The Trinity

"There is but one only living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions." (Protestant wording of the Anglican 39 articles, 1563.)  "God is without body, parts, or passions."  (From the Presbyterian confession of faith.)  The debate over what, "in the image of God" means has gone on for millennia.  Eventually the restoration of the true gospel made it clear--"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bone."  (D&C 130:22)  We might only add that their bodies are glorified, beyond man's.  

Knowing the true nature of God is infinitely important, but I would like to address a more specific part of the debate here, and that is the question of how many He is.  That is, the common belief in the three-in-one Trinity.  Its universality, as well as the fact that an understanding of this doctrine’s complete history can lead us to knowing God’s true nature, is the reason I have chosen to speak about the Trinity.  Also, because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is in a very small minority in rejecting this “God of the philosophers,” that both history and scripture seem to stand against.  Since this doctrine is a foundational doctrine for the vast majority of Christianity, if it turned out that this was not the true nature of God, the ramifications would be massive.

This subject becomes a lesson in not only what God is not, but an important lesson on what He is, and just what select few still have it right.  As we shall see in later chapters, a correct understanding of the nature of God is not just a fanciful side note—it is in fact essential knowledge.  

When I read the Bible, especially the New Testament, I read about Jesus, the Son of God, about God the Father and about the Holy Spirit.  I understand them through scripture in simple concepts, as three separate and distinct beings.  It seems to make perfect sense in this simplistic form, and no further scholarly or philosophical advice is needed.  When talking to people of other religions who are not entrenched into the post-Nicean classical Trinitarian doctrine, this is how they read it as well, even though the church they belong to does not recognize it this way.  

One of the first things revealed to Joseph Smith as a 14-year-old boy, was this simple, yet extremely important fact—that the Godhead is one in unity, yet are very much separate beings.  He in fact saw them and experienced them as such.  Although this was not new doctrine, but the old doctrine brought back to life, this was an absolutely unacceptable heresy to the religionists of his day and continues to be vehemently opposed today.  But, a simple look at history reveals that the earliest Christians believed the same as Joseph restored to knowledge.  

Although it follows the philosophy of Aristotle, the first time in history there is ever any mention of a three-in-one God is in the 2^nd Century and refined in more and more detail through the 5^th Century.  Neither the Jews before Christ nor the earliest Christians after Christ believed in such a being.  The first known Christian to promote a belief in a God as a single being with three extensions was Sabellius in about 262 A.D.  The result of him promoting these thoughts was his excommunication from the church!  In response the church wrote, “But some treat the Holy Trinity [The Godhead] in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce [the idea of] a person devoid of substance.  Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [God]… We forswear this.”  (Gregory the wonder-worker, A sectional confession of faith 7, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6.)

Despite his excommunication, these ideas did not take long to catch on with others—mainly promoted by apologists and philosophers.  Those that began their theories about this did so out of necessity in their own minds.  First, they could not explain the divinity of Jesus if he is not in fact God himself.  In other words, if Jesus was not God, who was he?  Was he just a man? —But this was unacceptable.  A mere man could not save us.  Second, if He was God, that makes two Gods!  Eventually it actually became a heresy to believe in the Godhead as separate beings, and believing Christian’s lives were literally being threatened unless they would change their beliefs to this new understanding.  

Those that were doing the explaining were not Priesthood leaders, or even church leaders, but philosophers.  Not Jewish philosophers, but Greek.  Believing in metaphysical (abstract) ideas such as the 3-in-1 Trinity was very common for the Greek, but absolutely unheard of for the Jews.  The Jews never did and still do not believe in metaphysical terms, which is a good indication they never believed in such a being at all.

In any case, this theory of a triune God, though still in the minority, gained acceptance and began to actually divide the people of the Roman Empire religiously as well as politically.  The main person against this new idea was Arias, believing that Jesus was only a man.  From Arias, this aspect of the issue is sometimes referred to as The Arian Controversy.  The main person for the idea of the Trinity was Athanasius.  It is interesting to note that the whole reason Athanasius fought for this was his belief in “salvation by deification.”  In other words he believed if Jesus wasn’t divine, He couldn’t make us divine.  We will expound on this important idea later, but I must emphasize how massive this controversy was at the time and for several centuries afterward. 

The Roman leader at the time (about 325 A.D.) was Constantine.  He was not a Christian himself until his deathbed, although he was the first Roman leader to allow Christianity.  

In an attempt to unify his kingdom and end the controversy, Constantine called a Council in the city of Nicea.  About 300 bishops attended, although Constantine presided and called the shots.  Notice that it was Bishops—not apostles who attended, as there were no apostles.  They were doing their best, but were floundering without the direction and unity that the apostles gave them when alive.  Although he later regretted his decision, Constantine decided to go against Arius and they made what is called a Creed—a statement of belief.  (Note that in the account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the creeds are what was called an abomination—not the religions themselves.)  This Creed contained the first official description of how God is three.  It claimed they are consubstantial, the same substance, or homoousios.

One of the bishops present was the well-respected historian, Eusebius.  Eusebius was the person who eventually baptized Constantine.  In his own history, Eusebius' Ecclesiastiacal History, (pg 37) it describes his trouble at accepting the word consubstantial (of the same substance or essence) when describing God and Jesus.  At first he refused to admit this term in the description, but changed his mind when other bishops explained the import of this decision.  It was more the, "fear of the emperor and not the conviction of his own mind that compelled Eusebius to subscribe to the Nicene Council."  He later reversed that decision.  He was far from alone in his beliefs.  JND Kelly, Oxford University, Early Christian Doctrine, p247-8, "Even at the Council of Nicea the majority party believed that there are three divine hypostatses (persons), separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.”

There is wonderful documentation from early church leaders, that predate Nicea, which indicate they clearly did not believe in this new trinitarian doctrine.  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, “I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not distinct in will.”

Origen, “And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two personages, let him with the passage, ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,’ that he may understand the meaning of the saying ‘I and my Father are one’ …while they are two, considered as persons or substances, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.”

John Whalen, New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality of perspective as “one God in three Persons”

Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, “The Nicean Creed, which forcefully promoted the metaphysical dogma of the Trinity, would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples of Jesus Christ in the meridian of time.”

The original meaning of the word which was adopted to describe the trinity, homoousius is the same stuff, same kind or alike.  Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do believe that God and Christ and even man are indeed the same kind—but not that they are the actual same substance.  Now without homoousius in the definition, we can agree with the Nicean creed and can actually be called Trinitarians, but unfortunately it was the same substance definition that stuck.  The use of this word was completely Constantine’s idea, although neither this nor the word Trinity can be found in the Bible.  By their own admission, the makers of this creed were not initially interested in keeping with the truths in the Bible, but only afterwards did they go and try to find their ideas therein.  

It seems to me they made a round peg fit into a square hole.  Proponents of this idea later even altered scripture (which was commonplace back then) to advance this new teaching.  For example, 1 John 5: 7, 8 (known as the Johannine Comma) was altered to promote the 3-in-1 Trinity.  This alteration is simply not found in earlier manuscripts of the scriptures.

Unfortunately for Constantine, this did not end the controversy over the nature of God.  It went on for at least 400 more years, which, along with other issues, caused many more Councils and resulting Creeds.  There continued to be extreme persecutions coming from both sides of the issue, but for the most part, persons who would not believe in the Trinity as given in the creeds were commonly banished and/or tortured and executed--yes executed--until the problem finally fizzled out.  This continued for more than a millennia--even into the Reformation.  I don't think this is the sign of a true Christian religion.

To me this whole thing screams apostasy.  Although the three-in-one Trinity is almost universally accepted and is considered orthodox today, very few Christians have even heard of such a controversy in history, though it can all be found in any encyclopedia. Those aware of it usually say that the creeds simply explain what was already in the Bible, although it directly contradicts several scriptures, not the least of which is John 17:3—not only that God is knowable, but that it is necessary to know Him.  We will expound on this all-important concept later.  

Here is a sampling of further scripture that directly contradict this creed.

1) Hebrews 1:5  “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

Is God both a father and a son to Himself?

2) Matthew 22:44  “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

Was Jesus to sit at His own right hand?

3) Matthew 24:36  “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

How can a part of God know and another part not know?

4) John 14:28  “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”

How could He be greater than Himself?

5) John 17:1  “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.”

Did Jesus really pray to Himself and ask Himself to glorify Himself?

6) Matthew 27:46  “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

How can He forsake (withdraw from) Himself?

7)  John 20:17  “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

There are multiple questions here.  How could He ascend to Himself?  But more importantly how could His God also be our God if He was God?

8)  There are many other scriptures that just do not make sense with the Trinity doctrine applied, such as Luke 2: 52, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."  Is it possible for God to increase in wisdom?  Can He increase in favor with Himself?

God is not a God of confusion, and this contrived doctrine is confusion.  It is openly admitted to be a mystery.  It seems the cry of the Reformers of “sola scriptura”, which means only the scriptures (a belief that doctrine and truth should come only from the scriptures and nowhere else) was and is ignored when it came to this key doctrine.  The extra biblical and complicated creeds were kept in tact and embraced, although the answer to their original confusion was as it should be—simple, and at their fingertips--in the very scriptures they ignored.  A perfect and enlightening example is 1 Cor 8: 5, 6.  The chapter starts by addressing the concept of idols, then moves on to speak of the possibility of there being more than one God, which it declares in the affirmative, then tells us that this does not matter, because, "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."  (emphasis added) Simple and sublime.

I will attach an actual Creed that was the result of this controversy, which along with many other Creeds written up to the Reformation in the 1500’s, are almost universally accepted by all Christian religions.  

The most popular restatement of the Nicene Creed was named after Athanasius, written about 490 A.D.  This expresses the idea of the Trinity in its classic form, which includes the Holy Ghost:

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.  Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.  The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.  The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal.  As also Three are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.  And yet they are not Three Almighties, but One Almighty.  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.  And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God.  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.  And yet not Three Lords but One Lord.

It seems overtly obvious to me that this statement is logically incoherent.  I don’t think Athanasius would have approved.  This is exactly what the Lord told Joseph Smith was an abomination.  It took away the inherent Fatherhood of God and the Son ship, if you will, of Jesus Christ, as well as the unique role of the Holy Ghost.  I can wholeheartedly agree with Abraham Lincoln when he said, “I doubt the possibility, or propriety of settling the religion of Jesus Christ in the man-made dogmas of the creeds.”

What are the scriptures now used by Trinitarians to promote their beliefs?  John 1: 1, "In the beginning was the Word (capitalized), and the Word was God."  Jesus, known as the "Word", here is said to be God.  The next verse explains it a little better, "The same was in the beginning with God."  Yes, Jesus was and is a God.  He is the God of the creation, the Great Jehovah in the Old Testament, and God of Salvation.  He can even be known by definition as a father in these things.  Nevertheless, He was and is second in command to God the Father, being led by Him in all these things.  (See 1 Cor 8: 6 above)  John 5: 19. 

"The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing."  It is said this proves they are the same person, but it is only adding to the confusion to interpret it this way.  The Father is simply an example to Jesus, just as a father should be.  John 14: 11, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." and John 10: 30, I and my Father are one."  This is amply explained in John 17: 21; speaking of His disciples, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."  He desires us, His disciples to be one in the same way that they are one.  This is obvious dialogue on unity.  Hebrew 1:3, the Son is in the "express image" of the Father, (NRSV): He is... "the exact imprint of God's very being."  For a son to look like his father is not unusual.  More importantly it is saying God is a person.  He has a head, two arms and legs.  He walks and talks like any person.  He is not an animal of any kind, and He is not a metaphorical being.  It is obvious to me this scripture is comparing two people, not the same person.  

Historically, the issue of just how the Godhead is one has been one of the biggest problems in Christendom.  To me, it has become an organized chaos.  On the other hand, Latter-Day-Saints simply believe they are one in unity, but that they are three distinct beings—the way scripture as well as pre-Nicean belief dictates.  LDS critics accentuate the gap between classical Trinitarianism and LDS belief, but their insistence in this matter, in my mind, only increases the chasm between themselves and the truth.

An interesting testimony of these things can be viewed in this video.  A study from a scholar on this subject can be viewed here.