LDS God = 1 in 3 or 3 in 1?

[spockrates]

Just curious if there are any scriptures (biblical or otherwise) that teach there is one God in three persons (trinitarian view), or three persons in on Godhead (LDS view).

I'm not looking for some kind of debate, but I do tend to ask a lot of questions. It's OK if you want to debate someone else here, or don't have the time to answer my questions. I'm looking to learn.

If you participated in the previous discussion you're welcome here, too, but don't feel obligated in any way.

 

[Jane_Doe]

From the LDS side of things--
If you want straight up scripture references: Godhead
If you want more of a teaching-manual approach: Godhead
(Click the "read more" link and it gets longer with a bunch of links to other useful explanations). Clicking "view more" shows you more of that type of resource.

 

[JackRT]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Holy Trinity is not a description of God, but a description of a human experience of God. The Holy Trinity is a doctrine, adopted by the Christian Church in the 4th century CE, as a way of processing and understanding their experience with God. It is a product of dualistic Greek thinking which separated God from humanity; the holy from the profane; the flesh from the spirit, and the body from the soul. That was a cultural mindset and no one in that era of history knew how to step outside that frame of reference. However, that frame of reference died in that period of history we call the Enlightenment, leaving modern Christians with the impossible task of fitting a 4th century doctrine into a 21st century world view out of which it does not come and to which it cannot speak. Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong? No, I don’t think it means that, but it does mean that the Trinitarian language, which we use as we to seek to relate the Trinitarian experience is simply irrelevant.
~~~ John Spong

 

[spockrates]

From the LDS side of things--
If you want straight up scripture references: Godhead
If you want more of a teaching-manual approach: Godhead
(Click the "read more" link and it gets longer with a bunch of links to other useful explanations). Clicking "view more" shows you more of that type of resource.

Thanks, Jane_Doe. You have been helpful and kind.

 

[spockrates]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Thanks JackRT. I've always found the people of Canada to be friendly whenever I've visited.

I believe you might have the wrong idea. Rather than three persons in one God, the Trinity is one God in three persons. But yeah, it's hard to imagine how one being can be in three persons, and how three persons can be distinct, but not separate. If a being isn't a person, but something else that the three persons share, then I can see how it's not illogical, but it's certainly beyond comprehension.

And yes, it wasn't solidified as a precise doctrine or universally accepted by the early church until more than 300 years after Christ, and I suppose chosen by the majority of Christians. Is there a minority opinion among early Christians you prefer?

 

[JackRT]

And yes, it wasn't solidified as a precise doctrine or universally accepted by the early church until more than 300 years after Christ, and I suppose chosen by the majority of Christians. Is there a minority opinion among early Christians you prefer?

The position that I stated is called modalism or is at least similar to some aspects of modalism. Some call it a heresy. It is worth noting that every Christian alive today is a heretic to some other Christian alive today. As a consequence I pay little attention to accusations of heresy unless I feel that in some way such a belief actually interferes with my relationship with God. I am content to be called a modalist.

Some years ago I visited a Hindu temple. I stood before the altar area staring in silent amazement at the multitude of images of various deities, some of them very bizarre indeed. I had been there several minutes when I heard a gentle voice behind me say "God is One." I turned to meet the pundit (priest) of the temple. As he escorted me around the altar area he explained that while God is One, we in our finitude are unable to comprehend the fullness of God in a single "take". Each one of the "deities" before us was simply a different manifestation of God's Oneness. We Christians have done much the same with our trinity theory. Interestingly enough, the pundit was also a nuclear chemistry professor at a nearby university.

 

[spockrates]

The position that I stated is called modalism or is at least similar to some aspects of modalism. Some call it a heresy. It is worth noting that every Christian alive today is a heretic to some other Christian alive today. As a consequence I pay little attention to accusations of heresy unless I feel that in some way such a belief actually interferes with my relationship with God. I am content to be called a modalist.

Some years ago I visited a Hindu temple. I stood before the altar area staring in silent amazement at the multitude of images of various deities, some of them very bizarre indeed. I had been there several minutes when I heard a gentle voice behind me say "God is One." I turned to meet the pundit (priest) of the temple. As he escorted me around the altar area he explained that while God is One, we in our finitude are unable to comprehend the fullness of God in a single "take". Each one of the "deities" before us was simply a different manifestation of God's Oneness. We Christians have done much the same with our trinity theory. Interestingly enough, the pundit was also a nuclear chemistry professor at a nearby university.

Fascinating

 

[Peter1000]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

What was the original Greek word used for 'Persons'?

I had a person on this forum accuse Mormons Godhead of being akin to Modalism. He was a Trinitarian and I told him in my opinion that Modalism was a kissing cousin of the Trinity doctrine. So that Modalism, which was condemned as heresy back in the 200's, is much closer to Trinity than the Mormon Godhead.

Do you agree?

 

[JackRT]

What was the original Greek word used for 'Persons'?

I had a person on this forum accuse Mormons Godhead of being akin to Modalism. He was a Trinitarian and I told him in my opinion that Modalism was a kissing cousin of the Trinity doctrine. So that Modalism, which was condemned as heresy back in the 200's, is much closer to Trinity than the Mormon Godhead.

Do you agree?

From my limited understanding of the LDS, I would agree.

 

[Peter1000]

Just curious if there are any scriptures (biblical or otherwise) that teach there is one God in three persons (trinitarian view), or three persons in on Godhead (LDS view).

I'm not looking for some kind of debate, but I do tend to ask a lot of questions. It's OK if you want to debate someone else here, or don't have the time to answer my questions. I'm looking to learn.

If you participated in the previous discussion you're welcome here, too, but don't feel obligated in any way.

There are a couple of scriptures that seem to give us a feeling that Jesus and God are in the same person of Jesus. See John 10:30 and John 14:9.

But Trinitarians always say to me that it is 3 Persons in 1 God. Very rarely do I hear 1 God in 3 Persons.

As far as scriptures for LDS view, there are several that indicate that God is 3 separate and distinct individuals/Persons. They are Matthew 3:16-17, John 17:20-21, Acts 7:56.

BTW it would be said: 3 separate and distinct Persons in the Godhead.

 

[Peter1000]

From my limited understanding of the LDS, I would agree.

Thanks JackRT, I thought I was going crazy. He was so adamant that the LDS doctrine of the Godhead should be considered heretical because it was so close to Modalism.

In my opinion, the LDS doctrine actually is opposite of Modalism, whereas Trinity doctrine is the same except 'Persons' is substituted for 'Masks".

 

[spockrates]

There are a couple of scriptures that seem to give us a feeling that Jesus and God are in the same person of Jesus. See John 10:30 and John 14:9.

But Trinitarians always say to me that it is 3 Persons in 1 God. Very rarely do I hear 1 God in 3 Persons.

I believe that if you had them research the doctrines of their preferred denominations, they'd find it's always expressed as one God in three persons. From the Wikipedia site:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")[2] holds that God is three consubstantial persons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is whoone is.[6][7][8]

Trinity - Wikipedia​

As far as scriptures for LDS view, there are several that indicate that God is 3 separate and distinct individuals/Persons. They are Matthew 3:16-17, John 17:20-21, Acts 7:56.

Yes, but trinitarians don't have a problem with saying these passages support their view. For example, they use Matthew 3 as an argument against Modalism, in which our Canadian friend in this forum believes.

Their reasoning can go something like this: The passages show the persons of God to be distinct, but since there is only God, that means that they're not separate.

However, I'm not convinced. My discussion with you and other Latter Day Saints has shown me how these passages might very well demonstrate three distinct and separate Gods in the Godhead.

I find it fascinating how every time I have sincere and thoughtful conversations with Christians of different beliefs, I end up seeing how the Bible might actually support their views. It makes me wonder if the word of God is ambiguous by design, or if God has simply given me a strangely open mind. For most Christians to whom I speak think I must be blind!

BTW it would be said: 3 separate and distinct Persons in the Godhead.

Thank you.

So I'm still thinking it comes down to two contrary beliefs. But do you still disagree?

God is one being that is in three divine persons.

Or

Three divine persons are in one Godhead.

 

[spockrates]

From my limited understanding of the LDS, I would agree.

JackRT:

So as a Modalist, do you believe there's only one God who is one person, but this one God sometimes appears as the Father, sometimes appears as the Son and sometimes appears as the Holy Spirit?

 

[JackRT]

JackRT:

So as a Modalist, do you believe there's only one God who is one person, but this one God sometimes appears as the Father, sometimes appears as the Son and sometimes appears as the Holy Spirit?

And God may manifest other "personas" as well. God as mother comes to mind.

 

[spockrates]

And God may manifest other "personas" as well. God as mother comes to mind.

Fascinating. So as a Christian Modalist, does Matthew, chapter three present an issue for your view?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
​

Trinitarians tell me all three persons are present at the same time and think this proof against Modalism.

 

[spockrates]

JackRT:

Don't mean to put you on the spot. Just curious how a Modalist might respond to their objection. My thought is one could always say we shouldn't believe everything we read in the Bible, and make the case that the gospel of Matthew isn't reliable.

 

[JackRT]

Fascinating. So as a Christian Modalist, does Matthew, chapter three present an issue for your view?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
​

Trinitarians tell me all three persons are present at the same time and think this proof against Modalism.

 

[JackRT]

Fascinating. So as a Christian Modalist, does Matthew, chapter three present an issue for your view?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
​

Trinitarians tell me all three persons are present at the same time and think this proof against Modalism.

From an old sermon of mine:

The Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament, were written in a literary style known as midrashic literature. In this style of writing every effort was made to incorporate and interpret new events in terms of events that were already in scripture. In doing so historical accuracy was not nearly as important as meaning. This was what Matthew was speaking of when he wrote that the scribe "…brings out …new treasures as well as old" (Matt 13:52). An example will illustrate this. In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

So, in short, I read Matthew 3:16 as midrashic and very poetic but certainly not to be read as literal. I hope that this helped a bit.

 

[Jane_Doe]

From an old sermon of mine:

The Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament, were written in a literary style known as midrashic literature. In this style of writing every effort was made to incorporate and interpret new events in terms of events that were already in scripture. In doing so historical accuracy was not nearly as important as meaning. This was what Matthew was speaking of when he wrote that the scribe "…brings out …new treasures as well as old" (Matt 13:52). An example will illustrate this. In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

So, in short, I read Matthew 3:16 as midrashic and very poetic but certainly not to be read as literal. I hope that this helped a bit.

It for sure helped understanding your perspective. Thank you.

 

[spockrates]

From an old sermon of mine:

The Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament, were written in a literary style known as midrashic literature. In this style of writing every effort was made to incorporate and interpret new events in terms of events that were already in scripture. In doing so historical accuracy was not nearly as important as meaning. This was what Matthew was speaking of when he wrote that the scribe "…brings out …new treasures as well as old" (Matt 13:52). An example will illustrate this. In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

So, in short, I read Matthew 3:16 as midrashic and very poetic but certainly not to be read as literal. I hope that this helped a bit.

Yes, that helps. Thanks