Will the real Trinity please stand up.

[Endless]

To be honest i think it is foolish to assume that we can fully comprehend God - there is no point arguing over things that we can never as humans understand - like whether we will see God as three people or one being. We don't need to know such things or we would have been told them in the Bible.
As to discussing what God is made out of - ie. Substance...well, i think it's pretty obvious that since God is not of this world but is spirit, that he is not made up of atoms or anything physical. When Jesus received his ressurected body he could disappear at will, appear at will in a totally different location. But he could be felt, was real - we can't comprehend such a thing, and it doesn't need explained.
One thing the Bible does teach is that there is only one God, and that Jesus is that one God, the Father is that one God, and the Holy Spirit is that one God.

 

[Buttercup]

LDS Response
1. Three - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings.
2. The Son is actually the Father's son. We all, including Jesus Christ, are sons and daughters of God the Father.
3. No.

And this is why the LDS and regular Protestant and Catholic denominations can never agree......we believe in totally different versions of the Godhead.

I will answer directly as you seem to want that ........and I will let a Catholic answer for the Catholics, but I am going to assume we will agree:

1. No one has ever seen the Godhead so how would we know what it looks like? You can't include Joseph Smith because other denominations will not accept his sightings. Besides...he did not see the Holy Spirit so how can you say he saw three separate beings?

We believe God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are one being. Now, how we will view them is to be seen later.

2. God the Father and Jesus the Son are both God.

3. Yes.......Jesus (God) was both corporeal and non corporeal (God the father) in heaven at the same time.

 

[SoyLeche]

And this is why the LDS and regular Protestant and Catholic denominations can never agree......we believe in totally different versions of the Godhead.

I will answer directly as you seem to want that ........and I will let a Catholic answer for the Catholics, but I am going to assume we will agree:

1. No one has ever seen the Godhead so how would we know what it looks like? You can't include Joseph Smith because other denominations will not accept his sightings. Besides...he did not see the Holy Spirit so how can you say he saw three separate beings?

We believe God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are one being. Now, how we will view them is to be seen later.

2. God the Father and Jesus the Son are both God.

3. Yes.......Jesus (God) was both corporeal and non corporeal (God the father) in heaven at the same time.

Let's use Stephen then. When he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, what was he seeing?

 

[Buttercup]

Let's use Stephen then. When he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, what was he seeing?

He saw Jesus but that still does not discount the fact that Jesus is described as God throughout the entire NT...how we will SEE the Godhead could be different from how we describe it.

I think most Trinitarians WILL agree that God is made up of: God the Father God the Son And God the Holy Spirit. How we "see" the Godhead is irrelevant and prone to conjecture. We just simply can't know for sure and how we 'see' the Godhead has nothing to do with salvation. Who Jesus IS does have to do with salvation, not what he looks like. BUT, we can describe what the Godhead is made up of from scripture. I have included a few in my previous posts. Do the LDS discount those?

Now that is the query from the OP right? Trying to discern if Trinitarians are in agreement.....and I say we are!

 

[SoyLeche]

He saw Jesus but that still does not discount the fact that Jesus is described as God throughout the entire NT...how we will SEE the Godhead could be different from how we describe it.

You said that nobody has seen the Godhead - and I will agree with you. There is no record of anyone seeing all 3 together. We do have a record that we can agree upon, though, of someone seeing the Father and the Son at the same time, and described it in such a way that they had to be different personages. The only record we have, then, suggests that the Father and the Son are not the same being.

 

[Polaris]

To be honest i think it is foolish to assume that we can fully comprehend God - there is no point arguing over things that we can never as humans understand - like whether we will see God as three people or one being.

We have never claimed to fully comprehend God. I agree there are many things about God that we as mortal humans will never understand. But I believe that there are many things about Him that we can understand. He can reveal whatever truths He desires to His chosen prophets or apostles, including the nature of the Godhead.

We don't need to know such things or we would have been told them in the Bible.

John 17:3 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This makes is sound like attempting to know and understand anything about God is an important endeavor.

As to discussing what God is made out of - ie. Substance...well, i think it's pretty obvious that since God is not of this world but is spirit, that he is not made up of atoms or anything physical.

That's your opinion, and though I don't agree, I completely respect that.

One thing the Bible does teach is that there is only one God, and that Jesus is that one God, the Father is that one God, and the Holy Spirit is that one God.

So are you saying that you agree with the Trinitarian definition that we have established to this point (ie the Trinitarian Response to the 3 questions)?

 

[Polaris]

No one has ever seen the Godhead so how would we know what it looks like? You can't include Joseph Smith because other denominations will not accept his sightings. Besides...he did not see the Holy Spirit so how can you say he saw three separate beings?

Just because we have no record of anyone ever seeing them all three together doesn't mean no one ever has. We do however have record of at least two individuals who have seen two of them (the Father and Son) together -- which would imply that they are indeed separate beings.

I think most Trinitarians WILL agree that God is made up of: God the Father God the Son And God the Holy Spirit.

Makes sense to me.

How we "see" the Godhead is irrelevant and prone to conjecture.

I don't think it's irrelevant. How we would actually see the Godhead would shed a lot of light on the nature of God, which I would consider very valuable knowledge. Sure it's prone to conjecture, without divine insight on the topic that's all we could do is give our own opinion.

BUT, we can describe what the Godhead is made up of from scripture. I have included a few in my previous posts. Do the LDS discount those?

As Squirt mentioned before, we agree with you that they are one just as the scriptures you've provided state. We just disagree on what way they are one. You see them as one being, we see them as three beings who are perfectly united and in that sense they are one. Christ pled with us to be one just as he and the Father are one -- joined in perfect unity, not mysteriously combined into the same being.

Now that is the query from the OP right? Trying to discern if Trinitarians are in agreement.....and I say we are!

So far so good

 

[Buttercup]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:1, 3, 10, 14.

In this passage the Word (Jesus) was God. Read it really carefully and with prayer....it says it all.

Also........."If you realy knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7 NIV
​

Polaris and Soyleche....what do you make of these passages? What is your interpretation of them?

 

[SoyLeche]

Polaris and Soyleche....what do you make of these passages? What is your interpretation of them?

First one - pretty straight forward. Christ was with God the Father from the beginning, created the world, came to Earth to get a body, etc. No problem there.

The second one is a bit tougher. Could be a bad translation. Or, I have heard that Joseph Smith said something to the effect of Christ and the Father looking pretty much alike. I believe that he said that only through the Holy Ghost can you tell the difference between the two in their appearance. I don't know if that quote is reliable, though, and I don't have a reference for it.

You still haven't said what you believe Stephen was talking about, other than saying that he saw Jesus, which I believe we can agree upon. He mentioned seeing Jesus on the right hand of God though - so what was to Jesus' left?

 

[Polaris]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:1, 3, 10, 14.

In this passage the Word (Jesus) was God. Read it really carefully and with prayer....it says it all.

"the Word was with God" -- Jesus was with God (the Father)
"the Word was God" -- Jesus was and is God (the Son)

They share the title of "God". It does not mean that they (Father and Son) are the same being.

Also........."If you realy knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7 NIV

There are some passages that you interpret figuratively and we interpret literally. Conversely there are also passages that we interpret figuratively and you interpret literally. This is one of the latter. We interpret this as a figurative statement -- Jesus is emphasizing His perfect unity with the Father, teaching that if we really know Christ we will also know the Father just as well because they are so perfectly united in purpose. He is teaching that we can know (and in this case see) the Father because Jesus does only that which the Father would do and is in the "express image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3). It's not necessarily saying that they are the same being.

 

[Quiddity]

The Athanasian Creed follows, taken from Schaff's work:
[SIZE=-1]1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. But this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4. Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5. For there is one person of the Father: another of the Son: another of the Holy Spirit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8. The Father is uncreated: the Son is uncreated: the Holy Spirit is uncreated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9. The Father is immeasurable: the Son is immeasurable: the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]11. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]14. And yet there are not three almighties: but one almighty.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Spirit is God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]16. And yet there are not three Gods; but one God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]21. The Father is made of none; neither created; nor begotten.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son: not made; neither created; nor begotten; but proceeding.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]24. Thus there is one father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]26. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]29. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that we believe also rightly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]30. Now the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]31. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]32. Perfect God: perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead: inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]34. And although He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance; but by unity of person.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]38. Who suffered for our salvation: descended into Hades: rose again the third day from the dead.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]39. He ascended into heaven. He sits on the right hand of God, the Father almighty:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]40. From whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]41. At whose coming all men must rise again with their bodies;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]42. And shall give account for their own works.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; but they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]44. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.[/SIZE]
(415-450)

Hopefully this can help move the conversation forward. Don't mind the date cause I already know anything beyond the 100's is mostly dismissed. The intent was to hopefully clarify and answer some questions you all may have.

 

[Buttercup]

Whelp, since the OP is questioning if Trinitarians ever agree on what the Godhead is.....I as a Protestant agree with what Victor, a Catholic just posted. I figured we would however.

 

[Quiddity]

Whelp, since the OP is questioning if Trinitarians ever agree on what the Godhead is.....I as a Protestant agree with what Victor, a Catholic just posted. I figured we would however.

I never once doubted it BC.

 

[michel]

Whelp, since the OP is questioning if Trinitarians ever agree on what the Godhead is.....I as a Protestant agree with what Victor, a Catholic just posted. I figured we would however.

That's no real surprise; I think I have often shocked Victor into realizing that I believe in many Catholic 'ideas' even though I consider myself on ly 60 % Christian.

 

[James the Persian]

Victor,

Your date for the Athanasian Creed is out. It wasn't written by St. Athanasios and is a later western creed written by an unknown author (no earlier than 7th century). It is not the creation of any council (for the benefit of the LDS here). Having said that, apart from the filioquist position in it, there is little in that creed that eastern Christians could not agree with. I would just suggest that a better reference point for the historical Triadological and Christological beliefs of Christendom would be the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (omiting discussion of the filioque as this is a minor issue which is of no consequence to discussions with LDS members, though it is to RCs and Orthodox). I fail to see what the 'Athanasian' Creed actually adds to the discussion that cannot be found in the Symbol of Faith.

I would note (as it appears that the LDS have been less than satisfied with the answers received on this point up to now) that traditional Christian theology does not posit that God is both corporeal and incorporeal in His substance. To believe that of Christ is to fall into the trap of monophysitism which suggests that Christ was of one human-Divine substance rather than fully God and fully man. This would make Him neither God nor man. God is incorporeal, man is corporeal. Christ was both incorporeal God and corporeal man at exactly the same time and without any confusion. He was one person in two substances, human (including body mind and spirit - in other words a complete man, not just a bodily shell) and Divine (again, completely so).

As to St. Stephen's vision, that is plainly what it was and how God reveals Himself to man in a vision is clearly independant of His actual nature. In fact, we know from Scripture that no man can see God and live, so we know that St. Stephen did not actually see Him. In efect, His vision was metaphorical and pedagogical, revealing the glory of the ascended Son, not the nature of the Father. I accept that those in the LDS church are unlikely to accept this, but am attempting to clarify traditional Christian thought as pertaining to Triadology and Christology.

James

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

When trying to explain something unknown, we have to compare it to something that is known. And trying to use examples of the material world to explain spiritual matters will always fall short like trying to explain what the grand canyon looks like. The feelings, and experience just will not translate well into words, no matter what words you use.

The trinity is a description of God's creative force. And is reflected all over the world. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To really understand this, you have to except the fact that the Holy Spirit is the female-ying-divine feminine side of God's creative energy. The image we are to focus on is MALE-FEMALE-OFFSPRING. This is how God creates. Father/Mother/Child.

But, again, I emphasize that these are examples of what is known in the material world to explain something completely unknown, and immeasurable. So don't get stuck with the physical image of father/mother/child. Instead see the energies of these, the essence of these, and the sum of all of these is God, the ONE.

 

[Quiddity]

Your date for the Athanasian Creed is out.

I'm kind of glad you brought that to my attention. Thier appears to be some disagreement even amongst RC historians about the actual date. New Advent dates it as early as 361, give or take a few. Others won't give it a date before the 5th century. So I'm rather torn on the exact date.

It wasn't written by St. Athanasios and is a later western creed written by an unknown author

This I was aware of.

It is not the creation of any council (for the benefit of the LDS here). Having said that, apart from the filioquist position in it, there is little in that creed that eastern Christians could not agree with. I would just suggest that a better reference point for the historical Triadological and Christological beliefs of Christendom would be the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (omiting discussion of the filioque as this is a minor issue which is of no consequence to discussions with LDS members, though it is to RCs and Orthodox). I fail to see what the 'Athanasian' Creed actually adds to the discussion that cannot be found in the Symbol of Faith.

I agree James. The reason I choose The Athanasian Creed was simply because of the language that was being used by some of the LDS members. I just felt the Athanasian Creed was a better fit for the verbiage at hand.

I would note (as it appears that the LDS have been less than satisfied with the answers received on this point up to now) that traditional Christian theology does not posit that God is both corporeal and incorporeal in His substance. To believe that of Christ is to fall into the trap of monophysitism which suggests that Christ was of one human-Divine substance rather than fully God and fully man. This would make Him neither God nor man. God is incorporeal, man is corporeal. Christ was both incorporeal God and corporeal man at exactly the same time and without any confusion. He was one person in two substances, human (including body mind and spirit - in other words a complete man, not just a bodily shell) and Divine (again, completely so).

Completely agree. Hopefully your words will satisfy and clarify.

As to St. Stephen's vision, that is plainly what it was and how God reveals Himself to man in a vision is clearly independant of His actual nature. In fact, we know from Scripture that no man can see God and live, so we know that St. Stephen did not actually see Him.

That is an excellent point James.

In efect, His vision was metaphorical and pedagogical, revealing the glory of the ascended Son, not the nature of the Father. I accept that those in the LDS church are unlikely to accept this, but am attempting to clarify traditional Christian thought as pertaining to Triadology and Christology.

Well, I certainly think you did. Thanks James, that was very helpful.

 

[Buttercup]

James,

I agree with your post explaining the Trinitarian nature of God. Further expounds on how I view the trinity as well.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Polaris]

I would note (as it appears that the LDS have been less than satisfied with the answers received on this point up to now) that traditional Christian theology does not posit that God is both corporeal and incorporeal in His substance. To believe that of Christ is to fall into the trap of monophysitism which suggests that Christ was of one human-Divine substance rather than fully God and fully man. This would make Him neither God nor man. God is incorporeal, man is corporeal. Christ was both incorporeal God and corporeal man at exactly the same time and without any confusion. He was one person in two substances, human (including body mind and spirit - in other words a complete man, not just a bodily shell) and Divine (again, completely so).

Thanks for the clarification. I have actually been quite satisfied with the answers. My interest has been to pin down the true definition of a "Trinitarian", and I believe I now have a much better understanding of what a Trinitarian is. According to the definition that has been established to this point, the LDS are simply not Trinitarians.

As to St. Stephen's vision, that is plainly what it was and how God reveals Himself to man in a vision is clearly independant of His actual nature. In fact, we know from Scripture that no man can see God and live, so we know that St. Stephen did not actually see Him. In efect, His vision was metaphorical and pedagogical, revealing the glory of the ascended Son, not the nature of the Father. I accept that those in the LDS church are unlikely to accept this, but am attempting to clarify traditional Christian thought as pertaining to Triadology and Christology.

Again thanks for the clarification. I fully respect your interpretation. I actually agree with your statement that "no man can see God and live" with one important exception as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 67:11 (part of LDS scriptural canon) : "For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God." Now I realize that you don't accept this as scripture like I do, but it makes perfect sense. If God desired to show himself to man I believe he most definitely could without killing us, however as explained in this verse it would require some temporary change in our physical nature, or quickening. The transfiguration of Christ is an example of such a change, he was "transfigured before them, and his face did shine as the sun". Moses experienced it as well, after he spent 40 days and 40 nights in the presence of the Lord, it was observed that "the skin of his face shone." Also Jacob/Israel declared that he had "seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" despite the statement in Exodus 33:20 "for there shall no man see me and live." The point is... man in his natural state indeed cannot see God and live.

 

[Buttercup]

"the Word was with God" -- Jesus was with God (the Father)
"the Word was God" -- Jesus was and is God (the Son)

They share the title of "God". It does not mean that they (Father and Son) are the same being.

I forgot to mention the other day.......this quote from you makes me feel good. And this is why I personally think the LDS are Christians, just like the rest of us. If you believe Jesus to be God...there is nothing else to explain to me.