Christians:Is Belief in the Trinity Required to Call Someone a Christian?

[Katzpur]

guys- could it be argued that LDS are, in fact, trinitain?

it's true that, as i gather, you do not understand that God is triune, three-in-one.

but do you understand the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be, in fact, three distinct beings / persons? how is this different from the basic belief of trinitarianism, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct beings (though one is essence)?

Ayani, did you mean to type "though one is essence" or "though one in essence"? When you answer that, I can probably give a more logical response.

 

[ayani]

yes, i meant "one in essence", sorry. what i'm asking is, if LDS still understand the F, S, and HS to be three distinct beings, how is this radically different from trinitarian claims?

 

[lunamoth]

Unitarian, Trinitarian, or LDS Godhead, what I wonder is what others find significant about these different concepts of God beyond just this is the most correct.

There should be different implications for us, our relationship to God and even our relationships to each other if there is important about the 'Trinity-or-not' distinctions.

So, I guess I'm just curious what you all think. Not about trying to prove that your interpretation is correct, but what important thing do you understand about God that only your concept of God provides.

 

[Katzpur]

yes, i meant "one in essence", sorry. what i'm asking is, if LDS still understand the F, S, and HS to be three distinct beings, how is this radically different from trinitarian claims?

The difference is that we claim these three distinct beings are "divine," and that a "divine being" is a simply a synonym for "god." Trinitarians say that there are three divine persons, but only one divine being. We don't use the words "essence" or "substance" at all, so when trinitarians do, it kind of throws us for a loop. I seriously don't think the difference should be the source of such divisiveness between us, but this always seems to have been the case.

 

[Dunemeister]

Unitarian, Trinitarian, or LDS Godhead, what I wonder is what others find significant about these different concepts of God beyond just this is the most correct.

There should be different implications for us, our relationship to God and even our relationships to each other if there is important about the 'Trinity-or-not' distinctions.

So, I guess I'm just curious what you all think. Not about trying to prove that your interpretation is correct, but what important thing do you understand about God that only your concept of God provides.

Nothing short of salvation hangs on it. When the church proclaims that, to be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord", the question pressed is, "What do you mean by 'Lord'?" This gets you very quickly to the question of the Trinity. To be saved, one must regard Jesus as fully divine in the same way that the Father is divine, but not in a way that entails there are two divine beings: the Father and the Son. This minimal conceptual element is required for salvation. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is created or merely part of the created order. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is a god alongside the Father.

 

[lunamoth]

Nothing short of salvation hangs on it. When the church proclaims that, to be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord", the question pressed is, "What do you mean by 'Lord'?" This gets you very quickly to the question of the Trinity. To be saved, one must regard Jesus as fully divine in the same way that the Father is divine, but not in a way that entails there are two divine beings: the Father and the Son. This minimal conceptual element is required for salvation. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is created or merely part of the created order. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is a god alongside the Father.

OK, but why is this distinction crucial for salvation? [i'm not arguing with you...just interested in your explanation of how one (salvation) follows from the other (belief in the Trinity) but not from another (LDS or Unitarian) concept of the Christian God].

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Katzpur:

There can't be three divine substances or three divine beings who are one God, and yet there can somehow be three divine persons who are one God. That makes no sense.

Yes, this is certainly a good question. Persons are not substances. Our word "person" comes later than this Greek usage.

If you want to say that there are three Persons and truly one God (not just semantically) then you need to admit a sameness of substance.

The only response is that the Church made this definition because of its fidelity to the data of Biblical faith. There are three persons at work in the Scriptures, particularly in the New Testament which records the revelation of God in Christ. On this we can all agree, that there are three persons each of whom is attributed deity.

Yet, at the same time, the Bible is adamantly monotheistic. By the time of Isaiah, it was clearly imprinted in the faith of Israel that there is only one God, and this is YWVH. In philosophical terms, to say that there is only one God is to say that there is only a single divine substance, only a single divine being.

How does the Church reconcile these two points of revelation? The Oneness of God (and therefore the uniqueness of divine being) and the plurality of divine persons? The LDS Church appears to reject the oneness of God. What you appear to be saying to me is that there are three divine beings, but it is as if they were one. That we can, for all practical purposes, call them the "one eternal God". But, because you reject the ontological unity of the Persons there is no way to get around the fact that you are conceding to a certain polytheism.

The historic Church rejects tritheism becasse it ultimately fails to affirm the uniquness of the single divine being. It affirms the plain meaning of Scripture when it records that there is only one God. The Church says, to begin with, we have to admit there is only a single divine being because this is a pillar of biblical faith and the primary legacy of our Jewish fathers. From this point of faith, it then approaches the revelation of the three Persons.

How can there truly be one God and yet simultaneously three Divine Persons? The resultant formulations of Nicea and the Councils were not really the product of lofty or incomprehensible Hellenistic speculation. They merely stated, in the common langauge of Hellenism, what these two fundamental convictions ( one the pillar of Jewish faith the other the departure point for Christian faith) produce when held together in the same mind: one divine being, three divine persons.

Katzpur, the basic question is this: Do you believe that there is only a single ontological entity called God? If so, you meet a minimum requirement for monotheism.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, this is certainly a good question. Persons are not substances. Our word "person" comes later than this Greek usage.

If you want to say that there are three Persons and truly one God (not just semantically) then you need to admit a sameness of substance.

It's hard for me to admit a sameness of substance when I don't understand what the word means. To me, a substance is the stuff something is made of. Air is one substance, water is another, etc. Do you see how it's difficult to say you believe something when one of the words you must use to describe it is a word that's simply not in your vocabulary.

Katzpur, the basic question is this: Do you believe that there is only a single ontological entity called God? If so, you meet a minimum requirement for monotheism.

Yes, I believe that, but I must qualify my statement by saying that I believe the entity known as "God" is a collective noun.

 

[Katzpur]

Nothing short of salvation hangs on it.

You're sounding more like a "fundy" every day. Salvation hinges on having an accurate understanding of something that is ultimately unknowable? I honestly can't comprehend what kind of an ego it must take to make such a statement.

When the church proclaims that, to be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord", the question pressed is, "What do you mean by 'Lord'?"

What a relief that when we're judged, it's going to be by God and not by "the church."

This gets you very quickly to the question of the Trinity. To be saved, one must regard Jesus as fully divine in the same way that the Father is divine, but not in a way that entails there are two divine beings: the Father and the Son. This minimal conceptual element is required for salvation. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is created or merely part of the created order. We are not saved by faith in a Jesus who is a god alongside the Father.

You might just end up being surprised, not only by who ends up being saved but by who ends up doing the saving. What on earth kind of God is going to send billions of people to Hell because they didn't believe in a triune God? Sound to me like a God who isn't particularly "Christian."

 

[ayani]

The difference is that we claim these three distinct beings are "divine," and that a "divine being" is a simply a synonym for "god." Trinitarians say that there are three divine persons, but only one divine being. We don't use the words "essence" or "substance" at all, so when trinitarians do, it kind of throws us for a loop. I seriously don't think the difference should be the source of such divisiveness between us, but this always seems to have been the case.

well, the issue isn't simply one of unity or tri-unity, but it's important. LDS still believe in three "persons", the names of whom are the same as those used for the "three persons" understood as making up the Godhead by most Christians. the trinitarian understanding is still there, but that trinity of beings is not understood to be the Godhead.

Katz, i find this interesting, because as i read the NT as well as the OT i really find nothing that would clearly imply that the Holy Spirit is a "being" or "person" at all. not a man, not a man-like being or person, nor a distinct god. i'm just as interested in how trinitarian Christians came to formulate that doctrine as i am in how LDS differentiate themselves from trinitarian understandings of God's being.

so do the LDS believe the F, S, and HS to be three distinct gods?

 

[Katzpur]

Unitarian, Trinitarian, or LDS Godhead, what I wonder is what others find significant about these different concepts of God beyond just this is the most correct.

There should be different implications for us, our relationship to God and even our relationships to each other if there is important about the 'Trinity-or-not' distinctions.

So, I guess I'm just curious what you all think. Not about trying to prove that your interpretation is correct, but what important thing do you understand about God that only your concept of God provides.

Good question, Lunamoth. I think that all Christians (everybody, actually, not just Christians) want to know that what they believe about God is correct, that it is "true." I don't think it's entirely a matter of having to be right at the expense of someone whose point of view differs from yours. I think we all want to think we've got it figured out. We want to be able to know our Creator and our relationship with Him. As part of this knowledge we're all seeking, we want to be able to understand the relationship between the Father and the Son. It's important to us and I think it should be. When it comes right down to it, though, I have never understood the mindset of those Christians who believe that God is going to condemn those who got it wrong to an eternity of suffering. It just boggles my mind to hear people say that.

 

[Katzpur]

so do the LDS believe the F, S, and HS to be three distinct gods?

We believe them to be physically distinct from one another but to be united absolutely, perfectly, entirely "one" in every other conceivable way. We cannot possibly imagine the degree to which they are "one," because none of us has ever been one with another human being to the extent they are one with each other. The concept is expressed in the phrase which is often used to describe a newly-married couple: "Now you two are one." If this new relationship were perfect (as no marriage is), there would always be complete harmony. Neither party would ever seek to put his or her needs above that of his partner. Everything they did would be for the ultimate good of both of them. All of their hopes and dreams would mesh so perfectly that it would be impossible to distinguish between those that were the husband's and those that were the wife's. Multiply this perfect union by a number so larger that you can't even begin to conceptualize it and you have the perfect "oneness" of our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Lunamoth,

I'm going to post my original response to this question, which appeared at the beginning of this thread:

To deny the Trinity after it has been declared is therefore quite different from not expressing it before it was formulated. It is an implicit New Testament truth and to deny it is a certain departure down a path of a whole host of Christological heresies that can certainly lead to the entire corruption of faith.

This is my position, but I would not say that I regard devout believers in Christ, such as Katzpur here, damned merely because of what | regard to be heretical beliefs. Nor that their relationship with God is inauthentic.

 

[ayani]

ok. thank you, i'd never heard that explained.

but how, then, is that belief in three distinct persons united in one absolute and immutable way really distinct from traditional trinitarian understanding? the three persons of the trinity are still present- they are still refered to as persons, as distinct, yet in some way one or united in purpose. that's exactly how a trinitarian would understand the Godhead, and how they would explain it to someone asking what the trinity is.

it's certainly not a unitarian or binitarian understanding of God's being. is this quote from Wiki accurate?

Unlike Binitarians, Bitheists, and Unitarians, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches that the Holy Spirit is not the Living Power of God but is actually a third divine person. Tritheism is similar to Trinitarianism, in that they both teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost are three distinct divine persons, except that Trinitarianism states that the three distinct persons are One God, and Tritheism states the three divine persons are three Gods. (from the article entitied Binitarianism)

are the three persons three gods, or one god? if the three are absolutely and perfectly united in will and purpose, how are they in a meaningful way, still three, except in terms of substance? you know? three robots with identical programming and commandments will act as one. three gods with identical wills will act as one, as will three persons of a triune Godhead. if the LDS church believes in three gods, does it also call itself monotheistic? in what sense?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Katzpur

Yes, I believe that [God is only a single ontological entity] , but I must qualify my statement by saying that I believe the entity known as "God" is a collective noun.

Okay, this where things are getting sticky. What do you mean by a "collective noun" that is a single being?

It seems that you are saying that being subsists in linguistics. This is not what we mean. Ontological comes from the Greek participle (own, ontos) which means "being". To say that there is only one ontological entity called God is equal to saying that there is only one divine substance, one divine being.

By substance we are employing a concept, speaking of "what" the "thing" adheres in. It is "sub" "stance"- it stands "beneath" and upholds, presents the accidents or features of a thing that make it what it is and by which it will be perceived by the senses.

It's important not to get caught up in a concise meaning of "substance". For the purpose of this discussion, it's not fundamentally important. Whatever lens through which one views, the neccessary affirmation must be that there is only God, that this God consists of three Divine Persons, that the plurality of these persons in no way divide, make separate the uniqueness of the Divinity.

That is, at the level of "whatever it is they are", they are "one thing". You seem to be saying that they are the same thing not at "the level of what it is they are", but "what they do, how they think, what they desire"- a functional unity.


Some reading, perhaps:

Substance being a genus supremum, cannot strictly be defined by an analysis into genus and specific difference; yet a survey of the universe at large will enable us to form without difficulty an accurate idea of substance. Nothing is more evident than that things change. It is impossible for anything to be twice in absolutely the same state; on the other hand all the changes are not equally profound. Some appear to be purely external: a piece of wood may be hot or cold,lying flat or upright, yet it is still wood; but if it be completely burnt so as to be transformed into ashes and gases, it is no longer wood; the specific, radical characteristics by which we describe wood have totally disappeared. Thus there are two kinds of changes: one affects the radical characteristics of things, and consequently determines theexistence or non-existence of these things; the other in no way destroys these characteristics, and so, while modifying the thing, does not affect it fundamentally. It is necessary, therefore, to recognize in each thing certain secondary realities (see ACCIDENT) and also a permanent fundamentum which continues to exist notwithstanding the superficial changes, which serves as a basis or support for the secondary realities -- what, in a word, we term thesubstance. Its fundamental characteristic is to be in itself and by itself, and not in another subject as accidents are.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Substance

 

[Katzpur]

but how, then, is that belief in three distinct persons united in one absolute and immutable way really distinct from traditional trinitarian understanding?

It's not, at least not if you don't take it any further than that.

the three persons of the trinity are still present- they are still refered to as persons, as distinct, yet in some way one or united in purpose. that's exactly how a trinitarian would understand the Godhead, and how they would explain it to someone asking what the trinity is.

That's not how I've heard it explained. At some point, a trinitarian would probably see the use of the word "distinct" as carrying more weight than the word "united."

it's certainly not a unitarian or binitarian understanding of God's being. is this quote from Wiki accurate?

Unlike Binitarians, Bitheists, and Unitarians, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches that the Holy Spirit is not the Living Power of God but is actually a third divine person. Tritheism is similar to Trinitarianism, in that they both teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost are three distinct divine persons, except that Trinitarianism states that the three distinct persons are One God, and Tritheism states the three divine persons are three Gods. (from the article entitied Binitarianism)

I really can't tell you how accurate it is with respect to Binitarians, Bitheists, and Unitarians. It's more or less accurate with respect to the LDS position.

are the three persons three gods, or one god?

I'm seriously not trying to evade the question, although I'm sure someone will accuse me of doing so. They are three "divine beings." Websters defines "god" as "any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature." It defines "being" as "a creature that lives or exists, or is assumed to do so; as, a human being, a divine being." God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are both divine beings. In that regard they are both "gods." The "absolute and immutable way" (as you put it, and because I liked your wording) in which they are "one," trumps, for the Latter-day Saint, the way in which they are "three."

if the three are absolutely and perfectly united in will and purpose, how are they in a meaningful way, still three, except in terms of substance? you know? three robots with identical programming and commandments will act as one. three gods with identical wills will act as one, as will three persons of a triune Godhead.

I know exactly what you're saying, and I agree 100%. They are physically three but functionally one.

if the LDS church believes in three gods, does it also call itself monotheistic? in what sense?

We believe ourselves to be monotheistic in the way that hopefully by now I've explained. Many other people don't, but as I said before, the word is a label. It's a term devised by human beings to mean something. I'm far more concerned about what God considers me than what any human being considers me, and I'm confident that He's not going to be limited by our terminology.

 

[ayani]

it's difficult to understand, K. theology in itself is difficult, especially traditional Christian theology which the LDS understands itself to depart from, while sharing terminology (though not percise semantics).

but really i can't understand how the LDS church believes itself to be monotheistic, while professing belief in three distinct gods which are not, strictly speaking, united in one essence of a Godhead, as trinitarians would say. there's a lot of linguistic acrobatics and hair-splitting admittedly, but at the end of the day, i can't say that i understand.

At some point, a trinitarian would probably see the use of the word "distinct" as carrying more weight than the word "united."

mmmm. no. not in the conversations i've had. which admittedly were on an Islamic and Christian basis. the unity of God is emphasized in these cases, in refutation of Islamic claims that Christians are tri-theists. but what i can not understand is how one can be both tri-theist and monotheist. trinitarianism attempts to answer that question, and would refute claims of tri-theism with the concept of the triune Godhead. yet to say that one is both monotheistic and tri-theistic, i can't understand that reconciliation. i can't do much else except ask you again "how does it work?", but it seems like you've explained it as clearly and carefully as you are able, and i thank you for that.

can i ask, Biblically, where do the LDS get the impression that the Spirit of God is a distinct person / being / man?

 

[Dunemeister]

OK, but why is this distinction crucial for salvation? [i'm not arguing with you...just interested in your explanation of how one (salvation) follows from the other (belief in the Trinity) but not from another (LDS or Unitarian) concept of the Christian God].

It matters because we are saved by a particular God. The convert must confess "Jesus is Lord". But what's important isn't the formula, it's the content, what's understood by "Lord" (not to mention "Jesus"). As I've already argued, there is only one Lord, period. That Lord is the one and only existing God. Yet it's possible (nay, necessary) to confess Jesus as Lord. To do this in an understanding way, you have to tease out how there can be one and only one God who alone is Lord, yet Jesus is a living, breathing human being distinct from the father, and Jesus Is Lord. Thus there has to be a distinction between Jesus and the Father, but that distinction cannot "demote" Jesus to less than Lord. Jesus must somehow be Lord without there being two gods of equal status.

Basically, if someone believes that Jesus and the Father are separate and distinct individuals, they are, quite frankly, not believing in the biblical God, and only the biblical God can save. If someone believes that "the Father" and "the Son" are merely different words denoting the same entity, but in reality there's no distinction between them, they are not believing in the biblical God, and only the biblical God can save.

I emphasize that it's not necessary to fully comprehend how all these things can be. Ours is a faith seeking understanding. At times, we have to believe things without understanding them fully. But there is a minimal cognitive content that must be affirmed when one says "Jesus is Lord." namely:

1. There is one and only one divine being, God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. But these distinctions do not amount to a refutation of 1.

For convenience, we refer to these as "persons", and thus the new convert must understand at minimum that there is one and only one God that exists as three persons. The Mormon church denies this.

 

[Dunemeister]

Unless the word has different meanings.

You can invent meanings if you like. Never in all of human history that I've studied has the word "God" ever been used as a collective noun. If there are multiple divine beings in a belief system, they are always referred to as "gods" (plural). So why should we accept the Mormon Church's assertion that we should think of god by appeal to collective nouns? It's utterly unique. So unique, in fact, that it looks all the world like special pleading.

If we're going to talk about meanings, let's do that. What does "God" mean? That's actually part of the point of the New Testament. Changes were afoot that affected the meaning of that word. But it's important to recall that the church took as foundational the meaning that the ancient Jews gave that word, AND DIDN'T CHANGE IT. The conception of God in ancient Israel was that of a singular unique being. There are no beings like God. No one other than YHWH can go by the name/title/attribution "God." Period. Anyone who says otherwise is beyond the pale of the people of God.

The Mormon conception of God changes this fundamentally. On a Mormon account, there are three beings, all of whom are correctly called "God". This is a fundamental departure from Jewish creational covenantal monotheism. It does no good to say that "God" is a collective noun. As I've already shown, the entire universe of known languages disagrees. But even if there are a couple of examples of languages that agree, the problem still remains that Christians are dealing with the Jewish God. It's THAT God we are supposed to proclaim, and THAT God is thoroughly singular. On a biblical understanding, there is only one being in the whole universe of whom it is correct to apply the word "God", whether it's as a predicate noun or in any other way. As God Himself says in Isaiah, "I am the Lord, and there are no other gods besides me."

So instead of appealing to grammar arcana, let's just be clear about what the implications of our ideas of God are. Do you acknowledge that the Mormon idea of God entails that there are three divine beings who are completely separate individuals? If you do, that's tri-theism. If you want, you can appeal to a collective noun concept to speak of these three as a unit, but that doesn't change the fact that you have three divine beings, all of whom are divine. And for our purposes, that's what's crucially important. For that's polytheism, which is exactly what Israel and the catholic church have always denied. We affirm that there is one and only one divine being, period.

What's wrong with the version I gave above? The first three use God as a title, the last as a collective noun. A word can have multiple meanings, yes?

Technically, this is a difference of use, not meaning, but let's let that pass. I suggest you bone up on grammar, specifically collective nouns and the use/meaning distinction. Then we can talk more intelligently about that.

But even without that more technical discussion, here's how I would analyze the problem. First of all, when we say "the Father is God", "God" is not a title. It's a predicate. That is, we're saying that the Father has the quality of being God. That is, we're saying that the Father is fully divine. So think of whatever characteristics you can the possession of which make a being divine. You might think of such qualities as sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, self-existence, noncontingency.... When we say that the Father is God, we are saying that he has all those characteristics. It's the same when we talk about the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, we turn to the issue of just how many divine beings there are. To be truly monotheistic, and therefore in continuity with the faith of Abraham, there can be only one. Period. If you say that there are three beings, each of which are separate individuals that are divine, that's tritheism, and it's no use invoking a collective noun to cover this up. For the word "God" is correctly applied, on a monotheistic conception, to one and only one being.

Now, you might protest that when YOU use the word "God" in the slogan you gave, you use it first as a title and then as a collective noun. Nowhere do you use it as a predicate. Well, there you go. You are using the same WORDS as the historic church, but you're radically changing how they are used. As a result, you deny what the church and Israel have always affirmed - there is one and only one God.
And that's really the point. The Christian Church has always affirmed, through preaching, creed, and devotion, that there is one and only one God. By invoking such grammatical devices as collective nouns, the LDS church is camoflauging just how far it is deviating from the concept of God proclaimed by Abraham through Jesus to the apostle Paul and beyond in the church.

And salvation really is at stake. To be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord". How you understand both terms "Jesus" and "Lord" is crucially important.

 

[Katzpur]

And salvation really is at stake. To be saved, one must confess "Jesus is Lord". How you understand both terms "Jesus" and "Lord" is crucially important.

You are really serious, aren't you? You actually believe that God is going to send me to Hell because I understand Him differently than you do? And you believe this because "the Church" says so, not because God himself says so.