I just read this.
Dated – February 16, 1998.
“I listened to a videotape the other night prepared by the Baptists. They are coming to Salt Lake to hold a convention, and they want to convert us all. But they say, among other things in that videotape, that we are not mainstream Christians. As I understand it, they believe that God the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being. The scriptures tell a different story. Jesus prayed to His father in Heaven. His Father in Heaven spoke at the time of His baptism. There was a vision of His Father at the time of His baptism. There was a vision of His Father at the time of Transfiguration. And in that great, classic prayer, He said, “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” (Matthew 6:9). He said, “I will be your access to the Father” (see John 14:6). They are two beings, entirely separate. And He promised the Holy Ghost as the Comforter when He should leave them. They are separate beings. Joseph Smith, I would like to submit, learned more about the nature of Deity as a 14-year-old boy in the grove of his father’s farm than the acts of all the ministers and priests and the divines who have long argued that question” (418-419).
Taken from Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley (Deseret, 2005).
May I ask. What video is Hinckley referring to? Secondly, has any LDS apostle or prophet ever allowed the people to hear a sincere presentation of the traditional, orthodox view of the Trinity? What about even allowing a guest speaker to come to BYU? Before one believes the last statement by President Hinckley, shouldn’t one investigate and scrutinize John’s Gospel first?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd
Perhaps you would be interested in reading from
The Trinity
After reading this explain to me why someone would believe the trinity to be Biblical, if you still do.
Doug, I will respond to this. But may I ask who wrote this?
Doug,
Have you studied Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna, Mathetes, Irenaeus, Clement Of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Ignatius, all who wrote before or around 250 AD?
I know Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and after Irenaeus was converted he studied under Polycarp.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Here is a link to their writings.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/index.htm
I would recommend starting with Irenaeus. Even though reading through these guys is quite a project one really must do it before making claims about early church history. You can find sites that take short quotes from these guys in relation to the trinity but I would recommend starting at the beginning and working your way through what they wrote to get a full picture of what the early church believed.
Todd
I wrote it a some years ago.
Christopher Leavell
I must admit that my understanding of the early arguments about the make-up of the godhead have been limited to those I have read from other churches. I had no internet access at the time. So I will look up your recommended viewing. But from what I have read it appears that while ideas that are used in the trinity concept weren’t entirely original, they certainly weren’t unanimously agreed with either. So the question would be, who were the faithful men?
That has been my experience also. All I knew of the early church was what I read from others churches and groups. Over the past few years I have been reading through early church fathers and have found them to be quite convicting. I started reading them to find out their views on different theological positions but quickly found myself humbled by their devotion to loving one another, unity and Jesus Christ. They had a passion and love for God that few do today. They faced great persecution and martyrdom with peace and joy. Here is another link from Irenaeus that deals with the question you asked.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/0010707.htm
Very good question. I am currently working through Tertullian and will keep your question in mind as I read.
Doug, first of all, three quick questions:
1. Where do orthodox Christians teach “the three Gods” = “one God’?
2. What is this idea about God being “mass”?
3. Are you saying that the name Jehovah is to be restricted only to the Messiah in the O.T.?
Todd
1.
Having been brought up going to 3 Protestant churches each Sunday, I know what was believed by the trinity. Having talked to many Protestants since, I have found no difference of basic opinion. And endless writings against the church make quotes from Scriptures stating there to be one God. Then proposing that this is because the 3 = 1.
Wikipedia Encycopedia states of the Trinity –
“..the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as “one God in three persons,” all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. “
2.
The use of the term “mass” is derived from the statement that the 3 are of one substance.
3.
Jehovah is Jesus Christ, yes. However, prophets kept things simple for Israel. So there is a tendancy at times for deviation from absolute correctness, at some point in the OT. That is assuming that the prophet speaking was aware that Jehovah wasn’t the Father.
Doug, again just some initial thoughts as we begin this discussion on the Trinity.
1. In your paper, you have purposely framed the triune God for orthodox believers as an illogical formula:
“Three Gods” = “One God”
sort of like . . .
a god + a god + a god = one god
Tritheism = Monotheism
Anytime, I see a strawman equation like this, I consider it completely irrelevant to what I believe about the revealed God in Scripture. If you are going to throw out little equations, why not use, 1 x 1 x 1=1 (but of course, even this falls short in describing such a holy (utterly unique and separated), magnificent, incomprehensible God.)
I would agree to the basic expressions in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. So put that in your paper instead; but then note that the Persons of the Godhead are not to be ontologically defined with our conceptions of a human person. How does one go about explaining the Person of Jesus Christ – 100% human nature, 100% divine nature? Some try to, but in the process, they limit the attributes of His deity or His humanity to make Him palatable to our understanding of what encapsulates personage. Same goes for the Father.
2. Would you consider the Holy Spirit to have mass? Mass makes me think of matter. I believe that God created matter, therefore, dethroning matter itself from being eternal. God is the originator of natural laws, not fenced in eternally with other matter.
3. Here is just one example, tonight, from our Isaiah studies. “In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel” (Isa. 4:2). If you believe the Branch is referring to the Messiah, than who is the LORD? Should we explore all the Scriptural data like this?
What orthodox Jew would believe that his Old Testament scriptures teach that Elohim is a god and that Jehovah is another god? No, he would cry that Elohim, Jehovah, and a host of other titles are names for the God of Israel. How about this—should we examine all the passages that equate Elohim as Jehovah?
Doug, I am glad you are engaging me on this topic. If we are not right about our belief in who God is, wouldn’t it be true that everything else we believe or teach that is fundamental to faith and practice can be wrong too? Some people have a hunkering to only downplay, pooh-pooh, or trivialize the issue as secondary.
Todd
1.
You feel confident that there is a trinity. How does this sit with your feelings that “the Persons of the Godhead are not to be ontologically defined with our conceptions of a human person.”? Isn’t the concept of the trinity an attempt to explain God, even to some degree?
2.
You have asked.
“Would you consider the Holy Spirit to have mass?”
Yes, made of spirit matter.
You have stated.
“I believe that God created matter, therefore, dethroning matter itself from being eternal. God is the originator of natural laws, not fenced in eternally with other matter.
You are left with a God that was all powerful relative to absolutely nothing. Have you considered how impossible that is? How can a being be all powerful relative to nothing with absolutely no laws existing? And please don’t insult me with an airy fairy answer.
3. I won’t venture into Isaiah interpretation as I have no revelation from God on the matter. Which Peter stated as essential to such (2 Pet 1:20). I’m not having a go at you there, I’m just stating my reason.
I realised you would be likely to raise the issue of name use, and therefore answered it in my last comment. So I will quote from there.
“However, prophets kept things simple for Israel. So there is a tendancy at times for deviation from absolute correctness, at some point in the OT. That is assuming that the prophet speaking was aware that Jehovah wasn’t the Father.”
You ask
“If we are not right about our belief in who God is, wouldn’t it be true that everything else we believe or teach that is fundamental to faith and practice can be wrong too?”
Definately!
Doug, correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying that God is under the natural laws governing time and space, etc.? And that He is dependent upon existing matter or people outside the Trinity to be all powerful?
I am not trying to “insult you with an airy fairy answer.” God told Moses His name to be revealed among the people. “I am that I am.”
Todd
My comment about “airy fairy answers” was relative to my question of how anything can be all-powerful relative to nothing.
You asked_
“Doug, correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying that God is under the natural laws governing time and space, etc.? And that He is dependent upon existing matter or people outside the Trinity to be all powerful?”
That is correct, other than that the father isn’t dependant upon the Son or the Holy Ghost or people. And the Son isn’t dependant upon the Holy Ghost or people. As to the Holy Ghost we have little information as he doesn’t seem to be talkative about himself.
When you say God gave his name as “I am that I am” I would qualify that as Jesus Christ, the God of Israel.
But I am still left with no answer from you as to how you come up with a trinity? You have believed in this trinity yet you also feel God to be incomprehensible. So you can’t even define your belief. It is not only a contradiction from my viewpoint, but an “airy fairy” answer. I’m not having a go at you personally, but this whole thing. I spent my younger years going to Protestant churches. At 11-years-old I began to ask questions like this and got these types of non-answers. Ministers turned away from me at the door to avoid looking bad not being able to answer the questions infront of others of the congregation. You have taken the role as a representative of Jesus Christ yet, by your own admission, you can’t explain your boss. Doesn’t this say something to you?
Yes, it says a lot Doug.
Pretty much every religious deity that I have pursued and scrutinized in comparative religion studies can be fully understood by the human logic and finite intellect that God has given to me. Safe. Manageable. Encapsulated.
But when reading about the triune God of Scripture . . . whoa . . . this is a story of theos in a category all of its own that I have never completely come across. This God will take you to the greatest extents of your intellectual prowess at any given moment to where you cry out in humble worship before His glory. I bask in the fact of being on an eternal journey of learning from the Lord of hosts, the God of all majesty, who never had a beginning for His journey.
No, I can’t explain to you all about my God. Neither can church councils or leaders. Sorry. Though I could clearly tell you that some projections of God that I read about in other sources don’t match up with what is revealed about Him in Scripture. But a God left mysteriously unexplainable is the God the invites to move onward and upward to His very heart.
Even in heaven, when God is blowing me away with whole new dimensions about Himself, I will still be on the first page. What a God! This is the One worthy of worship. This is the One, unlike any other, that knows no other like Him. Fathomless in every attribute. Uniquely holy.
Wow, just thinking about all this. I can’t wait till this Lord’s Day.
Todd
I grab your point. However I feel similar about God because of what I DO know. Having walked and talked with him I have felt the enormous depth of his intellect. I have discussed with the Father his feelings in regard us, his children, and why he does and doesn’t do things. I have felt the depth of his love, which is far beyond description, as he has explained his feelings on these matters, and how things really are. I have felt the depth of his power, yet the depth of his patience and understanding. He is not the master, but the servant of us, his children. As Christ stated, he came not to be served but to serve. These 2 are about service beyond belief. You don’t need to wait until Christ comes to meet him. I have seen all 3, and they are not the same. As Steven looked up and saw Christ and Heavenly Father, so can you.
I think that belief in statues, that you just manufactured, having powers would fit in about the same as an imcomprehensible and irrational God. So I don’t see your beliefs as unique.
I have seen all 3, and they are not the same.
What?
This comment deserves more explanation before I respond with scriptural revelation.
Todd
I’m firstly curious as to what you thought I meant when I had just said that I have walked and talked with the Father, if you found it then strange that I mention seeing all 3 members of the Godhead. When I said I have walked and talked with him, that is precisely what I meant. And I have walked and talked with Jesus Christ. I have seen the Holy Ghost come out of me to make a particular comment when the Father was there. It was a kind of working together routine. The Holy Ghost should be in us. Christ said he would SEND the Holy Ghost. Christ and the Father are elsewhere. But their intelligence permeates all things. Yet they will come and talk to you as you open up spiritually. This concept would obviously cross your belief that God can’t be seen in spite of all the Scriptural references saying he has been. And I can explain the problems you have in doctrine in this area too. But perhaps we should take one subject at a time.
So I still would ask for your response to the article on the Trinity that I wrote. In spite of any way you may wish to interpret the maths (which your maths for your belief should have been 1 x 1 x 1 = 1(3), in my opinion), you still haven’t shown Scriptural evidence that the 3 are in some real way of the same essence (which is the claim of the trinity).
I have never had any LDS ever tell me, “I have seen the Holy Ghost come out of me to make a particular comment when the Father was there.”
For starters, Doug, according to the implications of Jesus’ words in John 3, you don’t see the wind, the breath, the Spirit. The Spirit is personable and real; but you don’t see with your physical eye. Nicodemus wanted to see for proof.
Ok, on to the first verse in your trinity paper . . .
You write:
Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one!”
This doesn’t exactly state anything about a trinity, of course, but is used to establish that in some way The LORD is one. This “LORD” of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (the name “Jehovah”, as used here, is Jesus Christ). And He is one. No one disputes that. This is merely stating that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, and the only God that they got.
But where does the Torah mention the name of Jesus? Which Jewish prophet explicitly proclaims in the OT, “Jesus Christ is the God of Israel and the only God that they got.”
And by the way, the last phrase sounds like a severe limitation upon the people in that they only get one god. Likewise, it sounds like the god is also just confined to a certain people and area.
Todd
What you mention about the Holy Ghost is true, as he is made of spirit matter. I didn’t see the Holy Ghost with my physical eyes. My spirit eyes were used. The same applies to my time with the Father and the Son. If I’d used my physical eyes with the latter 2, I couldn’t have spent all that time with them.
We know Jesus Christ to be Jehovah because he identified himself as such to Joseph Smith. But looking at it purely from a Biblical perspective, Christ is the Saviour as is Jehovah, Christ is redeemer as is Jehovah etc. Nextly Christ explained that he was the I am before Abraham was born. It states that both are the Holy one of Israel. This makes Jesus Christ the God of the OT Israel.
The reason Israel was only given a monotheistic impression was because of what would happen if they became aware of the facts. Debate would arise as to whether all members of the Godhead actually agreed with any directive. It would have justified evil. So he kept it VERY simple. One God, that’s it. Do what I say, or else.
You’ve said “it sounds like the god is also just confined to a certain people and area.”
Christ referred to himself as Jehovah, God of Israel. It gave them a sense of uniqueness.
Doug: What you mention about the Holy Ghost is true, as he is made of spirit matter.
Where does biblical Scripture speak of the Holy Ghost as spirit matter? Are you thinking of something like the form of a dove or a cloven tongue of fire? Or conceiving of some kind of bodily form? The Holy Spirit is in essence – Spirit. To define the Holy Ghost as spirit matter is hoisting something completely foreign on to the biblical text. And doesn’t your idea of matter barricade any Person of the Trinity from being present everywhere, transcendent, and immanent? You don’t need to add matter to make the Spirit a Person. According to the Old and New covenants, the only member of the Triune God that had a body prepared for Him was Jesus Christ.
And Doug are you admitting that the Hebrew Scriptures teach monotheism only?
Todd
The term “spirit matter” derives from D&C 131:7 mention of spirit being made of finer matter. Saying that the OT and NT don’t use the term is really irrelevant as they were written in a different language anyway. So it is just terminology. It is like those who say that they don’t mention the term “pre-existence”, so there can’t be one. Better evidence for a claim would have to exist than that. What you have said is spirit essence. “A rose by any other name”.
“And doesn’t your idea of matter barricade any Person of the Trinity from being present everywhere, transcendent, and immanent?”
All beings with physical bodies (which includes Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father) are made up of 3 parts (a trinity). Those parts are an eternal intelligence that was never made. A spirit body (made of spirit matter/essence), born by our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. And a physical body born by our earthly parents.
Our intelligences are infinite in potential. It can reach out across the universe and affect things. It can comprehend things. The 3 in the Godhead have this to such a degree that they comprehend all things. Thus while sitting physically on his throne (as Steven testified) God can be in all things and comprehend all things.
“According to the Old and New covenants, the only member of the Triune God that had a body prepared for Him was Jesus Christ.”
Did you somehow have the feeling we believed contrary to this?
“And Doug are you admitting that the Hebrew Scriptures teach monotheism only?”
The creation mentions the 2 being present – Jehovah and Elohim. Because of the fall mankind became isolated from the Father and had to call upon the name of the Son to get to the Father. But at the time of Moses they were so spiritually backward that they rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, and so were given the Law of Moses, and many things were hidden from them. From that time there was a hiding of the Father. So much so that when Christ called to him from the cross they didn’t even know whom he was calling. Some even thinking that he was calling Elijah.
Doug: Saying that the OT and NT don’t use the term is really irrelevant as they were written in a different language anyway. So it is just terminology.
If you are talking to an orthodox Christian who believes the Old and New Covenants specifically reveal God to mankind, how is this irrelevant? Where do the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages of the Scriptures reveal that the Spirit is to be defined as spirit matter? Would you accept that this is an additional doctrine added to the Bible? Isn’t it alright to delineate between what the Bible teaches and what LDS writings add to Christian dogmatics on the nature of God? Neither the Spirit nor the Father are contained by matter, even finer matter. And all the Father, His wholeness, not just as you might limit it to His intelligence, is infinitely everywhere, infinitely transcendent, and infinitely immanent, throughout eternity past and eternity future. God blows our conception of physics, even the Greek conceptions of metaphysics (because God is personal). To claim that the Father has a “physical body” is to humble Him, to empty Him, just as Jesus emptied Himself (Philippians 2:7). God is above the trichotomy (body, soul, and spirit) or dichotomy (body and soul) of man, whichever way theologians would like to quibble over it. Btw, your paradigm seems more two fold: (1) omnipresent, eternal intelligences & (2) that which came into existence, spiritual matter and later physical matter that takes up space and exists in time. But which is ultimately supreme and eternal, intelligence or matter? Did some intelligence start the first matter into motion? The Bible gives an answer to this last rhetorical question. It is Elohim in the first verse of the Bible, alias the great Hebrew tetragrammaton, YHWH in Genesis 4:1.
In contrast, the truth of pre-existence in the Scriptures is explicit. For example, “he that came down from heaven” (John 3:13). Jesus existed in heaven before He came to this earth. God pre-existed. He never had a beginning. In the beginning, God always was.
Doug: Did you somehow have the feeling we believed contrary to this?
Perhaps not. Especially, in light of an OT verse referencing this. But I do get the directives from LDS friends that present LDS divine beings needed past earthly bodies to progress.
Doug: The creation mentions the 2 being present – Jehovah and Elohim.
This statement intrigues me. Doug, would you trace your interpretation of the Genesis account in support of this premise? I noticed in your paper you briefly referenced Genesis as text against monotheism.
And how is Elohim hid in the Hebrew Bible? Isn’t Elohim in Psalms and Isaiah?
Again, Doug, I get mixed responses from members of the LDS church over whether the Hebrew Scriptures teach a monotheism, duotheism, tritheism, polytheism, or henotheism for orthodox belief? For a group that charges the various Christians sects for their debate, I have not found a consensus from the LDS church on what is their core presentation for theology from the Old Testament.
Todd,
In reality members of the church are very free to believe as they will. There is a lot of independance of ideas with those who study Scripture. There are some basic concepts that are fairly universal among members. But compared to the vast array of possible doctrines, these are very few in number.
When you talk of a doctrine being added to the Bible, that isn’t a correct term, as they aren’t. You tend to think that way as a Protestant that should be constricted to only things stated in that particular collection of books.
This spirit matter discussion is a bit off topic. And you have raised other issues off topic also. While they partially relate, we could go on forever without resolving the trinity concept.
Mention of Elohim in Psalms and Isaiah just shows that total dispensationalism isn’t advised as an absolute concept. These men were exceptions because of their revelatory ability and closeness to God. The creation account speaks of “us”. You may pose that to be the parts of this trinity, but I would again pose the question of where the trinity is taught within the Bible?
Secondly I would again pose the point that you are telling me what God is definitely not made of while also declaring you don’t understand God, because you can’t. You are saying that me thinking of God being flesh somehow makes him inferior to your unexplainable God. I’d definitely refute that claim. I used to believe in that God you do. I now believe in the God I know, who is made of resurrected flesh. My admiration for God is so far above what it was before it is immeasurable in comparison.
You think it lowers God, because you have enjoyed admiring this mythalogical type God, that is so far above your thoughts that you can’t even understand him. However, if you actually came to understand him, and feel his love, and understand his concerns etc your feelings for him would escallate through the roof.
Doug: but I would again pose the question of where the trinity is taught within the Bible?
Stay tuned. I will work on a skeleton outline for you of what I see in scriptural revelation of God.
And yet let me interject a few quick questions.
Just because a finite mind cannot fully grasp in human understanding all there is to know about the incomprehensible YHWH of Sabbaoth, does that make it true that you can not sincerely, experientially know Him? Are you saying that the Triune God is unable to express love?
I have never claimed some of the mythological legends or metaphysical speculations to be real. But God is, even though I don’t fully understand Him. This is easy for me to say because there are a lot of phenomena that I don’t rationally, completely understand – let alone God.
Regarding limitations . . . Is Jehovah sovereign over all in an absolute sense? Can Jehovah make the claim that He is sovereign over all other gods or collective councils of gods?
How about this? Is the First God unreachable, unaccessible to LDS people in this life?
Todd
I’m not suggesting that you can know all about God in this life. But to know him personally, yes. Without knowing him we won’t get eternal life. Pure and simple. And we must equally know the Son. As to the love question, how would you know that they truly love if you have never felt it?
Jehovah is supreme over all gods, other than the Father of course. But this statement is only relative to us, naturally.
What first God? There is no first God. Eternity has no beginning. When you start talking of eternity as a principle you must think in eternal, not time, frame of mind.
Hi Doug,
I’m back. I had a terrific weekend with a group of guys from our local assembly, as we attended a men’s retreat at Red Cliff Bible Camp. Then, yesterday, back in Idaho Falls, we spent time corporately in John 3:18-22 in the morning and James 2:14-17 in the evening.
There is one phrase that sticks out in my mind from the time spent with one hundred men, nestled high along red rock cliffs along the fringe of the Wind River Range in Western Wyoming:
”Your view of God is the most important thing about you.”
But before I jump into any of my faith toward believing the authority of Scripture on the specific revelation of God, let me interact with a few things from your last post.
I agree with some of your discussion where I can identify Scripture.
Yet I question when you say, But this statement is only relative to us, naturally. Where does biblical scripture support this? And if it doesn’t, why has this fundamental clarification been left out of the Bible? Doug, you are not my final authority, so you have to solidly back up your statements with Scripture in order for me to believe it. Likewise, I am not your final authority, so I encourage you to be a Berean in biblically evaluating my claims. You seem to be promoting a Jehovah that is god over just this material world. But this is limiting the big picture of God that one sees in the Bible. I am contending that the Bible proclaims the one true Jehovah God to be supernatural, above all physical and spiritual matter anywhere. God is the supreme God over all physical bodies composed of matter and likewise the sovereign God over every heavenly being in existence. And where you and I are locked as earthly mortals in time, the entire essence of the one, true YHWH of Sabbaoth never has been in eternity past and never will be in eternity future. All humans or heavenly hosts considered to be gods are dependent; but this God lives independently, the self-existing One.
Now, how would you like me to tackle in presenting to you the orthodox Christian view of the Triune God? Which focal point of my belief would you deny?
You would probably agree with me that the (1) Father is God, (2) Jesus is God, and (3) the Spirit is God. Sadly, some eagerly deny either #2 or #3 to their utter peril. Disbelieving any one of these truths would be unorthodox, right?
So how about this? Years ago, a seminary professor wrote on the chalkboard for me three premises:
1. Christ is God.
2. There is One God.
3. Christ is distinct from the Father.
Tell me if you believe the Bible does not teach any one of these revelations about God, and we will move along from there.
Todd:
1. Christ is God.
2. There is One God.
3. Christ is distinct from the Father.
Kerry:
Now then if both Christ and His Father are separate as per premise #3, then we have two Gods yes? Equal, of course, but not just a singular God. Distinct implies not the same, yes? In J. I. Rodale’s magnificent tome, “The Synonym Finder,” (1,000,000 synonyms!) Warner Books, 1978: 314, it says the word distinct means “separate,” and “discrete,” and “unconnected,” and “individual,” and so on and so forth. Interesting eh?
Best,
Kerry
Kerry,
I could easily believe this logical flow . . .
1. Christ is God.
2. Christ is distinct from the Father.
3. Therefore, there are “two Gods”.
But there is a big problem, the scriptural authority (my canon for faith & practice and rooted outside of my logic) has not spelled out that logical conclusion. I can’t find this convincingly, conclusively spelled out fully anywhere in the OT Hebrew scriptures and the NT Greek text, totaling 66 books. So which do I trust as my final authority . . . my logic? Or the Bible? For authority, I would rather throw all my eggs into the basket, trusting Scripture.
If I am to allow the Bible to speak for itself, and let it remain as sola scriptura, I am compelled to believe . . .
1. Christ is God.
2. There is One God.
3. Christ is distinct from the Father.
The engagement becomes in how well does the Bible proclaim without deceit, premise #2, or the revelation of one God, supreme and sovereign over all gods (human or angelic) who will be like God (Praise Him for His grace) but never even come close in eternity future to God’s full essence.
Kerry, this discussion is important. Thanks for joining in on this thread with Doug and me. Now that you have the 39 volumes of the early Patristic Fathers (I am jealous with envy), feel free anytime to post with what they say on the topic. But I warn you, I might disagree with them. 🙂 I strongly disagree with Augustine on his Genesis hermeneutics.
Todd
Sorry to be so long getting back to this. I’ll have my internet connection problems sorted out soon.
I don’t doubt your sincerity in regard the Bible only concept. But I do find it somewhat conflicting with reality. You have posed a trinity (which you confess is not explained or clearly stated in the Bible), and ask me to prove from the Bible that there was a time during eternity where our God wasn’t a god, in plain statement. And that if I can’t prove this from the limited volume you accept, that you will hold the trinity concept, also not stated plainly in the same volume. Your only reasoning for trinity support is that the Bible often refers to there only being one God, yet talking of two (and the Holy Ghost gets thrown in for good measure). The trinity is only a poor attempt of man to make an answer. And (this is not directed at you as a person as I realize you were brought up seeing this as acceptable) such a pathetic attempt at an answer that it has to come followed by a doctrine making God completely incomprehensible just so you can’t question the irrationality and nonscripturality of the concept. You are posing rules for me that you aren’t following yourself. You ask me to prove things from the Bible. I’m still waiting for the Biblical evidence of a trinity. You talk of a concept I’m not allowed to Scripturally oppose with logic. I’ll accept your challenge to make the discussion Biblical, provided you do. The Bible tells me I CAN come to know God and Jesus Christ. In my opinion the Bible is 66 books given to us with that exact intent. So let’s make it a Biblical discussion with no add-ons from Catholic councils and their creeds. You are a Protestant. Remember, you protested against their nonsense.
Let me qualify something in regard your 3 premises.
1. Christ is the Lord God (Jehovah God).
2. There is one God (Elohim), the Father God.
3. Christ is distinct from the Father (who is superior to Christ).
You must surely know, as well as I do, that every line here is Biblical. So, at worst, if your belief is solely accepting that which is Biblical, then it is as likely that what I am stating is correct as the trinity idea (at worst).
You have questioned my clarification in declaring certain statements in the Bible as being relative. Yet you would be able to find Scripture texts which you also would only regard to be speaking relatively, even though the Bible doesn’t declare them such. So the question really is, are those specific texts also speaking relatively? And it is most likely that no absolute answer can be established by just reading Scripture? But whether this clarification is correct or not doesn’t, in the slightest, prove or disprove a trinity. It is a statement relative to other ideas about God that we can deal with later.
Doug, where did I say that the Triune God is not clearly stated in the Bible?
Let me expand my three points for you.
1. Christ is God. The Spirit is God. The Father is God.
2. There is One God.
3. The Son, and the Spirit, and the Father are distinct from each other.
I believe the Bible clearly teaches all three of these points. There is no doubt in my mind on this. Now the problem comes when we try to logically flesh out this God in our minds, when we try to fully explain or make understandable what is clearly stated. Doug, yes, you and I can know God in what has been revealed to us about Himself as He condescended to us, using human language so we can find connection. But much of the revelation in Scripture about Himself also clearly communicates to us that we, in our divinely created limitations, cannot wrap our puny minds fully around all that God is. What I don’t completely understand in the Bible about God, I don’t first run to some church council to set me straight (though at times they can be helpful if and when they agree with Scripture). My desire is to believe by faith what is taught in submission to the Spirit of God. And the One Whom I have not seen, I love. God is real and personal to me. And God is my Sovereign.
Unfortunately, when you tried to qualify my 3 premises, you just eradicated Jehovah God from being Elohim to both Jewish and Christian people who find this powerful, personal, and clearly stated in the Hebrew text. Secondly, by stating that the Father is superior to the Son, you destroy the unity of essence that has been a comfort to Christians through the centuries as they read the Greek text. To see the Son is to see the Father. Maybe you ought to say that the Son voluntarily submitted to the will of the Father. But my Savior is not some inferior god. And there is no other god superior to Him.
So on my expanded three points of the Triune God, which would you like to look at? Would you like to see how I believe the Bible teaches premise #2?
Elohim
Doug, here are just a few quick thoughts as we enter this week. I have been thoroughly enjoying the book of Isaiah, specifically chapter 9 and verse 6, in preparation for Wednesday night’s lesson. Edward J. Young reminded me today, “One factor that cannot be overlooked is the fact that easy transition between gods and men so common to ancient mythology is completely foreign to the Old Testament and to Isaiah’s prophecy. We have but to read the sixth chapter or the first three verses of chapter 31 to note how carefully the distinction between God and man is guarded. Whereas the word ’elohimin the Old Testament may sometimes apply to beings lesser than God, such is not the case with ’el. This designation is reserved for the true God and for Him alone.”
And check over here to read of my exposure to Michael Heiser’s take on Elohim.
Todd
You are proposing there is one God only (and Jesus is a part of it), yet Scripture doesn’t support it. To annul ALL the texts showing it false the concept says we can’t use logic. It is a nonsense restriction. Of course we can use logic. Man with the natural mind can’t comprehend God, that is where the Holy Ghost comes in. We are supposed to read the Bible and use our limited intelligence to work it out. What do those books SAY?
1 Corinthians 8:6 _ “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”
But the trinity concept says _ “Yet there is one God, the Father who is also one Lord Jesus Christ.”
1 Timothy 2:5 _ “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”
Yet the trinity version says _ “For there is one God who is also the Mediator between himself and man.”
John 17:11 + 22 _ “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You, Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.”
The trinity version says _ “Now I am still in the world and always will be, we are coming to each other where we are anyway, let them be one as you and I are, but we/I know that they never can be, because we are one substance and they never will be.”
_ “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one.”
The trinity version says _ “And the glory which I gave myself, that they CAN’T be one as you and I are one.”
Matthew 19:16 – 17 _ concerning Jesus it says, “Now behold, one came and said to Him, ‘Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?’ So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments’.”
The trinity version says _ “..Why do you call Me good? No one is good but me..”
Yes, I’d agree with tthe Romans totally, that certainly doesn’t make any sense to my inferior mind.
Doug, you have given some good verses to support my premise #3.
So what orthodox trinitarian would accept your “trinity version” declarations?
Hang on to this converstation, Doug. I will be back in the United States in a couple of weeks to share more on this fundamental doctrine.
It was interesting listening to Mitt Romney talk last night about “fundamental” belief about God on national news.
Doug,
My friend, Nathan Pitchford, recently wrote a little blurb, “the trinity at work on the cross”.
Check it out.
And getting back to premise #2, what do you think of the demons acknowledging the one God in the book of James?
And secondly, I noticed that Gordon B. Hinckley said that Jesus is Jehovah during the Sunday morning conference session.
But how would you interpret Isaiah 11:2?