Christ to know perfectly the exact time of an event, while he disclaimed all knowledge of it; except that which arises from the necessity of the case; - a necessity created only by the mysteries and contradictions involved in the popular doctrine of the Trinity.
On this subject, the observations of Abauzit are worthy of being quoted: "Supposing that Jesus Christ be the Supreme God, he cannot say, that he knows not the day of judgment, as on this supposition he knows it in an infallible manner by his Divinity. He cannot say in a general manner and without any limitation, that this day is unknown to him, without violating truth. The language which they have made Jesus Christ employ, in supposing that he had present to his mind this imaginary distinction, resembles that which I might hold, when, interrogated by a judge concerning facts which are very well known to me, I should reply, that they were unknown to me, under pretense that my body had no knowledge of them. It is as if one asked me if I had seen such a person, I should answer, no; because when I saw him I had one of my eyes shut, and did not see him with that eye. It is as if when one should desire me to write upon some subject, I should reply that I was not able to write, because my mind could not hold a pen. There is nobody who does not see how absurd such a mode of speaking would be. There is no absurdity a man might not advance, if he were allowed to employ similar reservation. A man might say, that he neither eats nor drinks, because his mind properly does not eat or drink. He might say, that he does not think, that he has not an idea of any one thing, that he remembers nothing, that he cannot reason, - because all these operations do not belong to his body. One might say, in speaking of Jesus Christ, that he was not born, that he did not suffer, that he was not crucified, that he did not die, that he was not raised again, or ascended into heaven, - because all this is not true of him with regard to his Divinity. One easily sees that this would be to institute an egregious abuse of language: one ought therefore to be cautious of attributing it to Jesus Christ, in supposing that he adopted this mode of expressing himself, in pretending that he declared to the world his ignorance of the day of judgment, because he knew it not as a man, though at the very time, as God, this day was perfectly known to him."