What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

That was an accident... anyone know how I delete a post?

[Logan Alexander]

I would just add that many doctrines and things changed over time and I'm not talking about true doctrine being twisted. I'm talking about true doctrine being expanded upon or doctrines not very talked about to later be commonly referenced, such as Satan's not existing in the Old Testament.

Though there is vague reference to him as the "serpent" in the Adam and Eve story and Isaiah's commentary on the son of the morning, the fallen angel

Satan does exist in the OT.

1 Chronicles 21:1: "Satan rose up against Israel"

Job 1: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Also, the serpent in Genesis 3 is equated with Satan in Revelation:

Revelation 12:9: "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Revelation 20:2 "He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years"

I think it is pretty clear...

I don't think Isaiah 14 has anything to do with satan.

 

I must say with all due respect that it is puzzling how people take that verse from Peter and put meaning in it that is clearly not there. It is quite a stretch!

 

“Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

 

How could anyone possibly think Peter somehow meant anything other than those priesthood holders who had  been ordained by the laying on of hands by those who had this authority.

You are frustrated with people "put meaning in it that is clearly not there," but does this verse say anything about "the laying on of hands" or what not? No. In fact, the addressee (recipients) of the letter are explicitly "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood." Theres nothing about priesthood transfer or whatnot in there. Anyone who has been sanctified by the spirit is a priest.

 

 

I would just add and I would be glad to go over this later, that the book of Hebrews in so many verses makes clear the priesthood of Melchizedek was restored in Jesus day, some of those keys restored by Elijah and Moses.  

 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

The Melchizedek priesthood and the patriarchal order clearly was the higher one and existed before Abraham and before Israel. It was taken when Moses was translated and there God instituted left the lesser (Aaronic) to the bloodline of Aaron. This makes clear the necessity of priesthood authority.

 

Its pretty clear in hebrews that given that Jesus holds the melchizadech priesthood that the aaronic priesthood is completely obsolete. Read these quotes from Hebrews 7 closely.

"For on the one hand, a former commandment [of the aaronic priests] is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness(for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced [Jesus as priest forever], through which we draw near to God. . ."

"This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever."

"For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, speaking of the Aaronic priesthood in relation to the new covenant, he says

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

(Hebrews 8:13)

Aaronic priesthood is obsolete. Nowhere in Hebrews 5-8 is it said that believers hold the melchizadech priesthood. It clearly ends with Jesus.

[Logan Alexander]

Here's my second post in the series, following the initial post of this thread. Why "trinity"?

 

http://apharepher.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/lds-mormon-misconceptions-about-the-trinity-part-2-why-trinity/

[Ran]

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father. He was literally seed of the Father. Jesus Christ is not the Father and the Bible simply does not support this Nicene doctrine. For it was in Nicaea that this doctrine became official and later reaffirmed at Constantinople.

It's a common misconception that Trinitarianism entails that the divine persons are not really distinct from one another.

 

The real distinction of the divine persons from one another is absolutely necessary to Trinitarianism.  

 

Without the real distinction of the divine persons from one another, it's not Trinitarianism.

[webbles]

Here's my second post in the series, following the initial post of this thread. Why "trinity"?

 

http://apharepher.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/lds-mormon-misconceptions-about-the-trinity-part-2-why-trinity/

So I read both the posts and I have a few questions.

 

How is LDS doctrine different from the 5 points you mentioned? (1. There is only one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. Jesus is God. 4. The Spirit is God. 5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.).  The LDS theology (at least how I understand it) has only one God nature/essence/substance.  We usually call that Godhood.  Sometimes we might describe that has the Godhead.  We also accept #2, #3, #4 (1st Article of Faith).  And for #5, they go together in the Godhead and are individually distinguishable.  I'm guessing the main difference is #1 but how is our belief/definition invalid?

 

Why do we need to believe the strict monotheism of Judaism?  In LDS theology (again, how I understand it), the Jews were given the lesser law at Mount Sinai.  This law had Christ as their God.  He is who they worshiped and only Him.  But when Christ came to Earth, He revealed that He had a Father who was the actual God.  He taught that there were three Gods: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All of the versus you quoted from Paul also support that teaching.

[Logan Alexander]

So I read both the posts and I have a few questions.

 

How is LDS doctrine different from the 5 points you mentioned? (1. There is only one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. Jesus is God. 4. The Spirit is God. 5. The Father, Jesus and the Spirit somehow go together but are distinguishable.).  The LDS theology (at least how I understand it) has only one God nature/essence/substance.  We usually call that Godhood.  Sometimes we might describe that has the Godhead.  We also accept #2, #3, #4 (1st Article of Faith).  And for #5, they go together in the Godhead and are individually distinguishable.  I'm guessing the main difference is #1 but how is our belief/definition invalid?

 

Why do we need to believe the strict monotheism of Judaism?  In LDS theology (again, how I understand it), the Jews were given the lesser law at Mount Sinai.  This law had Christ as their God.  He is who they worshiped and only Him.  But when Christ came to Earth, He revealed that He had a Father who was the actual God.  He taught that there were three Gods: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  All of the versus you quoted from Paul also support that teaching.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hope that helps.  Grace to you.

[Gohan]

Just a quick question, I don't know if you mentioned it in your blog posts, if so, I didn't catch it. What biblical translation do you favor using?

[Logan Alexander]

Just a quick question, I don't know if you mentioned it in your blog posts, if so, I didn't catch it. What biblical translation do you favor using?

 

I usually think that many, many bible translations are really good. There are a few that I think are pretty bad (for an absolutely horrible translation, see the Jehovah's witnesses New World Translation and you will see what I mean), or obsolete (the KJV falls into this category for me). The KJV also doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have now.

The good ones that I will usually consult are the

 

NASB (New American Standard Bible) 12th grade reading level

ESV (English Standard Version, probably the most common) 8th grade reading level

NIV 1984 (New International Version, used to be the most common)

NLT (New Living Translation, very easy to read)

ASV (American Standard Version; very old)

HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

 

As a clarifying side note for you, I heard from an employee in the Ancestry building at Temple Square that "nobody knows greek or hebrew" and "nobody has any greek and hebrew manuscripts anymore." It was a little awkward when I pulled out my hebrew bible right then and started sight-translating from the hebrew. Then I pulled out my greek bible and started sight translating from the greek. (I also have what is called a "textual apparatus" which lists all differences in manuscripts).

 

Again, I don't like to spout off my credentials, but I just want to reaffirm to you that this whole "as far as it is translated correctly" is usually an ad hoc smokescreen defense. I have yet to see a translational difference that changes doctrine (of course it changes the meaning of the word, and the sentence around it). Unless of course you are talking about the Jehovah's Witness's NWT, which I already said is horrible. 

 

I would definitely not recommend using the KJV (the version LDS usually use and that Joseph Smith quotes from so often in the BoM), because it uses such old language that you wont be able to understand it (some of the idioms/vocabulary have been completely obsolete for centuries). Part of the tragedy is that I think LDS don't know their OT/NT's very well because the language goes way over their head, as it would for me as well. I recommend the NIV or ESV.

[webbles]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hope that helps.  Grace to you.

 

Does D&C 93:29 fix our issue with #1?  The fact that we believe that none of us were created but have always existed?  If we use the term essence/substance/nature for the meaning of God in #1, then we do believe that Christ and Heavenly Father are one God.  They both have the exact same essence/substance/nature since it has always existed and was never created.

 

And I don't see why it should matter that strict monotheism is mentioned over and over again in the Old Testament.  Many things are mentioned over and over again in the Old Testament that were done away with the Gospel.  Why couldn't Christ have come down and taught new doctrine that supersedes the strict monotheistic doctrine?  Is there anything in the New Testament that requires that we must accept the strict monotheistic doctrine?  Using the fact that Paul once believed something doesn't mean that is what he taught later on.  He used to believe that Christians were evil and should be put to death.

[Anakin7]

    From my Lights LDS believe in the Godhead or to use a more scholarly terminology = Ancient/ Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social Godhead/Trinity.

 

A question, which form model of the Trinity is the 100% correct purist ?, Athanasius/Augustine/Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Social/Tritheistic/ Bultman .

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[aaron0005]

Hello Gohan...

Yes, I'm sure that's the case... however, they should also avail themselves of the Board Rules/Guidelines and they would know that Social is not for debate, and they should just wait until they have the required number of posts to be able to start topics in Gen Disc.  This is not the  first time this has happened... new posters get impatient... but they can participate in Gen Disc until they are eligible to start a thread.

 

GG

GG,

 

Thanks for helping to understand. I've only been on this site a few times so I have no idea how it works. You are right I did get a little defenseive, but Calmoriah's quick and harsh stance did nothing to help. I live an area where there are not many LDS and I like to learn as much as I can. Sometimes I see on the internet people trying to undermine the church and if the Non Mormons around here are not trying to do that than would be a first and they should be applauded for such decency.

 

I would point out that I'm not raelly interested in debate, though at times I wouldn't shy away if I had the time. I simply like sharing my views more than anything and in the process hearing what others have to say.

 

Sinceerly Aaron

[aaron0005]

Hello aaron0005...

I found your post very clear and straightforward... however, you've become defensive for nothing... you simply are posting this expression of your views in the wrong forum... as Calmoriah explained... So actually, IMO Logan's post doesn't belong in this forum either because his views have invited your response... this is the Social Forum and no debate is allowed here.  So when a person expresses their views here in Social that lead others to want to challenge them and/or express differing understanding or interpretation, it becomes debate... 

In fact IMO this whole thread should not be in this forum because the title, "What's Up With The Trinity" invites various opinions and interpretations that would rightly be discussed in the Gen Disc forum...

And make no mistake about it aaron0005, we certainly do welcome and expect honesty and being straightforward "around here."

 

GG 

GG,

 

Thanks for helping to understand. I've only been on this site a few times so I have no idea how it works. You are right I did get a little defenseive, but Calmoriah's quick and harsh stance did nothing to help. I live an area where there are not many LDS and I like to learn as much as I can. Sometimes I see on the internet people trying to undermine the church and if the Non Mormons around here are not trying to do that than would be a first and they should be applauded for such decency.

 

I would point out that I'm not raelly interested in debate, though at times I wouldn't shy away if I had the time. I simply like sharing my views more than anything and in the process hearing what others have to say.

 

Sinceerly Aaron

[Logan Alexander]

Does D&C 93:29 fix our issue with #1?  The fact that we believe that none of us were created but have always existed?  If we use the term essence/substance/nature for the meaning of God in #1, then we do believe that Christ and Heavenly Father are one God.  They both have the exact same essence/substance/nature since it has always existed and was never created.

 

And I don't see why it should matter that strict monotheism is mentioned over and over again in the Old Testament.  Many things are mentioned over and over again in the Old Testament that were done away with the Gospel.  Why couldn't Christ have come down and taught new doctrine that supersedes the strict monotheistic doctrine?  Is there anything in the New Testament that requires that we must accept the strict monotheistic doctrine?  Using the fact that Paul once believed something doesn't mean that is what he taught later on.  He used to believe that Christians were evil and should be put to death.

 

I'm not sure how D&C 93:29 would affirm that man was created. Only God is eternal. Substance is not.

 

Compare these scriptures

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

 

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

 

. . . in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

(Romans 4:17)

 

If Jesus was part of some eternal intelligence or truth, how could Paul say that he created all things visible and invisible? I'm not sure how that could fit within D&C.

 

The issue with the whole intelligence thing is that is doesn't make God eternal, it makes substance eternal. I just don't see that tenable with scripture. God is the only alpha and omega, from eternity to eternity. This includes his character... not just what constitutes him (such as substance).

 

The reason I don't think Paul changed his monotheism is for two reasons: 1) he still quotes monotheistic passages all over and has his own statements about monotheism and 2) when he deviates from second-temple judaism he is SO clear. Check out Galatians 3 (and the whole book), Romans 9-11, and most especially Philippians 3. He never writes about how he changed his view from judaism regarding monotheism. He still talks about "the only God" ("To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." 1 Tim. 1:17)

 

I think you misunderstand the nature of New Testament abrogation. The ONLY thing abrogated from the old testament is ethnically specific purity laws such as sabbath, food laws, and circumcision. And I think abrogation here is a poor vocabulary choice for me, because the OT itself necessarily implies that these aspects of the law will be abrogated when the New Covenant comes and the gentiles are given full inclusion. Paul gives this HEAVY treatment in Romans 4, Romans 9-11, and most especially Galatians 3:10-20. He argues that the ethnically specific jewish laws were never intended to remain permanent, because it would be against God's promise to Abraham (that all ethnicities will be included in one unified family, Gen 12:1-3, Jeremiah 4:1-2, and countless more texts. See Romans 15 also). The people of God were supposed to begin with ethnic israel and then expand to one multi-ethnic family. Thus when that multi-ethnic family comes in the inauguration of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 30-31), the ethnically specific laws are supposed to be abrogated. Paul argues that this was God's plan from the start. nothing has changed from what God said, it is just that our circumstances require different response not different doctrine.

 

No theology proper (doctrine of God) is changing at all. I think you need to ponder how God could say "I am this" in the OT and then turn around and say "I am not this" in the NT. This would make God a liar. His revelation of himself is always true. He never changes his mind about objectively real things (like himself). He knows everything and is never wrong. He does not change his mind.

 

Grace to you.

[Anakin7]

      Ancient Heavenly Divine Assembly /Council scriptures and quotes from early church Authorities/Fathers would bring  light to the Topic being discussed.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Logan Alexander]

    From my Lights LDS believe in the Godhead or to use a more scholarly terminology = Ancient/ Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social Godhead/Trinity.

 

A question, which form model of the Trinity is the 100% correct purist ?, Athanasius/Augustine/Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Social/Tritheistic/ Bultman .

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I've never read Bultmann on the trinity, although he is always a crack of a read! 

[Anakin7]

    Thanks for your thoughts/response, I must leave but I see some more discussion related to your thoughts. May True Grace be with you.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

[aaron0005]

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

 

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

 

Check out the article HERE.

 

Hope to be hearing from you guys!!

Let me try to approach this in a way that I might be able to learn from and this the process hope that you may recognize thatno one man is righ about everything, includung you and me. I have some questions that I would like some simple, clear and straightforward answers to.

 

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

 

I will say, I do not know what all Christians believe and I surely want to understand better, but almost every Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc I have talked with (A LOT) don't seem to know what they believe. They'll say God and Jesus are one and I'll ask like Jesus is God the Father and all to often it's a ya, yes, a nod. I then proceed to point out what is crystal clear tome and so many others in the Bible-that God the Father and Jesus Christ are compleetly separate beings.

 

So if there is some confusion on my part is in part due to Catholics and Protestants confusing me and I hope you won't do the same heer, since I want to understand. Not that I will ever forsake the LDS position on this, but I certainly want to understand where you gys are coming from.

 

If Jesus Christ and the Father are separate beings than are they both Gods?

 

Was God the Father a God before Christ His Only Begotten Son?

 

Does Jesus have a body of flesh and bones as He showed His apostles and so many others after His ressurection (like we all will be) and how does that relationship work with His Father? Jesus has a body but His Father is spirit only?

 

Is the Holy Ghost a separate personage from the Father? We know when Jesus was baptized the spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove and the voice of the Father was heard from heaven saying-"this is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

 

If the Holy Spirit and the Father are separate beings than why can you not accept the possibiltiy that the Father of us all has a body of flesh and bones (though immoartal and glorified) especially considering the stunning degree of importance that has been placed upon univeral ressurection and all coming back to take up their bodies again in the ressurection of the just and the unjust? And as Christ Himself did?

 

I am just very, very confused how you could believe three in one, unless it was one as in team or Godhead. How can three separate beings considered one and three Gods?

[aaron0005]

Hello:

"bishops from all over"? Really? They didn't debate the doctrine of the trinity, or formulate it.

What did Constantine pressure the bishops to do?

Constantine was an Arian, and supported Arius.

Considering there are billions of Christians, do you think we see it as pretty clear? I see the opposite, a faith protected from corruption.

Catholic and Orthodox, are not sola scriptura.

And that isn't Christian doctrine either.

Right, Trinitarian doctrine is very specific that Jesus is not the Father. LDS raise this straw man so often I must believe someone is teaching it out of a manual!

I don't think so!

Well that is the crux of it, isn't it, this one word. No Christian would ever say or believe that God is a title! So, you have that.

Sorry, only Mormons thinks this.

Do we?

That is because no one believes that Jesus was praying to himself. That is your idea of a false God, which has nothing to do with the God of Christianity.

Considering there are billions of Christians, do you think we see it as pretty clear? I see the opposite, a faith protected from corruption.

 

So do you believe in the Catholic Church, the oldest Christian Church that I am aware of and if not why?

 

Do you think it's right for so many different sects to form out of Catholicism? that all to often disagree with eachother on so many things?

 

My last question to you is what makes someone a true follower and of Jesus Christ?

[Rain]

I usually think that many, many bible translations are really good. There are a few that I think are pretty bad (for an absolutely horrible translation, see the Jehovah's witnesses New World Translation and you will see what I mean), or obsolete (the KJV falls into this category for me). The KJV also doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have now.

The good ones that I will usually consult are the

NASB (New American Standard Bible) 12th grade reading level

ESV (English Standard Version, probably the most common) 8th grade reading level

NIV 1984 (New International Version, used to be the most common)

NLT (New Living Translation, very easy to read)

ASV (American Standard Version; very old)

HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

As a clarifying side note for you, I heard from an employee in the Ancestry building at Temple Square that "nobody knows greek or hebrew" and "nobody has any greek and hebrew manuscripts anymore." It was a little awkward when I pulled out my hebrew bible right then and started sight-translating from the hebrew. Then I pulled out my greek bible and started sight translating from the greek. (I also have what is called a "textual apparatus" which lists all differences in manuscripts).

Again, I don't like to spout off my credentials, but I just want to reaffirm to you that this whole "as far as it is translated correctly" is usually an ad hoc smokescreen defense. I have yet to see a translational difference that changes doctrine (of course it changes the meaning of the word, and the sentence around it). Unless of course you are talking about the Jehovah's Witness's NWT, which I already said is horrible.

I would definitely not recommend using the KJV (the version LDS usually use and that Joseph Smith quotes from so often in the BoM), because it uses such old language that you wont be able to understand it (some of the idioms/vocabulary have been completely obsolete for centuries). Part of the tragedy is that I think LDS don't know their OT/NT's very well because the language goes way over their head, as it would for me as well. I recommend the NIV or ESV.

that was either miscommunication or they were misinformed. My Sunday School teacher in my last ward new greek and hebrew though I don't know how much and he worked for either correlation or the scripture department - I can never remember which. Several teachers at BYU education week spoke of knowing one or the other last year. BYU even has a number of classes in both. Edited July 6, 2014 by Rain

[webbles]

 

I'm not sure how D&C 93:29 would affirm that man was created. Only God is eternal. Substance is not.

 

Compare these scriptures

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

 

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

 

. . . in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

(Romans 4:17)

 

If Jesus was part of some eternal intelligence or truth, how could Paul say that he created all things visible and invisible? I'm not sure how that could fit within D&C.

 

The issue with the whole intelligence thing is that is doesn't make God eternal, it makes substance eternal. I just don't see that tenable with scripture. God is the only alpha and omega, from eternity to eternity. This includes his character... not just what constitutes him (such as substance).

 

The reason I don't think Paul changed his monotheism is for two reasons: 1) he still quotes monotheistic passages all over and has his own statements about monotheism and 2) when he deviates from second-temple judaism he is SO clear. Check out Galatians 3 (and the whole book), Romans 9-11, and most especially Philippians 3. He never writes about how he changed his view from judaism regarding monotheism. He still talks about "the only God" ("To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." 1 Tim. 1:17)

 

I think you misunderstand the nature of New Testament abrogation. The ONLY thing abrogated from the old testament is ethnically specific purity laws such as sabbath, food laws, and circumcision. And I think abrogation here is a poor vocabulary choice for me, because the OT itself necessarily implies that these aspects of the law will be abrogated when the New Covenant comes and the gentiles are given full inclusion. Paul gives this HEAVY treatment in Romans 4, Romans 9-11, and most especially Galatians 3:10-20. He argues that the ethnically specific jewish laws were never intended to remain permanent, because it would be against God's promise to Abraham (that all ethnicities will be included in one unified family, Gen 12:1-3, Jeremiah 4:1-2, and countless more texts. See Romans 15 also). The people of God were supposed to begin with ethnic israel and then expand to one multi-ethnic family. Thus when that multi-ethnic family comes in the inauguration of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 30-31), the ethnically specific laws are supposed to be abrogated. Paul argues that this was God's plan from the start. nothing has changed from what God said, it is just that our circumstances require different response not different doctrine.

 

No theology proper (doctrine of God) is changing at all. I think you need to ponder how God could say "I am this" in the OT and then turn around and say "I am not this" in the NT. This would make God a liar. His revelation of himself is always true. He never changes his mind about objectively real things (like himself). He knows everything and is never wrong. He does not change his mind.

 

Grace to you.

 

Maybe it is because I'm not understanding your 5 points.

 

Your first point is "There is only one God".  Based on your 2nd post, I understood that to mean: "There is only one nature/essence/substance of God".  Is that correct?

Your second point is "The Father is God".  Again, based on your 2nd post, I'm understand that to mean: "The Father is a God Person" or "The Father is a person with the nature/essence/substance of God".  Same with the third and fourth point.  Is that correct?

 

Based on those changes, I'm not seeing how we have that much different belief.  We also believe there is only one nature/essence/substance of God.  We happen to believe that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and every other human being are of that same substance (we are just children compared to them).  Maybe there is more to the trinity doctrine than just those 5 points?

 

I'll have to reread those scriptural passages to try and see what you are seeing in them.

[aaron0005]

Maybe it is because I'm not understanding your 5 points.

 

Your first point is "There is only one God".  Based on your 2nd post, I understood that to mean: "There is only one nature/essence/substance of God".  Is that correct?

Your second point is "The Father is God".  Again, based on your 2nd post, I'm understand that to mean: "The Father is a God Person" or "The Father is a person with the nature/essence/substance of God".  Same with the third and fourth point.  Is that correct?

 

Based on those changes, I'm not seeing how we have that much different belief.  We also believe there is only one nature/essence/substance of God.  We happen to believe that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and every other human being are of that same substance (we are just children compared to them).  Maybe there is more to the trinity doctrine than just those 5 points?

 

 

Considering there are billions of Christians, do you think we see it as pretty clear? I see the opposite, a faith protected from corruption.

 

So do you believe in the Catholic Church, the oldest Christian Church that I am aware of and if not why?

 

Do you think it's right for so many different sects to form out of Catholicism? that all to often disagree with eachother on so many things?

 

My last question to you is what makes someone a true follower and of Jesus Christ?

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.^[17]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.^[18]

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.^[19]

And:

This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.^[20]

So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.

One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.^[21]

 

We believe they are three Gods in one Godhead/team and that all other gods of this world are false-that they are the true God.

[aaron0005]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.^[17]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.^[18]

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.^[19]

And:

This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.^[20]

So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.

One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.^[21]

 

We believe they are three Gods in one Godhead/team and that all other gods of this world are false-that they are the true God.

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

[Logan Alexander]

in John there is no trinitarian formula.^[19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And again,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[saemo]

Considering there are billions of Christians, do you think we see it as pretty clear? I see the opposite, a faith protected from corruption.

 

So do you believe in the Catholic Church,

I answered "I do" to that question at my baptism, and still say the same.

 

Do you think it's right for so many different sects to form out of Catholicism? that all to often disagree with eachother on so many things?

What I think is right doesn't matter to God.

 

My last question to you is what makes someone a true follower and of Jesus Christ?

I leave it to God to judge others. For myself, I sought out the Church that Jesus established, and found in Her, an ages long history of discipleship, and wanted to be with all those people who have worshipped Jesus through those ages, and seek to do His will.

[saemo]

Let me try to approach this in a way that I might be able to learn from and this the process hope that you may recognize thatno one man is righ about everything, includung you and me. I have some questions that I would like some simple, clear and straightforward answers to.

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

I will say, I do not know what all Christians believe and I surely want to understand better, but almost every Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc I have talked with (A LOT) don't seem to know what they believe. They'll say God and Jesus are one and I'll ask like Jesus is God the Father and all to often it's a ya, yes, a nod. I then proceed to point out what is crystal clear tome and so many others in the Bible-that God the Father and Jesus Christ are compleetly separate beings.

So if there is some confusion on my part is in part due to Catholics and Protestants confusing me and I hope you won't do the same heer, since I want to understand. Not that I will ever forsake the LDS position on this, but I certainly want to understand where you gys are coming from.

If Jesus Christ and the Father are separate beings than are they both Gods?

Was God the Father a God before Christ His Only Begotten Son?

Does Jesus have a body of flesh and bones as He showed His apostles and so many others after His ressurection (like we all will be) and how does that relationship work with His Father? Jesus has a body but His Father is spirit only?

Is the Holy Ghost a separate personage from the Father? We know when Jesus was baptized the spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove and the voice of the Father was heard from heaven saying-"this is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

If the Holy Spirit and the Father are separate beings than why can you not accept the possibiltiy that the Father of us all has a body of flesh and bones (though immoartal and glorified) especially considering the stunning degree of importance that has been placed upon univeral ressurection and all coming back to take up their bodies again in the ressurection of the just and the unjust? And as Christ Himself did?

I am just very, very confused how you could believe three in one, unless it was one as in team or Godhead. How can three separate beings considered one and three Gods?

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

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.

The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

How God is three persons in one being cannot be explained. Our finite human minds cannot grasp God. We accept what God has revealed about himself, through faith. God has revealed that he is One. God has revealed that he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In my conversations with LDS, the words person and being are interchanged, but in Trinitarian theology they are not interchangeable.

Edited July 6, 2014 by saemo