We Don’t Need the Trinity

The Trinity is not Important according to Dr. William Lane Craig

by Ibn Anwar

 

In this eye-opening explanation, the renowned champion of many Christians, today, namely Dr. William Lane Craig, premiere defender of the Christian faith, candidly admits and recognises the unimportance of the Trinity to a person’s salvation. Not only that, in this declaration, he inadvertently recognises the non-Trinitarian theology that the great prophets of old, including Moses and Abraham had, which means they were really Muslims in theology.

 

Some important and revealing points from Dr. William Lane Craig to be noted down:

  1. You do not need the Trinity to be saved.
  2. The Bible does not clearly teach the Trinity.
  3. The Old Testament does not have the Trinity.
  4. Christians are themselves confused about the Trinity and do not understand it.
  5. Muslims and Jews have a unitarian concept of monotheism.
  6. Abraham and Moses had unitarian concepts of God, therefore, their belief regarding God was more Islamic than it was Trinitarian.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “We Don’t Need the Trinity”

  1. james says:

    hello

    when it says “the word was with god and the word is god” then why isnt “word” metaphor for god?

    “in the beginning wisdom was with god and wisdom is god”

    why cant this language be metaphor ?

    all throughout the gospels jesus never identifies himself as “word of god” just like he never identifies himself as yhwh. is this correct?

    here are my other questions

    so a disciple of jesus has been given authority to calm the storm

    in the gospel of mark u just need faith in your heart and utter “storm calm down” without appeal to god

    now my question is

    did divine attribute get transferred to the disciple or did god Instrument the disciple ?

  2. james says:

    there is this christian called “inspiring philosophy” who said the following :

    In Isaiah, YHWH declares that, at the time of his kingdom come, “to me every knee will bow, every tongue will confess” (Isa 45:23). But in Phil 2, it is Jesus that everyone bows their knees towards. Furthermore, in Paul’s Jewish context the one who has the name above all other names can only be YHWH. But in Phil 2:9, the “name which is above every name” is the name of Jesus. Paul is clearly trying to indicate that Jesus is YHWH here.

    end quote

    now hold on a second, if the father is “greater in STATUS” than the son, then this guy seems to have “co-equalized” status of the son to that of the father?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Thanks for your comments, but none of what you said actually addresses the point of the post. The issues you’ve raised are addressed elsewhere in my other articles.

Leave a Reply