Professor Charles C. Ryrie, writing in his well known work, Basic Theology, says:
"The N. T. contains no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity of God (since “these three are one” in 1 John 5:7 is apparently not a part of the genuine text of scripture (p. 60). A
definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side of oneness or threeness (p. 61). Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must admit that in the final analysis it is a mystery (p.61). In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity (p.65). But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that “clearly” states that there is one God who exists in three persons (p. 89). The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof-texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results … If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit." (p.90)
From: Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatiuis Press, pp. 144,145
"Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not present on the face of Scripture, not just in the sense that the word Trinity is never used-its first use was by Theophilus of Antioch in 186-but also in the sense that it is by no means obvious, from the surface meaning of the text, that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person. We naturally read back into the Bible the beliefs we already hold, each of us having been instructed in the Faith before ever picking up the
Bible. References to the Holy Spirit's divinity seem to jump out at us. If we imagine ourselves as ancient pagans or as present-day non-Christians, coming across the Bible for the first time, we realize that the status of the Holy Spirit is by no means clear. If we think of ourselves as having no recourse to divine Tradition and to the Magisterium of the Church, we can appreciate how easy it must have been for the early pneumatological heresies to arise."
Roger Olson and Christopher Hall in their book, The Trinity write:
"It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? (p.1). The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N. T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicaea (324 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD)."
Robert A. Wagoner, in The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, writes:
"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. When one considers just how different the Trinitarian view is from the traditional Jewish view of God, you have to ask yourself, where are all the arguments to get the Jew to change his view? Why, when the Apostle Paul spends entire chapters getting the Jew to change his view of the law, isn’t there just one text to get the Jew to change his view of God? This vital, but missing piece, is the Trinity’s single biggest flaw.
The more I looked at the Trinity, the more I saw a doctrine rich in tradition, and passionately defended by brilliant and sincere people, but serverly weak in reason and badly wanting in Biblical support." (p. 88-89)
From Elbridge Gerry Brooks:
"But confining myself to the point before us, it is enough for me to ask if there is an intelligent man or woman to be found, who will say that the Trinitarian doctrine of Christ is a rational and consistent doctrine?—a doctrine that any thoughtful person can intelligently believe? I know how sensitive those who believe it are to any reflections to its disadvantage; but if I am speaking to any such, they must excuse me for pressing this question upon them: Is this Trinitarian doctrine a rational and consistent doctrine to you? Is there one present who can say that it is so? or who can say that he or she knows any body to whom it is so? The doctrine of the Trinity has been pronounced 'an outrage against our rational nature.' Certainly, it is an offence to all our ideas of what is reasonable or probable. 'Its three persons, constituting its one God, must either be frittered away into three unnecessary distinctions, into sounds signifying nothing, or they are three conscious agents, who cannot be made one being, with one consciousness and one will.' To say, then, that Christ is one of these three, and yet that with his two associates he is but one, is to contradict the very first principles of common-sense, and to assert what, as was said in our last discourse, is a mathematical impossibility."
