When it comes to the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there have been many theories about whether or not the Christian concept of the Trinity is true. Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons will attack the Trinity as being “incomprehensible” and therefore “illogical.” Too often these folks like to aim their artillery at the Council of Nicea that convened in A.D. 325 and was attended by approximately 300 bishops from the east and west churches.
Of course, I cannot cover in detail every nuance of the council or of the Trinity to show why I and millions of other Christians believe this doctrine makes good biblical sense. (Two good books I can recommend for study on the Trinity, though, are E. Calvin Beisner’s God in Three Persons and James White’s The Forgotten Trinity.) But it needs to be established that the issue of the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century. In fact, Christians, for the most part, have held very dearly to the idea of the Hypostatic Union (Jesus as the God-man was 100% God and 100% man, as detailed in Phil. 2:5-11) since the days of the apostles. It wasn’t until Arius came along that the Christian community needed to evaluate this critical teaching.
Typically, detractors opposed to the Trinity will immediately use the name of Constantine in an attempt to show how the Council of Nicea was used to promote a pagan concept of God. When someone does this, ask her how well she has studied the process of how the decision was made. Rarely have I found anyone able to explain the major players of the council (Alexander and Athanasius versus Arius), let alone the century the council took place (4th)!
The truth is that less than two dozen bishops (out of some 300) attending the council were ever in favor of Arianism, and by the time the council concluded, only two did not favor the Orthodox position. Truly Constantine’s goal was for reconciliation and had nothing to do with the decision made in Nicea, which was overwhelmingly confirmed in a fuller form at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. As Steve Brandt points out,
“Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played a key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.”
While the word “Trinity” is never used in the Bible, neither is the concept “Heavenly Mother” nor “Paradise Earth” used in the Bible, even though some might argue these are biblically true ideas. Yet the Trinity clearly solves problems and is a correct belief based on the teaching of the Bible. It shows that, while there is one God (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29), there are three separate Persons who are fully and completely God. (Quick. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Of course, God the Father did according to Acts 3:15. But Jesus also raised Himself from the dead, according to John 2:19 and the Spirit gets credit in Romans 8:11.)
The Trinity is supported by the testimony of Jesus as well as His apostles and brothers. In his book What Have They Done with Jesus, New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III carefully considers the early witnesses of the historical Jesus Christ. In his conclusion on page 291, he writes,
“The historical probabilities surely lie with the suggestion that these were honest witnesses, struggling mightily to explain the significance of a person they had encountered and who, in the process had irrevocably changed their lives. One has to decide, then, whether the Jesus they remembered and tried to explain, grasping after terms and titles large enough to convey his importance, was the real Jesus or not. Bear in mind that it is not a matter of trusting much later Christian testimony—say, for the Council of Nicea conspiracies to concoct a Jesus-is-God theology. No, it is a matter of trusting the very earliest witnesses of the historical Jesus, some of those who knew him best.”
James R. Edwards, a biblical languages professor at Whitworth College in Spokane, WA, agrees, writing in Is Jesus the Only Savior that “we do not find an evolutionary trend to elevate Jesus in the creedal tradition of Christianity” (p. 69) In fact, he writes on pages 55-56,
“The idea that the early church fabricated a portrait of Jesus that eventually resulted in the Nicene formulation of ‘true God of true God’ from a historical Jesus who was simply a first-century Jew about whom little was known, and who was either uncertain or confused about his identity, is a highly improbable—and unadvised—leap of faith. It is not surprising that an imposing line of biblical scholars has opposed it for nearly two centuries.”
It would be refreshing for critics of the Trinity to refrain from attacking the Council of Nicea to disprove the Trinity. If you don’t agree with the Trinity, use scripture for your source. This is a much better place to begin.
I just wrote a lengthy paper on this for Seminary with an emphasis on why Mormons and Jehovah’s Wintesses deny the Council without any demonstrated proof, validation or sources. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses must deny the Council of Nicaea in the interest of attempting to validate their own doctrines. If they accept that the council was a legitimate council with a purpose to use scripture in defense against a heresy that Arius was introducing, to them would be self defeating. This has prompted them to latch on to every conspiracy, falsehood and misinterpretation of the Council of Nicaea and Constantine’s involvement. It is even more interesting when I read statements by LDS leaders that make outlandish claims against the council without sources. I find it ironic how the heresy that Arius attempted to introduce, is one of same heretical doctrines that Mormons attempt to perpetuate in their doctrine to this day.
Additionally, they cannot use scripture as you know Eric since scripture validates the Trinity repeatedly. Even their own writings work against them. I was talking with a Mormon on the street recently and we were going through this exact issue and I opened up the Book of Mormon that I carry to Alma 11:44 (you can also look at Ehter 3:14). His response was “That is a tough verse, even Mormon Scholars do not know what to think of it.” I really think they just do not want to accept that Jesus Christ is Lord!
I did a topic on the trinity that is in depth with Scripture to support it, but way to much scripture to post here, for all who want to view it you can go here: http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/01/trinity-in-bible.html
Rick b
This is a subject that I am currently struggling with. I have recently resigned from the Mormon church and have gone back to my Protestant roots, but the issue of the nature of God remains a question for me. Here’s why:
“In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” John 8:17,18 NIV
If we read this same verse, but substitute the pronouns to support the doctrine of the Trinity, it would say: “In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is myself [as the Father], who sent me.
That’s still only one witness, not two. A singular being in two or three forms is still one being, one witness. If God is truly one being, then He can never be more than one witness. And we learn from scriptures that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are counted as separate witnesses (like in verse above). But under the Trinity how can that be possible?
Try this test. If you really believe in the Trinity (and I want to!!) substitute “I” or “me” for each person of the Trinity in a verse and see if it makes sense. John 11:41 actual verse: ” . . . Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.” Same verse with substitution: ” . . . Me, I thank me that I have heard me. I knew that I always hear me, but I said it for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that I sent me.”
That’s why I have trouble with the Trinity. If we substitute the pronouns to support the Trinitarian philosophy of God just being one entity, then the verses make no sense. The scriptures would teach that God talks to himself, prays to himself, glorifies himself, even sacrifices himself.
Please help me understand.
Kelly,
I liked your last line “….even sacrifices Himself.” (which of course He did) I was reading through Ephesians one time and decided to highlight in blue the pronouns that referred to the Father and in Red the pronouns that referred to the Son. It was a very interesting exercise. It had me scratching my head in a few places, but it helped point out to me the unique work of each. How about when Jesus was baptised and we see Him in the water, the Spirit descending in the form of a dove and the Father proclaiming “This is My beloved Son.” Do I get it? No! But I won’t diminish Jesus by saying He is a created being and not fully God.
Kelly,
This isn’t the Trinity, this is modalism (something that the BofM and JST ironically seem to teach). The Trinity rejects the notion that God is one person who manifests himself in three forms, and instead embraces the full reality that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three interrelating persons who have always been in full, interpersonal fellowship. The Son doesn’t pray to himself, he prays to the Father. The Father doesn’t send himself or sacrifice himself, rather he sends the Son to be “crushed” (Isaiah 53:5,10).
I think perhaps one problem is that you’re confused over the distinction between “being” and “person”. The doctrine of the Trinity rejects the assumption that a being is always only one person, and that a person is always a being unto himself alone. The three persons inseparably exist together as one God, one being. The personal pronouns you are looking at refer to one person, not all three persons of the one being of God.
In John 1:1, the writer speaks of the “Word” (Jesus Christ) as, in the beginning, “with God” and “was God”. A big question about Jesus is: how can he be God and be with God at the same time? The early Christians were driven inevitably to the Trinity because they recognized there was only one God, and that the Father was God and the Son was God and the Spirit was God, and that the Father was not the Son and the Son was not the Spirit and the Spirit was not the Father, etc.
We ought to worship the Father and Jesus like the angels do in Revelation 4 and 5, but this is polytheism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are three gods and three beings.
I heartily recommend the audio available over at the Theopedia article on the Trinity!
Best wishes,
Aaron
I believe Aaron explained it well. As I study Greek you see a reinforced understanding of the Trinity in Scripture. Especially in passages like John 1:1. The Greek in the uses of the cases, the lack of a definite article and the emphasis state very explicitly that God was with the Word and God was the Word. In fact the way it is written in the Greek there is no question about what the author was trying to say. John 1:1c says in the Greek “and God was the Word” The word order alnoe tells us that Jesus has all the attributes of the father, and the lack of the article shows that even still he is not the father. Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism (Mounce, pg 28 Basics of Biblical Greek).
Thank you Aaron and Falcon, I appreciate you both addressing my question. I realize that I have a lot to learn (or maybe re-learn), but I guess something in me wishes that God was a little easier to understand.
If we are created by Him, and He is in us, it seems that His nature should be familiar to us, and that we should be able to describe His nature in a few words. I think that’s why the Mormon Godhead of three separate beings appealed to me. Their version of the Godhead could be fully described in one sentence. That being their only advantage, I do see the problems (like polytheism)in the Mormon Godhead as well.
I will print out your answers and read them more closely. I also have a book by R.C. Sproul called “Truths We Confess.” It is a three part series and volume one is called “The Triune God.” I believe this is a Presbyterian look at the nature of God, and since I am attending a Presbyterian church at the moment, I thought it made sense to look into their take on the subject. I’ll also look at your recommendations.
Thanks again!
Kelly
Andy,
Thanks to you as well. I enjoy reading Martin Luther, so he is another good source to look into. My dearest friend is a very well versed Lutheran, and she, along with forums like this, has helped make my transition out of Mormonism a lot less bumpy.
Andy and Kelley,
This is a little off topic, but our discussion here makes me wonder about the grip Mormonism has on people. You folks are working your way out, but I’m wondering about the spiritual, emotional, social and intellectual aspects of the trap. I see your search for truth in our discussion here about the theology and doctrine of the Triune God. Do you have to deal with all four aspects that I mentioned here and is one easier than the other to deal with?
Dear Kelly,
I understand your difficulty with such areas as the Trinity, the finite trying to comprehend the infinite.
2 Peter 3:15-16 says -as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Whenever I have talked with MMs they always point me to Genesis 1:26,27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
You know the LDS reasoning using the word ‘image’ so I won’t explain it. But the last part it says that God created male and female in His image (Hebrew: likeness, similitude). God is not male and female.
To make this quick, and unfortunately when something is said quick it can lead to unsatisfactory answers. This subject is a lot more complex than just 2000 words, but in essence man is a representation of God. Man is composed of three: soul, body, and spirit. The Soul is not the spirit, the spirit is not the body, and the body is not the soul but the three make up the human being. God is three in one: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father, but yet the three make up one God. God however, is Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, and Infinite. Whereas man is NOT any of those.
Whenever you get into the doctrine of the Trinity you inevitably enter into Philosophy: Metaphysics and Ontology. There is a book that I’m reading called “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” by Dr J.P. Moreland and Dr William Lane Craig. It’s very heavy and thick but they have chapters on the Trinity and the Incarnation which I recommend.
P.S. Dr William Lane Craig has a website that might interest you (www.reasonablefaith.org) he also has two podcasts. If you’ve heard about the popular book called “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, Lee interviews Dr W.L. Craig in one of the chapters. My wife recommends a smaller book “Hard Questions, Real Answers…” by the same author. This book deals with topics such as doubt, unanswered prayer, failure, suffering and evil, abortion, Homosexuality, and Christ – the only way.
Falcon,
Mormonism has a tremendous grip on the strong believer. Sometimes I still catch myself in the Mormon mindset and have to stop and adjust my thinking (especially when it comes to the many Mormon laws).
I have one objective in the questions I’ve asked, and that is to understand who it is I am worshipping. What would be God’s objective in making His nature so hard for us to understand? Does He want us to invest ourselves in pursuit of that knowledge?
M2,
Your example of man being soul, body, spirit was very helpful, and I like the scripture in 2Peter you cited. I used a similar scripture in my resignation letter, Gal 1:6-8 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
If I can get this matter settled in my own life, it will go a long way toward helping my Mormon husband to leave the LDS church. Right now the idea of the Trinity is absurd to him (but polytheism is not, I guess). If I can come to peace with it, I can help him to do the same.
Dear Kelly,
Here are some scriptures for you:
1 Timothy 4:15-16 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Unlike traditional Mormonism, Christianity teaches that our purpose in life is to know God.
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, [I never knew you]: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (brackets added for emphasis)
How do we know God?
Here are some thoughts:
We have to love Him in return: Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
If you love God you will apply your heart (emotions), your soul (essence), and your mind (thoughts, understanding, learning, etc)
As you spend time with God in learning, praying, meditating upon His Word, renewing your mind (Rom 12:2) etc. you are loving Him…Our relationship to God is like when two people are dating, they send letters to each other, talk to each other, hang out together, and think about each other all the time. This is what it’s like to be enamored with God. And out of this process we become like Him. Just as two best friends resemble each other out of all of the time that they have spent with each other, this is what our relationship to God looks like.
What would be God’s objective in making His nature so hard for us to understand? Does He want us to invest ourselves in pursuit of that knowledge?
The second part should be answered above. The answer to the first one is in short. God didn’t make himself hard to understand to us (He isn’t hiding anything nor did He make Himself). The reason that we have a hard time understanding him comes from sin (corrupt minds). Us trying to understand (perfectly) the mind and essence of God is like an astrologer standing on a chair trying to touch a star. This does not mean that we can’t have some understanding, because God has revealed to us who He is. Plus, we would have to be God in order to fully understand Him. Just as why most men don’t understand women and why women don’t fully understand men. Even though we are both humans we are nothing alike. Just as we were made in the similitude of God that doesn’t mean that we can fully understand Him. God commanded us to get to know Him as He told Husbands to understand their wives (1 Peter 3:7). The more I learn about my wife the more I appreciate her, even though I know that I will never completely understand her. The same is with God, the more I learn about Him and get to know Him the more I appreciate Him, even though I will never completely understand Him.
M2,
Thanks for the scriptures and the counsel. The 15 years I spent as a Mormon have robbed me of many things. A healthy, proper relationship with God is just one of them.
Many get upset that the Trinity is so hard to understand. But even Philosophers have yet to understand such things as the Relationship of the Mind and Body.
i don’t have a problem, theologically that people believe in the trinity, it is better than not believing in God at all.
but…they’ll need to clarify this scripture for me
Acts 7:
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
so Stephen feels the Holy Spirit, Sees God the Father, and Jesus standing on His right side…then he is stoned for this belief
Dear Amanda,
I will try to answer your question. These verses alone would seem to be a problem. But I want to first state that as “Evangelicals” we believe that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and is omnipresent (Deut 4:39; 1 Kings 8:7; 2 Chronicles 2:5-6). God would have to be omnipresent if He’s omniscient. You can’t know all unless you see all. You cannot see all unless you are everywhere present. So thus the reference from Acts 7 becomes a reference to Jesus’ place of authority and honor. “Right hand” (even for us today) is a symbol of power (take a look at Matt 26:24). Because if God is everywhere (Psalms 139:7-8) then Jesus’ relation here in Acts is not spacial but is positional.
I hope this answer helps. I just want to say one last thing, I know you have gotten upset with some of the people on this blog Amanda. I want to apologize for us men. Sometimes we get way to excited about the topic and we forget that we’re talking to actual people who have feelings.
sure, in terms of the scripture, that interpretation is at least logical.
let me explain some key similarities that actually separate us.
i believe that god the father, his son Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit are “one”. one is interpreted to mean one in purpose. We pray in Jesus’ name TO the Father. he is our intercessor, he pleads for us to the Father, and is the supreme judge in Israel because he atoned for our sins, making himself our father. in a way, they are one, because His purpose is God’s purpose. Their messages are one eternal round. so it can be interpreted both ways. i happen to feel more intimate with the doctrine that Jesus was our heavenly brother who descended to save us all, and he did it because he desired his Fathers will to be done. it makes the garden of Gethsemane a very real plead to His actual Father, putting trust in Him, and desiring to do as His father would have him do. it is a stunning parallel with the desires the savior would have from us.
i love the scriptures, there is so much symbolism that so lovingly points us back to the Father, and teaches us the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
Falcon said:
This is a little off topic, but our discussion here makes me wonder about the grip Mormonism has on people.
Imagine! A religious paradigm, witnessed by the Holy Spirit and used as a guide to interpret and understand God’s word and the world we live in, actually having a grip on people!? What are you saying? Are you saying that creedal Christianity has no such “grip” and that the entire exercise of this site is truly a “search” for more truth? Of course not! This is an exercise in persuading others that they are WRONG in their beliefs, and no amount of talk, interpretation, explanation, dialogue or scriptural explanation seems to ever allow one side to say to the other “AHA! I see your point — I disagree — but I see how you got there”. Maybe Falcon, you should examine the strength of your own paradigm, your motivation for commenting here and your own desire to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong — then you will understand the “grip” Mormonism has on people. You won’t have to agree with it, but you can understand it.
I am also increasingly frustrated with the trap that is set in so many times in this forum — which can be detected in this very posting, and which has limited the time I now spend here. Often questions are asked of Mormons and answers are demanded. If a lengthy answer is given in order to try to give background, texture, context and understanding, we are accused of parsing words, of nuancing and of being less than forthright in the answer and a demand is made for a simple, definitive statement. If, on the other hand, a simple, straightforward declaration is made (at the expense of a fuller, more complete answer), we are accused of “not telling the whole story”. Well, this is your site and you can do what you please, I just hope that those who are reading as true questioners will understand that your intention is not a dialogue or a search for true understanding.
Pingback: Late summer angles on evangelical/mormon interaction « Heart Issues for LDS
Dear Amanda,
I understand that there are essential and peripheral differences between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity. This is the reason that there is such a large dichotomy between the two and the reason that Mormonism is excluded from being considered a denomination of Christendom. When the world looks on at Christendom and at Mormonism they see purely the moral aspects and the similarity in terminology and not the doctrine. Many say, “look at their fruit!” and this is interpreted as meaning ‘good works’. But if being called Christian is merely based upon our works then we would also have to call the Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian, Christian Scientists Christian, RLDS Christian, and FLDS Christian. Obviously there is something that separates us and does not allow it to be reconciled. This is doctrine…which is the most important. In one of you’re other posts you said,
“…then whose word is it? satans? well, i find it hard to believe that satan would author a book that would lead millions to the savior.” I would like to address this here because I find it more applicable. My question is, what savior do you have? In 2 Cor 11:3-4 it says that there are other Jesus-es, other gospels, and other spirits. You have different doctrine, so this means that you have a different gospel, different spirit, and a different Jesus.
M2,
The fact that we understand Jesus differently than creedal Christianity doesn’t make you right or us wrong. It makes us different. I am a Christian because I am accepted by Christ. Your opinion of me is irrelevant.
Dear Neal,
I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to say. First off, I don’t recall ever giving an opinion about you (personally).
You said,
“The fact that we understand Jesus differently than creedal Christianity doesn’t make you right or us wrong. It makes us different.”
Yes, I firmly agree that we differ on the personage of Jesus the Christ. For example
LDS: Jesus is the brother of Lucifer
E.C.: Jesus created Lucifer
LDS: Jesus is a god amongst many gods
E.C.: Jesus is GOD
LDS: Jesus was born by a literal conception of Elohim and Mary
E.C.: Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit through the virgin Mary
LDS: Jesus was married to at least three wives while on earth
E.C.: Jesus never married
Those are just four points of major difference. So either you’re right and I’m wrong or I’m right and you’re wrong. Just as Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet of Al’ah and was never crucified, Christian Scientists claim that Jesus is a divine idea, New Age teaches that Jesus Christ is a position of enlightenment. These cannot all be the same Jesus, these are all different Jesus-es. The LDS church and Evangelical Christianity do not have the same Jesus.
Dear Neal,
You said,
I am a Christian because I am accepted by Christ.
Again I ask, “Which Christ?” (reference 2 Cor 11:3-4). Our foundation is the person of Christ (1 Cor 3:11). And obviously what we believe about Christ is important(John 8:24) to the point of being forgiven our sins. So, here’s a personal question to ask yourself, which Christ do you have, the right one or the wrong one and why or why not?
Let me be more clear — I wasn’t speaking of me personally but me collectively as a member of the LDS church. Whether you or any of those you deem Christians deem me or my fellow members of the LDS church as Christians is irrelevant. I have accepted Christ and have had a witness of the Holy Spirit that He has accepted me. I seek His forgiveness and His guidance. I worship God, do my best to serve His children, and try to be more like Him every day in my thoughts and my actions. I’m uncertain why you felt it necessary to outline doctrinal differences to prove the point I have already given you — there are doctrinal differences in our understanding.
Dear Neal,
You said,
“Your opinion of [me] is irrelevant.” (bracket added for emphasis)
So I naturally assumed that you were speaking personally.
You said,
“I have accepted Christ and have had a witness of the Holy Spirit that He has accepted me… I worship God…I’m uncertain why you felt it necessary to outline doctrinal differences to prove the point I have already given you — there are doctrinal differences in our understanding.
Again I ask, “Which Christ, which Spirit, which God?” I did not put those doctrinal differences there to prove your point. My point was and is that we have such vastly different beliefs in “Jesus Christ” that they have to be different Jesus-es, to the point that somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong (law of non-contradiction and law of identity). Just because we (individually or corporately) claim to believe in Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, and the Gospel doesn’t make us Christian. What makes a person a Christian (and/or saved) is ‘what do they believe about these three?’
To put it another way, a lot of countries that are neither democratic nor republican in political structure call themselves “democratic republics.” The sincerity with which they use the term should not be confused with the fact of what they are.
By the same token, I think Mormons err (though sincerely) by confusing “christian” (an adjective), with “Christian” (a noun), meaning those who adhere to Nicene Christianity (i.e., the vast majority). Mormons would be better described as “Anti-Nicene Christians.”
On this subject specifically, I think it would prove very useful if Mormons frankly and proudly declared themselves Arians, which is precisely what Mormon doctrines dictates. It would avoid a lot of pointless debate.
Neal,
First of all I stick to the Apostle Paul’s admonition to Timiothy to defend the faith. When Paul confronted error he did so straight-on (see his reaction to Peter’s refusal to mingle with the gentile belivers). Secondly, I’ve been reading way too much from exMormons regarding the difficulty they have just simply getting their names off the rolls of the Mormon Church not to think that there is incredible pressure on members not to leave the program.
Or ante-Nicene, if you please.
“The fact that we understand Jesus differently than creedal Christianity doesn’t make you right or us wrong. It makes us different.” I’m sorry, but this is absurd on its face.
The Mormon Church is built upon a foundation of non-negotiable assertions: all other Christian sects are wrong and lost any claim to valid priesthood authority millennia ago. The Mormon convert must reject his previous religious convictions and his previous congregation and his previous sacraments (including baptism and marriage). No dual citizenship is allowed.
And all the more power to such beliefs. It’s a free country. But Mormonism is NOT ecumenical. It does not teach a get-along, go-along, heart-in-the-right-place theology. My, how I miss the old days when Mormons proudly proclaimed themselves a “peculiar people.” When they made bold claims and stuck to them.
I admit there is much I do not know about the history of Christianity, but I still think that a meeting of 300 men to discuss/formalise what they want the rest of society to believe about God’s character is still people deciding their beliefs. I can understand from the various scriptures presented when someone discusses this with me why people can decide to believe in the Trinity, but from my own beliefs I do believe that their interpretation of those scriptures is wrong.
For instance – the scripture given above, John 1:1 – describes at best a Duality, not Trinity. It in no way shape or form includes the Holy Ghost. Then according to a website I have found (it is a Muslim one) the verse can be translated two different ways, and has been in other versions of the Bible (New World Translation, The New Testament and American Translation, The Holy Bible by Dr James Moffatt, gives a few other references). It says that besides reading that “the Word was God” it can also be translated as “the Word was divine”. Now if this scripture helps define a fundamental Christian doctrine, shouldn’t it be translated the same through the Christian society?
The site goes on to show that there are no scriptures in the Bible that describe a Trinity, whether explicit or implicit. Yes, it states ‘one God’ but at best, most of the scriptures used can only define a Duality – that of God the Father and Jesus Christ.
For those who want a look the website is http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html.
M2, now you are arguing semantics.
the book of mormon that i read testifies of Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was crucified on the cross for the sins of the world. that pretty much narrows it down…so we believe in the same Christ- and the only reason people say otherwise is because it then gives credibility to the message of the book of mormon, and if that happens, then maybe the mormon church is the restored gospel on this earth. but i don’t expect anyone will come to that conclusion on this website…surprise surprise!
so we agree to disagree because it’s not going anywhere. we’ll find out and that great and last day…and i’m comfortable with that scenario.
I tend to look at things as we (LDS) believe in a different God than main-line Christianity because we interpret the Bible differently. However, we do believe in the God of the Bible according to our interpretation. As for Jesus – we believe in the same Jesus as a person/being and as our Saviour – we just do not believe in Him as part of a Trinity. So its the same Jesus but a “different” God.
But that’s the same with all Christianity. There are at least 4 differring versions of God and Christ in the NT believing community. Only ONE of them is correct but all come from the Bible. The 4 I am aware of are the Trinity, Modalistic Trinity, LDS Godhead and the JW version. So you need to determine which one you want to believe in and then ‘defend’ that position and try to convert others in order to save them – which is what we are doing here.
Lancaster,
Not so fast! I didn’t say that it was time to be ecumenical or set aside our serious doctrinal disputes. I am making one single point. My disagreement with your creed does not make me a non-Christian. I don’t accept your creed, but I accept Christ, as I understand Him, His mission and His atonement. THAT makes me a Christian. You have no right to define me otherwise. The LDS claims of modern revelation, restored authority, new scripture and doctrinal clarity are powerful, revolutionary and wonderful. I am not backing away from them. I am disputing your right to call into question my Christianity because we disagree.
And Falcon — c’mon man — you telling me there is no pressure on an evangelical who determines that they want to join the Mormon Church? Do you throw a party for them and wish them well? The very presence of this site argues otherwise. All of us who believe strongly fight hard to hold onto those we feel are making wrong choices. You do and I do. Don’t be disingenuous and say Mormons are the only ones.
Neal,
Personally, I don’t think it’s all that difficult for someone to leave an Ev. Church and get their names removed from the rolls. In Mormonland, someone who leaves pays a big price in both subtle and direct means. This is especially true if Mormonism is the prevailing religion of a geographical area. This opinion comes from anecdotal reports which are numerous.
I find the idea that the true Gospel was lost after the death of the original apostles quite convenient. As in the “every church is wrong, I am right, follow me” scenario. And then of course the prophet must come up with doctrinal ideas that are totally out of phase with normitive Christianity in an attempt to prove that standard Christianity is damaged goods. I really don’t think that the original apostles believed that there is a mother god and father god who procreate spirit children who will become human and some day if they get themselves righteous enough achieve the highest heaven and be gods themselves. It is however, just fantastic enough to lure people in. I think this belief system would qualify as another Gospel…..which isn’t really a Gospel at all. But I do know that it wasn’t the original Gospel. I can testify to that.
Falcon,
Interesting and valid OPINIONS all. You have the right to them. We are different. I’m not arguing that we’re not different. I’m pointing out that our differences don’t make me non-Christian. They make me non-You. That’s all.
Also, I don’t disagree that there are stories of people who have a difficult time leaving the LDS Church, particularly, as you say, in areas where there is a large concentration of LDS people. For every anecdote you can give me, I can find three other equally wrenching tales of people from all religions who decide to be baptized in the LDS Church. People are disowned, bullied, lied to, threatened, cajoled, ignored — all manner of unChristlike behavior — because of their decision. I’m not pretending it doesn’t happen in the LDS Church. I’m asking you to stop pretending it doesn’t happen in others.
Here is a really good help for anyone interested in looking at the BIBLE alone to see if the doctrine of the Trinity is true. There is no question in the Bible that the Trinity is validated. It is not creedal or made up by man (only the word) the concept is what is written about throughout the Bible.
http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/pdf/DeityofChrist.pdf
Ralph, Neal, and other Mormons-
Before Mormons completely dismiss what occurred at Nicea, (like I used to do as a Mormon), they should look for a precedent in the Bible. That precedent is the Council at Jerusalem. The early church leaders, even your “prophet” Peter (though Peter is never called a prophet or even eluded to in that way in the NT) was there.
Acts 15 tells all about the Council at Jerusalem. That council was, perhaps, what the Nicean council was modeled after. And why not, the early church leaders needed a model, a forum, for discussing doctrine, and the Lord had provided one for them right there in Acts (the NT was pretty much compiled by 150AD, and there could have been oral traditions as well).
At the Jerusalem Council they were debating major doctrine about Gentiles coming into the Gospel, so it was no small matter (especially for the men). The council seemed to be productive, and the process was not rejected by God.
So what is the big hang up about, as Ralph put it, “a meeting of 300 men to discuss/formalise what they want the rest of society to believe . . .”?
I guess the meeting of 15 men in a little room in a temple to determine doctrine (and yes, they do debate, sometimes heatedly) is perfectly normal, but 300 men, that’s absurd! Apparently God doesn’t agree with you.
The Council at Jerusalem didn’t determine doctrine in the sense of creating doctrine, rather it confirmed what God had already revealed as doctrine through his word and through his work of the Holy Spirit.
The same goes for the Council of Nicaea. God had already revealed in his word that Jesus is eternal and not created (contra the word-twisting Arians).
I agree with you Aaron, and that is what I stated above. It was only at the end of my comment that I pointed out the hypocrisy of the LDS using the same format as the Jerusalem and Nicean Councils themselves when “the brethren” meet in the temple to determine doctrine.
It is the LDS that have to create the doctrine from nothing. They certainly can’t be *clarifying* questions about Masonic temple rites, or the logistics of eternal polygamy based on the Scriptures (well, unless you count the Journal of Discourses as scripture, but then that would open up another can of worms, wouldn’t it).
I don’t have a big problem with orthodox Mormon doctrine. I probably remain more theologically aligned with the Mormonism of my youth than I do with the full sweep of Evangelical beliefs. But what I find endlessly frustrating is the Mormon refusal to recognize their own strident lack of reciprocity vis-à-vis other religions, and their refusal to realize that debates are not won simply by robbing words of their meanings.
Mormons get upset when others don’t accede to their self-identification as “Christian,” yet turn around and declare that no Christian can be saved except according to Mormon ordinances. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Evangelicals don’t insist that salvation is conditional upon the specific congregation one belongs to. Mormons do.
To extend my previous analogy, a federal republic like the U.S. doesn’t insist that all democracies be federal republics to be legitimate. In fact, most democracies have parliamentary-style governments. But when it comes to salvation, it’s Mormonism or nothing. It’s Mormon baptism or nothing. It’s the Mormon Church or nothing. If the choices are that stark, then the underlying beliefs must be incompatible.
The Mormon definition of “Christian” cannot be the same as the rest, else those distinctions would be meaningless. That’s why I say that Mormons shouldn’t shrink from defining their concept of the Trinity as Arian, because that’s what it is. That’s why I’m not being all that facetious when I suggest that Mormons call themselves “ante-Nicene Christians.” Because that’s what they are.
As Lincoln purportedly queried, “Can you say a dog has five legs if you call the tail a leg? No. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.”
Neal,
I have a question for you, can I call myself a Mormon and not believe in the BOM, POGP, and the D&C? Can I call myself a Mormon if I do not believe in Joseph Smith or Gordon B. Hinkley? Can I call myself a Mormon and not be baptized in the Temple?
Dear Amanda,
I’m not quite sure why you said that I’m just arguing semantics.
You said,
the BOM that i read testifies of Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was crucified on the cross for the sins of the world…so we believe in the same Christ-…
For starters, the LDS church teaches that Christ paid for our sins also in Gethsemane. Also when I talk about a different Christ I am including all of Mormon Theology, not just the BOM. For example, the Bible and the BOM say that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Alma 7:10) and that Mary was still a virgin at the birth of Jesus (hence the term Virgin Birth). I would agree with the BOM on this point, but where I would disagree is in the same verse of Alma it says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. But this brings up a quick question, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, why is Jesus called the Son of God? I think Brigham Young realized this problem, that’s why he said in JOD V.1, p51, Apr 9, 1852:
“…Jesus our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.”
The LDS church teaches that Elohim had sexual relations with Marry… his spirit daughter. There are many reasons that Orthodox Christianity rejects Mormonism and its prophets. Just because the LDS church uses the name of Jesus Christ doesn’t make it true (Matt 24:4-5,11,24-25). The MMs encourage us to pray about the BOM and we will receive a feeling in our heart. But the Bible speaks out about trusting in our hearts and feelings: Jer 17:9; Prov 28:26; Mark 7:20-23.
If one wants to try to understand both the Trinity and Hypostatic Union in Christ, I would suggest obtaining a copy of “Theology and Sanity” by Frank J Sheed. Frank’s a Papist (as also I) but Catholic or Protestant his explanation of these doctrines are the best their are out there for those of us who are not degreed theologins.
By the way, as I recall Nicea (and Constaniople that followed) were councils of the (dare I say it) Catholic Church and the defenders of Orthodoxy against Arianism (and Neatorianism and Macronism and Gnostiocism etc., etc.) were Catholic Bishops. Something to think about.
Somebody(s) help me out here!
I’ve really been enjoying this discussion regarding the doctrine of the Trinity and the opposing views of Mormonism and normative Christianity. So here is my question: Do Mormons believe what they believe based on evidence or based on revelation? I’m assuming that the feeling Mormons get after praying for confirmation from God is part of the revelation process. For example, Joseph Smith was a prophet and the BOM was true, despite the DNA evidence, the archeological evidence, the linguistic evidence and documented nefarious activities on the part of the prophet. I prayed about it, I got the confirmed feeling, I interpreted that feeling at from the Holy Spirit, so JS is God’s prophet and the BOM is true.
So here’s the deal, if I can relate an actual event from my life to our readers here, that was intensely spiritual, emotional and had elements of the miraculous attached to it, does that make my doctrine correct. I do, by the way, have such an experience.
Kevin, be careful not to impose your 21st century definition of “Catholic” onto the 4th century. A lot has changed.
i have a question for all the REAL Christians…
do you believe, in light of the trinity doctrine, that the savior was having a conversation with himself in the garden of Gethsemane? that isn’t logical because he is conversing about the will of two different entities…or do you believe that he desired mortally to let the cup pass from Him but would submit to His spiritual will?
also, what is the nature of our souls after the resurrection? what will we be doing, our purpose after this life…will someone explain evangelical doctrine on this point…thank you in advance.
M2 (please forgive me if i do not address all of your points- i am feeling sick)
feelings in our hearts etc is just a generic way of saying “feeling the spirit” many people feel it differently, i have felt it differently..i have felt it calm my soul, i have felt it teach me in secular subjects such as science, and ethics….i have also felt it very strongly confirming to my MIND and HEART what is truth.
i believe in the jesus of the bible…and the jesus of the book of mormon..and up until now i understood them to be the same jesus…but now i am to understand that i believe in two different jesus’? are they related maybe? brothers? twins?
i don’t recall the savior saying that if i believe in Him and his distant relative who also died on the cross for our sins- then it doesn’t matter that i believe in the real jesus, because i also believe in another Jesus who is remarkably similar to Him. i’m sorry you guys, but that’s just weird. you can’t be serious. i think you should finally admit that we believe in Jesus..but if not, you risk sounding silly.
in all seriousness though, i find it preposterous that any of you claim to know what Jesus i believe in–maybe if you try reading your argument out loud to yourself you might realize how ridiculous it is…that’s what i do when i write an essay, i quickly find mistakes with my reasoning if i read it out loud. RICK B (there’s MY challenge
Lancaster,
you said,
“Evangelicals don’t insist that salvation is conditional upon the specific congregation one belongs to. Mormons do.”
you just can’t be mormon though then you for sure are going to hell…and mormons do not believe you must attend a mormon congregation in order to receive celestial glory..why do you think we do baptisms for the dead? when you see it through “mormon” eyes, as you claim to understand, when you really believe that Jesus Christ restored his church, you don’t thinking about his gospel as mormon doctrine (after all that name was not a name He gave the church, it was a name others gave it)..therefore it becomes inclusive because everyone at some point before the final resurrection will have the opportunity to accept Christs ACTUAL and real saving doctrine..whether you were mormon or evangelical.it’s not a contest -it’s a challenge to the individual and the condition of their heart and faith–no matter WHO they were in this life. and only God knows that.
that’s the thing that infuriates non-christians, and atheists about evangelicals – they’re always taking over God’s job like he’s on vacation or something..and all of you are trying to make up for His absence. aren’t you all comfortable in leaving your judgments behind and having confidence in God figuring out all this judgment stuff? and please spare me the judge righteous judgment scriptures, i’m aware of them and don’t find them applicable in this scenario..because he also says, judge NOT…so you can’t apply both interchangeably depending on the convenience it offers to your argument. judge righteous means that if you don’t believe in mormon doctrine, then you don’t join the church, but it doesn’t therefore give you free reign to judge an individuals worthiness or belief in Christ.
Amanda,
Be careful with that Jesus has a twin stuff. That could end up being Mormon doctrine. Seems to fit with all the other stuff.
Falcon,
i am not sure if you found your comment to be compelling? you might need to spell it out for me i guess.
i was pointing out the completely silly argument that mormons believe in the WRONG jesus. well, i guess i believe in two jesus’ because i also believe in the Jesus of the bible as well. my twin comment was only to illustrate further how ridiculously illogical this idea is.