The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

by Anthony Buzzard, Charles F. Hunting

This important work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the one God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed that needs to be challenged. This book is likely to be a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted, as it originally was, in the Hebrew Bible. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of the original Christian documents. For additional information visit the author's website at

Genres: Christianity, Religion

384 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1998

About the author

Sir Anthony Farquhar Buzzard, 3rd Baronet, ARCM (b. 28 June 1935), is a biblical scholar, unitarian Christian theologian, author and professor on the faculty of Atlanta Bible College.

Reviews

[Richard Dempsey · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book has clearly not been written or researched from a neutral and impartial perspective and reveals a clear bias from the very outset. The book opens with a page of quotations which are no doubt intended to display support for the author’s viewpoint from a variety of respected, reliable and independent sources. That is the impression clearly intended to be given. However, on inspection, the accuracy and reliability of certain of these quotations, and the ‘independence’ of some of the sources quoted, can be seriously called into question.

Here is the first 'quotation' as it appears in the book:
“In the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. The subject of the fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches.” This leaves the reader with the thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was a strikingly new and divisive development.

However, here is the actual quotation (which gives a very different impression):

“In the year 317, another storm of greater consequence and more pernicious arose in Egypt, which spread its ravages over the whole Christian world. The ground of this contest was the doctrine of the three persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which, during the three preceding centuries had not been in all respects defined. It had indeed often been decided, in opposition to the Sabellians and others, that there is a real difference between the Father and the Son, and also between them and the Holy Spirit, or as we commonly express it, that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead.” The thought here is that the Trinity doctrine was already well established at this time but that there were still areas of disagreement, particularly about how the doctrine should be defined.

There is also a misleading (i.e. incomplete) quotation from Encylopedia Britannica 14th Edition which leaves the impression that the author of the article regards the doctrine of the Trinity to be "un-biblical" – however, this is not what the article says and, in fact, the section of the article quoted actually opens with the following statement (not quoted): “Harnack has good reason for insisting on the fundamental importance of the great Eastern dogmas, Trinity and Incarnation.”

Other quotations are from like-minded unitarians, including Andrew Norton, who was known as the "Unitarian Pope" - all of this confirms an open bias which is present from the outset and continues throughout the book (e.g. in the Introduction, the authors, rather disingenuously, state that they "formerly subscribed to the prevailing understanding that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with the Father. We taught this view for 20 years. We are fully aware of the verses in the New Testament which might appear to support the traditional doctrine of the Trinity." - This gives the impression that both authors had previously studied and come to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but had later been challenged to reconsider that doctrinal position. The truth, however, is that during the 20 years to which they refer to having "taught this view," both were staunchly anti-trinitarian, being members of a religious sect that regularly attacked and ridiculed the doctrine of the Trinity).

[Marcin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound greatly strengthened my Unitarian faith and eliminated any remaining doubts I had about the non-preexistence of Jesus. It is a well-structured and compelling book that clearly illustrates why the doctrine of the Trinity is not only illogical but also internally contradictory. Anthony Buzzard does an excellent job of exposing the weaknesses of this dogma and simultaneously providing a solid biblical foundation for Unitarianism.

One of the book’s most impactful aspects is its detailed explanation of the concept of “Hebrew preexistence.” Buzzard effectively demonstrates how certain biblical passages have been misunderstood or mistranslated, leading to widespread confusion among Christians regarding the nature of Jesus. By carefully analyzing these verses, he provides clarity and helps readers understand the biblical texts in their proper context.

My personal reflection on the Trinity goes beyond the book’s arguments. To me, the Trinity is not only incomprehensible but also incoherent when scrutinized. As thinkers like Isaac Newton have noted, anything that sounds illogical and is inherently irrational cannot be true. The Trinity falls into this category—it cannot stand up to logical analysis. What Buzzard’s book does exceptionally well is lay out the biblical evidence to support this conclusion, presenting clear scriptural arguments against the Trinitarian doctrine.

I also believe that much of the confusion surrounding the Trinity stems from biased Bible translations that favor Trinitarian interpretations. These translations, in my view, have played a significant role in perpetuating misunderstandings about the nature of Jesus and God. Anyone who values reason and takes the time to examine the Scriptures more critically will likely recognize that the Trinity lacks a solid biblical foundation.

While Buzzard’s book focuses on biblical reasoning, I feel it could have benefited from more formal-logical critiques to further strengthen the case against the Trinity. However, as it stands, the work remains a compelling and theologically rich resource. It aligns with what I have long believed: what is illogical and inconsistent with reason cannot be true.

In conclusion, The Doctrine of the Trinity is an invaluable resource for those still grappling with the question of whether Unitarianism is true. Buzzard provides a clear and concise framework for understanding the biblical basis of Unitarian beliefs, supported by rigorous scriptural analysis. This book is a must-read for anyone seeking to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity and to deepen their understanding of biblical truth.

[Enrique J. Rojas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Probably the worst book on theology I've ever read. I'm not even saying that because of disagreement with the position but because of the content itself. It's poorly written with misrepresentation, untrue statements and inconsistent arguments. Here's a few examples of what I mean.

1) The authors claims no one prior to the Nicean Creed in 381 AD had claimed the Holy Spirit as a divine person. That's simply untrue and there are quite a few writers that did including Tertulian almost 200 years prior.

2) The authors claim that Paul never speaks of the Holy Spirit as a divine person. Two pages later he/they reference 3 passages were Paul list the Spirit as a third individual person and dismisses it.

3) Claim: Jesus isn't God. Then states the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus are the same Spirit. Jesus isn't God unless it comes to Holy Spirit references then suddenly Jesus is divine and worthy of worship. Yikes! trying to argue that the Trinity isn't monotheistic while worshipping Jesus but not recognizing him as the one true God is not a very good argument.

4) Author states that the Spirit isn't personal. Then goes on and references passages and says the Spirit is personal but that's because to relate to the Spirit is to relate to the Father. So is the Spirit personal or not?

5) Claim Protestants have a problem with Theotokos. Reality is most Protestants don't have a problem with Theotokos.

There's a lot more than can be said but this book was just intellectually dishonest. It destroys categories and rebuilds new ones that aren't well put together. There's better material on Unitarianism by far more consistent thinkers.

[Mr S Jarvis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book. I find most Christian’s believe in the Trinity because that’s what they have been taught.
No new believer questions what they learn in church because they have been or want to be saved.

This in time creates a fear in them. That if they turning away or begin questioning what they have learned will affect their eternal salvation.

No amount of scripture references, or Greek meaning will be enough to convince any one to change what they currently believe. Only reading the bible over and over again will allow its words to get down into your heart.

At that point the truth will set you free.

[Benjamin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Clear anti-trinitarian heresy following the pattern of "well, this is what the Bible says but it can't mean what it says because we don't want to believe in it, and here are some theological acrobatics to prove that we're right".

[Troy]

A foundational work on the topic that should be in every believer's library.

[Matt Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gives a pro-Arian perspective on many purportedly pro-trinitarian bible passages. Good for identifying scriptural assumptions and will provide a Bible student with different perspectives on the nature of Christ than are accepted by orthodoxy.

Definitely a slow read, but will be handy as reference.

[Ancient Weaver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book insofar as the author sticks to the topic of debunking the legitimacy of Trinitarianism, a Hellenistic concoction with no legitimate roots in Jewish biblical tradition or in the early Jesus movements. Even though the author brings some other questionable, fundamentalist Christian presuppositions to the table, they don't overcloud his more sound reasoning on this particular issue.