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

[Palerider]

I think it would be easier (and make more sense) to see the word "God" as being titular. It allows one to see "God" as "one" (because they share identical attributes) while acknowledging that there are actually three individuals that are "God" or "divine nature". Paul uses the word "Godhead" occasionally, which might be a more apt forensic description of the "divine beings". 

[Storm Rider]

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?

 

The Catechism teaches that, "The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."    When we sum up specific beliefs in a specific creed it creates the potential for disciples to limit their understanding to that specific creed.  God become man so that we might become gods; is there any greater teaching of the Savior?  How do you put that in a creed that does not limit the glory and infinite being of God and his purposes for each of his children?

 

Revelation, personal revelation, is the prophetic reality of each disciple of Jesus.  That revelation should never be hindered by creeds. I do think that creeds can be the beginning of learning doctrinal positions, but they are not the only tool or even the preferred tool. To me it is similar to set prayers; they are good to provide words to communicate with those young in the Spirit or unsure of praying. However, prayer that comes from the heart is and will remain an open conversation with our Father in Heaven and our God.  Words created by another may be beautiful and worth contemplating, but better is the individual that approaches God with open heart, mind, and spirit in humble prayer.

 

I don't think I have done a good job of explaining why creeds are so limiting and determined by the Church of Jesus Christ to be rejected. I will need to do some more research.  Thank you for your question. 

[LDSGuy]

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.

Then I don't see how you can avoid modalism.

[mfbukowski]

The context: http://bit.ly/1iIZHDD

Did some more reading on that link to Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict XVI) book Introduction to Christianity.

 

I found some VERY interesting stuff that I could actually relate to.  He turns out to be a tad more postmodern than I would have ever expected!

 

Introduction to Christianity Pope Benedict XVI

P 175

"We know today that in a physical experiment the observer himself enters into the experiment and only by doing so can arrive at a physical experience.  This means that there is no such thing as pure objectivity even in physics, that even here the result of the experiment, nature's answer, depends on the question put to it.  In the answer there is always a bit of the question and a bit of the questioner himself; it reflects not only nature in itself, in its pure objectivity, but also gives back something of man, of what is characteristically ours, a bit of the human subject.  This too, mutatis mutandis, is true of the question of God.  There is no such thing as a mere observer.  There is no such thing as pure objectivity. One can even say that the higher an object stands in human terms, the more it penetrates the center of individuality; and the more it engages the beholder's individuality, then the smaller the possibility of the mere distancing involved in pure objectivity.  Thus, whenever an answer is presented as unemotionally objective, as a statement that finally goes beyond the prejudices of the pious and provides the purely factual, scientific information, then it has to be said that the speaker has here fallen victim to self-deception.  This kind of objectivity is quite simply denied to man.  He cannot ask and exist as a mere observer.  He who tries to be a mere observer experiences nothing.  Even the reality "God" can only impinge on the vision of him who enters into the experiment with God- the experiment that we call faith.  Only by entering does one experience; only by cooperating in the experiment does one ask at all; and only he who asks receives an answer.

P 180

Dogma as a speech form

Let us try to feel our way to this idea by means of the following reflections.  If faith has expressed the three-in-oneness of God since the fourth century in the formula "one Being- three Persons", this distribution of the concepts is first of all largely just a form of words.  The only thing certain at first was that the element of oneness, that of three-ness, and all the complete simultaneity of both in the all-embracing dominance of oneness had all to be expressed.  That the two things were allotted to the concepts of substance and person, as they were, is in a certain sense accidental; in the last resort it is only a case of ensuring that both are put into words and not left to individual whim, which at bottom could always dissipate and destroy the thing itself as well as the words.  In face of this discovery one is not entitled to go too far in the direction of taking these words as the only possible ones and deducing that the matter can be stated only in this way and in no other.  That would mean a failure to recognize the negative character of the language of theology, the purely tentative fashion in which it speaks.

That bears repeating and emphasizing.

 

In believing the idea of "one Being-three persons" .... "one is not entitled to go too far in the direction of taking these words as the only possible ones and deducing that the matter can be stated only in this way and in no other.  That would mean a failure to recognize the negative character of the language of theology, the purely tentative fashion in which it speaks."

 

Fascinating!

 

I could endorse every word of both quotes.

Edited April 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Anijen]

Three gods in one sounds like it isn't monotheism, so my Muslim friends would say.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Anijen

[3DOP]

Three gods in one sounds like it isn't monotheism, so my Muslim friends would say.

Firstly, there is no award given for being the most rigorous monotheist. If there were, Muslim might be a good place to go.

 

Secondly, the formula is not Three Gods in One, but Three Persons in One.  

[Ran]

Did some more reading on that link to Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict XVI) book Introduction to Christianity.

 

I found some VERY interesting stuff that I could actually relate to.  He turns out to be a tad more postmodern than I would have ever expected!

 

That bears repeating and emphasizing.

 

In believing the idea of "one Being-three persons" .... "one is not entitled to go too far in the direction of taking these words as the only possible ones and deducing that the matter can be stated only in this way and in no other.  That would mean a failure to recognize the negative character of the language of theology, the purely tentative fashion in which it speaks."

 

Fascinating!

 

I could endorse every word of both quotes.

 

Glad you're finding gems in his writing.

 

Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity—along with his Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life—are two texts of his that I keep re-reading in order to make sense out of the more dense sections. I forgot much of my one tough semester of Recent Philosophy that I took 10 years ago and have to slow down whenever Ratzinger brings up Hegel.

[seed]

 

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.

 

 

thank you.  your writing hit the target.  this makes more sense to me now.  it seems a simple thing now,  and before it was not.

 

Do you think a Catholic can be a Catholic and reject the Trinity teaching ?     It seems like its a no...

[Damien the Leper]

 

Solid and unquestionable doctrine. Amen! If only we could have wiped out the Gnostics, Arians and Calvinists. Arianism and their nasty business of Christ being a creation of the Father is utter nonsense and will forever be a heresy. Homoousios is good and homoiousios is heresy. Plain and simple truth.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

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. 

 

Because of God's supreme nature, He cannot be limited to human perception, biology and laws of physics. If He were to be subject to such things He would cease to be God. He is so much more than any of human understanding.

[Damien the Leper]

From my own perspective, I'm thinking the filioque is actually heretical. Apologies in advance to my Roman friends on the board.

[mfbukowski]

Glad you're finding gems in his writing.

 

Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity—along with his Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life—are two texts of his that I keep re-reading in order to make sense out of the more dense sections. I forgot much of my one tough semester of Recent Philosophy that I took 10 years ago and have to slow down whenever Ratzinger brings up Hegel.

Hegel's a snap compared to Heidegger but they are both in the philosophical family of my faves- the American Pragmatists, though my guys are more like overseas cousins.

[mfbukowski]

Solid and unquestionable doctrine. Amen! If only we could have wiped out the Gnostics, Arians and Calvinists. Arianism and their nasty business of Christ being a creation of the Father is utter nonsense and will forever be a heresy. Homoousios is good and homoiousios is heresy. Plain and simple truth.

I liked you better when you were a communist. 

 

(just joking- you know I love ya)

[Damien the Leper]

I liked you better when you were a communist. 

 

(just joking- you know I love ya)

 

I'm much better now. And I love you too, Mark.

[Rain]

Huh. I never would have guessed that the Trinity concept and modalism are 2 different things.  Not that I ever thought about modalism.  I have just heard so many times people, even Catholics, describing the Trinity with the water idea that I thought they were one and the same. 

 

And now it makes me wonder.  It seems that Catholic and LDS views of God are so much closer than I thought before.  It reminds me when the Catholic church said they wouldn't accept LDS baptisms, but would accept baptisms from other Trinitarian faiths.  I am perfectly agreeable with that, but it makes me wonder how often someone might be baptized Catholic who actually believes in modalism.

 

And to be perfectly clear I know that many LDS are baptized (and grow up in the church) without a full understanding of our beliefs so I am not holding us up over the Catholic church.  Just a bunch of thoughts going through my head with this new understanding.

[pogi]

A question for the Catholics on here.  I know that the doctrine of the trinity was created in response to controversy over the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and took up until around the 4th century to reach its current form.   

 

 Is it believed that the early apostles understood this doctrine while Christ was still alive?  How could they understand this doctrine when they did not even comprehend the doctrine of resurrection entirely...that Christ would rise from the dead after three days in flesh and bone? 

 

It seems to me that the simplest understanding of the Godhead would have been the one that was believed at the time.  Otherwise, you would have expected much greater clarification and teaching on the subject which would have alleviated any controversy on the matter.  You would have expected this teaching to be taught in-depth to each convert.  But it wasn't.  Why not?  It seems to me reasonable to assume that it is because the true nature of the Godhead was simple and easy to be understood, and that it did not differ that drastically from the new converts original understanding of God/s.

[Storm Rider]

Huh. I never would have guessed that the Trinity concept and modalism are 2 different things.  Not that I ever thought about modalism.  I have just heard so many times people, even Catholics, describing the Trinity with the water idea that I thought they were one and the same. 

 

And now it makes me wonder.  It seems that Catholic and LDS views of God are so much closer than I thought before.  It reminds me when the Catholic church said they wouldn't accept LDS baptisms, but would accept baptisms from other Trinitarian faiths.  I am perfectly agreeable with that, but it makes me wonder how often someone might be baptized Catholic who actually believes in modalism.

 

And to be perfectly clear I know that many LDS are baptized (and grow up in the church) without a full understanding of our beliefs so I am not holding us up over the Catholic church.  Just a bunch of thoughts going through my head with this new understanding.

 

I think we have had a few leaders that have talked about the doctrine of the Trinity, but were actually describing Modalism; their understanding of the TD was incomplete and shortsighted.

 

As far as the Catholic Church rejected our baptisms, I conclude that it is more a game of ***-for-tat than any attempt to understand the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  The Church has never accepted the baptisms of other churches; it should not be surprising that others have begun to reflect the same policies.  

 

Each of us has an incomplete understanding of God and truth. We have minor snippets of understanding of our Father in Heaven at best.  We each need to far less prepared to condemn the beliefs of others and stay focused on becoming better disciples of the Savior. 

[Spammer]

Huh. I never would have guessed that the Trinity concept and modalism are 2 different things.  Not that I ever thought about modalism.  I have just heard so many times people, even Catholics, describing the Trinity with the water idea that I thought they were one and the same. 

 

And now it makes me wonder.  It seems that Catholic and LDS views of God are so much closer than I thought before.  It reminds me when the Catholic church said they wouldn't accept LDS baptisms, but would accept baptisms from other Trinitarian faiths.  I am perfectly agreeable with that, but it makes me wonder how often someone might be baptized Catholic who actually believes in modalism.

 

And to be perfectly clear I know that many LDS are baptized (and grow up in the church) without a full understanding of our beliefs so I am not holding us up over the Catholic church.  Just a bunch of thoughts going through my head with this new understanding.

 

Another Orthodox Christian here.  We Orthodox think the addition of the Filioque is what led to such confusion in Western notions of the Trinity.  If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then what the Father and Son have in common (a shared divine essence) is the source of the procession.  The shared essence thus produces and is logically prior to the Persons and the result of the addition to the Western form of the Creed is too much emphasis on the oneness of God. Overemphasis on the oneness can lend itself to modalist thinking and descriptions if you're not careful.  Water with three properties; a single shamrock with three leaves.  For this reason (among others), we reject the addition of the Filioque and in our liturgy and prayers (both public and private) we make constant reference and pray to the Holy Trinity, not to God.  The Holy Trinity is irreducibly one and three.  We think the addition of the Filioque tipped the balance too far in favor of the oneness and led Western theology astray.  

Edited April 23, 2014 by Spammer

[ChristKnight]

As far as the Catholic Church rejected our baptisms, I conclude that it is more a game of ***-for-tat than any attempt to understand the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Based on what evidence?

[Damien the Leper]

Huh. I never would have guessed that the Trinity concept and modalism are 2 different things.  Not that I ever thought about modalism.  I have just heard so many times people, even Catholics, describing the Trinity with the water idea that I thought they were one and the same. 

 

And now it makes me wonder.  It seems that Catholic and LDS views of God are so much closer than I thought before.  It reminds me when the Catholic church said they wouldn't accept LDS baptisms, but would accept baptisms from other Trinitarian faiths.  I am perfectly agreeable with that, but it makes me wonder how often someone might be baptized Catholic who actually believes in modalism.

 

And to be perfectly clear I know that many LDS are baptized (and grow up in the church) without a full understanding of our beliefs so I am not holding us up over the Catholic church.  Just a bunch of thoughts going through my head with this new understanding.

 

Modalism is not a teaching of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Though there are some who have messed this up. Modalism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism and Calvinism are among the most dangerous of heresies. I'm not willing to place my salvation at risk for any of the above even to the slightest degree.

[Darren10]

The opening post does not conflict with the concept of the Holy Trinity. As pointed out, what was described is Modelism which has been explicitly rejected by the Roman Catholic Church and all subsequent trinitarian churches I am aware of, in favor of the creeds which lay out the trinitarian fomula. But while this may not be a conflict I find conflict in that Holy Trinity, the histrorical usage and declaration of it, does not follow biblical monotheism.

"Monos" ("mono") is a Greek word for "one". Here it explicitly means numerically one. For example, a "dialogue" is a verbal conversation (and, yes, it can take place in written form as well as well all know too well here on Mormon Dialogoue ) which takes place between more than one person. A monologue is a declaration or oration by only one person. For years Johnny Carson opened up his show with a "monologue". He would speak in an a manner to make his live or television viewing audiences laugh. During his monologue he was the only peorson talking. Yes, others like Ed and Doc would chime in frequently but it was principally Johnny Carson. He and he alone controlled the monologue. Whenever the Bible declares the Father, Son, and / or Holy Ghost as "one" it *never* uses mono or its Hebrew equivalent.

A common English word based on the Greek "mono" is "alone". When, for example, we read "God alone," the latter word, if translated from the Greek, is from the ",mono" and it explicitly means numerically one. This is a significant area which I find the historical usage of the Holy Trinity not compatible with biblical monotheism. Holy Trinity was anattemptto explain why the Bible speaks of three divine persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - yet still retain the identity of being monotheistic or believing in only one numeric being. The big problem with this approach so far as I can see, is that the monotheism of the Bible requires no such outcome. Biblical monotheism does not require one numeric being but rather that all glory ends up to and for the Father.

Here's one example. 1 Timothy 6:16 says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." The subject of this passage is God the Father. It must be so for it is totally contradictory to the Bible and to Paul himself of which the inscription of this passage is accredited, that man cannot see God the Son for Paul very much experienced a theophany of the Son of God. According to this passage, in the end, all glory goes to the Father. Yes, we may and absolutely should render all glory and praise to the Son but He in turn renders it to the Father. This passage also touches on how man has not seen the Father. For another time I think we can use the Bible to get a more complete meaning of that fact for man has seen the Father and it is quite biblical to have that happen, but let's focus on the very first four words of the passage, "who only hath immortality". Here the word "only" comes from the Greek "mono" (monos). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/6.htm . So the Father alone (numericaly one) has immortality. This presents a bit of a challenge to historical trinitarians. In order to iron out the creedal trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are declared equal and co-eternal one to the other. This passage in 1 Timothy, however, numerically isolates the Father as the only one who is immortal. This makes the Father and the Father *alone* unique among the Godhead. It also makes Him superior.

Does this present a problem to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' theology. Not one bit so far as I can tell. If compiled all the LDS doctrines of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, from the Standard Works, to the Temple, to the words of living prophets, we get the picture that among all the beings of the universe, and it may number in the hundreds of billions, if not hundreds of trillions and more, there is only *one* being who needs not mortality: God the Father. There is no dispute among Christians that Jesus Christ became, at least in part, mortal. The LDS believe He did so to gain His exaltation as opposed to His being merely foreordained to being exalted above all else before the Father. And while there is really little doctrines regarding the Holy Ghost, it is generally understood that He too, whom I very much consider a perfect being, needs to become mortal and that will happen at the end of the Millenium.

This is but one passage where I think historical trinitarianism runs agaist biblical doctrines. While the Holy Trinity fits very well with much if not most of the Bible, I think that the Bible as a whole is better understood under the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate beings yet completely united as God. The three work towards the glory of the Father and manifest the power of the Father in His kingdom on earth.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Darren10

[3DOP]

pogi

A question for the Catholics on here.  I know that the doctrine of the trinity was created in response to controversy over the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and took up until around the 4th century to reach its current form.

 

3DOP 

I don't see a continuing controversy coming to a gradual resolution. I don't see much evidence that the faithful were considering the ideas credited to Arius before Arius proposed them. I think these ideas were new and they set off a storm.

 

pogi

Is it believed that the early apostles understood this doctrine while Christ was still alive?  

 

3DOP

I suppose it is believed/assumed by some Catholics that the Apostles understood this while Christ was still alive. I don't think such a position is tenable. I don't think the Apostles understood it then or after His Resurrection. I don't think St. Peter ever knew all of the implications of the revelation given directly to Him about being the Rock either. Of course the Apostles were given the revelations which we think lead to conclusions that often don't come for hundreds or even more than a thousand years. So no. I do not believe the Apostles knew everything that the Catholic Church has subsequently defined, including the Council of Nicea. 

 

pogi

How could they understand this doctrine when they did not even comprehend the doctrine of resurrection entirely...that Christ would rise from the dead after three days in flesh and bone? 

 

3DOP

Good point. I think they had revelation of His Resurrection already. But the details, about the kind of body Our Lord would have? I don't think so either. My view is that the Apostles transmitted once and for all the revelations that would need to be continuously crystallized only over time, with much prayer and pondering by the Faithful, and in confrontation with beliefs that were incompatible with what Tradition could permit.

 

pogi

It seems to me that the simplest understanding of the Godhead would have been the one that was believed at the time.  Otherwise, you would have expected much greater clarification and teaching on the subject which would have alleviated any controversy on the matter.  You would have expected this teaching to be taught in-depth to each convert.  But it wasn't.  Why not?  It seems to me reasonable to assume that it is because the true nature of the Godhead was simple and easy to be understood, and that it did not differ that drastically from the new converts original understanding of God/s.

 

3DOP

They certainly held that God is Three and God is One. The Baptismal formula. I don't see any evidence that this apparent problem (Three and One) required resolution before the Arian heresy.

 

Its more important to believe than it is to understand anyway. Understanding is good, but we can't demand it. The truths of supernatural revelation are inaccessible to reason anyway. Since we only believe them on authority, why should we expect to also understand? Now God is His goodness, gives understanding too sometimes. There should be a healthy tension between belief and understanding. Without some understanding we become intellectually bored, but if we have too much understanding, if we have it all figured out, we can get proud. It honors a Father when His children believe Him not because He explains Himself, but just because he says so.

 

In any event, historically, it seems to me that different benign ways of resolving the problem, while not necessarily accurate, were permissible in the beginning. Arius' doctrine was impermissible.       

Edited April 23, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

thank you.  your writing hit the target.  this makes more sense to me now.  it seems a simple thing now,  and before it was not.

 

Do you think a Catholic can be a Catholic and reject the Trinity teaching ?     It seems like its a no...

 

The Trinity teaching as taught at the Council of Nicea is non-negotiable for Catholics now. But until 325 AD, you could speculate. This is why we can't fault ante-Nicene Fathers even though they may have believed things that could be somewhat different from the Council. To put it in perspective, from the beginning of the Church to Nicea, is a length of time longer than the entire history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In my opinion, for nearly 300 years good Catholics weren't accountable to accept doctrinal formulae that had not yet been defined by the Church. 

[theplains]

There was not a time when this Godhead did not exist. 

 

Hi Storm,

 

Did this Godhead exist when a certain man (the future Heavenly Father of Earth) was

married to his wife (the future Heavenly Mother) on some other planet before they had

their first spirit child whom they would call Jesus?

 

The Lectures on Faith (which was part of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and guided

the Latter-day Saints until it was removed in 1921) teaches that there are two personages

in the Godhead. When did the Holy Spirit become the third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

Hi Storm,

 

Did this Godhead exist when a certain man (the future Heavenly Father of Earth) was

married to his wife (the future Heavenly Mother) on some other planet before they had

their first spirit child whom they would call Jesus?

 

The Lectures on Faith (which was part of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and guided

the Latter-day Saints until it was removed in 1921) teaches that there are two personages

in the Godhead. When did the Holy Spirit become the third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

What time was it just before the Big Bang?  Was it a Thursday?

Edited April 24, 2014 by mfbukowski