The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[prisonchaplain]

I have decided that Mormons and Trinitarians believe the very same theological model of the Godhead with a single distinction: The existance of distinct and seperate corporeal tabernacles for the Father and the Son respectively; a notion acknowledged by Mormons and disbelieved by non-Mormons. All other differences are purely semantic.

-a-train

You are largely right, but that difference allows for polytheism and for human deification, whereas trinitarian theology does not.

[AnthonyB]

LDS appears to me to be a bit like Islam (and to lesser extant Catholicism) there is officially declared core doctrines and then there are a large number of "folk beliefs", wide spread beliefs that aren't official doctrines but comonly held.

I (and I think many other non-LDS) still get confused between which beleifs are core LDS and which are "folk beliefs" (things which may be true but have never been codified into scripture).

Many Protestants once saw a number of Catholic practices and beliefs in an extremely negative way, today although we may still disagree many have learned that with proper study and understanding of what is being done and believed that the gaps are not as large as we once thought.

Probably more pertinient to LDS is the SDA example, as they were once widely held as being a "cult" by many Protestants but are now largely seen as eccentric fellow Christians (even to some extent being excepted as Evanglelicals).

I don't see the gap with the LDS ever being closed (although once many would have thought the same of Catholics and Protestants), you are a distinct expression of Christianity that is at several points irrevocabley separated from the rest of us.

I do however think that if the essential LDS doctrines were expressed carefully and nuanced correctly, the differences in a large numbr of areas are not as great as they appear initially.

[Islander]

LDS appears to me to be a bit like Islam (and to lesser extant Catholicism) there is officially declared core doctrines and then there are a large number of "folk beliefs", wide spread beliefs that aren't official doctrines but comonly held.

I (and I think many other non-LDS) still get confused between which beleifs are core LDS and which are "folk beliefs" (things which may be true but have never been codified into scripture).

Many Protestants once saw a number of Catholic practices and beliefs in an extremely negative way, today although we may still disagree many have learned that with proper study and understanding of what is being done and believed that the gaps are not as large as we once thought.

Probably more pertinient to LDS is the SDA example, as they were once widely held as being a "cult" by many Protestants but are now largely seen as eccentric fellow Christians (even to some extent being excepted as Evanglelicals).

I don't see the gap with the LDS ever being closed (although once many would have thought the same of Catholics and Protestants), you are a distinct expression of Christianity that is at several points irrevocabley separated from the rest of us.

I do however think that if the essential LDS doctrines were expressed carefully and nuanced correctly, the differences in a large numbr of areas are not as great as they appear initially.

Well, I suggest that the same can be said of just about any other religion. Many would be amazed at aspects of Catholic worship, for example, in certain places in Central and South America or even Southeast Asia. Many charismatic and Pentecostal traditions have incorporated many beliefs and rituals from local traditions. The Christian church at Rome in the second century adopted traditions that came from old Latin festivals, celebrations and communal rituals. They are still here today.

In fact, you would be surprised that many fellow evangelicals and protestants in general (I am referring to ordinary church members) would admit to similar perplexities in regards to the Trinity and the nature of God. By far, most Christians donot devote a significant amount of time to pondering and researching issues of deep doctrine. I think we are statistically an anomaly here in this forum. We should not make inferences otherwise. Also in the LDS church we are encouraged to seek inspiration and personal interpretation of the scriptures. Most people actually state such clearly and say things like: "this is interpretation according to me". I am, for once, not inclined to speculate much since we already have enough clear and pristine principles we should master before we go out on a limb and try to swim in a sea of conjecture.

If we must know absolutely and precisely correct doctrine and theology to be saved then most of humanity will be lost.

[AnthonyB]

Islander,

I actually once took a class in Systematic Theology in AOG college (PC's church), other then the humorous need for the lecturer to defend the need for Systematic Theology from a small section of the class. (I'm mean I had no objectons to their views but why enrol for a course if your utterly convinced that the subject shouldn't be studied).

The other realy striking issue was just how many people had wrong ideas about the trinity. At the start of section he let the students express their views and then picked out which heresies their views included. nearly everyone fell into or got close to one error or another.

So I'd agree that the vast majority of Christians that sit in the pews have a clear idea of the trinity. (Incidently I actually got the top mark for the essays on the trinity, I argued that the church had spent 2000 years basically declaring any substantive attempt to clarify the doctrine as a heresy.)

[Snow]

Trinity: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Each is a distinct person, yet they are the one true and living God. Only Jesus has a body, so he's the only one we could look upon as being human-looking.

Of course as the scriptures clearly teach, he who has seen the Son has seen the Father and man was created in image of God, so, uh, you know...

[Snow]

I have decided that Mormons and Trinitarians believe the very same theological model of the Godhead with a single distinction: The existance of distinct and seperate corporeal tabernacles for the Father and the Son respectively; a notion acknowledged by Mormons and disbelieved by non-Mormons. All other differences are purely semantic.

-a-train

Well - that's untrue. Not only do Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, they also believe that they are co-equal. Mormons do not. It is not a semantic difference.

[abqfriend]

Agree-major differences exist.

-Carol

Well - that's untrue. Not only do Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, they also believe that they are co-equal. Mormons do not. It is not a semantic difference.

[prisonchaplain]

Of course as the scriptures clearly teach, he who has seen the Son has seen the Father and man was created in image of God, so, uh, you know...

I occasionally like to go back to our Jewish roots to see how they interpret their own Scripture on these matters.

Judaism 101: Human Nature

[Snow]

I occasionally like to go back to our Jewish roots to see how they interpret their own Scripture on these matters.

Judaism 101: Human Nature

"Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance."

Ah - but what the Jews think today is hardly relevant. Much more to the point - what did the ancient Jews think?

While there was no such thing as a complete and universal consensus, the ancient Jews believed in a corporeal, embodied, physical God.

[CatchTheRedeye]

I hope I don't offend anyone in responding to this thread as an agnostic who doesn't believe in god or Jesus. I respect all of your opinions. I especially appreciate ABQfriend when she says that she doesn't really understand the idea of the Trinity, but she believes in her church and maybe someday she'll understand it but she's not worried about it for now.

That being said, whenever anyone tries to explain the Trinity concept to me it just sounds like a litany of canned phrases and my head starts to spin. It seems like a mass of confusion that I can't come close to grasping. The godhead is a three-in-one spirit essence that fills the immensity of space? It has no body, parts, or passions? The godhead is unknown, unknowable, and uncreated?

I searched and found a talk from the Mormon apostle Bruce Mcconkie discussing this and to me the LDS belief in the godhead is much more believable. One thing he talks about, however, that I don't understand either is the notion that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. IMHO only.

I know this is a thread for 'traditional christians' but the speech I am talking about can be found at:

The Mystery of Godliness - Bruce R. McConkie

[Islander]

"Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance."

Ah - but what the Jews think today is hardly relevant. Much more to the point - what did the ancient Jews think?

While there was no such thing as a complete and universal consensus, the ancient Jews believed in a corporeal, embodied, physical God.

Thank Snow:

Very strong point. In fact, some of the late 2nd and early 3rd century Christians begin to resist doctrine that was clearly prevalent early on like the second coming, the nature of Christ and the Godhead. Even the possibility that John the Beloved lived to be so old as to deliver the Apocalypse was question in the 3rd century. Arguments against the 3rd epistle of Peter and even James were raised at the same time.

The longer the time elapsed from the original doctrine the more dissenters and arguments against it we see. Early Jews (and Muslims, by the way) believe that G-D had a physical/corporeal appearance. There are many references to the "train of God" (clothing/robe), "the hands of God" and His "arm" all over the Torah and the Talmud. Itis not clear if they attributed "human-like" physical attributes but corporeal; yes.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body. It's rather ironic, if that were so, that Jesus would suggest that his leaving (returning to the Father) was good, because then the Holy Spirit could come. Far better to have the Spirit, who can bless many, in different locales, simultaneously.

My question, though...is it LDS teaching that the Heavenly Father is not omni-present? Or, is it that he has a body, and yet his Spirit is omnipresent? Or something else?

[Islander]

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body. It's rather ironic, if that were so, that Jesus would suggest that his leaving (returning to the Father) was good, because then the Holy Spirit could come. Far better to have the Spirit, who can bless many, in different locales, simultaneously.

My question, though...is it LDS teaching that the Heavenly Father is not omni-present? Or, is it that he has a body, and yet his Spirit is omnipresent? Or something else?

PC:

I am surprised you had not researched this in LDS doctrine already. We believe that God is Omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful and we say this with absolute confidence and certainty. As far as corporeal form check out Isa 6:1, 2 Chr 18:18, Rev 7. I think we should take the Savior at His word. If we have seen Him, we have seen The Father, for they are one.

John 14 clearly describes the coming forth of the Holy Ghost as a Comforter for the faithful. The Savior explains that once He is gone to the house of His Father to prepare a mansion for them, they WILL know the way of ALL things thru the Holy Ghost which will be sent to aid them. He was not referring to His own ability to be/help people at multiple locations. His role and mission in human form was limited purposefully by his corporeal presence in a three dimensional sphere.

After the resurrection we see the Savior appearing thru walls and closed doors or out of thin air, so to speak, onto the disciples.

[Snow]

I'm doubtful that the early church embraced universally the doctrine that God the Father has a physical body.

There is no such thing as "universally" either in antiquity or today but.... here are some of my saved notes on the topic:

Noted church historian Adolph Hananck notes that the earliest Christians believed God to be embodied - though he buries it in the footnotes of his seven volume History of Dogma: “God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as later controversies prove (e.g. Orig, contra Melito, see also Tertull. Ed anima). In the case of the cultured the idea of corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.” He continues saying: “ In the 2nd century... realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence.” Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (New Youk: Dover 1961) 1:180 n1, 2:255 n5.

Harnack says that possible source of the early Christian belief in a embodied God include a literally understood Old Testament.

The historian J.N.D. Kelly says that for the first hundred years of Christian history there was no the churches scriptures consisted just of the Old Testament which Harnack reminds us describes God in anthropomorphic terms. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 31.

Edmond La Beaume Cherbonnier showed that the God of biblical revelation, in contrast to the god of Platonist metaphysics was personal, not abstract, was invisible by choice, not because of His inherrent nature, everlasting and enduring through time, not timeless. Cherbonnier, The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism, Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962)

In his paper, In Defense of Anthropomorhism, Cherbonnier argues that the Mormon and biblical understanding of God are indistinguishable. Cherbonnier is (or was) chairman of the Religion Department at Trinity College, in Hartford Conn. He studied at and took degrees from Cambridge University, the universities of Strasburg and Zurich, Columbia University and the Union Theological Seminary. He taught at Vassar and Benard and served as Deacon for the Cathedral of St. John in NYC. In this paper, Cherbonnier details how the biblical God later was replaced in Christianity by the Platonist metaphysical God/

Genesis 1:26 says: ”And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Even more to the point are verses that reference God’s body parts: “I [Jacob} have seen God face to face” (Gen 32:30); “they saw the God Israel; and there was under his feet...” (Ex 33:11); and “I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not been seen.” (Gen 33:32). Of course a being wouldn’t have a face, feet, hands and back parts but no body.

Additionally, in Acts 7:56 Stephen tells of seeing the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Jesus Christ, a gloriously embodies being, humanlike in form, is in “the brightness of [the Father’s] glory, and the express image of his person.” Beyond that, Christ, who is God, after his mortal life, death, and resurrection was seen by many with a physical body and was even touched, verify that his body of flesh and bone.

There was a great diversity of belief in ancient Jews but it was a traditional Jewish belief that God was anthropomorphic - or humans And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. While there are Jewish theologians who are committed incorporealists, there has never been a general and unambiguous rejection of the anthropomorphism that characterizes so much of the Torah and classical Jewish literature. Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

Philo Judaeus (20BC - 40AD), a Jewish Platonist educated in Alexandria appear to be the first thinker who applied allegorical interpretations to the anthropomorphic passages of the Old Testament. Philos views were not generally accepted by his mainstream Jewish contemporaries but Albinus, a 2nd Century Middle-Platonist followed Philo’s lead and in turn greatly influenced Origen and other Christian thinkers. For a full discussion of why church fathers turned from the ancient view of a corporeal diety and turned to the Platonist view, see Grace M. Jantzen, Theological Tradition and Divine Incorporeality, God’s Word, God’s Body (London: Darton, Longman and Todd 1984) 21-35.

Nowhere is the Jewish understanding of God physical body more evident than in the teachings of the classical rabbis. In a recently published study, Alon Goshen Gottstein says: “In all rabbinic literature (cover both the tannitic (70-200AD) and amoraic (220=500AD) periods there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form. In my understanding, the question of whether the rabbis believed in a God who has form is one that needs little discussion... Instead of asking, “Does God have a body?” we should inquire, “What kind of body does God have?”” Gottstein, The Body as Image of God in Rabbnic Lierature, Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) - see also Arthur Marmostein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (1937) reprint, New York: Ktav, 1968)

[AnthonyB]

What if (hopefully I can get my ideas across, although it sort of sounds like bad Sci-Fi and is very speculative).....

There are dimensions outside the four dimensional universe (3 space/1 time) within which we live. Some of the latest physics theories have that there are another 7 dimensions that in our universe are wrapped up inside themselves and hence not accessible to us within this universe. However this universe came about because of the interactions of thois higher dimensions.

Adam and Eve as being created in the image of a higher dimensional being, had access to those dimensions. However the fall cut them of from the dimensions that God exists in and trapped them within the 4 dimensions that currently now exist for us. That was death because the were cut off from the eternal time dimension and had to abide within our time dimension.

Jesus through his ressurection reopened the way for us to have access to the higher dimensions. When he returns he will fully reopen all the dimensions and we will then be able to live with God within the dimension in which He lives.

If God is a truly higher dimensional being then our bodies are something akin to a 2D shadow of a 3D object. Only at the resurrection will we return to being all that we should be.

What would it mean to perceive God as a higher dimensional being that is corporeal (in some sense) in those higher dimensions. He would be simulataneously corpereal but very different in his corporeality to us. Such a being could be locationally present in the higher dimensions but omnipresent through our dimensions. (PC, I too don't fully understand how the LDS have an omnipresent God and a spatially located one. This is my attempt to try to see how they could do it. But if any LDS have a better explanation I'd love to here it. Along the lines, if God is physcially abiding near Kolob how does he hear millions of prayers from billions of light years away? How does he hear our very thoughts to Him?)

God could be the creator of our entire 4D universe and of everything in which we live and experience as humans but at the same time just be the reshaper of a small part of higher dimensional space.

Edited October 22, 2008 by AnthonyB

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

I love God, and his Son, and the Holy Spirit that dwells with me.

Thank you and Good night.

[brother01]

The issue of whether God has a physical body is perhaps small in comparison to the view of how LDS see their relationship to God and Jesus Christ. Christians I know believe that Jesus is the Creator, not of the created - a mere elder brother of mankind as Satan is.

So to ponder over reasons to believe God has a physical or Spiritual body is a relatively mute matter to discuss. Either God is the only God ever or God was a man who became God as you think you also can become is the greater issue in my mind.

[prisonchaplain]

Brother01 is spot on in his observation. If it turns out that God the Father has a physical body, but that his spirit is omni-present, and he is omnipotent and omniscience, I'm not sure we'd be too concerned. On the other hand, if our Father in Heaven, had a father in heaven, and we shall one day be fathers and mothers in heaven (Gods)...well such is a huge paradigm shift for TCs (our new word--Traditional Christians). And, again, such challenges our thorough-going monotheism).

[Islander]

The question about the anthropomorphic (or not) nature of God will continue. It was an issue for the early Christians (some claimed Christ was not physically on the cross) and some believed He was indeed crucified. Some believed that after the resurrection a specter of sort appeared to the brethren, others that was indeed the Lord in the body. We are not that different from them.

Even when the Apostle John was still alive certain congregations began to break away from the main body of the established Church. The divergent views we see today are nothing but an extension of the ideological divide that has existed within Christianity for nearly 2000 years. Even the views of James, the brother of the Lord, about faith and works were seen as erroneous by the like of Irenaeus and later Luther not to mentionm many Christians today.

[RONALD]

To be made in the image of God is different from being his literal children.

Your comment above is food for thought - we agree that we are in the image of God.

I then read Heb 12:9 and I get the distinct impression that He is literally the father of our spirits

Heb 12:9

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Then for good measure lets add Rom 8:16

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Then we can look at Job 38:4-7 and the question is asked where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth :5 surely you know! :7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

We have to then ask ourselves which sons are these if they are not us ?

I therefore submit to you that we are the literal sons of the Father and that we were with Him when the foundations of this earth were laid.

[Elgama]

I have yet to wade into this one - I came intially from a High Anglican background (explained to me by Gran as Roman Catholic but our priests can marry and there is a cross instead of a crucifix on the alter). I used to go to a presbyterian church with my Auntie because the Sunday School teacher was lovely and the rooms they held it in were warmer. I managed to get to about 12 without ever hearing the term trinity or understanding what it meant, and it was at a JW meeting in my experience traditional Christian churches quite rightly tended to concerntrate on following Jesus. Its only on LDS boards that the trinity tends to become of major importance, I dont honestly believe the makeup of the Godhead was that important to most of the people I went to church with - their concerntration was on obeying commandments and living a Christlike life.

My personal view is we cannot hope to understand more than a slight segment of the mechanics and makeup of God both now and through the eternities, so probably both the hardline trinitarians and the non trinitarians are correct in their views - they are both trying to explain something we are not yet ready to understand so we there is room for both right and wrong in both views.

I personally see it along the lines of the Hindu One God with many faces for all I know when I use the term God I am including Heavenly Father's, Heavenly Parents and siblings etc God is the term I use when I am talking about the laws that guide us, and things that are eternal, I feel what we are working for is to become part of that. I use the Godhead when I am not sure if I mean which of the 3 gods that pertain to Earth Iam speaking about there are occasions of overlap when all 3 seem to be working together and not just in purpose. And then their are times when I I know which one is responsible for particular acts for example the atonement. my conscience. My prayers involve all 3 and it is them I have the relationship with Heavenly Father receives my prayers through the Saviour but without the Holy Ghost I could not hear their answer.

-Charley

[RONALD]

I have yet to wade into this one - I came intially from a High Anglican background (explained to me by Gran as Roman Catholic but our priests can marry and there is a cross instead of a crucifix on the alter). I used to go to a presbyterian church with my Auntie because the Sunday School teacher was lovely and the rooms they held it in were warmer. I managed to get to about 12 without ever hearing the term trinity or understanding what it meant, and it was at a JW meeting in my experience traditional Christian churches quite rightly tended to concerntrate on following Jesus. Its only on LDS boards that the trinity tends to become of major importance, I dont honestly believe the makeup of the Godhead was that important to most of the people I went to church with - their concerntration was on obeying commandments and living a Christlike life.

My personal view is we cannot hope to understand more than a slight segment of the mechanics and makeup of God both now and through the eternities, so probably both the hardline trinitarians and the non trinitarians are correct in their views - they are both trying to explain something we are not yet ready to understand so we there is room for both right and wrong in both views.

I personally see it along the lines of the Hindu One God with many faces for all I know when I use the term God I am including Heavenly Father's, Heavenly Parents and siblings etc God is the term I use when I am talking about the laws that guide us, and things that are eternal, I feel what we are working for is to become part of that. I use the Godhead when I am not sure if I mean which of the 3 gods that pertain to Earth Iam speaking about there are occasions of overlap when all 3 seem to be working together and not just in purpose. And then their are times when I I know which one is responsible for particular acts for example the atonement. my conscience. My prayers involve all 3 and it is them I have the relationship with Heavenly Father receives my prayers through the Saviour but without the Holy Ghost I could not hear their answer.

-Charley

Thanks for your thoughts - but - I believe it does really matter to know who and what we worship and I'd like to tell you why I say this. As I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools for the most part I was taught to worship a God without body, parts or passion but in the same breath I was taught that Jesus has a physical body of flesh and bone and as a son of God I was made in His image. This was all so confusing for me and was told not to worry about this.

Something deepdown within me did not believe what I was being taught for when I pondered upon these things a fairly clear image of my Heavenly Father would come to mind and I saw a man with body and parts in whose image I was created. I then followed an eastern Guru who taught principly the same that God was every where, a divine ocean etc. So I was no closer to those inner feelings and images. I ask myself who put those images in my mind, when I had been taught differently ? It was only some 8 months after the missionaries from LDS church in a discussion said that God had a BODY with Flesh and Bone as His Son and that we would be resurected with the same imortal body.(not the same Glory)

DID I SIT UP AND LISTEN ? U BET!

I ask the question where would I be still worshiping God with the thoughts and feelings and images that caused me so much confusion.

[Elgama]

Thanks for your thoughts - but - I believe it does really matter to know who and what we worship and I'd like ...............Something deepdown within me did not believe what I was being taught for when I pondered upon these things a fairly clear image of my Heavenly Father would come to mind and I saw a man with body and parts in whose image I was created. I then followed an eastern Guru who taught principly the same that God was every where, a divine ocean etc. So I was no closer to those inner feelings and images. I ask myself who put those images in my mind, when I had been taught differently ? It was only some 8 months after the missionaries from LDS church in a discussion said that God had a BODY with Flesh and Bone as His Son and that we would be resurected with the same imortal body.(not the same Glory)

DID I SIT UP AND LISTEN ? U BET!

I ask the question where would I be still worshiping God with the thoughts and feelings and images that caused me so much confusion.

We all have the reasons we become LDS mine was connected to the requirement of baptism, the fall of Adam and Eve and a couple of others,

I guess my question is - did the God you prayed to, listened to, loved change? or did just your understanding change?

One of my favourite parts of the Chronicles of Narnia is when the children comment that Aslan is bigger than the last time they saw him, and he says its not him that has grown its the children.

For me the Body is part of my knowledge because I grew up with a spiritualist Auntie and Uncle living next door, and they often believe God has a physical body, but I still don;t know how his body works or functions.

-Charley

[RONALD]

I guess my question is - did the God you prayed to, listened to, loved change? or did just your understanding change?

-Charley

I believe that He knows us and the intentions of our hearts so I believe He deffinitely listened to my simple prayers as he does with all his children irespective of our individual understanding, I liken it to the two of us meeting and you call me Peter once or twice as I remind you of a Peter (no ofence would be taken) but with time I would expect you to call me by my proper name as you get to know me better.

I am sure that I am able to give more full of myself just based on my understanding as the conflict before was deffinitely something that held me back

[Elgama]

I guess its often hard to remember we all have our own journeys to take in religion for me God was a huge part of my life early on I wanted to be a Nun right upto my baptism it still called me - for me God was just God and my love and relationship doesn't change a huge amount knowing more.

-Charley