SolaFide001

But we mean very different things when we talk of "three persons". That's the issue.

With all due respect sir, that is not the bottom line. We were reasoning from the Bible together. Why do you now turn to "modern prophets and modern revelation"? Has God not been clear?

But John 1:3 says, "without him was not any thing made that was made." It does not make any distinction between physical and spirit. All things were made by Jesus. You have to read that into the text because it is not there. And when Jesus said that the Father is greater then He it was in a completely different context.

Right. In Holiness and unity, which fits with Jesus praying that believers be united and be sanctified. I gave a lengthy response.

Yes sir, with all due respect, you do misunderstand it. Trinitarians are ABSOLUTE MONOTHEISTS. That is the core, bedrock principle of Trinitarianism. No matter what else the Bible says, it is clear that there is ONLY ONE GOD. Anything that contradicts that is wrong. Mormons are polytheists, that's why it doesn't fit. Your description of "fitting 3 into 1" shows you simply don't understand, or that you refuse to understand. They are two different categories. I would love for you to quote for me a handful of well-respected philosophers who say this, let alone "most philosophers". Please go right ahead and do so. Do you realize that you are refuting yourself here? When I told you that you didn't understand the Trinity you disagreed. You didn't think of yourself as unqualified to comment on Trinitarianism, despite not being a Trinitarian. You did not humbly accept it from me. You continue to argue with me. So why do you say that I should take this approach with the LDS faith when you won't apply your own standard to my faith? By your definition you are not qualified to speak on either Trinitarianism or LDS faith. You are saying one thing and doing another. In practice, you seem to be working form the standpoint that I would take: Anyone, through much study, can learn about another's belief system. So, I simply ask you for consistency. No, sir, you don't understand it. And I am not saying that simply because you are not a Trinitarian. I am saying that because you have continually used terms in reference to it (even in this post, calling the three person three entities) that are blatantly false. Such a consistent misrepresentation can only come from one who doesn't or one who is a liar. I honestly do not think you are lying, so I conclude that you just don't get it. Do you fully understand the nature of God? Do you understand how He created the cosmos? Do you understand how He can know all things? I'm guessing the answer to all three of these is a resounding 'No'. Does our human inability to understand take away from them these things in any way? Of course not. Does it make them less true? Of course not. The average Christian probably doesn't understand the Trinity all that well. (No one understands it even close to fully because we could never hope to understand the totality of God.) They probably have some misconception, the most common that Ive seen being Modalism. But, here's the key: True Christians, upon being corrected from the Scripture. will eventually change their beliefs to match the core issues of Scripture. Most people have never really thought about it and that's the problem. Once again, sir, you show a misunderstanding of the Trinity. This is Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Modalists show no distinction between the persons which leads to one persons talking to Himself. No, but continually describing it in a way that is incorrect does. Not to get sidetracked, but how did the angels contribute to the image of God in man? God says, "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness" (Genesis 1:26). So what roll do angels play? Are they in the same image as God? So you are saying that you are even remotely close to understanding the way that God made the world? You are remotely close to understanding God's mind? Really? Anyone who would dare claim that is on the verge of blasphemy. For you to argue, "That's too complex, so it can't be true" is simply faulty. No, we don't have any concept of God in our mind. But do you have a real concept of perfect holiness? Perfect love? No. I, as a Christian have the best possible example in the cross of Christ, but that doesn't mean that I can wrap my brain around how God can hate evil that much that much that He would pour out His wrath on His Son. Nor does that mean that I can ever fully grasp how God would love us humans so much that He would sacrifice His Son on my behalf. I can't possibly understand the mind and will of God. It's simply too magnificent. The Trinity is the same way. I understand it, but only to a certain degree. No where near to the point where I could claim mastery. Not even close because God is infinite. I disagree with you when you say that Trinitarians will slip into practical belief of some other God. That's simply untrue. I think throughout my day like a Trinitarian. I know that the Father is in heaven, directing my steps and listening to my prayers. I know that the Son is "seated at His right hand", having presented the offering of His perfect sacrifice and thereby cleansing me of my sin. I know that the Spirit is working in me daily to conform me to the image of Christ. And I know of the oneness of being and unity that exists between the three as they perfectly act together. So there is no practical breakdown. The image of God relates to certain aspects: the ability to think, feel, reason, choose, etc. But this is in no way a comprehensive list of all of who God is. The Trinity is Greek philosophy? Really? Because the number one person I look to for information on the topic is the Semite Jesus Himself as He claims the name of the God (John 8:28, 8:58), is called God (John 20:28), claims the divine authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), claims authority of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), claims authority over the temple (Matthew 21), claims to be the judge of the wicked (Matthew 7:21-23), claims authority over angels (Matthew 13:41), has power over life and resurrection (John 11). Then I look to the Semites Peter, John, Paul, etc. as they say describe Jesus as receiving worship (Revelation 5:12-14), being the object of faith (Romans 10:9-13), the recipient of prayer (Acts 7:59), etc. These are Semites writing things about God, not Greeks philosophers who came hundreds of years later. No serious scholar would say that? Really? So all conservative Christian scholars aren't serious? (I suggest we are all biased, including you and me). This type of argumentation is the type of things that Liberals throw out at Christians and Jews both all the time. "No serious scholar believes this actually happened." I should point out to you that the same scholars who cite the Trinity as being some later addition are the same ones who would say that Moses didn't write the Torah, that the Flood never happened, that Adam and Eve were not historical people, that all Old Testament Prophecy is after the event actually happens. Do you really want to align yourself with those folks? You can if you may but if chose to cite the very same people who would turn around and destroy your system as well then you lose credibility. The fact that the Trinity is complicated doesn't mean that it is not how God really is, either. Monotheism is by definition a belief in one God. Belief in many gods violates that rule. Belief in three divine persons who co-exist as one being is not contradictory to the one God rule of Monotheism. Someone who makes arguments like you just made doesn't understand the issue. This contradicts what you said earlier. You said that if you read the Bible with someone else then the Bible will give the clear message. You know better than that. b'shalom! Considering that I was responding to the very objection you are making, it seems imprudent to cut my response into snippets and not take it in context with the rest of my response. Please do me the courtesy of reading my whole remarks and quoting me in full if you wish to respond to me.

Has God revealed Himself clearly? That's the real question. If He has then we can know the truth from His word. Do some people let other issues get in the way of seeing the truth of Scripture? Yes. Whether it be tradition, stubbornness, etc. there will be people who refuse to submit themselves to God's word. But that's not the point. The point is that God has clearly shown Himself in Scripture. Those who doubt that we can come to a conclusion from Scripture are saying, "God has failed to reveal Himself clearly." You have to define unity. Are there small issues that groups in Christendom disagree over? Certainly. Who should baptize, who should lead the church, etc. But that does not mean we aren't united. ALL CHRISTIANS hold to, and have held to, the core doctrines of faith, including: God is a Trinity. Do Baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans, etc. fight over this issue? No. We are absolutely united. Yes, the Holy Spirit is the measure of truth. He inspired the apostles to recored the truth and he moves in the hearts of believers so that they will see it clearly. To say that God has revealed Himself in Scripture and then say we must pray about what Scripture is saying means that God is very inefficient. Why go to Scripture in the first place? Why not just pray from the beginning? According to you that's what it ultimately comes down to. The problem with any group that reasons as you do is that they use the Bible wherever it agrees with them, but when it disagrees with their theology they say that the Bible just isn't clear. Isn't it interesting that the Bible is clear when its saying what you want it to say but not clear when it's contradicting you? What an amazing phenomenon!

Don't you have to truly know who God is before you can ask Him something? You can't pray to any false god and expect the true God to answer your prayers. You can't pray to Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, etc. (This includes false conceptions of Jesus). You have to know who the true God is to be able to approach Him in prayer. That you know God in truth is assumed.

No, God is not a "title"but rather His nature. You are a human. You have human nature. Human nature is what makes you a human as opposed to a dog, a rock, etc. God has "God nature" or "Divinity". It's what makes Him God. Father is FULLY divine, Son is FULLY divine, ans Spirit is FULLY divine. They are three persons (possess personal attributes) within on God, or one divine being. God is not just a title. Well, if LDS agreed with my interpretation they would cease to be LDS. But, I'm not basing Trinitarian belief on creeds or philosophies. I am basing it on what I see as clearly being presented in Scripture. You must recognize that. Even if you disagree with my conclusions you must understand that I am basing them fully on my understanding of Scripture. There is never point in Scripture where someone gives a definition of a being, saying, "A being is...", nor a person. That's true. But, there's also no place where someone says, "a human is...", is there? The writers wrote with certain assumptions and definitions in mind. There are actually a number of distinctions between being and person. Father and the Son are both called God, they speak to each other and are one is distinguished from the other, and yet the Bible says there is one God. In fairness, the Bible also never says God is "one in purpose". That is a phrase that was given to the text later to try and explain it. Being, person, monotheism, Trinity, etc. all work the same way. If you want to say that it's "one in purpose", then please look at: Isaiah 43:10 - "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" Where do you get "one in purpose" from this text? Seems to me that it clearly teaches that there is only one God in all existence in all space and all time in any universe. No, you are not looking at the whole context of what you are citing. Jesus states quite clearly in John 17:17 that He is speaking of sanctification (Holiness). What you're doing is saying that Jesus must mean every single definition of "one" that we possibly hold to, which is false. You aren't realizing that it is possible for there to be different contexts. Please look at my discussion with Justice for a fuller explanation of this. I am not denying that Father, Son and Spirit are united in purpose. They certainly are. But it's more then that. Look at the Isaiah and Deuteronomy passages above and see if they are simply talking about purpose. With all due respect, you simply do not understand. God is not a concept. He is very real. He has a divine nature. You simply aren't getting the distinction of terms. Being makes something what it is. Person makes someone who they are. They are different. One divine God (not just in purpose but one in essence and not other gods anywhere else in all of space, time, eternity, etc.) whose divinity is shared by three persons: Father, Son, Spirit. All three have always existed and are equal in being.

You are missing the difference between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is information, which is what we are discussing (Is Jesus God, What does "one" God mean, etc.). Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. James is talking about how God will teach us how to properly apply what we know in a God-honoring way. He is not saying that He will give us new, extra-Biblical revelation.

Those 28 chapters in Matthew are awfully long. Can you narrow this down for me a bit? And, I do not accept the Trinity because of Nicea. I accept it because I see it clearly taught in the Bible. I accept God's definition of "one" that He uses of Himself in Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8; Deuteronomy 6:4, etc.

The reason why we see these pluralities is because of the distinction between the Father, Son, and the Spirit. They are not interchangeable. But, they are all the three persons of the one God. So that is why the Father could say to the Son and the Spirit, "let's" "our" "their" or "us". We are made in God's image in that we share certain attributes with God. An ability to reason, feel, choose, etc. How can God create them in their image if the three are all separate beings? If you say that they had physical bodies, (I know you don't think the Spirit does) wouldn't you have to admit that the Son did not have a body at this point? In John 1, we saw that the Son took on flesh at a particular point in time, and it wasn't in Genesis 1. How does this work in your belief system? I say you are taking a definition of one (one in purpose) and imposing it in all uses of "one", even where it cannot fit. That's why I quoted you Isaiah 43:10. "Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me." This verse eliminates the apparent ambiguity of "one" by giving a clear definition. Isaiah 44:6-8 and Deuteronomy 6:4 are others. So simplicity is truth? If something is complicated it cannot possibly be true? You know that this is not a logical basis for determining what is right. By your definition, all I have to do is say that LDS is more complicated because it claims that Christian belief went askew and is corrupted. Isn't it "simpler" to say that such an apostasy never occurred in the first place? By your standard you shouldn't be a Mormon. You and I both know that "simplicity" is not a good measurement of truth. Trinitarianism, which distinguishes between the the Father, Son, and Spirit, is perfectly consistent with what you quoted from Genesis. If you take all of what is revealed in Scripture then there is not a problem. Within the one being that is God, there exists three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Do we perfectly understand all of the mechanics and intricacies of God? No. But do you honestly think that you, in your fallible, sinful, limited human mind, could ever fully understand God? I certainly don't. All I can do is submit myself to the Scriptures and truths presented therein. I suggest to you that you do not hold to a core doctrine of the Biblical text: monotheism. That is why you could not interpret Isaiah 43:10. The truth of one God, meaning only one God in all of existence throughout all of time and space, is clearly presented there.

That is not an assumption that I would ultimately grant. You have to conform to God's revealed word. It actually does change the meaning quite considerably. The Word was WITH and the God WAS God is very different then the Word just being WITH God. "WAS God" is pretty important, isn't it? Please do me a favor. If you don't mind, please interpret for me John 1:1 as I quoted it. "In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Even if you think this is a poor translation, what does it mean? Would you tell me that, please? (As a side note, you run into major problems with Smith's translation. V. 14 says, "And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Smith has already said that the word is the Gospel, not the Son. So the gospel was made flesh and dwelt among us? The gospel is the only begotten of the Father? Why are there personal pronouns used of the Gospel?) With all due respect I don't think you actually interpreted this Isaiah 43:10. I agree that Jesus is God of the Old Testament, and all eternity past and future, for that matter. But everything you mentioned (Patriarchs, Ark, Moses, etc.) are not mentioned in this specific passage. What does it mean when it says, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me"? The best translation is "unique". I do not think that Joseph Smith's translation is the best. Not at all. But, whether you are using his or the KJV, I would ask you to please use one translation for the whole text and don't switch back and forth. By moving back and forth you are (I am not accusing you of intentional misrepresentation, I am just saying this is the result) utilizing the parts of each that you feel help your theology and ignoring obvious problems. The KJV will lead to the inevitable conclusion that Christ is God, and the JST will lead to incredible theological problems. You quoted John 1:3. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If Jesus is not God, if He is less then God, then doesn't that mean that He had to be created at some point? Yet the verse says clearly that Jesus made all things and that nothing that has ever come into existence was not made by Jesus. How can a created being make all things? Would Christ not then be included in "all things"?

I do not base my belief in the Trinity off of the Creed. I think it is valuable to note that historically Christians have identified the Trinity as orthodox, but my belief is not based on the authority of any creed. I am based on Scripture. Yes, Scripture is interpreted, but does that mean that God failed to be clear in His revelation? Certainly not. If we actually trust the Scripture then we can come to a conclusion. One God. (Isaiah 43:10) Father is God (Philippians 1:2) Son is God (Hebrews 1;8, John 20:28) Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Father Son and Spirit are distinguished (Matthew 3). What does this lead us to? The Trinity.

Justice, you believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are one in that they are one godhead, right? So does that mean that Jesus' prayer will enable every believer to become part of the Godhead, expanding it to 4,5,6...etc.? Of course not. You and I both have to recognize that Jesus is speaking in the sense of every single possible way of oneness. He qualified it above by speaking of sanctification. You have to take the whole context. If you are going to say that I must read "one" in every sense of God's possible oneness then you have to be consistent and read it in the same exact way.