Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[LDSGuy]

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

[Storm Rider]

What you have described is Modalism, which is defined as heresy by the Catholic/Orthodox churches.  There are three distinct persons within the Trinity with one substance and they are one God. The mystery is that they are one God yet three persons. It has never made sense to me, but it allows them to claim a form of monotheism, retains the divinity of Jesus; both things being vital to their theology. 

 

Our theology does avoid potential problems, but it continues to conflict with the strict monotheists, which the orthodox are striving to avoid though with continued criticism. 

[Ran]

If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

 

Yes, I agree with Storm Rider—that is Modalism. And Modalism and Trinitarianism are mutually exclusive.

 

The real distinction of the Son and the Father from one another — which "resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 255) — must be maintained in Trinitarian dogma:

 

"He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 254, Cf. Council of Toledo XI).

 

If that real distinction of the persons from one another collapses, then such a view of the Godhead can't qualify as Trinitarianism.

[3DOP]

Hi LDSguy,

 

It isn't just you. Its hard. Still, allow a few adjustments and corrections that don't make it easier, but will make it more accurate.

 

LDSGuy

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

 

3DOP

It isn't a manifestation of Persons.

 

LDSGuy

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

 

3DOP

As a Catholic, I agree with the fundamentalist. Most don't say that Christ is the Father.

 

LDSGuy

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

 

3DOP

It is not just you. Although you have not quite proposed the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, the LDS belief is easier to comprehend than the real Catholic teaching anyway. This much must be conceded. Your point about "a problem" doesn't go away simply by describing what we believe more accurately. I would ask you to keep in mind that according to the Catholic faith, we should not expect to comprehend (intellectually surround and exhaust the truth) about the Blessed Trinity.

 

The real problem, the difference between the LDS and Catholic view is that Catholics are comfortable with incomplete understanding. That does not mean we can just allow for any old belief. We do hold that the Catholic Trinity has been revealed and to be accepted by faith. LDS and other non-Trinitarians commonly approach the subject with the idea that a view that isn't easily understood, or as you put it, has problems, cannot be true. But from the Catholic perspective, God is ineffable (indescribable). As you know, we believe that He created us out of nothing. He is infinite. We are finite. We tend to expect to fail to fully understand the Infinite God.

 

It appears to us that God hasn't revealed everything about Himself to us, and it seems like one reason is the limited capability of our intellects. So why does He not elevate our intellects? I don't know but it does not trouble me. I trust that for the present world, everything is okay. He has given evidence, as we recalled in the recent season of the Son's Passion and Resurrection, of His love. Are we not supposed to be "as little children" in this life? Do we try to explain to our little ones about how the mortgage and escrow system works or do we let the child know that Daddy will take care of him and keep him housed? For the time being, we trust and trust means an anticipation of greater insight when as St. John says, "we shall know Him, for we shall see Him as He is". 

 

I deny that our doctrine has contradictions that are ultimately irresolvable. But faith admits that there are "problems" that my intellect is unable to fully resolve at this time. Now is the time for trust. Later, if I keep the faith, I shall know more. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP        

Edited April 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[halconero]

As others have said, what you have described as trinitarianism is actually modalism, which has been declare a heresy.

Despite some attempts to explain the Trinity, many of the best Trinitarian scholars say that it is at best a "Mystery," a term specific to them meaning that it is something incomprehensible to the human mind.

As for whether the Trinity is biblical...well it's not really. The verses where Jesus declares himself one with the Father use Greek which is decidedly non-Trinitarian, Paul borders on monolatry or henotheism in a couple places, and the only clear verse which states the "Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one," called the Johannian Comma, was inserted much later and popularized by Erasmus.

What the Trinitarians can claim is that their ecunemical councils, which formulated and canonized the doctrine of the Trinity, carry apostolic weight with them. The argument becomes less of biblical semantics and more about priesthood authority/apostasy if you go that route.

[Nofear]

[seed]

 

I deny that our doctrine has contradictions that are ultimately irresolvable. But faith admits that there are "problems" that my intellect is unable to fully resolve at this time. Now is the time for trust. Later, if I keep the faith, I shall know more. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP        

 

Nice summary;

 

 

Are these positions in the iWiki accurate ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Position_of_Arius_.28Arianism.29

 

Is there more to it ?

[Ahab]

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

The key is in understanding what a "being" is.

To me it makes more sense to think of a "being" as a particular kind of being, like how Man can be considered a being, or kind of being.

When I say Man I could be talking about 1 person or I could also be talking about every person who could be referred to as Man, including both male and female persons who both individually and collectively could be referred to as Man.

When understood in that way can't we LDS also say that God, also, is one being (or kind of being) but with many persons who are that being? Yes, we can, and I often do.

There is only one God, but there is more than one person who is God.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Ahab

[mnn727]

Ask 10 people of differing denominations to define the Trinity and you'll usually get 10 different answers which may or may not have anything to do with the official beliefs on the Trinity of their particular denomination. 

 

Many Mormons will give you different answers on the Godhead too.

 

Its hard to put God into a box that people understand.

[Storm Rider]

I believe that when Joseph related that God condemned all other religions God was referring specifically to creeds and not groups of faith.  Creeds limit God to a subset of understanding, which is impossible to enclose.  God is infinite and not limited to the current understanding of mortals.  We may criticize the Catholic teaching, but in reality I do not think there is a incomprehensible difference.  Though the Catholic Church has determined that we worship a God incomprehensible to their own, I think that it reflects an incomplete understanding of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Our teachings are not nearly  as far apart as one may think.  What is unacceptable to us is creeds, which limit God or describe God in a limiting fashion.  

 

Our Catholic brothers and sisters seek after the same thing we seek; to be one with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  I pray that we may experience that same oneness. 

[Ran]

I believe that when Joseph related that God condemned all other religions God was referring specifically to creeds and not groups of faith.  Creeds limit God to a subset of understanding, which is impossible to enclose.  God is infinite and not limited to the current understanding of mortals.  We may criticize the Catholic teaching, but in reality I do not think there is a incomprehensible difference.  Though the Catholic Church has determined that we worship a God incomprehensible to their own, I think that it reflects an incomplete understanding of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Our teachings are not nearly  as far apart as one may think.  What is unacceptable to us is creeds, which limit God or describe God in a limiting fashion.  

 

Our Catholic brothers and sisters seek after the same thing we seek; to be one with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  I pray that we may experience that same oneness. 

 

Storm Rider, would you clarify further the opposition to creeds?

 

My difficulty is that a creed is simply a profession of faith—the word is derived from the Latin word for "I believe" [Credo]— and the notion of believers articulating what they believe doesn't, in and of itself, appear to be problematic.

Or, rather, is the opposition specific, as in a rejection of this creed or that creed? The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, for example?

[3DOP]

Nice summary;

 

 

Are these positions in the iWiki accurate ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Position_of_Arius_.28Arianism.29

 

Is there more to it ?

Hi seed. Thanks.

 

I didn't read all of the article, and realize that I wouldn't be qualified to affirm that every position is accurate. It covers a lot of material both historical and doctrinal. It seemed to be citing the usual sources. I should think it would be safe to consider it generally accurate. But I would be surprised if there is not something with which a Catholic theologian or historian might disagree. My experience is that wikipedia has value as a compiler of primary sources for those who are looking for overviews of a subject. Did you have anything in particular that you questioned from the article?

 

3DOP

[theplains]

Though the Catholic Church has determined that we worship a God incomprehensible to their own, I think that it reflects an incomplete understanding of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Our teachings are not nearly  as far apart as one may think. 

 

In LDS theology, who is the Holy Spirit?  Is he a procreated spirit child of Heavenly Parents

(like Jesus) or is he a created being like an angel (outside of the marriage relationship of

Heavenly Mother and Father) who somehow progressed into becoming God while in spirit

form?  Or can Heavenly Father (an exalted man according to Joseph Smith) create a God

who does not need to go through various stages of progression?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[seed]

Hi seed. Thanks.

 

I didn't read all of the article, and realize that I wouldn't be qualified to affirm that every position is accurate. It covers a lot of material both historical and doctrinal. It seemed to be citing the usual sources. I should think it would be safe to consider it generally accurate. But I would be surprised if there is not something with which a Catholic theologian or historian might disagree. My experience is that wikipedia has value as a compiler of primary sources for those who are looking for overviews of a subject. Did you have anything in particular that you questioned from the article?

 

3DOP

 

thanks,   && thanks for asking. 

 

I have this idea,  perhaps cooked up on my own that the Trinity concept is adopted for political reasons.  I am sure I don't understand it all properly.  But then the idea that it is supposed to be a mystery can make sense.  Is there a lot of of contention about this outside of LDS,  or is it really a solid concept that gets universal agreement ?   No trick up my sleeves about it, its one of the topics I continue to ponder.  My perspective is that someone I know really well that was born Catholic did not agree with Trinity.  

[Ran]

I have this idea,  perhaps cooked up on my own that the Trinity concept is adopted for political reasons.

 

 

With regards to politics, I found this account of the history of Monarchianism and Trinitarianism —

 

"Even in its early Christian form and then again in its revival by Hegel and Marx [Monarchianism] has a decidedly political tinge; it is 'political theology'.  In the ancient Church it served the attempt to give the imperial monarchy a theological foundation; in Hegel it becomes the apotheosis of the Prussian state, and in Marx a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity.  Conversely, it could be shown how in the old Church the victory of belief in the Trinity over Monarchianism signified a victory over the political abuse of theology: the ecclesiastical belief in the Trinity shattered the politically usable molds, destroyed the potentialities of theology as a political myth, and disowned the misuse of the Gospel to justify a political situation."

 

Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press 2004), 170-171

[3DOP]

thanks,   && thanks for asking. 

 

I have this idea,  perhaps cooked up on my own that the Trinity concept is adopted for political reasons.  I am sure I don't understand it all properly.  But then the idea that it is supposed to be a mystery can make sense.  Is there a lot of of contention about this outside of LDS,  or is it really a solid concept that gets universal agreement ?   No trick up my sleeves about it, its one of the topics I continue to ponder.  My perspective is that someone I know really well that was born Catholic did not agree with Trinity.  

 

Seed. Hi again.

 

To your question about  universal agreement outside LDS? Oh no. Plenty of opposition outside of LDS, especially in history.

 

The Trinity isn't, in my opinion, "a solid concept that gets universal agreement", and I would not, as a Catholic, be very encouraged if the Trinity happened to be "a solid concept that gets universal agreement". That would be in my view, an insane reason to believe something. In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense for people who reject the authority of the Catholic Church to be very confident about the Trinity. The Scriptures certainly allow for a Trinity, but taken apart from authoritative interpretation, are inconclusive. With only Scripture to go by, why would one go for a mystery, something that no one understands very well?

 

I am always put off by arguments from non-LDS Christians about how LDS beliefs on the Godhead are "different" or "weird" (non-Trinitarian). Besides being ideas relative to what one happens to be used to, neither different nor weird mean a proposition is false. The truth can be weird, different, and both, like Catholic beliefs about the Holy Eucharist. If the Catholic Church is false, I would be astounded if at the same time, the Trinity happened to be true. I don't think I could possibly believe in the Trinity aside from the authority of the Catholic Church. For the LDS Restoration to be true, the Trinity, as taught at Nicea, seems to me to need to be false, or at least problematic, as the thread title suggests.

 

As for your friend "born Catholic"...people change...I was born...nothing. I changed. I was born believing in the 49ers and the Red Sox and the Celtics (no baptism was required). But when I became Catholic in 1995 at the age of 39, the Blessed Trinity became an essential and superior addition to our sports trinity: Hugh McElhenny, Ted Williams, and Bill Russell. By the way...its pretty cool...but I actually go to Mass every Sunday with a former Celtic teammate of Bill Russell. If only Dad had lived long enough to be able to go with us...Anyway, many people change their beliefs between birth and death. You knew that though. Not trying to be a smart aleck. I pray your friend finds his way back. 

 

Regards,

 

3DOP 

Edited April 23, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

With regards to politics, I found this account of the history of Monarchianism and Trinitarianism —

 

"Even in its early Christian form and then again in its revival by Hegel and Marx [Monarchianism] has a decidedly political tinge; it is 'political theology'.  In the ancient Church it served the attempt to give the imperial monarchy a theological foundation; in Hegel it becomes the apotheosis of the Prussian state, and in Marx a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity.  Conversely, it could be shown how in the old Church the victory of belief in the Trinity over Monarchianism signified a victory over the political abuse of theology: the ecclesiastical belief in the Trinity shattered the politically usable molds, destroyed the potentialities of theology as a political myth, and disowned the misuse of the Gospel to justify a political situation."

 

Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press 2004), 170-171

 

Good find Ran!

[mfbukowski]

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

I agree with you.  But frankly, I would prefer to stay out of this one because everyone knows it is one of my pet subjects and all I do is get the Catholics mad at me. 

[mfbukowski]

With regards to politics, I found this account of the history of Monarchianism and Trinitarianism —

 

"Even in its early Christian form and then again in its revival by Hegel and Marx [Monarchianism] has a decidedly political tinge; it is 'political theology'.  In the ancient Church it served the attempt to give the imperial monarchy a theological foundation; in Hegel it becomes the apotheosis of the Prussian state, and in Marx a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity.  Conversely, it could be shown how in the old Church the victory of belief in the Trinity over Monarchianism signified a victory over the political abuse of theology: the ecclesiastical belief in the Trinity shattered the politically usable molds, destroyed the potentialities of theology as a political myth, and disowned the misuse of the Gospel to justify a political situation."

 

Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press 2004), 170-171

There's something wrong here?

 

MARX thought Monarchism was "a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity."????

 

What am I missing?

[The Nehor]

The only flaw I found is that it is wrong. Other then that I don't have a problem with it.

[3DOP]

I agree with you.  But frankly, I would prefer to stay out of this one because everyone knows it is one of my pet subjects and all I do is get the Catholics mad at me. 

 

We are gratified that you refer to us in the plural.

[mfbukowski]

We are gratified that you refer to us in the plural.

Y'all are welcome

 

Youse?  That's an oldie from the Northeast and maybe more appropriate. 

[Ran]

There's something wrong here?

 

MARX thought Monarchism was "a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity."????

 

What am I missing?

 

The context: http://bit.ly/1iIZHDD

 

I think Ratzinger's proposing that the Monarchianism becomes, through Hegel and Schelling, a reduction of meaning to being the creation of history, and this idea is appropriated by Marx: "if meaning does not precede man, then it lies in the future, which man himself must bring about by his own struggles" (Ratzinger 170) — thus "a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity" (ibid).

[Storm Rider]

In LDS theology, who is the Holy Spirit?  Is he a procreated spirit child of Heavenly Parents

(like Jesus) or is he a created being like an angel (outside of the marriage relationship of

Heavenly Mother and Father) who somehow progressed into becoming God while in spirit

form?  Or can Heavenly Father (an exalted man according to Joseph Smith) create a God

who does not need to go through various stages of progression?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

At the direction of the Father Jesus created the earth and all things in, on, and above it. I don't think of Jesus as a created being and I don't think of the Holy Spirit as a created being. We have little teaching that directs us where the Holy Spirit was specifically, but I must assume that as a member of the Godhead he is similar to Jesus.  

 

Joseph's teachings on God being exalted man remain uncomfortable to me. It uses terminology that does not sit well with me. I understand the logic, but it poses more questions than it answers.  God has always been God and has no need of progression; Jesus is God and always has been; the Holy Spirit is likewise; there is no progression needed for them; they cannot become better gods or bigger; they are already God.  There was not a time when this Godhead did not exist. 

 

It is my belief that God desires that we become like him and that is the purpose of this mortal existence.  He was and is willing to sacrifice his only Begotten to achieve his ends.

[mfbukowski]

The context: http://bit.ly/1iIZHDD

 

I think Ratzinger's proposing that the Monarchianism becomes, through Hegel and Schelling, a reduction of meaning to being the creation of history, and this idea is appropriated by Marx: "if meaning does not precede man, then it lies in the future, which man himself must bring about by his own struggles" (Ratzinger 170) — thus "a program of action to secure a sound future for humanity" (ibid).

OK I guess that works.  It's the logos working itself out- God himself developing in stages which include Monarchy as a necessary part of the evolution of Meaning.  So as bad as it was for Marx, it was a necessary phase of progression.

 

God progressing in a Catholic context.  VERY interesting.  Gotta read some more to see if that is later refuted or something.

 

That's the first I've read of Ratzinger- impressive stuff.  He knew his German philosophy. 

 

He is closer to Continental philosophy than I ever imagined.  That's a good thing from my pov.  Thanks a bunch for the link - very interesting stuff.