Concordant Christology: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism

Those of us in the ecclesia called the body of Christ — not to be confused with members of the Christian religion who mistakenly use our title — are not Trinitarians (nor are we Modalists, for the same reasons we don’t believe in the Trinity). There is debate within our ecclesia as to whether Arianism or Socinianism is more likely to be true (meaning there is a bit of a disagreement as to whether Jesus existed consciously prior to His birth as a human or not), but we don’t let that get in the way of fellowship between members of the body, so long as one doesn’t hold to Trinitarianism or Modalism, or any other form of a Christology which teaches that Christ didn’t cease to exist as a conscious being when He died for our sins and when He was entombed, prior to God rousing Him on the third day. (Although, if you’d like to learn more about this particular debate between Arianism and Socinianism among members of our ecclesia, please read this follow-up post on the topic.)

As far as why we’re Unitarians rather than Trinitarians, there are a number of scriptural and logical reasons, and I’m going to include some links to a number of articles and PDF scans of books by members of our ecclesia (as well as websites by others who aren’t necessarily “Concordant” believers but who understand the truth about this doctrine) that explain various reasons why at the end of this article. But the most important reason is because a Trinitarian can’t be said to have believed Paul’s Gospel, which tells us that Christ died for our sins, and that He was entombed, which is a claim that would not actually be true if Trinitarianism (as well as the related doctrine of the immortality of the soul) were correct. Paul didn’t say only His body died, he said “Christ died”; and he didn’t say only His body was entombed while He went somewhere else, he said ”He was entombed.”

Of course, coming to understand that Jesus actually fully died brings one to the realization that, in addition to misunderstanding the character of God, Christians have also misunderstood “the nature of God” (for lack of a better term), thinking that Scripture teaches God to be three people rather than one. Within Christianity it’s incredibly common to assume that one can’t be a true Christian without believing in the “orthodox” tradition known as the Trinity, which is ironic because not only is the Trinity a tradition that is completely contradicted by Scripture, but because belief in the Trinity actually keeps one from eonian life (since it means one hasn’t fully understood or believed Paul’s Gospel). The Bible teaches that, while there are many gods out there in the universe — it would be difficult for the Father to be the God of gods if there were no other gods out there to be the God of — there is only one Almighty God (who created all the other gods), who has no equals or co-equals. Can Almighty God have a God above Him? Everyone I’ve asked this question to has immediately and rightfully answered “no,” but Scripture tells us in many places that Jesus has a God — His Father — which means that, while as God’s icon He can use any title His Father has when representing God to us or when speaking on His Father’s behalf, He can’t actually be the Almighty God like His Father is since the Father is above Him, and nobody is above — or even beside, meaning equal to — Almighty God. And while it now (post-resurrection/vivification of Christ) might be technically accurate for certain people to call Jesus God (at least from a relative perspective, when He’s acting as God’s icon), or even for the rest of us to call Him a god, as far as those in the body of Christ are concerned we have only one God, the Father (in the passage where he tells us this, Paul is careful to differentiate Jesus Christ from God by saying Jesus is Lord for us instead, and by telling us that only the Father is to be understood as God, at least by those of us in the body of Christ), but not in all men is there this knowledge — in fact, practically not in all of Christendom is there this knowledge.

But even beyond the fact that the Trinity is simply illogical and unscriptural, as I mentioned already, the bigger problem is that one can’t even join the body of Christ while truly believing in this doctrine (because, again, it means they don’t believe Christ actually fully died for our sins, and was entombed, but that only His body did and was; God can’t die, so if one believes that Jesus is God, they can’t believe that Jesus truly died, nor can they believe that Jesus Himself was entombed — and they don’t; most Christians believe He instead ”went to hell” for three days), so I would posit that the reason it’s become one of the most important ideas in the Christian religion is because Satan wanted to make sure as few people as possible could become a part of the body of Christ and take his reign from him during the future eons.

In addition, it’s possible that belief in the Trinity might keep those under the Gospel of the Circumcision from eonian life as well, since belief that Jesus is the Son of God is required for salvation under that Gospel, and the Trinity teaches that Jesus is “God the Son” (really nothing more than a title for a certain part of God; and yes, logically, that is what it has to mean, despite any protestations to the contrary by Trinitarians who might be familiar with the creeds) rather than the actual Son of God (Jesus can’t be both God and the Son of God at the same time since that would make Him the Son of Himself). Scripture speaks of the Son of God and the Spirit of God, but never “God the Son” or “God the Spirit.” It’s important to remember that Scripture puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and on how one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (particularly those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision), so much so that claiming He has an identity not found in Scripture — “God the Son” — is teaching another Jesus.

Of course, some like to claim that the Trinity is “a mystery” that isn’t meant for us to understand, but nowhere in Scripture do we find this assertion made, so they have no foundation on which to lay this claim. Besides, if the Trinity is a “mystery” that can’t be understood, what basis do we have for believing it in the first place? Was the idea that God is a Trinity prophetically told to be true to the trinitarians at Nicea (yet with how the concept is supposed to work, exactly, never actually being explained, as is made clear by the fact that nobody seems to be able to do so without resorting to teaching Modalism or other ideas that are considered heretical to “orthodox” Christians)? I don’t recall that claim ever being made by any Christians. In fact, the reason the doctrine of the Trinity came to be accepted by the Christian religion as truth is because the position won in a vote, not because any prophets at the Council of Nicea revealed the doctrine to be true, which means that trying to defend the doctrine by calling it a “mystery” doesn’t help the position at all. (Although, before moving on, I should quickly say that Trinitarians are right about one thing, which is that the Oneness doctrine, also known as Modalism, is incorrect; although not for the reasons they claim, but rather for the most important reason listed above that Trinitarianism is wrong: because it also denies Christ’s actual death and entombment.)

So, with all that said, here are the articles, books, and websites that explain more about why we don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Articles and books


The following websites are not necessarily run by ”Concordant” believers, but they do contain some excellent arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, so I’m linking to them here.