I started a series on the Trinity almost two months ago. I’m going to continue it making use of a concise little book (just under a hundred pages, not counting the indices) I discovered last year called Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, by Millard J. Erickson1. When I say “make use of” I mean simply that I will follow Erickson’s outline and ask the same three “crucial” questions. I’ll try to provide my own answers to the questions without simply regurgitating Erickson’s responses, though I may throw in a quote here or there.
And so, I turn to the first crucial question: “Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical?”
A Brief Definition
First off, since I started this series with the premise that Mormons (among other groups) frequently misunderstand and/or misrepresent Trinitarianism, I should explain what the Trinity really is. Short and simple, Trinitarians believe that God is one, yet three.
Getting more specific, we say that God has eternally existed as one being in three persons. Though this definition looks simple, the language used here is very carefully chosen, and gets even more precise if you study the latin and greek words used originally to describe the Trinity. English doesn’t do it justice, but the early church took great pains to define their terms as accurately as possible. I’ll elaborate on this in a later post in this series. For now, the above definition will suffice.
There are three important biblical aspects that combine to form our doctrine of the Trinity. They are:
1. The Unity of God
The most explicit statement in all of scripture regarding God’s oneness is the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This statement is considered the central tenet of Judaism. It is followed immediately by the command, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” This reminds Jews and Christians that our allegience is not to be divided between God and anyone/anything else. Dividing God into multiple substances or beings would divide our loyalty and therefore corrupt our worship2.
2. The Deity of the Three
In seeming contrast to the assertion that God is one, the scriptures (mostly the New Testament, but in some places even the Old Testament) identify three distinct persons as being fully God:
- God the Father –To my knowledge no one claims that Heavenly Father is not God. For consistency, however, note that Jesus uses “Heavenly Father” and “God” interchangeably: Matt. 6:26, 30, 32; John 6:45; John 20:17.
- God the Son — Isaiah 9:6 equates the Messiah with “Mighty God”. New Testament examples of Jesus being equated with God include John 1:1-5; Phil. 2:5-11; and Heb. 1:3-14.
- God the Holy Spirit — In Acts 5:1-4, a lie against the Holy Spirit amounts to a lie against God. Paul seems to find “God” and “Holy Spirit” interchangeable in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 6:19-20.
3. The Three-in-oneness of God
There are numerous places in scripture where the three persons in the Trinity are grouped together: Matt. 28:19; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14. Jesus’ baptism3 is another example of a three-in-one passage (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).
These scriptures and many others seem to affirm that where one member of the Trinity is working, the other two are also working. The three persons of the Trinity do not work alone, but each takes part in some aspect of every work God accomplishes.
The three-in-oneness of God also denotes an equality among the persons. They are co-eternal and there exists perfect love and unity between the persons. None of the persons is necessarily subordinate to the others.
Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical?
Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical? Well, I hope the reader can see that at least the three concepts I’ve listed above are biblical. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, which proceeds directly from these three points, is therefore transitively biblical.
It’s important to note that the three concepts I’ve demonstrated above can be combined in different ways. Various groups emphasizing one or two of the above aspects over and above the other(s) resulted in a diverse number of heresies which the early church battled as it began to settle in on the creedal definitions of the Trinity. The creeds were merely an official formulation of the doctrine that had existed from the earliest days of the church.
I’m going to deliberately avoid combining the three aspects here and leave that for my next post in this series. I hope to show that the early church made the right choice in how it defined its doctrine of God in the creeds.
- I would highly recommend this book to any reader. It lays down a number of compelling biblical, rational, and practical reasons for believing in the Trinity. If you have the time, however, and wish to read something of more substance, the author recommends his own God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. [↩]
- Incidentally, this is also the reason there was only one temple in all of Israel. Other cultures were building multiple temples to their multiple gods, but God said he would put his name in Jerusalem, and that all people should go up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord there (Deut. 12:5; Deut. 12:13-14; Deut. 16:5-6). This was to symbolize for Israel that there was only one God. [↩]
- In my last post in this series, I mentioned a devotional booklet that used Christ’s baptism as a demonstration of the doctrine of the Trinity. For another example of Christ’s baptism used to defend the Trinity, see the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for Trinity. [↩]
Joey said:
As you point out, the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly biblical, it can only be transitively biblical. In other words, we must use the bible and logic to discover the Trinity.
You have used the bible to present three concepts. My object is to request a little more logic, since I don’t understand the concepts as they have been presented. I realize that you have yet to combine the concepts. I’m not looking for the combination yet. I’m looking for more logical support of these three concepts.
The Unity of God
First, you quote a verse that says, “the LORD is one,” and you conclude that there is only one God-being. Have I understood the substance of your premise and conclusion?
May I ask how you conclude that there is only one God-being from that verse? I know millions of people have so concluded, but I do not understand how.
“LORD” is the replacement word for “Jehovah.” Jehovah is one of God’s names. Whether it is a name for God the Father or God the Son doesn’t matter. The verse originally said, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one.”
Similarly, I might say, “Hear, O Americans: Sandra Day O’Conner our Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Conner is one.” My statement would be true, would it not? Have I said that Ms. O’Conner is the only Justice? No. I have said that there is but one [Justice named] Sandra Day O’Conner.
Next, you say:
To me, this statement is an assumption; it is not logically deduced from other points in your post. Therefore, I ask you to please give logical reasoning for your assumption. Why would “dividing God into multiple substances or beings…divide our loyalty and therefore corrupt our worship”?
Just for logic’s sake, let’s divide God into three separate beings. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (as three beings) ever disagreed, we might be forced to choose sides. However, what if they always agreed and acted as a uniform counsel? Would the fact that they are separate beings necessarily divide our loyalty and corrupt our worship? Couldn’t we worship all three with undivided loyalty because they are not competing in any way for our adoration?
The Deity of the Three
As I understand this section, you show several verses which almost directly say that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each fully God. No additional logic is required here; each premise is also the conclusion.
The Three-in-oneness of God
In this section, your main premise appears to be “each [Deity] takes part in some aspect of every work” of God. You also mention that the three persons are also coequal and coeternal. You conclude that God is “three in one.” Have I understood the premises and conclusion?
I fail to see how the premises necessarily and logically lead to the conclusion. Imagine I have two business partners, equal to me in all respects. Each of us takes part in every aspect of the partnership, and each of us has been with the partnership from the beginning. Do these facts necessarily make us “three in one� as the trinity is?
Conclusion
Please don’t think I am arguing just to argue. When you wrote the statement I quoted at the very beginning of this post, you appeared to be attempting a logical argument in defense of the Trinity. You presented three concepts from which you will conclude that there must be a Trinity. However, the concepts as presented are not “given.� Each one is an assumption that must be concluded logically from biblical premises. If you are truly attempting a logical/biblical argument, I am encouraging you to make the logic more apparent, if possible. Of course, I realize that religious beliefs cannot always be proven with logic. Perhaps the Trinity is one of them.
Hey Joey, since you are studying the doctrine of the Trinity, you might look at The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity provided by Blue Letter Bible. It is loaded with scriptures declaring the Trinity. As you study, remember, you won’t fully understand everything about God since we “look in a glass dimly.” People stumble over this doctrine because we think we can figure God out. I have to remind myself of this when I don’t fully understand. Good luck!
Terry
Steve, your statements are very typical of a Mormon response to the Trinity. The only point you seem to disagree with is the first one, that God is one being. I had thought about giving more of a defense for that up front, but I didn’t want my post to get unwieldy.
In addition, my point is not to defend this doctrine against all possible objections. My premise starting out was that Mormons frequently misrepresent the Trinity. My purpose here is to foster understanding, not to prove anything or win an intellectual argument.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to interact at all on this subject (or I would’ve closed the comments). I do appreciate your questions and objections, and will try to address them in my next post in the series.
Joey said:
Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily disagree with your three concepts. I merely feel that the first one and the third one require more explanation for the reader to come logically to the same conclusions you have come to.
I thought your intent was to show how these three concepts are biblical. Perhaps they are. However, currently, the first and third concepts are unsupported or unclear, and so they remain simply your, or Mr. Erickson’s, beliefs, not biblical conclusions. I am encouraging additional logical connections so that the reader can see how you and Mr. Erickson draw your conclusions from your biblical premises.
Joey said:
Thank you for considering my comments…although I don’t consider them “objections,” just encouragement for more logic. I look forward to seeing my comments addressed to some degree.
Joey said:
Perhaps I explained it wrong, but in my understanding, Mormons and Trinitarians stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the third point I listed above. The third point merely addresses how the three persons interact. It says nothing of God’s being unless it is combined with the first point. The Mormon idea of the Godhead being “one in purpose” is identical to the Trinitarian concept of God’s three-in-oneness (at least, as I see things). I could just have easily titled that section “The Equality of the Persons”.
If I had explained it better, I’m positive you would not have questions regarding God’s three-in-oneness. Again, all this should become more clear with my next post in the series.
Joey said:
In the simplest terms, since the word “Trinity” is not anywhere in the bible, it is therefore not biblical.
If you equate Trinity with God (as in Trinity = God) then it is biblical because God is biblical. The only question remaining is “What are the true attributes of God?” Mankind has been asking this question for 6,000 years. No amount of study and research or what the early church fathers meant by the term they invented, “Trinity”, will get you anywhere because they themselves admitted that God is incomprehensible.
If I say to you that I have a “Glimerishfergen” in my desk drawer that is incomprehensible, and that I have formulated an understanding of it that I will call “Torgniskitig”, should anyone think I have solved the mystery of “Glimerishfergen”? And if one culture or religion sees “Glimerishfergen” as “Forgniskitig” and another (say the Mormons) don’t give the concept that much discussion or pondering because their “wise men” describe the “Glimerishfergenâ€? as “Figneebeak”, why should we make a big deal of their misunderstanding of the former human concept?
Heck yes the Mormons misunderstand the Evangelical concept of the “Trinity”, about the same amount as the Evangelicals misunderstand the Mormon concept of the “Godheadâ€?.
Without a direct transfer of knowledge of what God is, directly to a person via personal revelation, an argument made in imperfect human language will get one nowhere (IMHO). It certainly does nothing to increase one’s faith in God.
As with any argument over an issue that cannot be resolved, arguing that someone else does not understand or misuses your own (admitted) incomprehensible concept will only serve to make people think you’re nuts.
Joey said:
My response: Short and simple, that which is incomprehensible is useless to us. Rather than try to make any sense out of that, Mormons would be better off to strive to keep the spirit of God with them by living the commandments, and Evangelicals would be better off to read the Bible and rejoice in their salvation.
Tell you what, next time we play “Settlers of Catan” and your token is on 9 and my token is on 6, I’m going to coin a definition called “Tenisix”. This means that my token is on 6, yet is on 10.
I win! Would you now like to misuse or misunderstand my definition of “Tenisix”?
It’s exactly like arguing over whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable. Until you understand the underlying attributes, and come up with a sound way to classify them, the argument is just semantics. So it is with a discussion of the concept of the “Trinity�. A more productive pursuit would be to strive to know God, don’t you think? Don’t we get more nutrition from consuming tomatoes than we do from inventing a nomenclature to classify them?
John 17:2-4 (KJV):
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Moroni 10:5:
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
As always,
Love, Dad
Thanks, Dad. I’m sure each of your two bickering sons can learn something from your thoughts. I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
If God hasn’t chosen to make his form, personality, and traits completely clear to us, then is there a point in our trying to guess what they are? Additionally, if we believe God is incomprehensible, is there any point in trying to comprehend him?
On the other hand, what if he has revealed himself, his form, his personality, and his traits to us? What if he commands us to learn about and try to understand him?
Steve: On the other hand, what if he has revealed himself, his form, his personality, and his traits to us? What if he commands us to learn about and try to understand him?
Then we need to seek God, not man’s understanding of God.
But until he reveals his true attributes to us personally, we need to be humble enough to accept Him as He is, even if we can’t fully see it.
Some (not all) Evangelicals would like to deny us (and the JV’s, Muslims, etc., etc.) from having a real God (or say that we are not Christian, etc.) because we understand the Trinity or God differently than they do. This is like telling someone that they can’t eat tomatoes or get any benefit from tomatoes because they believe tomatoes are vegetables, when they are really a fruit. That’s hogwash.
We LDS accept the Trinity as Holy and the Trinity has a revered place in LDS theology. But we understand it differently and it is the differences that others sometimes like to attack.
I am not implying that Joey is attacking anyone, for I sincerely believe that He just wants to have a dialogue to help everyone understand each other. But I have had conversations with some Evangelicals who do aggressively attack our understanding of God and the Trinity. The problem with such an attack is that many other Christian denominations have their own unique understanding of the Trinity as well. For a Southern Baptist (for example) to keep pursuing such a line of argument (that the LDS don’t have a real God because we understand the Trinity differently) would ultimately lead them to say that Southern Baptists are the only Christians who worship a real God. But, there are even differences in belief between S.B. congregations. Which S.B. congregations have it right and which have it wrong? This tomato war is silliness, and all Christians would be better off to give up the debate and go do something good for their neighbor (for we can all agree that we should do that).
The LDS rejection of modalism is not a rejection of the Trinity. Other Christians (i.e., Eastern Orthodox Christians) reject the Psychological Trinity and believe the difference in the relations between the Father, Son, and H.G is more than different personages, yet, like the LDS, the revere the Holy Trinity.
In addition to denominational, cultural, and regional differences in the definition, one should realize that a study of Christian history will reveal the definition of the Trinity has changed at certain points in Christian history as new theories have arisen and been accepted (or rejected) by certain factions.
The Muslims reject the whole notion of the Trinity. Are they praying to a false God? Of course not, for if we say they are, we would have to reject the God of the Jews and would therefore cut our own Christian legs out from under ourselves, for Christianity and Islam worship the God of Abraham which is the Jewish God.
By the way. Is a tomato really a fruit? This whole thing makes me hungry. I think I’ll go eat a tomato.
As always,
Love, Dad
Joey said:
Following your link to an article by Richard I. Winwood, I discovered the very succinct thought below. I abridged the thought and added italics for emphasis.