Personal Reflections on a Regular Christian's Views on the Trinity Doctrine.

[Devobah]

Over the last few months, I've really been interested in the Trinity Doctrine, its development, and what Christians believe about it. This led me to many videos, posts, and comments to try and figure out what people believed about the Trinity. This post is not necessarily a "Godhead vs. Trinity" debate, but to see if people have come to similar conclusions that I have. 

Obviously one could write an entire paper on this subject (and likely probably has) so I just wanted to share what I found.

The most common thing that I think should be understood is the basic belief of the Trinity in a simple sense. The idea the The Father (YHWH) is God, Jesus Christ (the Son) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These three are not three separate gods, but are one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so on. They are not divided in essence and therefore this is one God. The Trinity is without body parts or passions and a new word even had to be made in order to comply with this. The word being "homoousious" 

To be considered Christian by the Body of Christ, you must hold to this belief as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. My studies mainly wanted to focus on what regular people understood about this doctrine. To do that, I wanted to go where the people were. Reddit, comment sections, other faith forums, etc. This is what I found.

Most of the time it seems to me that people will leave the Trinity up to a "mystery of God" and leave it at that. They pray to Christ and hold that He is Lord of all. When pressed on whether or not Jesus is the Father, some people answered yes while others answered no. These two groups ultimately meant the same thing (that Jesus is God) but had a different understanding of the question.

When people were asked to give examples of the Trinity in scripture, you'll go to a few places in scripture. The most common ones being 1 John 5:7 and the ending of Matthew (from my understanding) and the Great Commission. Others were quick to jump on the addition of 1 John 5:7 and how it doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts, while others commented saying that the ending of Matthew would actually hold a more Unitarian approach (if Jesus is not the Father, then there would need to be more names for God than just the mentioned "name").

Analogies of the Trinity are not something that will ever accurately explain the Trinity, and are mainly used for a more childlike understanding of the Trinity. (Something to help understand that the Trinity is something we believe and this is kind of what it's like). Those who try to use analogies will usually fall into heresy. The most common are modalism (which is how I understood the Trinity) and partialism. Modalism is the belief that God is one but he has different "modes" for different situations. Partialism is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "parts" of God coming together to make one God. From my understanding, those who commit the modalism heresy have a hard time trying to figure out how God is one (as per the Shema) and three at the same time (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Those who commit the partialism heresy mainly are trying to understand the different roles that each member of the Trinity has while still maintaining monotheistic belief. Both parties are more sincere in there understanding than I previously thought. 

Ultimately after all this time I really could say a lot more about these, but I'll leave this here.

I left this whole thing with this scripture in mind: "Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

For those that have gone on a deeper dive than me, what are your thoughts? Am I accurately portraying these?

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Obviously one could write an entire paper on this subject (and likely probably has) so I just wanted to share what I found.

Paper? Volumes and volumes and libraries of books!  

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

The most common thing that I think should be understood is the basic belief of the Trinity in a simple sense. The idea the The Father (YHWH) is God, Jesus Christ (the Son) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These three are not three separate gods, but are one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so on. They are not divided in essence and therefore this is one God. The Trinity is without body parts or passions and a new word even had to be made in order to comply with this. The word being "homoousious" 

Yep. And having a new word to describe something isn't de facto a problem. Human language and understanding has done this forever. (Imagine the scientists screaming at the heresy of "space-time").

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

To be considered Christian by the Body of Christ, you must hold to this belief as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

Yes and no. Most do, but some don't. You've got a long-time group of Catholics here who think LDS are Christian despite your rejection of the Trinity.

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

My studies mainly wanted to focus on what regular people understood about this doctrine. To do that, I wanted to go where the people were. Reddit, comment sections, other faith forums, etc. This is what I found.

While this is a good way to get a sense of the "general" idea of the Trinity, it's important to keep in mind that the Trinity is a deep theological truth and at the end, ultimately a mystery.

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Most of the time it seems to me that people will leave the Trinity up to a "mystery of God" and leave it at that.

Yep. That is the ultimate end point of the Trinity. We cannot fully understand it.

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

They pray to Christ and hold that He is Lord of all. When pressed on whether or not Jesus is the Father, some people answered yes while others answered no. These two groups ultimately meant the same thing (that Jesus is God) but had a different understanding of the question.

When people were asked to give examples of the Trinity in scripture, you'll go to a few places in scripture. The most common ones being 1 John 5:7 and the ending of Matthew (from my understanding) and the Great Commission. Others were quick to jump on the addition of 1 John 5:7 and how it doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts, while others commented saying that the ending of Matthew would actually hold a more Unitarian approach (if Jesus is not the Father, then there would need to be more names for God than just the mentioned "name").

While scripture can be used in support of the Trinity, the doctrine itself is not fully articulated there. In Catholicism, there is scripture, tradition, and magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him). The Trinity is best explained and understood through tradition and the magisterium.

The sola scriptura protestants have a harder time with the Trinity since it's not fully articulated in the Bible and its declarations come from Catholic tradition and magisterium (the councils that decreed it).

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Analogies of the Trinity are not something that will ever accurately explain the Trinity, and are mainly used for a more childlike understanding of the Trinity.

Yep, and this is why some people think the Trinity is non-sense.

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

(Something to help understand that the Trinity is something we believe and this is kind of what it's like). Those who try to use analogies will usually fall into heresy. The most common are modalism (which is how I understood the Trinity) and partialism. Modalism is the belief that God is one but he has different "modes" for different situations. Partialism is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "parts" of God coming together to make one God. From my understanding, those who commit the modalism heresy have a hard time trying to figure out how God is one (as per the Shema) and three at the same time (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Those who commit the partialism heresy mainly are trying to understand the different roles that each member of the Trinity has while still maintaining monotheistic belief. Both parties are more sincere in there understanding than I previously thought. 

True.

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Ultimately after all this time I really could say a lot more about these, but I'll leave this here.

I left this whole thing with this scripture in mind: "Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

What is your interpretation of this scripture as pertains to this topic?

10 minutes ago, Devobah said:

For those that have gone on a deeper dive than me, what are your thoughts? Am I accurately portraying these?

 

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Am I accurately portraying these?

I think you've described the doctrine quite accurately, based on many conversations I've had with those who profess belief in the Trinity, and articles and books I've read about the Trinity.  But I certainly don't claim to be an expert.  I think you've described the various heresies that arise quite well also.  

I have found that most average church going Christians don't understand the terminology at all (who does? - maybe @Mfbnew ), particularly with respect to the differences between the words "being", "substance", "essence", and "person".  Some will deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one being" (for example), because that is confused with the idea that they are "one person" (which they are not).  I don't claim to fully understand these terms either, but I know enough to know that there are important differences between what is a "being" and a "person".

I recently posted the following definitions (from books that I have and have read) in another thread where the doctrine of the Trinity was being discussed:  

In the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017):

"[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27)

In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief:

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible:

“1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible.
3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) 

I think Latter-day Saints agree with the basic core definition, which is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three persons are (somehow) "one God".  We just differ on what is meant by "one God", and exactly how that is defined.  We also differ drastically on ontology, but that's a different topic .  

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

We also differ drastically on ontology, but that's a different topic .  

Yet ontology is the key here  

[Devobah]

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Paper? Volumes and volumes and libraries of books!  

You're right! What am I doing edit: *trying to* understand nearly 2000 years of study? 🤦‍♂️

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep. And having a new word to describe something isn't de facto a problem. Human language and understanding has done this forever. (Imagine the scientists screaming at the heresy of "space-time").

Agreed with everything stated here

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes and no. Most do, but some don't. You've got a long-time group of Catholics here who think LDS are Christian despite your rejection of the Trinity.

Yes, but your view is the minority view to be sure (which you acknowledge)

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

While this is a good way to get a sense of the "general" idea of the Trinity, it's important to keep in mind that the Trinity is a deep theological truth and at the end, ultimately a mystery.

It wasn't so much a general idea of the Trinity, but rather a layperson's view of the Trinity. Many people did resolve to leave it a mystery and just believe that Christ is the way to salvation.

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep. That is the ultimate end point of the Trinity. We cannot fully understand it.

I think that's something that I came away with understanding as well. Latter-day Saints may claim that we have a better understanding of (we believe it's a restored view) the Godhead we ultimately still don't know a lot.

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

While scripture can be used in support of the Trinity, the doctrine itself is not fully articulated there. In Catholicism, there is scripture, tradition, and magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him). The Trinity is best explained and understood through tradition and the magisterium.

The sola scriptura protestants have a harder time with the Trinity since it's not fully articulated in the Bible and its declarations come from Catholic tradition and magisterium (the councils that decreed it).

Yes that's what I understood as well. My search took me to a few videos on YouTube. Catholics seemed to focus more on scripture in conjunction with the Church Fathers, while the Protestants seemed to focus more on the scriptural aspect.

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep, and this is why some people think the Trinity is non-sense.

I know I came away more confused. Whatever the analogies seemed to answer in one aspect, there was a gaping hole or another question in another regard.

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

True.

Glad you agree. I tried to keep this professional and just say what I found rather than insert my own bias.

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What is your interpretation of this scripture as pertains to this topic?

I guess my interpretation in light of this is that lots of people didn't actually know what they worshipped. The second half of the verse is just in there so I can include the entire verse.

Edited January 4 by Devobah

[Devobah]

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think you've described the doctrine quite accurately, based on many conversations I've had with those who profess belief in the Trinity, and articles and books I've read about the Trinity.  But I certainly don't claim to be an expert.  I think you've described the various heresies that arise quite well also

This statement makes me happy.

 

17 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

Interesting that when I looked at this the answer was pretty much "if you worship the Trinity you worship Christ. If you worship Christ, you worship the Trinity."

 

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think Latter-day Saints agree with the basic core definition, which is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three persons are (somehow) "one God".  We just differ on what is meant by "one God", and exactly how that is defined.  We also differ drastically on ontology, but that's a different topic .  

Agreed

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

Those who try to use analogies will usually fall into heresy.

I came across this video recently while reading an old (2014) thread on this board (i.e. What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity).  Maybe you've seen it already, but the video does a great job of presenting the analogy problem in a very humorous way, and it's relevant to the points you made in your opening post:

 

[Devobah]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I came across this video recently while reading an old (2014) thread on this board (i.e. What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity).  Maybe you've seen it already, but the video does a great job of presenting the analogy problem in a very humorous way, and it's relevant to the points you made in your opening post:

 

This was probably the video that sparked my interest in the Trinity. I’ve seen it a few times. Very funny approach to it. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

The most common are modalism (which is how I understood the Trinity)

Most Saints I have discussed this with or heard in Sunday School perhaps that haven’t listened to other Christians seem to interpret the Trinity in this fashion and project it on Trinitarians….which is not a good thing since most are not modalists.  Thankfully this appears to be happening less…though that could be because of my less opportunities to interact offline, lol.

Edited January 4 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

The most common thing that I think should be understood is the basic belief of the Trinity in a simple sense. The idea the The Father (YHWH) is God, Jesus Christ (the Son) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These three are not three separate gods, but are one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so on. They are not divided in essence and therefore this is one God. The Trinity is without body parts or passions and a new word even had to be made in order to comply with this. The word being "homoousious" 

They actually didn't make up a new word in the Council of Nicaea.  The word "homoousious" had been around since at least the 2nd century.  Gnostics used it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion#Pre-Nicene_usage.  They used it to describe the "emanations" from God.  At some point, the church fathers came across it and then used it in the Nicene Creed.

I find it interesting that after the Council of Nicaea, the Roman Empire mostly accepted the Nicene Creed.  But outside, Arianism was pretty strong.  Most of the "barbarians" that overran the Western Roman Empire were Arians and, for some reason, they converted to Nicene Christianity instead of staying Arian.

[InCognitus]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

They actually didn't make up a new word in the Council of Nicaea.  The word "homoousious" had been around since at least the 2nd century.  Gnostics used it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion#Pre-Nicene_usage.  They used it to describe the "emanations" from God.  At some point, the church fathers came across it and then used it in the Nicene Creed.

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, in his letter to his church regarding the Nicene Creed, he says it was the Emperor Constantine that requested that the word “homoousios” be added to the creed.  (Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church regarding the Nicene Creed, see also here).  And that's the word that seems to be responsible for the modern Christian understanding of how the Father and Son are "one".

It's clear that Christians prior to the formulation of that creed didn't think of the Father and Son being "one" in the way modern Trinitarians explain it.  They taught that Jesus is a "second God" or "another God", and had no problem with the existence of other gods that exist in reality.  It's interesting to me how it all evolved into the way it is explained today, and it seems so totally foreign to the way the relationship between the Father and Son was explained previously.

[Anakin7]

 Which Trinity [ Form, Model, Version] are we speaking of ? - Athanasian, Augustinian, Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Social, Bultmann ?. For me We LDS are [ My Theological Terminology] Ancient Monarch, Eastern, Economic, Social, Godheadians, Trinitarians. Do a google search for Barry Bickmore's paper - " We believe in the Trinity but not your Trinity ".

[marineland]

11 hours ago, Devobah said:

The most common are modalism (which is how I understood the Trinity) and partialism. Modalism is the belief that God is one but he has different "modes" for different situations. Partialism is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "parts" of God coming together to make one God.

Tritheism is another way to view the Trinity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIhgwk3wxQ&t=118s

[Dario_M]

Hmmmm, complicated. 

[Tony uk]

13 hours ago, Devobah said:

Over the last few months, I've really been interested in the Trinity Doctrine, its development, and what Christians believe about it. This led me to many videos, posts, and comments to try and figure out what people believed about the Trinity. This post is not necessarily a "Godhead vs. Trinity" debate, but to see if people have come to similar conclusions that I have. 

Obviously one could write an entire paper on this subject (and likely probably has) so I just wanted to share what I found.

The most common thing that I think should be understood is the basic belief of the Trinity in a simple sense. The idea the The Father (YHWH) is God, Jesus Christ (the Son) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These three are not three separate gods, but are one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so on. They are not divided in essence and therefore this is one God. The Trinity is without body parts or passions and a new word even had to be made in order to comply with this. The word being "homoousious" 

To be considered Christian by the Body of Christ, you must hold to this belief as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. My studies mainly wanted to focus on what regular people understood about this doctrine. To do that, I wanted to go where the people were. Reddit, comment sections, other faith forums, etc. This is what I found.

Most of the time it seems to me that people will leave the Trinity up to a "mystery of God" and leave it at that. They pray to Christ and hold that He is Lord of all. When pressed on whether or not Jesus is the Father, some people answered yes while others answered no. These two groups ultimately meant the same thing (that Jesus is God) but had a different understanding of the question.

When people were asked to give examples of the Trinity in scripture, you'll go to a few places in scripture. The most common ones being 1 John 5:7 and the ending of Matthew (from my understanding) and the Great Commission. Others were quick to jump on the addition of 1 John 5:7 and how it doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts, while others commented saying that the ending of Matthew would actually hold a more Unitarian approach (if Jesus is not the Father, then there would need to be more names for God than just the mentioned "name").

Analogies of the Trinity are not something that will ever accurately explain the Trinity, and are mainly used for a more childlike understanding of the Trinity. (Something to help understand that the Trinity is something we believe and this is kind of what it's like). Those who try to use analogies will usually fall into heresy. The most common are modalism (which is how I understood the Trinity) and partialism. Modalism is the belief that God is one but he has different "modes" for different situations. Partialism is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "parts" of God coming together to make one God. From my understanding, those who commit the modalism heresy have a hard time trying to figure out how God is one (as per the Shema) and three at the same time (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Those who commit the partialism heresy mainly are trying to understand the different roles that each member of the Trinity has while still maintaining monotheistic belief. Both parties are more sincere in there understanding than I previously thought. 

Ultimately after all this time I really could say a lot more about these, but I'll leave this here.

I left this whole thing with this scripture in mind: "Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

For those that have gone on a deeper dive than me, what are your thoughts? Am I accurately portraying these?

I have just come across this post and found it of great interest. And in a small way contribute to this, if it can be of use. 

 I come from the Roman Catholic Church, and at a very early age learnt about the Holy Trinity. God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. Although I have to admit my understanding of the matter is far from where it should be. As I have become older, I now treat it more a matter of Faith , in this matter.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Most Saints I have discussed this with or heard in Sunday School perhaps that haven’t listened to other Christians seem to interpret the Trinity in this fashion and project it on Trinitarians….which is not a good thing since most are not modalists.  Thankfully this appears to be happening less…though that could be because of my less opportunities to interact offline, lol.

It drives me nuts how so many saints will try to make fun of trinitarianism while actually talking about modalism. It's the classic straw man fallacy only they don't know they are doing it.  They generally don't care that much when you explain the difference either.  Modalism is much easier to attack so they want to keep being able to use it.

Modalism is considered a heresy by most trinitarians.

Edited January 4 by bluebell

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

...............................

I think Latter-day Saints agree with the basic core definition, which is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three persons are (somehow) "one God".  We just differ on what is meant by "one God", and exactly how that is defined.  We also differ drastically on ontology, but that's a different topic .  

John 17:21-22,

"that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;"

[InCognitus]

22 hours ago, Devobah said:

To be considered Christian by the Body of Christ, you must hold to this belief as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. My studies mainly wanted to focus on what regular people understood about this doctrine.

I think even the non-regular people don't really understand it.  Athanasius should be an authority on the matter (one would think).  He wrote the following about his efforts to understand "the Divinity of the Word", in his First Letter to Monks. (Written 358-360):

"In compliance with your affectionate request, which you have frequently urged upon me, I have written a short account of the sufferings which ourselves and the Church have undergone, refuting, according to my ability, the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, and proving how entirely it is alien from the Truth. And I thought it needful to represent to your Piety what pains the writing of these things has cost me, in order that you may understand thereby how truly the blessed Apostle has said, 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God Romans 11:33;' and may kindly bear with a weak man such as I am by nature. For the more I desired to write, and endeavored to force myself to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me; and in proportion as I thought that I apprehended it, in so much I perceived myself to fail of doing so. Moreover also I was unable to express in writing even what I seemed to myself to understand; and that which I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the truth which existed in my conception."

He goes on to say:  "Accordingly I have written as well as I was able; and you, dearly beloved, receive these communications not as containing a perfect exposition of the Godhead of the Word, but as being merely a refutation of the impiety of the enemies of Christ, and as containing and affording to those who desire it, suggestions for arriving at a pious and sound faith in Christ."  

In other words, "I can't explain what we believe, but at least we have refuted the enemies of Christ" (because that's what is most important, right?)

[Devobah]

On 1/3/2025 at 8:46 PM, Calm said:

Most Saints I have discussed this with or heard in Sunday School perhaps that haven’t listened to other Christians seem to interpret the Trinity in this fashion and project it on Trinitarians….which is not a good thing since most are not modalists.  Thankfully this appears to be happening less…though that could be because of my less opportunities to interact offline, lol.

I really should take some time off of social media. It's a firestorm down there. 

Some people are actually open about their modalism; a surprise to be sure. I was one of the members of the church who definitely thought that the Trinity was inherently modalist. I'm trying to come around to a different point of view to build bridges. 

[Devobah]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John 17:21-22,

"that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;"

This is one of many examples of where I am confused about the Trinity doctrine. I cannot see the Trinity doctrine in this scripture. More specifically, the understanding that they share the same substance, that they are coequal and coeternal as well.

Since Christ implies in this scripture that He received His glory and that it wasn't inherently a part of Him, that flies in the face of that part of the doctrine.

[Devobah]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

It drives me nuts how so many saints will try to make fun of trinitarianism while actually talking about modalism. It's the classic straw man fallacy only they don't know they are doing it.  They generally don't care that much when you explain the difference either.  Modalism is much easier to attack so they want to keep being able to use it.

Modalism is considered a heresy by most trinitarians.

Most definitely considered heresy by trinitarians, but it does come from bad analogies by genuine believers.

We can all do better at trying to understand each other. I mentioned to Calm that the social media is a firestorm right now. I don't know if it's the algorithm or if there is a genuine increase in anti-LDS content out there by evangelicals and Mainstream Christians, but I have found it almost everywhere. My explore page on Instagram will never recover from this.

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think even the non-regular people don't really understand it.  Athanasius should be an authority on the matter (one would think).  He wrote the following about his efforts to understand "the Divinity of the Word", in his First Letter to Monks. (Written 358-360):

"In compliance with your affectionate request, which you have frequently urged upon me, I have written a short account of the sufferings which ourselves and the Church have undergone, refuting, according to my ability, the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, and proving how entirely it is alien from the Truth. And I thought it needful to represent to your Piety what pains the writing of these things has cost me, in order that you may understand thereby how truly the blessed Apostle has said, 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God Romans 11:33;' and may kindly bear with a weak man such as I am by nature. For the more I desired to write, and endeavored to force myself to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me; and in proportion as I thought that I apprehended it, in so much I perceived myself to fail of doing so. Moreover also I was unable to express in writing even what I seemed to myself to understand; and that which I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the truth which existed in my conception."

He goes on to say:  "Accordingly I have written as well as I was able; and you, dearly beloved, receive these communications not as containing a perfect exposition of the Godhead of the Word, but as being merely a refutation of the impiety of the enemies of Christ, and as containing and affording to those who desire it, suggestions for arriving at a pious and sound faith in Christ."  

In other words, "I can't explain what we believe, but at least we have refuted the enemies of Christ" (because that's what is most important, right?)

"What matters is they're wrong! It doesn't matter if we're right and can clearly explain it!"

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/4/2025 at 10:14 PM, Devobah said:

This is one of many examples of where I am confused about the Trinity doctrine. I cannot see the Trinity doctrine in this scripture. More specifically, the understanding that they share the same substance, that they are coequal and coeternal as well.

Since Christ implies in this scripture that He received His glory and that it wasn't inherently a part of Him, that flies in the face of that part of the doctrine.

Exactly.  However, it also makes clear that all those who are believers are members of the Body of Christ, which means that they all are one with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  A very crowded Terrabyte Trinity.

[Devobah]

On 1/4/2025 at 10:15 AM, Tony uk said:

I have just come across this post and found it of great interest. And in a small way contribute to this, if it can be of use. 

 I come from the Roman Catholic Church, and at a very early age learnt about the Holy Trinity. God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. Although I have to admit my understanding of the matter is far from where it should be. As I have become older, I now treat it more a matter of Faith , in this matter.

I don't know why I didn't respond to this one before!

As I mentioned above, treating the Trinity as a matter of faith and mystery seems to be the consensus among those who believe the doctrine. You are not alone in your treatment of it, and if you feel like your understanding isn't where it should be, then continue in your search and may God bless you on your journey to understanding.

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

I don't know why I didn't respond to this one before!

As I mentioned above, treating the Trinity as a matter of faith and mystery seems to be the consensus among those who believe the doctrine. You are not alone in your treatment of it, and if you feel like your understanding isn't where it should be, then continue in your search and may God bless you on your journey to understanding.

Many thanks for your response Devobah. In my faith, I hope to continue my search for a clear and better understanding of this among other matters of faith. I am sure with the guidance of God, I will get there one day.