The question "What is the Scriptural basis against the Trinity" was closed as a duplicate of "What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity". The poster appears to disagree with that decision. I have created this question in order for this debate to occur.

Should the question have been closed as a duplicate?

For the record I will duplicate the OPs reasoning for not closing the question


All those with eyes to see and minds to understand can quickly discern the differences, but allow me to point them out:

  1. That post/question was asked by a trinitarian whereas this one was not.
  2. That post/question was in regards to why people "disbelieve" whereas this post/question was in regards to scripture that opposes the doctrine/theory of the trinity without regard to one's own personal beliefs/disbeliefs.

It would also be beneficial to leave this alone even if you personally believe that this is a duplicate or want to see it closed for other reasons.

  1. This question has received more answers and more detailed answers
  2. There are many ways to ask the same question, and a user might not be able to find the answer if they're asking it a different way. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/duplicates

This specific question isn't related to one's own personal beliefs so it would be more fitting (as relating to reason 2 above) for someone searching for straight information on scripture and the trinity as opposed to finding out other's beliefs.


  • Seeing as how the asker is also the answerer; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that The Duke is disappointed that his attempt at a self answer failed. However, he could post his answer in the older question.
    – user3961
    Jan 15, 2014 at 6:23
  • By the way, they are exact duplicates, by any measure. So a downvote because the newer, duplicate question should not be reopened. If the mods think it is worth it, they can migrate the answers on the new one to the old one.
    – user3961
    Jan 15, 2014 at 6:24
  • @fredsbend You are incorrect that this is an exact duplicate. It should be apparent why, but I explained the differences further in my original question. However, a moderator thought that it would be good to unethically edit my question. And yes, I also provided an answer, but that was only WAY after many other answers had been provided, discussion had gone on for some time, and I felt as though I could add something that had not already been mentioned. Your condescension in your comment is unappreciated and unwelcome. Jan 15, 2014 at 14:07
  • Why don't you think it's a duplicate?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jan 15, 2014 at 14:08
  • @curiousdannii I wrote out the explanation as to why it's not a duplicate in my original post, but that was conveniently edited to remove that part. Someone attempted to post something similar in this original meta post, but I can't be certain as to the accuracy without access to my original question. However, check out the "quote" in this first meta post. Jan 15, 2014 at 14:18
  • @TheDukeOfMarshall your revision is in the edit history.
    – wax eagle
    Jan 15, 2014 at 19:37
  • @fredsbend " I asked this question because I wanted to make sure there was a place for The Duke of Marshall to get a comprehensive explanation for why his question shouldn't be reopened, and to understand the will of the community - not because I thought it should be reopened. Jan 15, 2014 at 19:41
  • @DJClayworth I know, but your title asks if it should be reopened and the convention here on meta is to downvote when you disagree. I upvoted your answer because I do agree with that.
    – user3961
    Jan 16, 2014 at 20:51
  • I was unaware of this convention. Anyway, I have now reversed the sense of the question, which shouldn't impact any of the answers, but means that everyone can now upvote it. All of which is slightly silly. Jan 18, 2014 at 17:46
  • @DJ Yes, a bit silly, but I obliged you anyway. Reversed my downvote and upvoted.
    – user3961
    Jan 21, 2014 at 2:49

5 Answers 5


No, it should not be reopened' and the existing answers could be migrated.

  • I encourage an opposing answer if there is a good reason to keep it open. Jan 15, 2014 at 12:10

I think only one question should remain open, though I don't have a strong opinion about which one. I'd naturally keep the older one open and close the newer one, though The Duke Of Marshall's question might be the better worded one.

Let's look at his points one by one:


That post/question was asked by a trinitarian whereas this one was not.

Irrelevant for whether or not the question should be reopened.


That post/question was in regards to why people "disbelieve" whereas this post/question was in regards to scripture that opposes the doctrine/theory of the trinity without regard to one's own personal beliefs/disbeliefs.

The relevant questions are, in warren's question:

In related form to a previous question on the basis for the Trinity, what is the Biblical basis for disbelief of the doctrine? Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

And in The Duke Of Marshall's (TDOM):

What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?

Both ask about the Biblical support for non-trinitarianism, while only TDOM's asks about theological arguments. I'd support keeping TDOM's closed, but altering warren's to ask about theological arguments as well.


This question has received more answers and more detailed answers

I don't know what Stack Exchange sites normally do, but keeping the older question makes sense to me, especially as the mods can migrate the answers across.


There are many ways to ask the same question, and a user might not be able to find the answer if they're asking it a different way. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/duplicates

On that note I do prefer TDOM's title. The body of the questions seem pretty similar so probably neither will be easier to search for. How long would TDOM's remain visible if it does remain closed? It would be worth adding the other tags to warren's in any case.


I first want to apologize for this comment. The issue is that we have seen that kind of thing before, where people really aren't looking to get real answers, instead they are only trying to push a particular opinion/agenda. It is clear now that you are not trying to do that. However, I can't get over the fact that you seem really pissed at this. It's really not that big of a deal. Making a mountain out of a mole hill, they say.

Now to address the two questions. Here's why they look like duplicates. Your's says:

What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?

The other one says:

how are [non-trinitarian] views justified from the Bible?
Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

The only real difference is that you ask for theological arguments as well, but that is not really a significant point because the other does not exclude them. Further, on this site, it is difficult to point out some scripture then not add in the theology that interprets it.

Two other people have already addressed your points about why they are not duplicates so I will not. I will add, however, that your point of the difference between "disbelief" and "scripture that opposes the doctrine" is a matter of semantics; that's splitting hairs. Listen to what the asker means, not what the asker has said [written]. Further, just because it is "proof" to you does not make it proof to anyone else. Proof is also a subjective term. This site isn't about proving anything. This site is about Christianity and its people. It is not about what is the truth about God and the proper way to practice Christianity. That's why nearly every question here takes the form of "What does this particular type of Christian say about this?" The community almost immediately closes down questions in the form "Why is this right or wrong?" Likewise, answers that give the impression that a certain belief is right or wrong are downvoted or at least not upvoted.

Some additional concerns:

Placing your reasons why it is not a duplicate in the original post is not how the system is designed. That is why this meta site exists. The main site is for the content that pertains to the site topic only. You have called it a mere formality (posting your complaints on meta), but that couldn't be further from the truth. Everything that this site is, every policy, every guideline, even the theme, everything, was forged here on meta. It started with a few people going through a definition stage to conceptualize the site. Then once there were enough people committed, it went into private beta, where a fixed number of people participated. Then it went into public beta, where anyone could join. Then finally site graduation, which marked Stack Exchange's commitment to keep the site living and aggressively optimize it for search engines. All of this took several years and it was meta posts like this one that laid down the foundations that this site now operates on.

It is not your post. Neither is this one mine. They all belong to Stack Exchange, who has set up the system so that the community (everyone with a username) can edit any post. The idea that the post is yours and it is unethical to change it stems from a misunderstanding of the aforementioned fundamental working of the Stack Exchange system. You are certainly the author and you get credit for it, but it is not your post by any means, unless you simply mean "I am the author" by calling it your post.

Additionally, the idea that people are trying to hide your question because they don't agree with it is ludicrous. If that were true then you need to explain why we have left alone plenty of other questions about non-trinitarianism and many other beliefs that fall outside of mainstream belief. Beyond that, your question is linked to another that is about the exact same topic and it remains open. Nobody is trying to hide or censure anything.

All actions except up and down votes are recorded, including post edits, and can be viewed by anybody. Even deleted posts can be viewed, if you have over 10K rep. The system has a large array of checks and balances that prevent everyone, even the mods, from taking actions that the community does not agree with. You can see a post's previous versions by clicking on the link that says when it was last edited. Because there are so many checks and balances you can rest assure that wax eagle and everybody else cannot do anything without a whole slew of other community members seeing it. If he made a really bad call, then likely someone would reverse it and open a meta post about it. I'm one person who would do this and I have in the past. The point here is that this site really is community run. The mods only step in as a mod when they must and the SE staff almost never interferes. So if you have a problem with what has happened here, you need to convince five community members with 3K+ rep to vote to reopen your question. Seeing as not a single user has voiced agreement with you yet, I don't think that is going to happen.

Bottom Line: There are quite a few people who are calling it a duplicate and are not convinced by the argument you have given. There is not one person who has voiced agreement with you that it is not a duplicate. It's really not that big of a deal.

One final note.

I understand that you are angry and frustrated, but I think you are letting that affect your tone. You almost seem hostile. I promise, nobody here interacting with you is taking actions against you or is hostile toward you. I can personally vouch for all four mods, David Stratton, DJ Clayworth, James T, Daи, and Narnian. They are all stand up guys who take the quality and operation of this site seriously.

So with that I urge you to read this meta post: Newcomers: Be patient. You will get there if you follow our direction. Keep trying

Much of the things you are saying and complaining about have happened before and they come from misunderstanding. I wrote that post to help users like you realize that there is no conspiracy against you or any particular topic.


While I think David Stratton has the simplest and best answer, allow me to write an answer that addresses the OPs points specifically.

  • "That post/question was asked by a Trinitarian whereas this one was not."

We don't care about this, and nor should anyone. Questions shouldn't be answered differently depending on who asked them

  • "That post/question was in regards to why people "disbelieve" whereas this post/question was in regards to scripture that opposes the doctrine/theory of the Trinity"

No, "that question" clearly asks for the 'Biblical basis' against the Trinity. There is no difference between 'Biblical basis' and 'Scriptural Basis'.

  • "This question has received more answers and more detailed answers"

More answers does not necessarily mean better answers, and nor does longer answers. In any case, there is nothing to stop people adding their answers to this question to the original. In fact it's better, because it keeps all the answers to this question in one place.

  • "There are many ways to ask the same question, and a user might not be able to find the answer if they're asking it a different way."

That's why we keep duplicates, but close them. We want people to find questions as many ways as possible, but we want all the answers in one place. People finding this question can go to the original for their answers.

  • DJ, You're mis-representing what I said. I never said it was a difference between scriptural basis and biblical basis. Yes, those are the same. What I ACTUALLY said was that there was a difference about what constitutes "disbelief" and what actually opposes the doctrine. Disbelief is what each one person comes to, but proof against a doctrine is just that. It's irrelevant to one's personal belief. Jan 15, 2014 at 14:28

Well, it shouldn't be reopened because it never should have been closed in the first place. There was plenty of healthy responses and answers WAY before any moderator decided that "Hey maybe this is a duplicate". This is not a duplicate question and I've already explained why, but since editing and updating the answer wasn't good enough, allow me to repost it here.

Oh wait..........someone edited my question without my approval in an inappropriate manner. That was awful nice of you @wax eagle. I'm so glad freedom of speech is respected on this site. So I guess my explanation is lost forever seeing as how I can't get in to edit my post.

Oh well, I guess I should have smartened up and realized that I'm just wasting my time, again. Once the moderators have decided to oppress a question contrary to what they personally believe there's no changing their minds. They're going to do it no matter what and everyone else is expected to bow down and obey.

Funny how all of a sudden the question is closed once a moderator got called out and disproved on a statistic he was trying to uphold.

Just one question, does this site answer to anyone higher up? Maybe a corporate StackExchange or something? Oh, never mind, I'll just go ahead and contact them.

  • 2
    No moderator decided that, users of this site decided that it was a duplicate. I've actually intentionally stayed out of it because the site process is working as it should. Now, there is a meta process ongoing and instead of honoring that process you edited your question to defend it. That's not how it works. You'd have been wise to have spent your answer telling us why your question is not a duplicate than attacking users and moderators for closing it.
    – wax eagle
    Jan 15, 2014 at 15:02
  • 1
    Your question was edited (and locked), because instead of addressing the claims that it was a duplicate you edited it to defend it, that's not appropriate. Freedom of speech is not in play here. We don't claim to provide a free platform for speech. We try to respect all view points, but we do so within a strict rules framework. You are definitely welcome to contact Stack Exchange directly, there is a contact us link at the bottom of each page.
    – wax eagle
    Jan 15, 2014 at 15:04
  • Negative, the meta process was not started until after I clarified and pointed out the obvious differences and I only did that in response to a request for clarification. So no, I'm not "dishonoring the process". So don't talk to me about what would have been "wise" to do when I did exactly what you said would have been "wise" to do. I'm glad you clarified that freedom of speech is not respected here. Reminds me of a quote goodreads.com/quotes/… Jan 15, 2014 at 19:35
  • Of course, it's like I said, the decision was already made before the first person clicked "close". This whole thing about "Discuss it on meta" is just a formality. A dog and pony show to make it look legit. I'm not really sure why you guys continue to waste people's time with these games. Just close it, say "We do what we want and you can't do nothing about it", and be done with it. At least that way it's not a big run around and waste of time. Jan 15, 2014 at 19:37
  • 2
    Having a question closed as a duplicate isn't a bad thing. We're not saying "we don't want this" we're saying "hey this has answers over here! if you want more answers, add a bounty" blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/handling-duplicate-questions
    – wax eagle
    Jan 15, 2014 at 19:39
  • I can't add a bounty due to the fact that certain people want rid of this and have closed it. I'm not saying duplicates are good, I'm saying that falsely classifying something as a duplicate just to get rid of it is unethical. Jan 15, 2014 at 19:42
  • A bounty on the other question. not yours.
    – wax eagle
    Jan 15, 2014 at 19:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .