 |
| click to enlarge |
If you actually knew the history of Christianity, you'd see why Latter-day Saints don't accept the Trinity the way other Christians define it. And why that's a totally reasonable position.
Start with the timeline. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Nicene Trinity. The word "trinity" wasn't even used until around 200 AD, by an early Christian writer named Tertullian. Early Christian writers had all kinds of different views about how the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost related to each other. They didn't agree. Many of those views wouldn't match the formal doctrine that came later.
Same goes for the body of God. The Bible describes him with face, hands, and form. The idea that he's bodiless came from Greek philosophy, not from scripture.
So what changed? In 325 AD, the Roman emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea to settle the argument. The argument was about whether Jesus was fully divine or a created being. Bishops were told to sign the creed or get exiled. Even some of the bishops who signed it didn't fully agree with it. That's how the Trinity became official. Not because the Bible spelled it out. Because an emperor needed unity. The same thing was happening with how God himself was described. The Bible talked about God in physical terms. The councils used Greek philosophical categories to settle the question. The Bible's more physical language about God got reinterpreted in those abstract terms.
Here's where Latter-day Saints actually land. We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We pray to the Father in the name of the Son. We baptize in all three names. What we don't accept is the philosophy added later, that they're "one substance" in some Greek metaphysical sense. That part isn't in the Bible. It was developed later by theologians working out questions the Bible didn't directly answer. We also read the Bible's language about God's body the way the original audiences did, instead of reinterpreting it to fit Greek philosophy.
And this isn't just a Latter-day Saint argument. Mainstream Bible scholars say the same thing. A Jesuit priest named Edmund Fortman wrote that there's "no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers." Harper's Bible Dictionary says the formal Trinity doctrine "is not to be found in the New Testament."
Here's a way to think about it: Imagine a grandmother passes down a recipe. Three hundred years later, her descendants argue about whether she meant a pinch of salt or a teaspoon, and whether butter or olive oil is acceptable. One branch of the family writes up an "official" version and says anyone who doesn't follow it isn't really making grandma's recipe. The original recipe didn't say. The official version was added later. That's the situation with the Bible and the Trinity. The Bible has Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The specific Nicene formula came centuries later.
The disagreement didn't end at Nicaea, either. For over 1,000 years, Catholics and Orthodox have argued about whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. That's a fight about the nature of the Trinity itself. Two ancient Christian traditions, two different views, both still considered Christian. So the idea that there's one fixed Trinity test for being Christian doesn't hold up.
To be clear, none of this is a shot at people who believe the Nicene Trinity. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, all of them are sincere Christians. Their faith is real. They have every right to worship how they see fit. The point here is just that Latter-day Saints reading the Bible and reaching a different conclusion isn't weird, dishonest, or anti-Christian. It's a position that fits the historical record.
There's also a contradiction worth noticing. A lot of people say "the Bible alone is enough," and then turn around and say "you also have to accept the creeds to be Christian." Those two ideas can't both be true. Either the Bible is enough or it isn't.
Early Christian art reflected the same uncertainty. Different communities pictured God in different ways for centuries before a unified image took hold.
So here's the bottom line. Reasonable people read the New Testament and land where Latter-day Saints land. So did a lot of early Christians before the councils made one view official. You don't have to agree with us. Just understand that our position has roots in actual Christian history, not in some random departure from it.
Believe the Trinity. Don't believe the Trinity. The history is what it is. Knowing it doesn't threaten anyone's faith. It just clears up why other Christians read the Bible the way they do.
According to creedalists, Mark was saying here that Christ ascended to heaven… and sat on his own right hand? The truth of the Godhead has been restored. The New Testament church of Jesus Christ has been restored
This is an awesome explanation!! Being raised Catholic and educated in a parochial grade school, I was always confused by the abstract. Questions were answered with “it’s a mystery of God and not for us to know.” That felt like Heavenly Father gave us a destination with no road map. By age 14 and deeply immersed in Osmond-mania, I learned a bit about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The most impactful doctrine for me was eternal families. At 21, after several meetings over the years with missionaries, I met a young man and his family who invited me to take the discussions at their home. Line upon line, I realized this was what I’ve been looking for. I learned at my own pace and knew it in my heart that I was home. That young man baptized me before leaving on his mission. The rest is history. (And no I didn’t marry that young man
)
)The Creeds are all added. Revelations 22:18 says “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:”
Very compelling as long as one dos not read the Bible or have a wee bit of Koine Greek understanding.
You make a compelling narrative, the idea that the Trinity was a "philosophical hostile takeover" of a simple, physical biblical faith. It appeals to our modern desire for "original purity" over "institutional corruption." We see this in political debates over the original meaning of our framers documents as well
However, as a deep dive into the history and the original Greek and Hebrew texts shows, this argument relies on a few significant historical and linguistic misunderstandings.
Here my refutation of those assertions from the perspective of historic, biblical Christianity.
1. The "Invention" vs. "Definition" Fallacy
Your argument claims that because the word "Trinity" wasn't used until Tertullian (c. 200 AD) and the formal creed didn't arrive until 325 AD, the doctrine was "added."
In reality, theology often follows a "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" (the law of prayer is the law of belief) pattern. Early Christians were already worshipping Jesus as God and baptizing in the Triadic name (Matthew 28:19) long before they had the sophisticated vocabulary to describe how that worked.
This is like saying "Gravity didn't exist until Newton wrote the equations." Newton didn't invent gravity; he developed the formal language to describe a reality people were already living with.
While "formal" doctrine wasn't codified, the raw data was there. In the Greek of the New Testament, Jesus is called Theos (God) in John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28; Titus 2:13; and 2 Peter 1:1. The Council of Nicaea didn't invent Jesus' divinity; it protected it against Arianism, which was the actual "new" idea at the time.
2. Anthropomorphism vs. Ontology
The assertion that the Bible describes God as having a physical body (face, hands, etc.) misses the Hebrew literary genre.
The Bible also says God has wings (Psalm 91:4) and that the Earth is his footstool (Isaiah 66:1). If we take the "face and hands" literally, we must also accept that God is a giant bird with feet the size of the planet. These are anthropomorphisms, using human language to describe an infinite Being.
The Bible explicitly states, "God is spirit" (John 4:24) and "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, 1 Timothy 6:16 describes God as one "whom no man has seen or can see."
It wasn't "Greek philosophy" that made God bodiless; it was the Jewish realization that a Creator who made space and time cannot be contained by space and matter (1 Kings 8:27).
3. The Role of Constantine and "Force"
The idea that Constantine "forced" the Trinity on a divided church for political unity is a popular myth, but it doesn't hold up to the historical record.
Most of the 318 bishops at Nicaea had survived the brutal Roman persecutions of Diocletian just a few years earlier. They had been tortured, maimed, and imprisoned for their faith. The idea that these men, who had defied the Roman state unto death, would suddenly cave to Constantine on the most important point of their theology is highly unlikely and a bit absurd.
If Constantine "fixed" the issue, the argument should have ended. Instead, the "Arian" view (that Jesus was a created being) actually gained political power after the council. For decades, the pro-Nicene side was the persecuted minority. The Trinity won not because of an Emperor, but because it was the only view that could harmonize all of Scripture.
To be continued. It gets better.
I told you it would continue and it will get better.
4. "One Substance" (homoousios)
The argument claims "one substance" is a Greek philosophical addition. However, the term was chosen specifically to solve a biblical problem: If Jesus is not of the same "being" as the Father, then Christianity is polytheistic (worshipping two gods) or Jesus is not a savior.
The Bible says only God can save (Isaiah 43:11). If Jesus is a separate being/substance, then he is either a "second god" or a created being who cannot bridge the gap between humanity and the Divine. The Nicene formula was a linguistic fence built to keep the "original recipe" from being diluted into pagan-style polytheism.
5. Addressing the Scholar Quotes
The quotes from Edmund Fortman and Harper’s Bible Dictionary very true, but they are being used out of context.
Mainstream scholars agree there is no formal (codified, technical) doctrine of the Trinity in the NT. But they almost universally agree that the triadic pattern and the divinity of Christ are the core of the NT. As Fortman himself notes in the same work, the New Testament writers "speak of [the Father, Son, and Spirit] in a way that provides the data for the later dogma."
So, what does all of this mean?
The "recipe" didn't change at Nicaea; it was written down because someone tried to change the ingredients.
Latter-day Saints are free to hold their view, and you're right that they are sincere. But from a historical and textual perspective, the Nicene Trinity wasn't a departure from the Bible. It was a rigorous, desperate attempt to protect the Bible's own paradox: that there is only one God, yet the Father, Son, and Spirit are all identified as that one God.
No comments:
Post a Comment