What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed#cite_note-17

 

I really cannot take this article seriously. Some of their statements are just plain misleading - borderline deceptive in my opinion. Take their last statement for example,

 

"Some Christian theologians have recognized the above difficulties with the Nicene formulation of the trinity, and are advocating a removal of the Greek philosophical ideals that have unnecessarily clouded the issue"

 

They then proceed to quote JURGEN MOLTMANN. In current biblical and theological scholarship, Jurgen Moltmann is a theological loony toon (this is an understatement). I have read some of his stuff on the trinity and in discussing his work in class went so far to label him a (near) heretic, as he affirms an eternal patripassionism, no distinction between the two natures of Christ (the Nestorian heresy) and collapses the immanent and economic trinity. Even mormons would freak out at his nutty theology.

 

To take Jurgen Moltmann and then say "some christian theologians" is borderline truth bending. A more faithful way to represent him to new readers would be "one theological outcast whom almost nobody agrees with in scholarship." 

 

Always, always, always the Johannine comma (5:7-. Please let us put that to rest. No one thinks that this verse should be in the bible, and it was definitely not around when the early church was talking about the trinity. Why does everybody think that if they point out the johannine comma then all trinitarian theology falls? Can I also point out that it hasn't been in a protestant bible in the last 30 years? Its funny because LDS quads keep the Johannine comma in there! This is a little odd. Enough with the straw men - please. John 10:30 is not where I am going to go first for trinitarian theology. It is places like 2 Corinthians 3:17, Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (see Deut 6:4), John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Acts 5:3-5, John 1:18, Matthew 28:19, Isaiah 44:6-8, and many more.

 

These articles never actually hit the main issues. The tragedy is that they set up a straw man and then all the readers actually think that they have dealt with trinitarian theology well. I have never seen them address the most pertinent texts of scripture regarding the trinity... It usually consists on attacks on early christianity. This is of course ironic because LDS scholars will run around scavenging for early church fathers talking about theosis, but still claim the church to be apostate after the apostles died. Am I the only one that thinks this has some problems? We can reject the trinity because the church was apostate, but when the early church supports LDS doctrine, it all of a sudden counts as being faithful to scripture? This seems to be special pleading to me, unfortunately.

[Ran]

In the Nicene Creed does it not say that Jesus is one substance with the Father? In other words one entiity?

 

 

"Consubstantial with the Father" — in other words, "in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 262).

 

The term "entity" can be imprecise; Trinitarians formed by Thomistic theology wouldn't use the term in describing God.

 

They'll say God and Jesus are one and I'll ask like Jesus is God the Father and all to often it's a ya, yes, a nod. I then proceed to point out what is crystal clear tome and so many others in the Bible-that God the Father and Jesus Christ are compleetly separate beings.

 

 

Your self-described Trinitarian interlocutors who concede that Jesus is God the Father aren't really Trinitarian, but Modalist. Trinitarianism and Modalism are mutually exclusive, because the former asserts the real distinction of the divine persons from one another and the latter explicitly denies it.

 

To reiterate, Trinitarianism asserts the real distinction of the divine persons from one another (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 254). 

 

With regards to this real distinction of the divine persons from one another, Trinitarians and Latter Day Saints are on the same side against Modalists. Both Trinitarians and Latter Day Saints would agree that "Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father . . ." (Post 9) in opposition to Modalists.

Where Trinitarians and Latter Day Saints disagree, however, is whether this real distinction of the divine persons from one another also entails that the divine persons are separate from one another.

You've articulated the Latter Day Saint position: "God the Father and Jesus Christ are completely separate beings" (Post 42).

 

Trinitarians, on the other hand, assert that the divine persons are inseparable (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 267).

[Vance]

In Part I is about what verses in the Bible found the doctrine.

That sentence seems to contradict this one.

 

Part II is about what we do with that evidence and how we get to the trinity.

This one indicated that the doctrine is not found in the Bible but rather must be derived through a tortuous path.

 

OOPS! There goes "sola scriptura" under the educate mormons bus.

 

Part III corrects LDS misconceptions about the trinity (what 90% of LDS have told me what they think the trinity is).

What is interesting about this statment is that it also applied to Christians.  Although I think the 90% is too generous.  I my discussions with other trinitarians who attempt to explain the trinity, it ALWAYS gets to "it is a mystery".  So, even trinitarians don't really know what the trinity is.

[Vance]

 

Yet the ultimate attack on idolatry is when the prophets pull this language out and argue for the existence of only one true god. In order to save space I will quote yet one passage:

 

This is what the Lord says, Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord 

Almighty: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no 

god [el]. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay 

out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, 

and what is yet to come. Yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not 

tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? 

You are my witnesses. Is there any god [el] besides me? No, there is no other 

Rock; I know not one." (Isa 44:6-8 )

As you should know by now, (because you should have compared this statement with other similar statements in the Bible)  These are statements of preeminence, NOT statements of exclusion.

 

Just like these,

1. Gen. 14: 18-20, 22
     18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
     19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
     20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
         •  •  •
     22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
2. Ps. 57: 2
     2 I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.
3. Ps. 78: 56
     56 Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:
4. Dan. 3: 26
     26 ¶ Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
5. Dan. 5: 18, 21
     18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
         •  •  •
     21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
6. Mark 5: 7
     7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
7. Acts 16: 17
     17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
8. Heb. 7: 1
     1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

And these,

1. Ps. 57: 2
     2 I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.
2. Luke 8: 28
     28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

and these,

1. Luke 1: 32
     32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
   

         •  •  •

     35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

         •  •  •

     76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

    

   And these,

1. Ps. 18: 13

  13 The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.

1. Luke 6: 35

  35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

 

All statements that could have been made exclusive, but were made statements of preeminence.

 

Oh, but there are more. We also have these.

 

1. Deut. 10: 17
     17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
2. Josh. 22: 22
     22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)
3. Ps. 136: 2
     2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
4. Dan. 2: 47
     47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.
5. Dan. 11: 36
     36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Now, of course these beg the question, are these phrases of praise of any value if these other "gods" are 1) false gods, or 2) non-existent gods?

 

That would be like me saying, Hey Logan you are an educator of idiots.  Did that make you feel praised?

 

 

 

This seems to rule out henotheism within the boundaries of the Old Testament. It does not just say "worship one god" but that there is no other god in existence besides YHWH. This is clearly not meant to be subjectively specific to Israel. Although there are indeed titles such as "god of gods" and "the Highest god" they must be not only in their full scriptural context, but also in their semantical context. Unfortunately, where most people stray on this issue is on a misunderstanding of "elohim." "Elohim" is not a name for YHWH, it is a title. "El" can be easily applied to other spiritual beings. We may compare "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" to the use of "god of gods." Given that it is a flexible term, it by no means indicates that there are other gods/lords/kings on par with Adonai at all.

 

Oh, how precious, with a mere wave of the hand, he dismisses all objections.  Too bad he did not apply his own advice to his work.  You know, the context thingy.

 

Here is some context for the "beside me" usage in the Bible.

1 Kgs. 3: 20

  20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.

 

And then there is this one.

zeph 2:15 This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

 

Oh wait, that is a statment of preeminence, not exclusion.

 

 

In regards to Paul, the articular and semantic nuances of ὁ θεός (ho theos, god) must be understood (much like the OT use of אֶלֹהִים). The greek article is almost like a demonstrative pronoun ("the god" means "that particular god"). Furthermore, ὁ θεός, as the septuagint translation for elohim/el, is used also as a flexible term and not a name. If you click on bluestapleshurt's link, you can see a short exegesis of the most pertinent statement to this in Paul. He writes 

 

"We know that there are no idols in the world and that 'there is no god except one.' For although there may be so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' -  yet for us there is one God . . ." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, my translation).

And yet Paul held revelation above secular scholarship. 

 

Now, if we apply this to John 1:1 we find that Jesus (the Word) is NOT "that particular god", how interesting.

 

 

The reason I chose to use my translation is that the same word for "world" in "god of this world" is used in "there are no idols in the world." Again, if we think of a word like "master" that can be equally applied to god and other beings, it makes sense. For example: "there are many so-called masters, but actually there is one master." The problem is, again, that instead of understanding the wide lexical range of ὁ θεός, you collapse Paul's distinct monotheistic - and sometimes theologically polemical - tone in many passages, thereby washing down Paul's ontological category for God. Again, it seems to twist the NT evidence to argue that Paul believed in other gods that could be on the same level as Adonai, but encouraged the worship of one. For Paul, there is the worship of one is because there is only one in a unique ontological category of his own.

Interesting attempt to show that Paul did NOT mean what he said.  Got it.

 

Well, I am getting bored with this pseudoscholarship.

Grace and Peace

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

The most important difference lies in #1: there is only one God. LDS believe that there are many gods but only one should be followed. It is not that case that "the father is just the highest god" because LDS heavenly father had a father before him, who had a father before him, who had a father before him, etc. (possibly ad infinitum). Please see Joseph Smith's "King's Follet Discourse" which heavily implies this (among many other issues). This at least puts LDS heavenly father in the same ontological category of the other father who created him, if not in a lesser category. The issue is that in scripture, God is actually put into a unique category of his own because he created all things.

 

 

Wow, it is so nice of you to TELL us what we believe.  Too bad it is not you that gets to tell us how we are to understand non-canonized (and not necessarily accurate) statements of Joseph Smith.

 

But, by all means, you keep educating us ignert mormunz. 

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

I pick this one out just to point out that your research is little skewed (and because this one caught my eye). I would love to check your sources (I live 500 feet from a theological library), but I can't access it until Monday.

 

It makes me wonder if you are honestly looking at the evidence or just spouting off sources to defend a point - you write a lot, but I would suggest you slow down and get a little more acquainted with the literature you are making claims about. In regards to your claim in john that there is no trinitarian theology:

 

John 1:1 ἐν αρχη ἠν ὁ λογος, και ὁ λογος ἐν προς τον θεον, και θεος ἠν ὁ λογος.

 

(no, there are no textual variants in that text. If you have access to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28 or the UBS 4 Greek New Testament you can double check my affirmation there).

 

English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. (my translation)

 

One of the most simple yet grammatically rich verses in all of the Greek NT. We can affirm with certainty that "the Word" refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus, as is clear in John 1:14 "The word became flesh and dwelt among us; and we have seen his glory, glory as the unique son from the Father . . ." (My translation)

 

Dr. Edward Klink, writing the commentary on John for The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, writes this about this verse heavily. (he writes 80 pages on just the prologue of John, 1:1-18, its pretty intense. I would suggest purchasing a copy when it comes out). He says, 

 

"The most probable candidate for “God” (θεός) [in the phrase, "the Word was God"] is qualitative. Qualitative means that “the Word” contains all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (1:1b) contains, but is distinct. That is, while being God, the Word is not so equated (definite) with God [the Father] . . . This is the qualitative nature of the predicate nominative in 1:1c. As theologians have expressed the qualitative nature of the Word-God: the Word shares the essence of the Father, though the Word is not the person of the Father. The Word was God but not the Father." (Klink, John, commentary on 1:1, forthcoming).

 

And again,

 

"...if John wanted to define Jesus as less than God [the Father] – as a god – he certainly chose a poor word to do it. There is a perfect word for “divine” (θείoς) that would have given Jesus a lesser-than-the-God “god” status, clearly distinguishing God from god, or “the Word” from “the God.” . . . Such a designation in 1:1c [the word was God], of the Word (i.e., Jesus) being a lesser “god,” would stand in direct contradiction to the titles, roles, and relationship explicated by the remainder of the gospel . . . This clause, “the Word was God” (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is a predicate nominative: the subject (the known entity) is “the Word” (ὁ λόγος), the predicate is “God” (θεός), and the copula is "was” (ἦν) . . . An established rule defines what this structure communicates: An anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative “is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite.” Not only is an indefinite meaning for “God” (θεός) rare, “a god,” but it would also need to be reflected by the context – which it is clearly not!" (Klink, John, commentary on 1:1, forthcoming).

 

In an attempt to put it more simply, John 1:1 obviously distinguishes "The God" [in greek] from "The Word." That is clear in "the word was with The God." Yet in the clause directly proceeding, it (very explicitly in the Greek grammar) identifies that Jesus is fully the essence or quality of the Father who was just spoken of. Thus, straight out of the Greek grammar, we have standard trinitarian theology: Jesus is identified within the one God, bearing the same essence as the father (or as the church fathers would like to put it, Jesus is homoousios with the father) but is distinct from the Father.

 

On this exact issue, see the comments in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 262.

 

The reason I pick this one out is because it crystal clear that this verse is loaded with trinitarian theology, and if I could talk to you more about Greek grammar it would actually be more explicit of that theology. it is also evidence that the doctrine of the trinity did not bend the text, but actually represents it honestly. 

 

To cite some sources from LDS scholars and not deal with text is not helpful. If you want to quote a source, try to quote something that is doing hands on exegesis, not just making blanket statements. There might not be a "formula" as in an explicit chart like the one I put in my article, but the theology is clearly present. You can't just say "there is no trinitarian formula in John" and not have dealt with - frankly - the very first verse in the gospel. 

Actually what you have posted here is loaded with LDS theology.

 

As stated Jesus distinct from the Father.  Check.

 

Jesus was fully divine.  Check.

 

Jesus was NOT "the God".  Check

 

It is also very interesting that the phrase "in the beginning" was used.  Too many people misinterpret this to mean "through all eternity" which could NOT be further from the truth. Eternity HAS NO BEGINNING!!!!!!  Therefore this verse CAN NOT BE referring to eternity.

 

But hey don't let logic or reason get in the way of your attempt to edgemakate us ignort mormanzes.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

I really cannot take this article seriously. Some of their statements are just plain misleading - borderline deceptive in my opinion. Take their last statement for example,

 

"Some Christian theologians have recognized the above difficulties with the Nicene formulation of the trinity, and are advocating a removal of the Greek philosophical ideals that have unnecessarily clouded the issue"

 

They then proceed to quote JURGEN MOLTMANN. In current biblical and theological scholarship, Jurgen Moltmann is a theological loony toon (this is an understatement). I have read some of his stuff on the trinity and in discussing his work in class went so far to label him a (near) heretic, as he affirms an eternal patripassionism, no distinction between the two natures of Christ (the Nestorian heresy) and collapses the immanent and economic trinity. Even mormons would freak out at his nutty theology.

 

To take Jurgen Moltmann and then say "some christian theologians" is borderline truth bending. A more faithful way to represent him to new readers would be "one theological outcast whom almost nobody agrees with in scholarship."

Do I need to point out the logical fallacies being used here?

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

These articles never actually hit the main issues. The tragedy is that they set up a straw man and then all the readers actually think that they have dealt with trinitarian theology well. I have never seen them address the most pertinent texts of scripture regarding the trinity... It usually consists on attacks on early christianity. This is of course ironic because LDS scholars will run around scavenging for early church fathers talking about theosis, but still claim the church to be apostate after the apostles died. Am I the only one that thinks this has some problems? We can reject the trinity because the church was apostate, but when the early church supports LDS doctrine, it all of a sudden counts as being faithful to scripture? This seems to be special pleading to me, unfortunately.

Well, you should know a lot about "special pleading" and "straw man".  You are also an expert at their usage.

[Vance]

 

Paul would not support the henotheism of LDS doctrine. Paul was a trained Pharisee (Philippians 3, Acts 7-9). These people were the most strict of monotheists. As a 'Hebrew of hebrews" (Philippians 3) he could be called a  "monotheist of monotheists." I'm not sure if you were reading the Paul quotations closely, because he says "there is no god but one," quoting Deut 6:4, the mantra of second-temple Jewish monotheism (second-temple = around Jesus' time). It is almost impossible to argue that Paul, after training to be a pharisee, became a henotheist/tri-theist/polytheist.  The point is, that if Jesus is also called God, then he MUST be considered as the one God, and not a separate demi-god (which is LDS theology).

 

It is NOT the case that his statements indicate a deviation from monotheism, but rather they indicate a very high view of Jesus, so much so that he is included in the identity of the one god of Jewish monotheism. He is not separate or distinct from that one God, although distinct from the personages of that one God (see the diagram in post 2 again).

How nice of you to tell us what Paul would and would not do.  I guess we are incapable of reading his writings for ourselves.

 

And let us not for get that Paul did NOT change his beliefs at all after his "on the road" experience.  Why, he couldn't have given up any of his Pharisitical learnings.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

There is a set theological language that most Catholics and Protestants, if they've spent any time at all in religious education, have. The basic thing is, God is three distinct persons, in one being. "Holy Trinity" or "Trinity", are shorthand, for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". One God. Three persons.

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.

The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

How God is three persons in one being cannot be explained. Our finite human minds cannot grasp God.

Oh, this is a good one.

 

You can't explain it, you can't understand it.

 

And yet, Logan is taking us to task because we don't get it right.

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 6, 2014 by Vance

[aaron0005]

I pick this one out just to point out that your research is little skewed (and because this one caught my eye). I would love to check your sources (I live 500 feet from a theological library), but I can't access it until Monday.

 

It makes me wonder if you are honestly looking at the evidence or just spouting off sources to defend a point - you write a lot, but I would suggest you slow down and get a little more acquainted with the literature you are making claims about. In regards to your claim in john that there is no trinitarian theology:

 

John 1:1 ἐν αρχη ἠν ὁ λογος, και ὁ λογος ἐν προς τον θεον, και θεος ἠν ὁ λογος.

 

(no, there are no textual variants in that text. If you have access to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28 or the UBS 4 Greek New Testament you can double check my affirmation there).

 

English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. (my translation)

 

One of the most simple yet grammatically rich verses in all of the Greek NT. We can affirm with certainty that "the Word" refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus, as is clear in John 1:14 "The word became flesh and dwelt among us; and we have seen his glory, glory as the unique son from the Father . . ." (My translation)

 

Dr. Edward Klink, writing the commentary on John for The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, writes this about this verse heavily. (he writes 80 pages on just the prologue of John, 1:1-18, its pretty intense. I would suggest purchasing a copy when it comes out). He says, 

 

"The most probable candidate for “God” (θεός) [in the phrase, "the Word was God"] is qualitative. Qualitative means that “the Word” contains all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (1:1b) contains, but is distinct. That is, while being God, the Word is not so equated (definite) with God [the Father] . . . This is the qualitative nature of the predicate nominative in 1:1c. As theologians have expressed the qualitative nature of the Word-God: the Word shares the essence of the Father, though the Word is not the person of the Father. The Word was God but not the Father." (Klink, John, commentary on 1:1, forthcoming).

 

And again,

 

"...if John wanted to define Jesus as less than God [the Father] – as a god – he certainly chose a poor word to do it. There is a perfect word for “divine” (θείoς) that would have given Jesus a lesser-than-the-God “god” status, clearly distinguishing God from god, or “the Word” from “the God.” . . . Such a designation in 1:1c [the word was God], of the Word (i.e., Jesus) being a lesser “god,” would stand in direct contradiction to the titles, roles, and relationship explicated by the remainder of the gospel . . . This clause, “the Word was God” (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is a predicate nominative: the subject (the known entity) is “the Word” (ὁ λόγος), the predicate is “God” (θεός), and the copula is "was” (ἦν) . . . An established rule defines what this structure communicates: An anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative “is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite.” Not only is an indefinite meaning for “God” (θεός) rare, “a god,” but it would also need to be reflected by the context – which it is clearly not!" (Klink, John, commentary on 1:1, forthcoming).

 

In an attempt to put it more simply, John 1:1 obviously distinguishes "The God" [in greek] from "The Word." That is clear in "the word was with The God." Yet in the clause directly proceeding, it (very explicitly in the Greek grammar) identifies that Jesus is fully the essence or quality of the Father who was just spoken of. Thus, straight out of the Greek grammar, we have standard trinitarian theology: Jesus is identified within the one God, bearing the same essence as the father (or as the church fathers would like to put it, Jesus is homoousios with the father) but is distinct from the Father.

 

On this exact issue, see the comments in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 262.

 

The reason I pick this one out is because it crystal clear that this verse is loaded with trinitarian theology, and if I could talk to you more about Greek grammar it would actually be more explicit of that theology. it is also evidence that the doctrine of the trinity did not bend the text, but actually represents it honestly. 

 

To cite some sources from LDS scholars and not deal with text is not helpful. If you want to quote a source, try to quote something that is doing hands on exegesis, not just making blanket statements. There might not be a "formula" as in an explicit chart like the one I put in my article, but the theology is clearly present. You can't just say "there is no trinitarian formula in John" and not have dealt with - frankly - the very first verse in the gospel. 

Newbie,

 

I know the scripture in John you quote. It has been one of my favorite along with The Gospel Of John. I simply do not see what you see. I see it as calling Jesus God (which we believe He is a God and was God of the Old Testament) and I see it stating He (The Word) was WITH God, CLEALRY, separating Hm from the Father.

 

I simply do not see what you see and we will have to agree disagree on this.

 

The reason I used that from FAIR is because they were referring to Catholic sources and no doubt there are many others. Not all Christian scholars are in agreement on this. 

I just listened to a video with Jurgen Moltmann and I found him down to earth, sane and knowledgeable and thorough. Those are good signs in my book, not whether most of Catholics or Protestants think he is out there because he is willing to see what the Bible really says.

 

Also, you say the article was misleading on several points. One was in suggesting that there are many scholars who believe there is no trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament. Just because they did not cite a bunch of examples does not make that untrue.

 

If you found something that left no doubt that they are three in one God and it specifically said that, that would be one thing, but you cannot.

 

You still have not explained to me how THREE beings are one God.

 

 

And please speak in layman's terms-simple and clear, unless you want to confuse me more, because I am still not getting this trinity doctrine. You know our position very well. Three separate divine beings who are Gods and form a Godhead. How can three beings be one God in the mystical sense you guys seem to claim? Is it chalked up to just that-a mystery? Maybe I am starting to understand your position better and it makes no sense and I do not see it anywhere in the Bible.

 

Does Christ have a body? Is He in the image of the Father? Does He ever leave the Fathers side? Please explain this to me.

 

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me (John 17).

 

I think a person could take the part where it says the Father and the Son are one and interpret that as a trinitarian doctrine just like with the verse where it refers to Christ as the Word, but nowhere in any of these does it say they are three beings in one God. That's not what is meant by these statements of unity, as we to may be one with Them.

 

And here is a few other scriptures that are very self explanatory, but if you cannot see what I see in all this and the entire New Testament we have to respectfully disagree, because to me the evidence is overwhelming. The doctrine took on different meanings for a variety of reasons.

 

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7)

Stephen was killed for bringing us these truths.

The Bible tells us Jesus never did what He wanted to do—He did and said what God told Him to do.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13).

 

"the right hand of God."

 

Aaron

 

Do not refer to other posters as Newbie. Use his name.

[aaron0005]

The most important difference lies in #1: there is only one God. LDS believe that there are many gods but only one should be followed. It is not that case that "the father is just the highest god" because LDS heavenly father had a father before him, who had a father before him, who had a father before him, etc. (possibly ad infinitum). Please see Joseph Smith's "King's Follet Discourse" which heavily implies this (among many other issues). This at least puts LDS heavenly father in the same ontological category of the other father who created him, if not in a lesser category. The issue is that in scripture, God is actually put into a unique category of his own because he created all things.

 

Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens. (see also Colossians 1:15 and following for this verse in relation to Jesus being identified with the creator God).

 

In saying that Jesus/the spirit were created by the father, you are (what the athanasian creed says) "dividing the substance," or, in other words, calling Jesus a distinct god from the Father (and also denying Colossians 1:16). This is where LDS stray from #1. If Jesus is god, and the Father is God, and they are not the same God, then you are (at least) henotheists, NOT monotheists. Trinitarian theology is that all three are the same God (but still distinguishable, see my second post diagram). LDS Theology is that there are at least three gods.

 

The strict monotheism of Judaism needs to be believed simply because that is what the Old Testament teaches (Isaiah 44:6-8 again on this). It OVER and OVER again says that there is no other Elohim except for YHWH (Jehovah). I have always found it odd that LDS think that Elohim is the father and YHWH (Jehovah) is Jesus. In the OT they are used interchangeably (and yes, I do know ancient Hebrew, although I am not a fan of just spouting off my credentials, it is relevant here).

 

I am little confused about your understanding of the exodus narrative, as what you are saying is not going to find good scriptural support... The exodus narrative uses Elohim/YHWH (Jehovah) a lot throughout the whole thing. The importance of the incarnation is not that he has explained a God not previously known, but that he has fully explained the God who was slowly revealing himself throughout the OT and this revelation climaxed in Jesus (John 1:18, esp. verse 18). But obviously Jesus is working all along, as Jude 5 says. It is my conviction that actually "The angel of the LORD" in the Old testament is a pre-incarnate Jesus (supported by Jude 5 if you reread the exodus account right before the water splits). But let us not dwell on that part.

 

Paul would not support the henotheism of LDS doctrine. Paul was a trained Pharisee (Philippians 3, Acts 7-9). These people were the most strict of monotheists. As a 'Hebrew of hebrews" (Philippians 3) he could be called a  "monotheist of monotheists." I'm not sure if you were reading the Paul quotations closely, because he says "there is no god but one," quoting Deut 6:4, the mantra of second-temple Jewish monotheism (second-temple = around Jesus' time). It is almost impossible to argue that Paul, after training to be a pharisee, became a henotheist/tri-theist/polytheist.  The point is, that if Jesus is also called God, then he MUST be considered as the one God, and not a separate demi-god (which is LDS theology).

 

It is NOT the case that his statements indicate a deviation from monotheism, but rather they indicate a very high view of Jesus, so much so that he is included in the identity of the one god of Jewish monotheism. He is not separate or distinct from that one God, although distinct from the personages of that one God (see the diagram in post 2 again).

 

Hope that helps.  Grace to you.

"The strict monotheism of Judaism needs to be believed simply because that is what the Old Testament teaches (Isaiah 44:6-8 again on this). It OVER and OVER again says that there is no other Elohim except for YHWH (Jehovah). I have always found it odd that LDS think that Elohim is the father and YHWH (Jehovah) is Jesus. In the OT they are used interchangeably (and yes, I do know ancient Hebrew, although I am not a fan of just spouting off my credentials, it is relevant here)."

 

Since you speak Hebrew does not the Satan used in Job in it's original in Hebrew not Satan? I will have to research that later. As you yourself seem to confirm the Old Testament barely talks about Satan and even when he is mentioned in Genesis as I also pointed out it is vaguely, notwithstanding Johns reference to that in Revelation. Yet in the New Testament he is referred to at a way higher rate, when he is almost nowhere to be seen early in the OT by contrast.

[David Waltz]

Hello Logan,

 

In your response to Anakin7, you wrote:

 

>> If you could identify the differences between those theories it would be helpful for all readers. However In general I have seen that western/eastern/Athanasius (although I have never read anything in athanasius which shows me that he had a fully expounded trinitarian theology, but he was on the right track with On the Incarnation)/augustine/essential/economic/social understandings of the trinity agree with one another. 

 

Those terms actually are references to certain aspects of the trinity, not an exclusive view of the trinity, thus rendering the term "purist" a bit pointless.>>

 

I cannot speak for Anakin7, but I would like to offer my own musings on this topic (one I have been studying in depth for over 30 years now). Comparisons between Latin/Western and Greek/Eastern concepts of the Trinity have been numerous since the publication of Theodore de Rėgnon's 4 volume work on the Trinity in the 1890's, wherein he made a sharp distinction the Latin Trinitarianism which begins with the concept of "one God" (identified with the numerically single divine essence) and how it can be triune, and that of Greek Trinitarianism which begins with three distinct persons/hypostases and how they can be one. Though Rėgnon's paradigm/theory has come under severe attack(s) in the last couple of decades, I do not think the paradigm/theory should be completely jettisoned as it's detractors suggest. Fact is, prior to Augustine (who identies the "one God" as the Trinity), the phrase, "one God" was reserved for God the Father alone. (This holds true in the first two Ecumenical Creeds as well, which begin with, "We believe in one God, the Father".) And in our our day, when Western Christians speak of "one God" it is usually with reference to either the Trinity, or the divine essence, while for a number prominent Easter Orthodox theologians (e.g. Behr, Hopko, Lossky, Meyendorff, Zizioulas) the "one God" is the Father alone.

 

>>For example, Karl Rahner argues that "The essential trinity is the economic trinity and vice versa" (he actually uses the word "immanent". His essay The Trinity is amazing, although I believe he was only slightly off). Social trinity is the focus on how the divine being has always been in a loving, self giving relationship with himself in the persons of the trinity, which is also what Augustine believed (as well as many church fathers after him). To make these all exclusive categories is misleading. Also, interestingly enough, in my experience Eastern Orthodox christians and western christians usually completely agree on the trinity. its one of the things that keeps us united as orthodox (little o) believers.>>

 

 I am sure that you are aware that Rahner's dictum has come under sharp criticism (if not, let me know, and I can link you to to a number of scholarly treatments that do so).

 

Anyway, I have a number threads on this subject that can be read at:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Monarchy%20of%20God%20the%20Father

 

(I recommend that you begin with the oldest ones first.)

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Edited July 6, 2014 by David Waltz

[Vookman]

Daniel Wallace notes that if the "god" reference of John 1:1b and c are to the same being, then this is to be understood as Sabellianism.

 

Translators Handbook on the Gospel of John, published by the United Bible Society, says the "god" of John 1:1c is an adjective, describing the class of beings to which the word belongs, and is in no way to be understood as a definite noun.

 

Jason BeDuhn, in his book "Truth in Translation", identifies the problem of the translation is primarily one of theology by the early translators.  Their Trinitarian prejudices led to a corrupt translation.

 

The NET Bible notes that the most likely translation of John 1:1c is qualitative, meaning "god" describes a quality of the Word, not the identity of the Word.  

 

Grammarians who fight about whether John 1:1c is qualitative or indefinite are basically being disingenuous in my opinion.  Basically the two are identical in meaning.  A teacher is a teacher in English.  Describe a quality that is not indefinite in its application?  Godlike=a god, because it is obvious that there is therefore more than one god.  Divine = a god.  What God was the Word was = the Word was a god.

 

Lastly, Hebrews believed in multiple, real gods.  They worshiped just one.  There are therefore henotheists or monaltrous in their worship.  At least, that is how Michael Heiser has described their beliefs.  Note that he believes there is only one uncreated god, but he believes orthodox Hebrew belief was that of the uncreated god with a Divine Council of divine beings.  The modern archaeological work on this subject makes such a conclusion inescapable.

 

As Bob Becking notes in his compilation of essays "Only One God?  Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah", "...unreflective talk about 'monotheism' will slowly disappear.  The naivety of a belief in only one god has to make way for a theological reconsideration..." (page 201)

 

My reading of this exchange is that there is a huge assumption on the part of the theology students which they should more closely examine to see if they are historically and technically sound in who they are citing as authorities.

 

Peace.

[David Waltz]

Hello aaron0005,

 

Earlier today, you posted:

 

>>"The most probable candidate for “God” (θεός) [in the phrase, "the Word was God"] is qualitative. Qualitative means that “the Word” contains all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (1:1b) contains, but is distinct.>>

 

I affirm the first portion, but deny the second. Allow me to explain...

 

The anarthrous theos (a predicate nominative) has to be qualitative, for if it is not, NO distinction could be made with the opening theos that has the definite article (which would result in a form of modalism).

 

However, "the Word", though "God" (qualitatively speaking) does NOT contain, "all the attributes and qualities that 'the God' (1:1b) contains". If one affirms that concept, one would be logically forced to deny that the Father begot the Son (a concept clearly taught in Scripture, the Church Fathers and early Ecumenical Creeds).

 

The Bible makes some important distinctions between the One who called ό θεός and the one called θεός ; between the ό θεός who begets, and the μονογενής θεός who is begotten; between the one termed "τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ" (John 5:44) and "τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν" (John 17:3), and the one He sends. Only one person in the Bible is declared to be the "εἷς θεὸς" (and it is not Jesus).

 

If you have the time (and interest) I would be very interested in hearing your answers to the questions I raised in the following thread:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/11/questions-concerning-monarchy-of-god.html

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[Logan Alexander]

And let us not for get that Paul did NOT change his beliefs at all after his "on the road" experience.  Why, he couldn't have given up any of his Pharisitical learnings.

 

I already addressed this above in my paragraph on NT abrogation and Pauline worldview-shift.

 

Actually what you have posted here is loaded with LDS theology.

 

As stated Jesus distinct from the Father.  Check.

 

Jesus was fully divine.  Check.

 

Jesus was NOT "the God".  Check

 

It is also very interesting that the phrase "in the beginning" was used.  Too many people misinterpret this to mean "through all eternity" which could NOT be further from the truth. Eternity HAS NO BEGINNING!!!!!!  Therefore this verse CAN NOT BE referring to eternity.

 

But hey don't let logic or reason get in the way of your attempt to edgemakate us ignort mormanzes.

 

Klink is saying that Jesus is more than just divine, because John didnt use "theios" but "theos." The issue is that (unless you want to affirm otherwise) LDS generally deny that the Father and Jesus are both equally the same one God.

 

Wow, it is so nice of you to TELL us what we believe.  Too bad it is not you that gets to tell us how we are to understand non-canonized (and not necessarily accurate) statements of Joseph Smith.

 

But, by all means, you keep educating us ignert mormunz.

 

Setting aside the canonicity of the Follet Discourse (yes I have heard canon issues, but I have never heard any LDS actually disagree with what he said there), my point was that LDS heavenly father had a father before him. Is this LDS doctrine or not? My point with asking is that you cant have Adonai be "God of gods" and believe that the "God of gods" was created by another god. Colossians 1:16...

 

Now, of course these beg the question, are these phrases of praise of any value if these other "gods" are 1) false gods, or 2) non-existent gods?

 

That would be like me saying, Hey Logan you are an educator of idiots.  Did that make you feel praised?

 

"the word θεος for Greek-speakers (and its equivalents in other languages spoken in the first century), was not univocal, and the early Christians [the NT writers] made out a fairly thorough case for understanding it in a particular sense." N.T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, xiv

 

"To begin with, creational monotheism [in Judaism] rules out henotheism, the belief that there are indeed other gods, but that all Israel will worship only her own god... Rejection of henotheism means, in practical terms, that Israel was committed to seeing her god as ontologically (and not merely practically) superior to other gods of the nations, and hence was committed to certain beliefs about her own place and purpose, which we will discuss presently. The gods of the nations are not 'real' gods; they are idols." Wright, NTPG, 249. Chapter on "The Beliefs of Israel"

 

That's the most clear explanation I can have for you, and lines up with what I have been saying. In regards to your comment on pseudo-scholarship, N.T. Wright is considered "The world's leading New Testament scholar" by Newsweek magazine and probably by every other biblical scholar in the world (at least they put him in top 3). Hes an NT prof at St Andrews and he has 5 degrees from oxford and maybe 15 other honorary doctorate degrees.

 

He also agrees with my exegesis on Pauline statements in Monotheism and its relation to Jesus. I don't think you can call it pseudo scholarship.

 

 

Vance, on 06 Jul 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Oh, how precious, with a mere wave of the hand, he dismisses all objections.  Too bad he did not apply his own advice to his work.  You know, the context thingy.

 

Here is some context for the "beside me" usage in the Bible.

 

Here's one without "besides me" (which is primarily spacial, but is clearly uses a spacial statement to make an ontological one.) Either way, the point is moot because of Isaiah 45:5a.

I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Yes the next verse uses "besides" but the first clause doesn't, which clearly leads into the logic of 45b. "besides him" there is no god. Why? Because there is no other. Something can't be beside you if it doesn't exist.

 

Vance, on 06 Jul 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

And yet Paul held revelation above secular scholarship. 

 

Now, if we apply this to John 1:1 we find that Jesus (the Word) is NOT "that particular god", how interesting.

 

Vance, on 06 Jul 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

Interesting attempt to show that Paul did NOT mean what he said.  Got it.

 

Well, I am getting bored with this pseudoscholarship.

John 1:1c "The word was fully God" does not use an article (kai theos en ho logos) so it does not mean "that particular god." Although the previous use in the verse is articular. This was my point in the John 1:1 post.

 

Again, I'm getting this Paul stuff from N.T. Wright's Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. He also just came out with a 1700 page book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, where he argues the same thing but in more depth. http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-God-N-Wright/dp/0800626834. Its not really pseudo-scholarship.

[Logan Alexander]

 

 

 

The Bible makes some important distinctions between the One who called ό θεός and the one called θεός ; between the ό θεός who begets, and the μονογενής θεός who is begotten; between the one termed "τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ" (John 5:44) and "τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν" (John 17:3), and the one He sends. Only one person in the Bible is declared to be the "εἷς θεὸς" (and it is not Jesus).

 

 

I actually think μονογενης is from γινομαι and not γενναω, which would then give me no platform to believe that Jesus was begotten. I admit I am unique on this one but this is where scholarship is going right now with the issue. I would still affirm a full qualitative reading of John 1:1c.

 

And yes of course Rahner is criticized a lot - I agree with a lot of the criticisms. I think he jeopardizes the creator-creature distinction and rules out the doctrine of condescension with his thesis. I like Fred Sanders' modification: "The economic trinity is the image of the immanent trinity" [and therefore, not vice versa]. I was just showing that those are not necessarily all exclusive trinitarian categories. Thanks for the insight.

[webbles]

 

Setting aside the canonicity of the Follet Discourse (yes I have heard canon issues, but I have never heard any LDS actually disagree with what he said there), my point was that LDS heavenly father had a father before him. Is this LDS doctrine or not? My point with asking is that you cant have Adonai be "God of gods" and believe that the "God of gods" was created by another god. Colossians 1:16...

I know LDS who accept the King Follet Discourse but believe God doesn't have a father.  Since it was written down by several scribes and what is usually considered the King Follet Discourse is a joining of those various scribes, you can play word games with what he said.

[David Waltz]

Hello again Logan,

 

I discuss monogenes and eternal generation at length in the following thread:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternal-generation-of-son.html

 

The denial that the pre-existent Jesus was begotten by God the Father (among those who affirm some form of Trinitarianism), is a very late development (post-Reformation). This, coupled with the belief held by many scholars that it diminishes the Father-Son motif to near meaninglessness, raises some serious 'red-flags' for me.

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David 

[mfbukowski]

Hey guys! I'm a student at Biola University that is part of an on-campus group called EMI (Evangelical-Mormon Interaction). We love talking to Mormons about the Bible and what we believe in! We take trips to Utah frequently and have dialogues with students at universities like BYU - Provo, BYU - Idaho, and Utah State.

 

We get a lot of questions about what we believe as evangelical Christians (not members of the LDS church) and why that makes sense to us. My friend recently wrote a great article about why the trinity makes sense to us and I want to engage with you guys about how you understand Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Check out the article HERE.

 

Hope to be hearing from you guys!!

I actually live near Biola and would love to meet with you any time.

 

I have studied the Trinity quite a bit and know a tad about Mormon Doctrine.  You could private message me if you like.  I have met with other Evangelicals from time to time as well, and always have good discussions.

[mfbukowski]

Halconero,

 

I'm glad that this can be a place for civil discussion - sometimes I find that challenging views in the LDS community (no matter how respectful and civil) can be considered persecution and thus rejected.

 

In regards to your statement regarding the Old Testament, I find it hard to support a henotheistic (what you call monalatristic) view of the OT unless you support the JEDP hypothesis and argue that monotheism was the Deuteronomist's interpolation or invention (which is still very difficult to argue). But with the LDS 8th article of faith, the support of the supposed Elohist view of diety/dieties over against the supposed Deuteronomistic monotheism seems untenable: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . ." Unfortunately I spoke to the director of the largest institute in the world and he used the JEDP hypothesis as a way to deny Deuteronomistic monotheism. Without the JEDP hypothesis, statements in Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are very explicit on the non-existence of other gods. This comes up most clearly in the major prophets because part of their polemic against idolatry is that the idols they sacrifice to do not exist. Where I believe you are getting mixed up is when the prophets attack idolatry, they speak of the "gods" that the people are worshipping. In that sense it is language of condescension in order to address a particular situation (much like anthropomorphisms). Yet the ultimate attack on idolatry is when the prophets pull this language out and argue for the existence of only one true god. In order to save space I will quote yet one passage:

 

This is what the Lord says, Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord 

Almighty: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no 

god [el]. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay 

out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, 

and what is yet to come. Yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not 

tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? 

You are my witnesses. Is there any god [el] besides me? No, there is no other 

Rock; I know not one." (Isa 44:6-

 

This seems to rule out henotheism within the boundaries of the Old Testament. It does not just say "worship one god" but that there is no other god in existence besides YHWH. This is clearly not meant to be subjectively specific to Israel. Although there are indeed titles such as "god of gods" and "the Highest god" they must be not only in their full scriptural context, but also in their semantical context. Unfortunately, where most people stray on this issue is on a misunderstanding of "elohim." "Elohim" is not a name for YHWH, it is a title. "El" can be easily applied to other spiritual beings. We may compare "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" to the use of "god of gods." Given that it is a flexible term, it by no means indicates that there are other gods/lords/kings on par with Adonai at all. 

 

A brief hermeneutical note, saying that you read scripture "literally" sometimes can be a nondescript powerplay that doesn't often move discussion forward. See especially Vern Poythress' critique of dispensational "literal" hermeneutics in his book Understanding Dispensationalists. (Free E-book: http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/).

 

In regards to Paul, the articular and semantic nuances of ὁ θεός (ho theos, god) must be understood (much like the OT use of אֶלֹהִים). The greek article is almost like a demonstrative pronoun ("the god" means "that particular god"). Furthermore, ὁ θεός, as the septuagint translation for elohim/el, is used also as a flexible term and not a name. If you click on bluestapleshurt's link, you can see a short exegesis of the most pertinent statement to this in Paul. He writes 

 

"We know that there are no idols in the world and that 'there is no god except one.' For although there may be so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' -  yet for us there is one God . . ." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, my translation).

 

The reason I chose to use my translation is that the same word for "world" in "god of this world" is used in "there are no idols in the world." Again, if we think of a word like "master" that can be equally applied to god and other beings, it makes sense. For example: "there are many so-called masters, but actually there is one master." The problem is, again, that instead of understanding the wide lexical range of ὁ θεός, you collapse Paul's distinct monotheistic - and sometimes theologically polemical - tone in many passages, thereby washing down Paul's ontological category for God. Again, it seems to twist the NT evidence to argue that Paul believed in other gods that could be on the same level as Adonai, but encouraged the worship of one. For Paul, there is the worship of one is because there is only one in a unique ontological category of his own. 

 

On this issue especially se N.T. Wright "Wisdom, Christology, and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8" in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. I'm sure his massive magnum opus Paul and the Faithfulness of God has great stuff in there, but I have yet to get into it.

 

LDS often bring up passages like the Johannine comma, without also acknowledging that this passage was included nowhere in any discussion of the trinity in the early church (especially since it was an extremely late interpolation - way later than any large-scale discussions like the Council of Constantinople). As a side note, although I do believe in the priesthood of all believers (it couldn't get more explicit that 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession . . .") I don't think this is implying same sort of authority that you are imagining. I still relate the discussion to scripture.

 

To say that "Other verses that may be interpreted as Trinitarian have equally non-Trinitarian view points as well" is a bit of an overstatement. Even the most liberal readers of scripture agree that at least something like a trinitarian doctrine is happening in Paul, the gospel writers, and catholic epistles, even if they don't want to use the word "trinity." See, for example, a couple of explicit statements in 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:1, Mark 2:7, and Philippians 2:9-11. There are countless more I could name, but I want to make it possible to actually look them all up.

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

Logan

Logan, let me ask you this:

 

Why should we believe the Bible at all?  Why not, say, the Zoroastrian scriptures?  How do you know the Bible is the word of God?

 

Because it is old?  Because it says it is?  Poor evidence!

 

I am VERY LDS and accept the Bible and Book of Mormon as the word of God- I have my reasons- I just wonder what yours are.

 

My God is capable of explaining himself in terms we stupid humans can understand.  To me, that is NOT the Trinity.  The concepts of "Substance" and Being" are totally incoherent in my point of view, and are what Ryle would call "category mistakes"

 

I also wonder why you accept certain aspects of Catholicism and avoid other aspects.  How do you decide which to believe and which to not believe?

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Newbie,

 

I know the scripture in John you quote. It has been one of my favorite along with The Gospel Of John. I simply do not see what you see. I see it as calling Jesus God (which we believe He is a God and was God of the Old Testament) and I see it stating He (The Word) was WITH God, CLEALRY, separating Hm from the Father.

 

I simply do not see what you see and we will have to agree disagree on this.

 

The reason I used that from FAIR is because they were referring to Catholic sources and no doubt there are many others. Not all Christian scholars are in agreement on this. 

I just listened to a video with Jurgen Moltmann and I found him down to earth, sane and knowledgeable and thorough. Those are good signs in my book, not whether most of Catholics or Protestants think he is out there because he is willing to see what the Bible really says.

 

Also, you say the article was misleading on several points. One was in suggesting that there are many scholars who believe there is no trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament. Just because they did not cite a bunch of examples does not make that untrue.

 

If you found something that left no doubt that they are three in one God and it specifically said that, that would be one thing, but you cannot.

 

You still have not explained to me how THREE beings are one God.

 

 

And please speak in layman's terms-simple and clear, unless you want to confuse me more, because I am still not getting this trinity doctrine. You know our position very well. Three separate divine beings who are Gods and form a Godhead. How can three beings be one God in the mystical sense you guys seem to claim? Is it chalked up to just that-a mystery? Maybe I am starting to understand your position better and it makes no sense and I do not see it anywhere in the Bible.

 

Does Christ have a body? Is He in the image of the Father? Does He ever leave the Fathers side? Please explain this to me.

 

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me (John 17).

 

I think a person could take the part where it says the Father and the Son are one and interpret that as a trinitarian doctrine just like with the verse where it refers to Christ as the Word, but nowhere in any of these does it say they are three beings in one God. That's not what is meant by these statements of unity, as we to may be one with Them.

 

And here is a few other scriptures that are very self explanatory, but if you cannot see what I see in all this and the entire New Testament we have to respectfully disagree, because to me the evidence is overwhelming. The doctrine took on different meanings for a variety of reasons.

 

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7)

Stephen was killed for bringing us these truths.

The Bible tells us Jesus never did what He wanted to do—He did and said what God told Him to do.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13).

 

"the right hand of God."

 

Aaron

This is indeed the key- scholastic jargon gets no one anywhere.

 

Referring to massive theories in a few words is a total cop-out, and by doing so all one does is multiply ambiguities to the point of absurdity.  One ambiguity in one theory can kill it, and building a wall out of cracked bricks is pure folly.

 

I am not a biblical scholar and see no need to be if we cannot justify belief in the Bible in the first place.  One might as well have a PhD in Rubik's Cube and know every theory of how to solve it- but all one is left with is irrelevant to anything of importance.

[mfbukowski]

I would also point out that most Christians I talk to do not even seem to know what they believe nor where Christian belief comes from. Catholicism was the order of the day for a long time and Protestantism grew out of that and we know Catholicism was apostate. When I ask what is it, do you believe Jesus was praying to Himself and that the Son was the Father, they hesitate and end up concluding with me that Jesus Christ is not the Father because not only does the Holy Bible not support it but actually overwhelming supports Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father and that they are separate entities.

They all acknowledge that no one can explain the Trinity because it is a "mystery" because no one can explain God.

 

Very sad argument. 

 

Obviously no one can explain God- that is not the question.  That presumes that the Trinity DOES in fact explain God, and we cannot understand the Trinity because the whole theory is an accurate explanation of something not explainable.

 

"To me, it is a mass of confusion".

 

Every word we utter is a collection of symbols and any discussion of God is symbolic to start off with- obviously God cannot be explained in words.  We all acknowledge that.

 

But for Pete's sake give me an explanation at least even stupid me can understand.  Three persons who are one in "being" or "substance" explains nothing.

 

Three people working together and being one in purpose- THAT makes sense.  I can understand that.

 

Social Trinitarianism- that the Trinity is three persons who have a loving relationship making them "one"- THAT I can understand.  But one in "Being"?  No clue what that means.

[aaron0005]

Hello aaron0005,

 

Earlier today, you posted:

 

>>"The most probable candidate for “God” (θεός) [in the phrase, "the Word was God"] is qualitative. Qualitative means that “the Word” contains all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (1:1b) contains, but is distinct.>>

 

I affirm the first portion, but deny the second. Allow me to explain...

 

The anarthrous theos (a predicate nominative) has to be qualitative, for if it is not, NO distinction could be made with the opening theos that has the definite article (which would result in a form of modalism).

 

However, "the Word", though "God" (qualitatively speaking) does NOT contain, "all the attributes and qualities that 'the God' (1:1b) contains". If one affirms that concept, one would be logically forced to deny that the Father begot the Son (a concept clearly taught in Scripture, the Church Fathers and early Ecumenical Creeds).

 

The Bible makes some important distinctions between the One who called ό θεός and the one called θεός ; between the ό θεός who begets, and the μονογενής θεός who is begotten; between the one termed "τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ" (John 5:44) and "τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν" (John 17:3), and the one He sends. Only one person in the Bible is declared to be the "εἷς θεὸς" (and it is not Jesus).

 

If you have the time (and interest) I would be very interested in hearing your answers to the questions I raised in the following thread:

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/11/questions-concerning-monarchy-of-god.html

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Hello David,

 

I actually did not make this statement below.

 

>>"The most probable candidate for “God” (θεός) [in the phrase, "the Word was God"] is qualitative. Qualitative means that “the Word” contains all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (1:1b) contains, but is distinct.>>

 

One thing I would add to "the Word" not being God the Father is so much in the entire New Testament that backs that up. It does not take a scholar to read these things and understand the patterns and consistency. Let alone that verse clearly distinguishes the Word from THEE God "Word was with God." To me the evidence is simply overwhelming, including that this doctrine was widely accepted in the first and second century-Thee God being the Father, while Christ a God being in subordination to the Father.