Question For Evangelicals On The Trinity

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

"God" is an abstraction in the trinity heresy. It's a concept belonging to the Three Persons, but itself is not a Person or a Being.

This is false. According to Trinitarian belief, God is in fact a Being, not an abstraction or a concept. For example, the Baptist Faith and Message, which is the doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Confession, states:

"There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

I'm sure that you don't appreciate it when non-Mormons make false statements about Mormon doctrines. I hope you will agree that just as evangelicals should try to be accurate in what they say about Mormon doctrine, Mormons should try to be accurate in what they say about evangelical doctrines (see the Golden Rule, Matt. 7:12).

You wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.

Better think some more, and this time consider what Trinitarians actually say about their belief before making such wildly erroneous criticisms (Prov. 18:13).

[zerinus]

This is false. According to Trinitarian belief, God is in fact a Being, not an abstraction or a concept. For example, the Baptist Faith and Message, which is the doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Confession, states:

"There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

Is He a Person though?

[Mudcat]

Evangelicals define the Trinity as three Persons in one God. The “three Persons” are identified as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. The question I have for the Evangelicals is this: Is the one God (that is composed of the “three Persons”) Himself/Itself a Person or not? Our resident Evangelical expert Rob Bowman has identified the one God with Jehovah of the Old Testament. So according to them Jehovah is the one God who is comprised of the Three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So here is the question then: Is Jehovah Himself a Person or not? If He is not, how do you explain the numerous scriptures that portray Him as a Person? If He is a Person, then you have got four “Persons” to deal with. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Jehovah. So you either have to define the Trinity as “three Persons in one Person,” or “three Gods in one God”. Why do you strenuously avoid that obvious definition and rigidly stick to “three Persons in one God?”

Hi Zerinus,

I have been about for a few days and just caught this post. Seems your post is directed more to Bowman than any other EV given the "bump for Bowman" caveat. That is as far as I have read.. so I suppose my post my be either redundant or haphazard, to a degree. Regardless, I can't speak for Bowman's particular position.

That being said, I will speak for myself. Your wording of "three persons in one God" is a bit awkward for me, IMO. I see it the other way round. One God in the three persons, is more comfortable to me, rather than the other way round. It has to do with the placement of primacy, I would think.

But in a nutshell it seems you are asking if God is a fourth person of the Trinity?

My answer would be that no, I don't think so at all. If God exists as three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.. as Trinitarian doctrine seems to put forth. Then it doesn't make much sense to say God is a person.. when the claim is, that God is three persons.

I don't think your summation of only two options we can accept, that you offer at the end of your OP is as actually viable in a Trinitarian scenario. You offer that if the Trinitarian asserts that, 3 persons is 1 God, they are being rigid.

Rigidity isn't a bad thing, if your right. But it is simply stubbornness if one is off base though. Regardless, there are certainly other permutations beyond the options you have provided. Trinitarians, being proof of such.

LDS, have their own issues on the matter and it's actually a much more complex and difficult scenario to navigate through on a semantic level.

Regards,

Mudcat

[BCSpace]

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.

Atheists say they don't believe in any type of God, not even with God defined as the most supreme form of life in all of existence.

Trinitarians, like the ones you are thinking about, say they do believe in God but that God doesn't exist in space or time nor does that God have any shape or form.

There is a difference there, so I don't equate atheists with those types of Trinitarians.

If God is an abstraction, as is the trinity heresy, then God does not exist so I stand by my accusation.

And btw, we LDS are a kind of a Trinitarian, ourselves, and I don't believe in relinquishing the term "Trinitarian" to those who don't really know God.

We are not trinitarian in any way, shape, or form. It is disingenuous to say we believe in a (or the) trinity too. The Three in our doctrine are not "one" and "in" each other in the same way as the trinity. All Three in our doctrine are physical and/or anthropomorphic Gods. We do not accept hypostasis, the "mystical union", etc.

[zerinus]

Hi Zerinus,

I have been about for a few days and just caught this post. Seems your post is directed more to Bowman than any other EV given the "bump for Bowman" caveat. That is as far as I have read.. so I suppose my post my be either redundant or haphazard, to a degree. Regardless, I can't speak for Bowman's particular position.

My post was addressed to all Evangelicals, not just to Rob Bowman.

That being said, I will speak for myself. Your wording of "three persons in one God" is a bit awkward for me, IMO. I see it the other way round. One God in the three persons, is more comfortable to me, rather than the other way round. It has to do with the placement of primacy, I would think.

Ummm, I am not sure how that makes a difference!

But in a nutshell it seems you are asking if God is a fourth person of the Trinity?

My question is very simple. All I am asking is whether the "one God," who is composed of the "three Persons," is Himself/Itself a Person or not? Rob has identified that "one God" with Jehovah. So my question amounts to: "Is Jehovah a Person?" Surely, that is not a difficult question to understand. I am baffled why this simple question should require so much head-scratching by the Evangelicals.

My answer would be that no, I don't think so at all. If God exists as three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.. as Trinitarian doctrine seems to put forth. Then it doesn't make much sense to say God is a person.. when the claim is, that God is three persons.

So you are saying that God (Jehovah) is not a Person? Is that correct?

I don't think your summation of only two options we can accept, that you offer at the end of your OP is as actually viable in a Trinitarian scenario. You offer that if the Trinitarian asserts that, 3 persons is 1 God, they are being rigid.

Rigidity isn't a bad thing, if your right. But it is simply stubbornness if one is off base though. Regardless, there are certainly other permutations beyond the options you have provided. Trinitarians, being proof of such.

You lost me there. I don't recall saying anything about "rigidity". Not sure what you are talking about here.

LDS, have their own issues on the matter and it's actually a much more complex and difficult scenario to navigate through on a semantic level.

I am not sure how to take that. Are you suggesting that my question is unanswerable? If so, why? What is so difficult abut the question I have asked?

[Storm Rider]

.....

LDS, have their own issues on the matter and it's actually a much more complex and difficult scenario to navigate through on a semantic level.

Regards,

Mudcat

Hello. From my POV, the LDS position of the Godhead is what most will cause them first to deny they are Christian. The problem for LDS is that we necessarily must engage the doctrine of the Trinity that is incomprehensible to all who subscribe belief in it. Though it may be incomprehensible to Christians; all they know is that what LDS believe is not only incorrect, but is so bad as to deny them the term Christian. When you deny the term Christian to a group, you deny their most basic belief in Jesus as their Savior and Redeemer. That is what gauls LDS so much; LDS are adamant that we are disciples and followers of Jesus.

The question about the fourth member of the Godhead is an interesting one. This concept of essence or substance that somehow unites the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is, fundamentally, what makes them God. Each of them is a distinct person, but none of the individually are God seperate from the others. Logically then it is the substance/essence that makes them God; that which makes them God must necessarily be the real God.

It is acknowledged within orthodoxy that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, but they are not three Gods, but One. Of course, that comes across as so much babble as to hurt one's head. It might be that LDS are more practical in their approach. If Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father, then it is clear they are two seperate persons; both are Gods (I am dropping the topic of the Holy Ghost only because I am focusing on Stephen's vision). If Jesus is the Son of God, and is divine, then there are obviously two Gods.

This is where the definition of being One in purpose, one Godhead, is so simple, logical, and easy. To believe in the Trinity one has to forfeit the ability to understand, deny all logic, and deny the Father/Son relationship. Peace,

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

If God is an abstraction, as is the trinity heresy, then God does not exist so I stand by my accusation.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not view God as an abstraction, as I proved in my previous response to you. Therefore, your accusation cannot stand.

[zerinus]

The doctrine of the Trinity does not view God as an abstraction, as I proved in my previous response to you. Therefore, your accusation cannot stand.

Either Jehovah is a Person or He isn't. If He isn't (as Mudcat seemed to be saying), then the Trinitarian view of God is more than an abstraction; it is an absurdity—and of course entirely un-biblical. The Bible without doubt portrays Jehovah as a Person.

If Jehovah is a Person (as the Bible portrays Him to be), then it wrecks your Trinitarian theology, because it winds you up with four "Persons" in your Trinity: the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Jehovah. The Bible talks about three persons in the Godhead, not four!

Edited August 8, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

If God is an abstraction, as is the trinity heresy, then God does not exist so I stand by my accusation.

We are not trinitarian in any way, shape, or form. It is disingenuous to say we believe in a (or the) trinity too. The Three in our doctrine are not "one" and "in" each other in the same way as the trinity. All Three in our doctrine are physical and/or anthropomorphic Gods. We do not accept hypostasis, the "mystical union", etc.

The word "trinity" simply refers to 3 being in unity, and there is a way in which 3 persons who are God are united which is not a heresy.

... and the fact that some people have the wrong concept about how those 3 are in unity doesn't mean we should all abandon the word or let them have it solely for their own heresy.

[LeSellers]

the fact that some people have the wrong concept about how those 3 are in unity doesn't mean we should all abandon the word or let them have it solely for their own heresy.

The only issue I have with this position is that "trinity" is not scriptural and we do not need it. We have "Godhead" which works every bit as well, and does not conjure up the false notions of the philosopher-theologians of the IV.

"Trinity", as a Catholic Priest once told me, is a "mystery", and well it should be, in the modern meaning, not the classical one: it is not "knowledge", but, rather, fabrication.

Lehi

[zerinus]

The only issue I have with this position is that "trinity" is not scriptural and we do not need it. We have "Godhead" which works every bit as well, and does not conjure up the false notions of the philosopher-theologians of the IV.

"Trinity", as a Catholic Priest once told me, is a "mystery", and well it should be, in the modern meaning, not the classical one: it is not "knowledge", but, rather, fabrication.

Lehi

The word Godhead is not scriptural either—or rather, the way it is used by LDS it is not scriptural. It occurs three times in the Bible, as follows:

Acts 17

:

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Romans 1

:

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Colossians 2

:

9 For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

In none of these examples does it mean what LDS mean by it. In the first quote, it simply means God. It is a synonym for God. In the second and third quotes it means “divinity”. It is a synonym for “divinity”. It doesn’t mean what we mean by it.

The word “Godhead” as used by LDS is a purely home-grown definition, and is not used in scripture with that meaning. So from that point of view the words “Godhead” and “Trinity” fall into the same category. They mean what you define them to mean. And one word isn’t any better or worse than the other from that point of view.

Edited August 8, 2011 by zerinus

[Mudcat]

My question is very simple. All I am asking is whether the "one God," who is composed of the "three Persons," is Himself/Itself a Person or not? Rob has identified that "one God" with Jehovah. So my question amounts to: "Is Jehovah a Person?" Surely, that is not a difficult question to understand. I am baffled why this simple question should require so much head-scratching by the Evangelicals.

Yes, Jehovah is a person. Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

So you are saying that God (Jehovah) is not a Person? Is that correct?

No that is not what I am suggesting. I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as Jehovah in the Bible.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mudcat

[David Waltz]

Hello Mudcat,

You wrote:

>>Yes, Jehovah is a person. Jehovah is Jesus Christ... I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as Jehovah in the Bible.>>

Me: I strongly disagree; "I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as", the Angel of Jehovah, "in the Bible". The Jehovah of the Bible is God the Father, not Jesus.

Psalm 110:1 (the most quoted OT passage in the NT) clearly makes a distinction between Jehovah and the promised Messiah.

Further, the NT clearly identifies the God of the OT (i.e. the God of Israel) as the Father (e.g. Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14).

I delve into greater depth on the identity of Jehovah in the following thread:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html

Grace and peace,

David

[LeSellers]

The word Godhead is not scriptural either—or rather, the way it is used by LDS it is not scriptural. It occurs three times in the Bible, as follows:

Acts 17:29

Romans 1:20

Colossians 2:9

In none of these examples does it mean what LDS mean by it. In the first quote, it simply means God. It is a synonym for God. In the second and third quotes it means “divinity”. It is a synonym for “divinity”. It doesn’t mean what we mean by it.

The word “Godhead” as used by LDS is a purely home-grown definition, and is not used in scripture with that meaning. So from that point of view the words “Godhead” and “Trinity” fall into the same category. They mean what you define them to mean. And one word isn’t any better or worse than the other from that point of view.

Except the word "Godhead" means "Godhood" (you say "divinity", but the derivation is Godhood). We use it a bit idiosyncratically, to be sure, but when we say "Godhead", we mean "that which defines 'Godness'", and, by extension, the Three Men Who are Gods (the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost: the Godhead).

-head 

a native English suffix meaning “state of being” (godhead; maidenhead), occurring in words now mostly archaic or obsolete, many being superseded by forms in -hood.

In any case, we do not need the word "trinity". We have "Godhead", and it fills the need, without, as I said earlier, the baggage associated wiht Plato and Constantine.

Lehi

Edited August 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

Yes, Jehovah is a person. Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

Thank you. I was referring to the One God of the Bible who incorporates the Trinity. The reason why I called it Jehovah is because Rob Bowman had identified that with Jehovah; and I presumed that you both agreed. Since you have identified Jehovah with Jesus, however, then I must ask you to identify for me in the Bible the One God who incorporates the Trinity. Where is this God in the Bible? Can you identify Him for me? Once you have identified Him for me, then I have some more questions to ask.

No that is not what I am suggesting. I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as Jehovah in the Bible.

Good, I am glad you believe that. That is entirely correct of course. Jesus is Jehovah. I can see that you are shifting your ground, and moving closer and closer to the LDS position. Congratulations! You are on the right track. If you keep moving along that line I shall have the pleasure of welcoming you into the LDS Church one of these days!

[zerinus]

In any case, we do not need the word "trinity". We have "Godhead", and it fills the need, without, as I said earlier, the baggage associated wiht Plato and Euripedes.

I wrote an article in my Blog a couple of years ago explaining why we believe in the Trinity which you can read here. I am a Mormon and I declare that I believe in the Trinity; but in the Trinity of the Bible, not in the Trinitarianism of post-Apostate Christendom.

[Zakuska]

Yes, Jehovah is a person. Jehovah is Jesus Christ.

No that is not what I am suggesting. I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as Jehovah in the Bible.

But what about the second Jehovah who speaks to the other one?

[zerinus]

But what about the second Jehovah who speaks to the other one?

LOL! Nice one! Jesus was praying to Himself, no doubt.

[Zakuska]

LOL! Nice one! Jesus was praying to Himself, no doubt.

There are two Jehovahs spoken of in the OT.

Genesis 19:24

One on the earth and one who remains in the Heaven.

[zerinus]

Hello Mudcat,

You wrote:

>>Yes, Jehovah is a person. Jehovah is Jesus Christ... I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as Jehovah in the Bible.>>

Me: I strongly disagree; "I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as", the Angel of Jehovah, "in the Bible". The Jehovah of the Bible is God the Father, not Jesus.

Psalm 110:1 (the most quoted OT passage in the NT) clearly makes a distinction between Jehovah and the promised Messiah.

Further, the NT clearly identifies the God of the OT (i.e. the God of Israel) as the Father (e.g. Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14).

I delve into greater depth on the identity of Jehovah in the following thread:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html

Grace and peace,

David

I think that you Evans need to come to some kind of agreement among yourselves about Who is Who in the Trinity. You say one thing, Rob says another thing, Mudcat says something else. Good grief! It looks like I have caught you guys in a real bind, haven't I!

[zerinus]

There are two Jehovahs spoken of in the OT.

Genesis 19:24

One on the earth and one who remains in the Heaven.

I don't know the answer to that one. Jehovah must have an identical twin then. One of them became Jesus, and the other one stayed in heaven whom Jesus prayed to! That would solve Mudcat's problem, wouldn't it.

[David Waltz]

Hi Zerinus,

You wrote:

>>I think that you Evans need to come to some kind of agreement among yourselves about Who is Who in the Trinity. You say one thing, Rob says another thing, Mudcat says something else. Good grief! It looks like I have caught you guys in a real bind, haven't I!>>

Me: Careful now, D&C and Joseph Smith Jr. both identied the Father as Jehovah.

Zerinus: >> That is entirely correct of course. Jesus is Jehovah.>>

As I pointed out to Mudcat, I think it is much more accurate to state the Jesus was the Angel of Jehovah, and not Jehovah Himself. There are just way too many OT and NT passages that point to Jehovah as being a separate person from His Messiah, Branch, Son, appointed King, et al. The God of Jesus (John 20:17; Rev. 3:12), is the same God of the OT, and that God is Jehovah.

Grace and peace,

David

[LeSellers]

I wrote an article in my Blog a couple of years ago explaining why we believe in the Trinity which you can read here. I am a Mormon and I declare that I believe in the Trinity; but in the Trinity of the Bible, not in the Trinitarianism of post-Apostate Christendom.

Well, I'm a Saint, and I reject the Trinity right along with the Trinitarianism you deplore, and for the same reasons. There is no "Trinity of the Bible". The word does not appear there, in any form.

You took a word coined for a specific purpose (to define the unscriptural concept of the apostate, orthodox Trinity), redefined it for your own purpose, and then tell me we Saints should use it in preference to the well-established, albeit antiquated, term (of much newer origins) "Godhead" because "Godhead" doesn't mean "Trinity" as you cast it? (Yes, I know Daniel Peterson has done the same thing. I am not having an easy time accepting his position, either.)

Sorry, I'm not following you.

"Trinity" has a sesquemillennially established meaning, going back to its Latin (not scriptural Greek) roots, merging "tri" and "unity". It is the core of the "one God-three Persons" creeds Jesus identified as abominations on Easter Sunday, 1820.

I am not sure how better to demonstrate that we have a word, a very good word, one other Christians have abandoned, that we can use, in harmony with its history, to describe God. "Godhead" does what we need it to do, does it well, and is easy to use. "Trinity" is none of these things. Your use of "Trinity" is, like a myriad of others (Sabellianism, Modalism, etc.) heterodox (from the point of view of "true" trinitarians)—a heresy. Why fight them? They coined the term: they own it. Let them define it and wrest scripture to support it. We don't need it in the least.

Lehi

Edited August 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

Hello Mudcat,

You wrote:

Me: I strongly disagree; "I think Christ is fairly clearly identified as", the Angel of Jehovah, "in the Bible". The Jehovah of the Bible is God the Father, not Jesus.

Psalm 110:1 (the most quoted OT passage in the NT) clearly makes a distinction between Jehovah and the promised Messiah.

Thanks for the response David.

Your strong disagreement is noted and I will try to read your blog post this evening.

I did want to ask you. How do you square Psalm 110:1 with Matthew 22:41-45. Jesus certainly seems to reference this specific verse in his response to the Pharisees.

The passage in Matt., doesn't settle the issue I think as there is no differing terms for "LORD" or "Lord" as in the OT. The same term appears to be used for both in the NT, so the meaning is not as clear as I would like as to what exactly is meant.

" Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,"

v43 is the ambiguous lynch pin. Was Christ saying David was calling him Jehovah or Adoni?

Regardless, you could certainly be correct, but I do think there is a scriptural precedent for what I am suggesting. I don't have as much time as I would like at the moment. But I will consider your blog post and give the issue a second look.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[zerinus]

Well, I'm a Saint, and I reject the Trinity right along with the Trinitarianism you deplore, and for the same reasons. There is no "Trinity of the Bible". The word does not appear there, in any form.

That is not true actually, it does. The word Trinity literally means “trio,” “triad,” or “the Three”. It essentially means three; and in that sense of the term not only LDS would have no problem with it, but it is found in scripture:

1 John 5

:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

So in that sense the word is as biblical as the word Godhead is.

You took a word coined for a specific purpose (to define the unscriptural concept of the apostate, orthodox Trinity), redefined it for your own purpose, and then tell me we Saints should use it in preference to the well-established, albeit antiquated, term (of much newer origins) "Godhead" because "Godhead" doesn't mean "Trinity" as you cast it? (Yes, I know Daniel Peterson has done the same thing. I am not having an easy time accepting his position, either.)

Sorry, I'm not following you.

You are confusing a lot of stuff here. First of all, I did not say that we should not use the word Godhead. We can use that, and Trinity as well. Secondly, “Trinity” was not originally “a word coined for a specific purpose (to define the unscriptural concept of the apostate, orthodox Trinity)”. As used originally, it simply a word for the three members of the Godhead. It wasn’t invented to carry the false “Trinitarian” notions of present day Christendom.

"Trinity" has a sesquemillennially established meaning, going back to its Latin (not scriptural Greek) roots, merging "tri" and "unity". It is the core of the "one God-three Persons" creeds Jesus identified as abominations on Easter Sunday, 1820.

Sorry, you have got a lot of stuff mixed up I am afraid. I am not even going to try to untangle it for you.

I am not sure how better to demonstrate that we have a word, a very good word, one other Christians have abandoned, that we can use, in harmony with its history, to describe God. "Godhead" does what we need it to do, does it well, and is easy to use. "Trinity" is none of these things. Your use of "Trinity" is, like a myriad of others (Sabellianism, Modalism, etc.) heterodox (from the point of view of "true" trinitarians)—a heresy. Why fight them? They coined the term: they own it. Let them define it and wrest scripture to support it. We don't need it in the least.

And I am not sure how better to demonstrate that when the enemies of the Church attack us by accusing us of “not believing in the Trinity,” that the best way to answer it is to say that we do believe in the Trinity, rather than saying that we don’t.