Vox Day, the blogger I enjoy reading, apparently disbelieves the Trinity.  

I did not study Theology.  I studied English Literature.  Though, I am well-read when it comes to the Bible.  

Still, his points demand an answer, and I really would like the questions he brings up to be resolved.  Is anyone able to take Vox to task here in what he states?

Personally, in this, I think he is arrogant to consider the limitations of God.  As if he knew what it was like in all dimensions of existence.  But whatever.  

I'm already engaged in a discussion on Logic in another forum, and I just can't wrap my mind around anything.  I'd appreciate the collective thoughts of Cath Info's smartest.  

Without further ado:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/03/false-doctrine-of-trinity.html

The false doctrine of the Trinity

The eighth point in Jamsco's attempted summary of my doctrinal beliefs is a succinct one. "8. The Trinity is obvious BS. It’s easily proved. [Direct quote from a comment here]." As it happens, he got that one entirely correct, which is not the case in two of the other ten points.

Now, the falsity of the doctrine can be proved in a variety of ways, but since we're dealing with mainstream Churchianity here, I'll utilize the easiest and most obvious because those who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity also subscribe to the doctrine of divine omniscience. Let's follow the logic:

1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. These three divine persons are combined in one being we call God.

True

2. This one being is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.

True

3. It is written, in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father.

Haydock Commentary : Ver. 36. No man knoweth ... but the Father alone. The words in St. Mark (xiii. 32.) are still harder: neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. The Arians objected this place, to shew that Christ being ignorant of the day of judgment, could not be truly God. By the same words, no one knoweth, but the Father alone, (as they expound them) the Holy Ghost must be excluded from being the true God. In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must have one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections. 2. It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colossians ii. 3. And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai. 3. But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man. 4. It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says St. Augustine[5], what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. (Witham) --- By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things. Some Greek manuscripts add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity. (Bible de Vence)

4. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal and consubstantial with the Father. They may or may not be co-eternal.

See Above

5. Being neither co-equal nor consubstantial, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one being with the Father.

See Above

6. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

I further note that we can branch from (3) and prove the falsehood of the Trinity in a slightly different manner.

See Above

4b. Since God is omniscient and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are God.

See Above

5b. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

See Above

It should not escape one's attention that if one insists on clinging to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is necessary to abandon the doctrine of divine omniscience. Obviously, I subscribe to neither, but it is not possible to subscribe to both. My perspective is that divinity can be most usefully understood in a manner akin to human royalty. Prince Harry may be royal, but no one is under the impression that he is co-equal and consubstantial with his grandmother, the sovereign Queen Elizabeth. This is in keeping with the idea that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are Man's advocates, they are not his judge.

And for another perspective from one with doubts about the Trinity doctrine, this is an interesting summary of Isaac Newton's studies of the subject. Another one can be found here.

In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

In his human nature he was inferior to the Father and may have even not known certain things. We read, for example, that Christ "grew in knowledge and wisdom." I believe these passages refer to certain limitations of His human nature.

Quote

I am not supporting Vox Day/Thomas Beale, but the Church's position.  I believe in the Trinity.  I was criticizing him

But what is the point? Most people on the planet don't believe in the Trinity. Everyone here does. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish.