Problems With The Teachings Of The Trinity

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, I don't disagree that the ECF used the scriptures significantly in their writings. What I disagree with is that the Bible lead them to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was needed to overcome the obvious conflict in the belief of the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God, and the perceived need for monotheism. Once the doctrine was created then they went back to look for evidence to support their new doctrine. It is the chicken or the egg predicament again.

Where did they get their "perceived need for monotheism"? It certainly wasn't from their pagan culture, which was polytheistic. The answer is obvious: it came from the Scriptures, just as did their belief in the deity of Christ. You can claim that they misunderstood the Bible to teach monotheism, but the reality is that they got the idea of one God from reading the Bible.

You wrote:

Rob, it is not a big deal, but it was quite clear in your previous statement that you felt LDS did not read anything but the quotes used by GAs.

No, I said no such thing. I didn't even mention GAs. I asked you if you had read the church fathers' writings in context and not simply the quotations used, not by GAs, but by LDS apologists. It was a legitimate question because the vast majority of Mormons who use these quotations don't know anything about their contexts.

You wrote:

You made a poor assumption of LDS, but it is OK. I freely admit that I make poor assumptions of Evangelicals all the time. I have a knee jerk reaction to be very wary of this specific group. When they start burning Mormons at the stake, it will be an EV that is lighting the kindling.

I don't think that's true at all. Most evangelicals I know, myself included, appreciate much about Mormon cultural values and respect Mormons as individuals. It is your theology and religious system that we think are seriously askew.

[Storm Rider]

Where did they get their "perceived need for monotheism"? It certainly wasn't from their pagan culture, which was polytheistic. The answer is obvious: it came from the Scriptures, just as did their belief in the deity of Christ. You can claim that they misunderstood the Bible to teach monotheism, but the reality is that they got the idea of one God from reading the Bible.

.....

The perceived need for monotheism, I agree, was taken from the OT. However, if one is a monothiest, then one must deny the divinity of Jesus Chrsit because, a the Son of God, he could not be divine and be a separate person. This conundrum was then satisfied with the the creation of the concept the being consubstantial. As we both know, this was discussed for 700 years before coming to a final, concept of the Trinity.

LDS theology, in some ways, is a simpler system. It just does not make the philosophical leap to consubstantiability; Jesus is divine and is separate from the Father. The Godhead are all distinct from each other, but one in purpose.

At the end of the day, I believe that when we come before the heavenly throne of God there will not be any type of questioning about the Trinity or anything else having to do with it. This topic is used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heterdoxy; stictly a mortal discussion. God is far more concerned about our obedience to Him, our engagement with Him, our love of Him, and following pure religion as James calls it.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

The perceived need for monotheism, I agree, was taken from the OT. However, if one is a monothiest, then one must deny the divinity of Jesus Chrsit because, a the Son of God, he could not be divine and be a separate person.

You have now conceded that the early church did in fact get its doctrine of the Trinity from its reflection on the Bible. From the OT (and the NT, by the way) they learned that there was one God who created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world. From the NT (with some advance notice in the OT) they learned that the Messiah, Jesus, was God--that he created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world--and yet was someone distinct from the Father. The basis of the doctrine was and is clearly biblical.

You wrote:

This conundrum was then satisfied with the the creation of the concept the being consubstantial.

The use of such language was forced on the church by heresies that denied the biblical truths mentioned above. Once a particular theological question was asked and had become a live issue, it needed to be answered. Doing so required doing more than just repeating biblical sentences or phrases. The heretics could do that as well.

You wrote:

As we both know, this was discussed for 700 years before coming to a final, concept of the Trinity.

I know no such thing. The concept of the Trinity was systematically robust and essentially complete by the fourth century. Debates in later centuries were over extremely fine points pertaining to how best to understand the inner-Trinitarian relations of the three persons.

You wrote:

LDS theology, in some ways, is a simpler system.

That may be (in some ways), but that doesn't make it true:

"It is simple religions that are the make-up ones.... That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting time.... If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 143-45.

You wrote:

It just does not make the philosophical leap to consubstantiability; Jesus is divine and is separate from the Father. The Godhead are all distinct from each other, but one in purpose.

The LDS theological system has problems your smooth description ignores.

You wrote:

At the end of the day, I believe that when we come before the heavenly throne of God there will not be any type of questioning about the Trinity or anything else having to do with it. This topic is used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heterdoxy; stictly a mortal discussion. God is far more concerned about our obedience to Him, our engagement with Him, our love of Him, and following pure religion as James calls it.

There is a false dichotomy at work here. Of course loving and obeying God are more important than getting one's theology exactly right. But those who love God will believe what he says about himself and conform their beliefs to his revelation. They will also be determined to accept genuine revelation from God and to reject false revelations. Let me turn the issue around and state the matter from the LDS side. If these issues are not that important, why does the First Vision account include a denunciation of the creeds? Why did Joseph Smith claim that knowing the truth about the nature of God was of paramount importance?

[Ahab]

Just to be clear, at the outset, I'd just like to make clear what I think we're debating in this thread:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into h***, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Next I'd like to say that I agree, and I believe LDS agree, with more in this "creed" than we disagree with, although in whole I would say we disagree with it because if we disagree with any part of it then we disagree with the collective whole.

Now if everyone would simply agree with who and what we LDS understand God to be, we could all live happily ever after.

[Nemesis]

Let's be careful about not making this an anti-catholic thread or it'll be shut down. I have already seen a couple posts that teeter on the line.

Nemesis

[Ahab]

Let's be careful about not making this an anti-catholic thread or it'll be shut down. I have already seen a couple posts that teeter on the line.

Nemesis

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-Catholic, or anti-Protestant either. I'm just against false doctrine, from wherever it can be found, and in favor of what is true.

[jo1952]

jo,

You might want to do some homework before saying things like this. I have published a book on the Trinity and written other published materials (articles, etc.) of relevance to that topic. I have been discussing the doctrine of the Trinity with anti-Trinitarians of all stripes (not just or even mostly Mormons) for 35 years. This includes a highly visible public debate on a well-trafficked blog just last year. I have also lectured on the subject at the college and graduate school levels. I know this subject matter extremely well.

Given the attitude you have toward me (see below), I am not going to spend a lot of time responding in the kind of detail I could until I see a change in that attitude. Here I will simply point out that one must distinguish between understanding of a basic, working, functional kind and understanding that is comprehensive, definitive, and perfect. It is possible to have the former kind of knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity but not, in this life, the latter.

Rob,

Do you not realize that it is your attitude about your flaunted "knowledge" that is getting in the way of YOUR being able to address the problems being pointed out with the Trinity dogma? By giving me YOUR personal history ABOUT your STUDY of the Trinity, does NOT give me any information ABOUT the Trinity. It only gives me information about YOUR accomplishments.

This is the sort of judgmental comment that will make me quickly lose interest in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you. There is no point in me trying to prove your judgment of me wrong.

Heaven forbid a person should bring YOU to task about your personal belief system.

The issue was the nature of the Trinity, not how we are saved. But I disagree with your statement. Jesus never said that we could not grow in our understanding of how we are saved. You of all people should be careful about making such statements, because the LDS Church's understanding of how we are saved also developed, especially during Joseph Smith's tenure as prophet.

Everyone's way to salvation is clearly taught in the Bible. The only thing that has evolved since Jesus taught us, are the additional stipulations of maintaining our salvation which the Apostles taught which are also in the Bible. The Trinity was never part of those stipulations. That dogma was added by man and is what has evolved as an ADDITIONAL requirement for salvation, which is beyond the simple and pure belief and faith in Jesus Christ, as well as the Biblical teachings of continual repentance and keeping the commandments. Now, what I suppose you are talking about concerning Joseph Smith (which by the way is yet another attempt on your part to derail my OP), is a clarification of the various degrees and Glories of Heaven; even though they are also pointed to in the Bible. Joseph Smith merely gave more detail to those Glories and who it would be that would be entering them. It is NOT an evolvement regarding the requirements for salvation. However, the Trinity IS an evolvement according to the standard of the church, to even achieve salvation. For you not to admit this shows to me that your agenda is fixed regardless what any LDS doctrine states, or what any LDS person has tried to make clear to you about our beliefs. Again, our beliefs aren't even part of the OP. What is in question is the Trinitarian's exclusivity to salvation which IS. The exclusivity closes the gate to Heaven to all those who do not accept the Trinity; just like the scribes and Pharisees did. My purpose is to expose problems with this dogma; and this OP is just the beginning my attempt to do so. If the Trinity didn't exclude those who don't accept it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as soon as one believer closes Heaven to another believer, I will speak up. Where can there be "oneness" among believers when such an obstacle stands in the way. Where can believers rejoice together in the joy of our Savior when such a gap exists between us??

What the Trinity has done is try to identify the "true nature" of God. Do not deflect and try to deny this. When you made your remark about the "nature" of the Trinity, Trinitarians MEAN this to be about the "nature" of God, NOT the "nature" of the Trinity. This dogma as preached by the Protestants is that a person must accept the Trinity BECAUSE it represents the "true nature" of God; and unless a person understands the "true nature" of God, then their belief and faith in Christ is wasted due to the fact they haven't got God's "true nature" in their head. My point for this OP is to show how ludicrous and unstable this mantra is due to the fact that the very people who constructed the Trinity are the very same ones who claim it cannot be understood. Therefore, even if a person DOES accept the Trinity, they STILL do NOT understand the "true nature" of God. THUS demanding that a person accept it because the "true nature" of God is the ONLY way to access salvation is an exercise in futility. NO ONE can be saved if we MUST understand the "true nature" of God as outlined in the Trinity, when the Trinity is incomprehensible!

At least the people who constructed this dogma, i.e., the RCC, admit that it is not possible to understand it. Therefore, their focus and "demands" upon the Trinity are subtlely different than those of the Protestant denominations. Even though raised a Lutheran, as a teenager being prepared for my first communion, I was able to see that this just did not make sense; and I refused to accept it even though I was too young to be able to explain in adult terms as to why. I simply would NOT accept it. It is NOT what my personal study of the Bible had taught me; and I had been studying the Bible from the time I learned to read. I will hereby take the Chewbacca defense: "It just does NOT make sense".

In this OP I have identified only some of the intrinsic problems. You are welcome to disagree; however I would prefer that you use a real defense rather than telling me about your years of studying the trinity. We have already disagreed on the "source" of the Trinity. But that also does not address the Trinity itself.

You're right. But you're not stating the whole truth. The original ancient church evolved into the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church. But if the original ancient church evolved into these institutions, then they did not actually exist as such in the ancient period. So even your statement ends up conceding my point.

You will need to take that argument up with the RCC. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church teach yet a different Trinity? You know very well that Protestant denominations split from the RCC; the RCC claims Peter was the first Pope. The RCC claims how the Trinity cannot be understood; and the Protestants kept the Trinity which the RCC taught. So why are you trying to take rabbit trails which are deflecting this discussion's intent?

I am not going to concede the claims that the RCC makes for itself. For example, I deny that it is the only true church. Your "historical argument" which you are taking uncritically from RCC theologians is used by them to prove just that -- the doctrine that the RCC is the only true church. You don't believe that Peter was the first pope, do you? I don't understand why you think this is a legitimate line of argument from a Mormon perspective. Since I reject their historical arguments, I also reject their claim that they, the RCC, developed the doctrine of the Trinity. The ancient church did that.

I have taken my arguments from the history of the church and the ECF who are recognized as ECF by whatever denomination a believer happens to be today. Let me try to understand you here. Are you trying to get to a point in this discussion where you can claim to actually understand the Trinity by discrediting what the RCC has to say about it?

You raised various issues pertaining to what the RCC taught in the past and teaches now about the salvation of non-Catholics and so forth. None of this is relevant to your thread, and certainly you are asking the wrong person if you are looking for a defense of the RCC claims, since I am a former Catholic who converted to evangelical Protestantism. Your reasoning that if I "accept" the current Catholic position on the salvation of Protestants then I am saying that Christ changed his mind is bizarre. I am not a Catholic, so I don't "accept" the Catholic position on this subject.

But it IS relevant. The Reformation was supposed to "fix" the problems of the church by splitting off from the RCC. Yet the Protestants continued to hang on to the Trinity. For a Protestant to truly understand WHY that is, I would think they would want to know the history of the Trinity and how it is that Protestants DID hang on to it, while condemning the very church they took it from. This inevitably involves researching the ECF and the evolution of the Trinity. I am not trying to judge ANY denomination; I'm trying to have an honest discussion ABOUT THE TRINITY - it is impossible to extricate this dogma from its very own history in order to do so. I don't care WHAT denomination you are. I am presenting the problems with the dogma itself. Its history has EVERYTHING to do with this OP. Even if you believe the RCC is in error to "claim" the Trinity was their idea, this idea STILL came from the ECF. Martin Luther hung on to this idea; and he came from the RCC. Parsing words is not going to help in this discussion. You have yet to address the actual Trinity itself.

There is a huge fallacy in reasoning that if I accept a doctrine the Catholic Church claimed to formulate, then I am somehow accepting Catholic dogma. You accept the same 27 books of the NT as Catholics and Protestants, don't you? Well, the RCC claims it is responsible for deciding which books should be in the NT. Do you accept that claim?

Again, that is a discussion for another thread.

I am not unwilling or unable to discuss these issues in the proper place and with someone who shows me the same courtesy I am expected to show others here. Those conditions do not apply in this instance.

I don't want to get involved with yet another rabbit trail with you. If you want to discuss the actual Trinity, then discuss it. If all you want to talk about is how long you have studied the trinity, or whine when you feel you don't have perceived control of a discussion, then don't bother to respond to me. OTOH, if really want to share your knowledge by addressing the problems as I see them, I will be happy to continue a discussion with you.

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

I am going to refrain from more point by point responses to your comments, as I really don't think doing so would serve any useful purpose. You say you don't want to go down any "rabbit trails." Very well. From an evangelical Protestant perspective, there is only one relevant question to ask concerning any doctrine as far as determining if it is true: is the doctrine taught in the Bible or follow from the teachings of the Bible? If it does, the history of Christianity and of the doctrine in church history is irrelevant to whether it is true. Take the most extreme situation you can imagine, such as a group of men killing innocent children. If that evil group of men happen to believe that the earth goes around the sun in about 365 days, that belief does not become false because of their wickedness. The truth of a belief and the morality of the actions of some of the people who believe it are two different issues. Say whatever you want about the origins of the formal doctrine of the Trinity; say whatever you want about Catholics and Protestants; none of this has any bearing on whether the doctrine of the Trinity rests solidly on a biblical foundation. Your whole thread is one big "rabbit trail" as far as the question of the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned.

Once again, I would direct you to my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. If you want to convince evangelicals that there is something wrong with the doctrine, you will have to address the biblical case for it and show that it is defective. Nothing else is relevant, so far as we are concerned.

Link removed. It was removed from your signature before and it's not appropriate to post in discussion either due to temple content.

[LeSellers]

From an evangelical Protestant perspective, there is only one relevant question to ask concerning any doctrine as far as determining if it is true: is the doctrine taught in the Bible or follow from the teachings of the Bible?

But that is a sadly deficient meter.

You know or strongly suspect that the Bible does not contain complete doctrine. What were the "things pertaining to the kingdom of God" Jesus spent forty days speaking to the eleven Apostles between the resurrection and the ascension? Because Luke doesn't say, nor does any of the other biblical writers. So, absent that information, you cannot say what truth is by your standard. (Unless you are saying that Jesus would tell the Apostles something that was not true. I doubt you would take that position.)

Lehi

[jo1952]

jo,

I am going to refrain from more point by point responses to your comments, as I really don't think doing so would serve any useful purpose. You say you don't want to go down any "rabbit trails." Very well. From an evangelical Protestant perspective, there is only one relevant question to ask concerning any doctrine as far as determining if it is true: is the doctrine taught in the Bible or follow from the teachings of the Bible? If it does, the history of Christianity and of the doctrine in church history is irrelevant to whether it is true. Take the most extreme situation you can imagine, such as a group of men killing innocent children. If that evil group of men happen to believe that the earth goes around the sun in about 365 days, that belief does not become false because of their wickedness. The truth of a belief and the morality of the actions of some of the people who believe it are two different issues. Say whatever you want about the origins of the formal doctrine of the Trinity; say whatever you want about Catholics and Protestants; none of this has any bearing on whether the doctrine of the Trinity rests solidly on a biblical foundation. Your whole thread is one big "rabbit trail" as far as the question of the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned.

Once again, I would direct you to my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. If you want to convince evangelicals that there is something wrong with the doctrine, you will have to address the biblical case for it and show that it is defective. Nothing else is relevant, so far as we are concerned.

I would offer that the most relevant aspect concerning the Trinity is that it causes confusion, derision, and division among believers, as well as physical misery, torture and death. A very Biblically incorrect concern about the Trinity is that it has evolved into a private club where members only (those who accept the dogma) are allowed to enter Heaven. Of course, I am not telling you anything you haven't heard before; though I AM re-iterating the sad facts that surround the Trinity. Fortunately, for all of mankind, Christ is our Judge; NOT man.

It is my hope and sincere prayer that those who hold to the Trinity will also see what it has done to mankind. I would also pray that Trinitarians recognize that if they do not agree that a person must accept the Trinity in order to be saved, that this may help plant a seed for a desire to grow within them whereby they would seek more truth through the guidance of the Holy Ghost vs whatever else their institute of religious affiliation may be teaching them which they may come to realize they do not agree with. The Truth is out there.

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

But that is a sadly deficient meter.

The fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity rests securely on the foundation of biblical teaching. If it is biblical, then it is true. You cannot refute this conclusion by arguing that the Bible is incomplete because even if it is, what it teaches is true.

You wrote:

You know or strongly suspect that the Bible does not contain complete doctrine.

What does?

You wrote:

What were the "things pertaining to the kingdom of God" Jesus spent forty days speaking to the eleven Apostles between the resurrection and the ascension? Because Luke doesn't say, nor does any of the other biblical writers. So, absent that information, you cannot say what truth is by your standard. (Unless you are saying that Jesus would tell the Apostles something that was not true. I doubt you would take that position.)

The whole New Testament teaches about "things pertaining to the kingdom of God"; there is no problem inferring that the NT preserves for us the essence of Jesus' teaching during that forty-day period. We do not need the apostles in the NT to say "I heard Jesus say this during the forty-day period after his resurrection." So this is a non-problem as best I can see.

Regardless, as I explained above, whatever the NT does teach is true, even if the NT doesn't teach us everything there is to know (which of course it doesn't). Therefore, if the doctrine of the Trinity is well supported by the NT, and it is, then the Trinity is true, even if there might be more truth out there we don't know.

[zerinus]

The fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity rests securely on the foundation of biblical teaching.

The fact remains that it doesn't.

If it is biblical, then it is true.

Exactly. It isn't, therefore it isn't.

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

I am used to anti-Trinitarians trying, often desperately, to divert attention from the question of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is well supported from the Bible. If that continues to be your strategy, you will only raise questions in people's minds as to whether you cannot handle the biblical arguments for the doctrine.

Frankly, it is absurd to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has caused misery, torture, and death. One can blame false beliefs about church-state relations, such as the belief that heresy should be a criminal offense, but the doctrine of the Trinity itself is not to blame. I believe the Trinity, and I'm not out torturing and killing people.

Anti-Trinitarians love to make the issue not whether the Trinity is true but whether it is fair to claim that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is a diversion from the truth question. There are three possibilities:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is true, and it is necessary to believe the doctrine in order to be saved.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity is true, but it is not necessary to believe the doctrine in order to be saved.

3. The doctrine of the Trinity is false.

You can argue against #1 all you want, but this will leave the case for #2 untouched and will do nothing to establish #3 as the truth. And it will do no good to object that the Roman Catholic Church teaches #1. This still leaves the possibility that the RCC is right about the doctrine being true but wrong in claiming that one must believe it to be saved.

I have addressed the question Must One Believe in the Trinity to Be Saved? in a blog post almost three years ago.

[jo1952]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity rests securely on the foundation of biblical teaching. If it is biblical, then it is true. You cannot refute this conclusion by arguing that the Bible is incomplete because even if it is, what it teaches is true.

Whoa....That type of reasoning can quickly get a person into trouble. For instance, the Bible teaches us that Satan is the god of the earth. I do NOT believe, however, that Satan a True god!!

BTW, do you have any ideas on the "true nature" of Satan?? As a "sub" god (as I have heard you identify him), does he have three persons to his being, as well? Do all gods require a triad nature? Of course, I realize that you do not worship Satan; nor should you. However, even as a "sub" god, he also manifests powers like unto Jesus (though he has never had a body of flesh, been crucified or resurrected). Yet he will be showing the same powers by performing the same types of miracles which Jesus and the Apostles (through the power and authority Jesus gave them) of healing the sick, raising the dead, and even bringing an image (or statue) to life; powers previously manifested by the Son of of the One True God whom we are to worship. The end times are going to be very difficult indeed for people to discern what is True and what is false.

Regardless, as I explained above, whatever the NT does teach is true, even if the NT doesn't teach us everything there is to know (which of course it doesn't). Therefore, if the doctrine of the Trinity is well supported by the NT, and it is, then the Trinity is true, even if there might be more truth out there we don't know.

I would strongly disagree! It is the HOLY GHOST who leads us to all Truth; not the propensity of man to determine on his own if a doctrine is "well supported" by the NT. If man interprets the Bible incorrectly, he will build his foundation of belief upon a false foundation. Hence the need for the Holy Ghost to keep us from straying from what IS true and what is not. Man alone does not have the ability of being infallible in interpreting the Bible on his own.

I would like to point out that many of the ECF didn't even include the Holy Ghost in their earlier binitarian belief. The binitarian belief explanation of God preceded man's trinitarian concepts. It appears from the records I have read that the eventual inclusion of the Holy Ghost was not due to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but rather man's reasoning that He SHOULD be part of the Godhead due to the fact that He is mentioned so frequently along with the Father and the Son. I say this because arguments raged about whether or not He is even a god; therefore putting into question if He should become part of the emerging Trinity concept of belief, let alone putting Him on the same level of Father and Son; and later still, making Him co-equal in the Trinity dogma.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 17, 2011 by jo1952

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

Whoa....That type of reasoning can quickly get a person into trouble. For instance, the Bible teaches us that Satan is the god of the earth. I do NOT believe, however, that Satan a True god!!

Huh?

First, the Bible does not say that Satan is "the god of this earth." It calls him "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4). There is a difference.

Second, when the Bible calls Satan the god of this age, what it says is true. But this doesn't mean that Satan is a "true god"! Paul is saying that in this evil age, characterized by sin and death, Satan is the spiritual power that dominates the age, the one people in general are following. This is true.

You wrote:

I would strongly disagree! It is the HOLY GHOST who leads us to all Truth; not the propensity of man to determine on his own if a doctrine is "well supported" by the NT.

Who said anything about man determining this on his own without the Holy Spirit? I didn't. You're creating a problem here out of thin air.

You wrote:

If man interprets the Bible incorrectly, he will build his foundation of belief upon a false foundation. Hence the need for the Holy Ghost to keep us from straying from what IS true and what is not. Man alone does not have the ability of being infallible in interpreting the Bible on his own.

Man alone also does not have the ability to identify infallibly what the Holy Spirit is doing. You can't solve the problem of human fallibility by appealing to the Holy Spirit. Mormons always tell me that they are not infallible, and that even Joseph Smith was not infallible. But presumably you think he had the Holy Ghost. So human fallibility is simply not the issue here.

You are correct in saying that if we interpret the Bible incorrectly, our belief will rest on a false foundation. But it is also true that if we ignore God's word in the Bible, our belief will rest on a false foundation. That is why you cannot rightly try to divert attention away from whether the doctrine of the Trinity rests on a biblical foundation. If it doesn't, show me--from the Bible. That is the only way to do it. The solution to misinterpreting the Bible is to learn how to interpret it correctly.

[jo1952]

jo,

I am used to anti-Trinitarians trying, often desperately, to divert attention from the question of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is well supported from the Bible. If that continues to be your strategy, you will only raise questions in people's minds as to whether you cannot handle the biblical arguments for the doctrine.

Frankly, it is absurd to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has caused misery, torture, and death. One can blame false beliefs about church-state relations, such as the belief that heresy should be a criminal offense, but the doctrine of the Trinity itself is not to blame. I believe the Trinity, and I'm not out torturing and killing people.

Anti-Trinitarians love to make the issue not whether the Trinity is true but whether it is fair to claim that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is a diversion from the truth question. There are three possibilities:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is true, and it is necessary to believe the doctrine in order to be saved.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity is true, but it is not necessary to believe the doctrine in order to be saved.

3. The doctrine of the Trinity is false.

You can argue against #1 all you want, but this will leave the case for #2 untouched and will do nothing to establish #3 as the truth. And it will do no good to object that the Roman Catholic Church teaches #1. This still leaves the possibility that the RCC is right about the doctrine being true but wrong in claiming that one must believe it to be saved.

I have addressed the question Must One Believe in the Trinity to Be Saved? in a blog post almost three years ago.

Wow, I can't believe you actually admitted that the Trinity is a doctrine of man.

Thank you,

jo

[jo1952]

jo,

You wrote:

Huh?

You said that if a doctrine is supported by the NT, then it is true. Well, the NT actually teaches that satan is a god. Yet that teaching does not make Satan THE "True" God or even "A" "true" god. He is the father of lies; he is a false god.

First, the Bible does not say that Satan is "the god of this earth." It calls him "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4). There is a difference.

I would love to follow you down this trail, but we are getting way off base. Since I am the one that started this particular trail, I really should start a new thread.

Second, when the Bible calls Satan the god of this age, what it says is true. But this doesn't mean that Satan is a "true god"! Paul is saying that in this evil age, characterized by sin and death, Satan is the spiritual power that dominates the age, the one people in general are following. This is true.

Satan has always had power and dominions of darkness over the earth. See the book of Job where he is also recognized as a son of God.

Who said anything about man determining this on his own without the Holy Spirit? I didn't. You're creating a problem here out of thin air.

I'm not creating a problem out of thin air; I'm repeating what went on in the minds of the ECF.

Man alone also does not have the ability to identify infallibly what the Holy Spirit is doing. You can't solve the problem of human fallibility by appealing to the Holy Spirit. Mormons always tell me that they are not infallible, and that even Joseph Smith was not infallible. But presumably you think he had the Holy Ghost. So human fallibility is simply not the issue here.

You are correct in saying that if we interpret the Bible incorrectly, our belief will rest on a false foundation. But it is also true that if we ignore God's word in the Bible, our belief will rest on a false foundation. That is why you cannot rightly try to divert attention away from whether the doctrine of the Trinity rests on a biblical foundation. If it doesn't, show me--from the Bible. That is the only way to do it. The solution to misinterpreting the Bible is to learn how to interpret it correctly.

Jesus has already taught us through the Bible, that man gets his hands on God's doctrine and turns it into the commandments of man. It is enough that you have finally admitted that the Trinity was created extra-Biblically by man. Obviously, Orthodoxy has now made it "law". In other threads, though perhaps not even approached in this one, I have NEVER claimed that Trinitarians made up the basis for their beliefs out of thin air. I HAVE claimed that non-Trinitarians actually use the SAME passages in the Bible to support their interpretation of what the Bible is teaching, as the Trinitarian points to in support of their beliefs. Notably, the non-Trinitarian's belief never had to evolve at all. It is only after the Trinity made its appearance that the non-Trinitarian had to start to DEFEND their "non-evolved" belief.

Of course you are not killing non-Trininarians today. Not only is it politically incorrect to do so in the USA, the church conveniently killed off earlier non-Trinitarians. Now they simply don't allow them into the church; and, voila, no further need to kill the heretics because they are no longer a part of the church.

The solution to interpreting the Bible correctly is with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. There IS no other way; the NT is filled with this teaching.

Regards,

jo

[Flyonthewall]

Just because something is based off of the Bible, does not mean it is true. The extreme example, of course, would be vampirism and cannibalism. An argument can be made that Jesus clearly taught this as the way of salvation...it is in the Bible.

I don't see anyone jumping that bandwagon.

The same thing with the Trinity. Just because it's foundation is based on what is in the Bible, doesn't mean it is correct. If the interpretation of Biblical passages that the Trinity is based on is incorrect, well, then the old saying applies...garbage in, garbage out.

[Rob Bowman]

Fly,

You wrote:

Just because something is based off of the Bible, does not mean it is true. The extreme example, of course, would be vampirism and cannibalism. An argument can be made that Jesus clearly taught this as the way of salvation...it is in the Bible.

I don't see anyone jumping that bandwagon.

The same thing with the Trinity. Just because it's foundation is based on what is in the Bible, doesn't mean it is correct. If the interpretation of Biblical passages that the Trinity is based on is incorrect, well, then the old saying applies...garbage in, garbage out.

I'm really getting tired of these sorts of replies. I am not arguing that any doctrine that CLAIMS to be based on the Bible is ipso facto true. What I have clearly and repeatedly said is that any doctrine that is solidly and well founded on the teachings of the Bible is true. Obviously, if a doctrine is based on misinterpretations of the Bible, it is based on a faulty foundation.

We would not be having this discussion if I were a Mormon and I were asserting, let's say, that a particular doctrine is true because it is clearly taught in D&C. The objections that you and others here are making to my position betray a double standard.

[Storm Rider]

You have now conceded that the early church did in fact get its doctrine of the Trinity from its reflection on the Bible. From the OT (and the NT, by the way) they learned that there was one God who created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world. From the NT (with some advance notice in the OT) they learned that the Messiah, Jesus, was God--that he created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world--and yet was someone distinct from the Father. The basis of the doctrine was and is clearly biblical.

Alas, no I have not. I have agreed that the concept of monotheism was active in the early church. However, the problem was Jesus' divinity. If he was divine then they would have at least two Gods. What to do about believing that Jesus was divine and the concept of monotheism? Create a bridge, a philosphical construct, viola we have consubstantiation.

"It is simple religions that are the make-up ones.... That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting time.... If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 143-45.

Evangelicalism was created out of whole cloth. There was no authority given, only taken by men. No direction from the heavens for a restoration of truth; just the rebellion against what was. There is no leg to stand on; either it came from God (which is not claimed or it came from men)

There is a false dichotomy at work here. Of course loving and obeying God are more important than getting one's theology exactly right. But those who love God will believe what he says about himself and conform their beliefs to his revelation. They will also be determined to accept genuine revelation from God and to reject false revelations. Let me turn the issue around and state the matter from the LDS side. If these issues are not that important, why does the First Vision account include a denunciation of the creeds? Why did Joseph Smith claim that knowing the truth about the nature of God was of paramount importance?

I will take this last section to asnwer later; gotta go.

[Storm Rider]

You have now conceded that the early church did in fact get its doctrine of the Trinity from its reflection on the Bible. From the OT (and the NT, by the way) they learned that there was one God who created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world. From the NT (with some advance notice in the OT) they learned that the Messiah, Jesus, was God--that he created, sustained, and ruled over the whole world--and yet was someone distinct from the Father. The basis of the doctrine was and is clearly biblical.

Alas, no I have not. I have agreed that the concept of monotheism was active in the early church. However, the problem was Jesus' divinity. If he was divine then they would have at least two Gods. What to do about believing that Jesus was divine and the concept of monotheism? Create a bridge, a philosphical construct, viola we have consubstantiation.

"It is simple religions that are the make-up ones.... That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting time.... If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 143-45.

Evangelicalism was created out of whole cloth. There was no authority given, only taken by men. No direction from the heavens for a restoration of truth; just the rebellion against what was. There is no leg to stand on; either it came from God (which is not claimed or it came from men)

There is a false dichotomy at work here. Of course loving and obeying God are more important than getting one's theology exactly right. But those who love God will believe what he says about himself and conform their beliefs to his revelation. They will also be determined to accept genuine revelation from God and to reject false revelations. Let me turn the issue around and state the matter from the LDS side. If these issues are not that important, why does the First Vision account include a denunciation of the creeds? Why did Joseph Smith claim that knowing the truth about the nature of God was of paramount importance?

I will take this last section to asnwer later; gotta go.

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

You said that if a doctrine is supported by the NT, then it is true. Well, the NT actually teaches that satan is a god. Yet that teaching does not make Satan THE "True" God or even "A" "true" god. He is the father of lies; he is a false god.

That's right. That's what 2 Corinthians 4:4 means! You are jumping from "the Bible calls Satan a god" to "Satan is the true God" or "Satan is a true god." This is not a legitimate move.

You wrote:

Notably, the non-Trinitarian's belief never had to evolve at all. It is only after the Trinity made its appearance that the non-Trinitarian had to start to DEFEND their "non-evolved" belief.

Which of the several non-Trinitarian beliefs do you have in mind? Your claim here is incredibly naive. Every theological position on the subject was developed by human beings over time. Each of these beliefs "evolved" in that sense, yours included.

You wrote:

Of course you are not killing non-Trininarians today. Not only is it politically incorrect to do so in the USA, the church conveniently killed off earlier non-Trinitarians. Now they simply don't allow them into the church; and, voila, no further need to kill the heretics because they are no longer a part of the church.

There was never any need to kill heretics to keep them out of the church. Again, it was not belief in the Trinity that led to persecution of non-Trinitarians; it was false beliefs about the use of state power.

You wrote:

The solution to interpreting the Bible correctly is with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. There IS no other way; the NT is filled with this teaching.

It is? Do I need the Holy Ghost to see this teaching, which you say fills the NT? How do I know who has the Holy Ghost?

[altersteve]

There was never any need to kill heretics to keep them out of the church. Again, it was not belief in the Trinity that led to persecution of non-Trinitarians; it was false beliefs about the use of state power.

There were many causes of persecution, including the one you mentioned, but people were indeed persecuted and even put to death for not believing in the Trinity and other doctrines. That said, your statement that "it was not belief in the Trinity that led to persecution of non-Trinitarians" is strange; if non-Trinitarians were being persecuted, then it would stand to reason that it was the fact that they were non-Trinitarians that was the cause of their persecution, would it not?

It is? Do I need the Holy Ghost to see this teaching, which you claim fills the NT? How do I know who has the Holy Ghost?

Nobody is claiming that we have the Holy Ghost and you don't. We believe that all people have access to the power of the Holy Ghost. But we are claiming that we have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that you, as of now, do not. So if you were referring to the gift of the Holy Ghost in your question, then it's not a question that we can answer.

Edited August 17, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

The fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity rests securely on the foundation of biblical teaching. If it is biblical, then it is true. You cannot refute this conclusion by arguing that the Bible is incomplete because even if it is, what it teaches is true.

That was not the question I posed.

Your claim was that you can tell what's true by comparing it to what's in the Bible: either there would be a direct citation you can apply or the "truth" will conform to the major thrust of scripture.

My assertion is that you may be able to tell that something is true, but you cannot determine if it is not true because the Bible does not contain (as illustrated by the failing of Act 1:3) all truth.

I further contend (although not presented in my earlier message) that there is no way to apply biblical teachings anyway because, in spite of the myriad of claims that "the Bible teaches Xxxx" or "the Bible says Yyyy", the Bible doesn't say anything: it is only ink on paper (or parchment/papyrus, etc.); it doesn't "say" anything or "teach" anything until someone reads it and interprets it. The doctrine of the Trinity is not "in the Bible", it's "in the minds of some who read the Bible". These are not at all the same things. A Frenchman, for instance, would not learn anything from an Icelandic Bible. An Icelander may, but the ink on the paper of his Bible is meaningless until he reads it, interprets it (in a way the Frenchman could not), and then determines, for himself, what those things he has interpreted mean in his life. Furthermore, any two Icelanders, readings their copies of the Icelandic Bible, will not reach the same conclusions. And neither of them will reach the same conclusions an Englishman will reach when he reads his English Bible.

The Bible (like any scripture, including the other Standard Works) is, therefore, a study aid. It is not an answer book. As Joseph Smith said, "I'm thankful I have this old book [his Luther Bible], but I am more thankful that I have the Holy Ghost {to reveal truth]".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The whole New Testament teaches about "things pertaining to the kingdom of God"; there is no problem inferring that the NT preserves for us the essence of Jesus' teaching during that forty-day period. We do not need the apostles in the NT to say "I heard Jesus say this during the forty-day period after his resurrection." So this is a non-problem as best I can see.

The problem you do not see is that your inference is not biblical. You cannot apply a standard (if the Bible teaches it, it is true) unless the standard is accurate. Yours is not.

You may infer that the rest of the New Testament reflects what Christ taught during that six-week period, but you cannot aver that it really does. Your assumption is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Regardless, as I explained above, whatever the NT does teach is true, even if the NT doesn't teach us everything there is to know (which of course it doesn't). Therefore, if the doctrine of the Trinity is well supported by the NT, and it is, then the Trinity is true, even if there might be more truth out there we don't know.

This admission is telling. You openly state that there is truth out there that you do not possess (bolded above). Since you do not know it, nor even what it is, you have no basis whatsoever for rejecting the truths of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are three passages of New Testament scripture that do tell a small portion of what Jesus taught His Apostles. They are 1 Cor 15:29, 1 Pet 3:18~22, 4:3~6. Aside from saying that we Saints have it wrong, I have never heard or read anything about these passages that makes any sense. The standard Evangelical and ordinary Protestant and Catholic interpretations are universally lacking.

Another passage that meets this same dead end is Matt 16:13~19. The typical non-LDS interpretation dismisses the words of the text, and goes off forcing Jesus to have said something He did not say, ignoring what He actually did tell Peter and the other Priesthood holders that day.

Lehi