Journal: Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry
Volume: JBTM 21:1 (Spring 2024)
Article: Anti-Trinitarian Argumentation: A Critical Examination
Author: Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Anti-Trinitarian Argumentation: A Critical Examination

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. is president of the Institute for Religious Research in Cedar Springs, Michigan, and the author or co-author of 15 books including The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense (forthcoming Nov. 2024).

It seems highly appropriate to offer this article critiquing bad argumentation in honor of a scholar (and dear friend) who models good argumentation. Bob Stewart employs razor-sharp analysis in genuinely respectful engagement with those of contrary viewpoints. He teaches his students not just what to think but how to think, and more than that, the values that should guide the way they think.1

Critics of the doctrine of the Trinity and related doctrines (especially the Incarnation) espouse theologies that radically differ from one another. Muslims confess that Allah alone is God and that he is not to be called a father at all; Jesus is just one of many prophets. Unitarians believe that God is a solitary being called the Father in a figurative sense and that he has exalted the human Jesus with divine powers. Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that Jehovah the Father created Jesus as a lesser god called Michael the archangel. Mormons (Latter-day Saints) maintain that Elohim is the literal Father of Jesus, who is a subordinate God called Jehovah. Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.2

JBTM 21:1 (Spring 2024) 72

We call these religions “anti-Trinitarian” (and not just “non-Trinitarian”) because all of their founders or earliest representatives espoused alternative interpretations of biblical religion that viewed the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as departures from the revelations given to the biblical patriarchs and prophets.3 Despite stark differences in their own theologies, these religious groups use many of the same faulty types of argument in the defense of those theologies. In part their argumentative similarities may be due to the fact that these groups rarely respond to one another and instead focus almost all of their polemical efforts on defending their views over against the traditional Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.4

Trinitarians can and do commit many of the same argumentative mistakes discussed here. Adhering to the right doctrine does not make people immune from poor reasoning. This author is no exception. On the other hand, anti-Trinitarian polemics, even at their best, depend on flawed argumentation. One cannot offer a...