Rather, I only wish you to consider the possibility that one may be a sincere, earnest follower of Christ, a devoted Christian, and not adopt the Trinity doctrine.
For me, perhaps one of the most ironic traditions held by some in our Christian community is the idea that one must be a Trinitarian to be considered a Christian.
Really... that logic comes across as a bit non-sequitor.
Mostly because Jesus Christ does not believe in or teach the Trinity.
!!??!
In fact, Christ is far from teaching it. So how is it one must believe in the Trinity, which is very different than what the Savior taught, to be a follower of Him? Who made this rule up? There is no seeming rationale in this requirement of believing in the Trinity to be considered "Christian" and a follower of Jesus Christ.
The Trinity doctrine is a tradition (and only a tradition) that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one being. The Bible does not back this up (unless someone wants to cherry-pick out a few verses and ignore a whole lot of others). What more, the majority of credible modern-day Christian scholars from several different mainstream denominations state the Trinity doctrine can't be derived from reading the Bible. Don't take my word for it, you can Google this one.
Extra Reading: Google > Is the Trinity Doctrine in the Bible?
Whether you choose to believe the Trinity doctrine or not, I believe being a follower of Christ, esteeming Him as the one and only Savior and following his teachings is what defines one as a Christian. At least the dictionary seems to agree.
By the way, just curious, have you ever wondered who was in charge and running the Universe while Jesus was busy being a baby and a child growing up? Did the Universe go without a God in charge during this time?
Having just read Matthew, Mark and Luke, there are numerous verses in which Jesus teaches that He and the Father are two different Beings with a very close relationship. Here is a list of a few out of MANY. I'm certainly not expecting anyone to read all of them. When you get the idea - skip down to the conclusion.
But first, please read these verses just as Christ says them. After all, He is Master of His own words and He promised to teach things which had never before been revealed since the foundation of the earth. (Matt 13:35) Resist the temptation to qualify and filter Christ's words through someone else's inferior authority (i.e other prophets and kings in the Bible) or somewhere outside of the Bible, and especially not someone from Old Testament times who had a lesser knowledge and understanding common to their era:
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32-33)
25 ¶At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11:25-27)
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matthew 17:5)
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23)
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matthew 26:39)
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:53)
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. (Mark 9:36-37)
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 ¶But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:31-32)
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34)
19 ¶So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)
(When Jesus was 12 yrs. old) - And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (Luke 2:49)
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22)
12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
13 ¶And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; (Luke 6:12-13)
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26)
21 ¶In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. (Luke 10:21-22)
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30)
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:41-42)
69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. (Luke 22:69)
46 ¶And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23:46)
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be
full. (John 15:9)
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
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. (John 14:28)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I haven't even read most of John or the rest of the New Testament yet! However, if you read John chapter 17 from beginning to end (no cherry-picking single verses here), it reveals the nature of the divine relationship between the Father and the Son as well as our potential to be included. My other favorite verse is Revelation 3:21-22.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
I believe Christ. I take Him at his word. I believe that the Savior's words should be a gateway and a test for all other prophets and biblical kings' teachings to be matched up to and measured by, not the other way around. Christ's words stand supreme for me. That's why I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct personages, each with their own divine role. Hopefully you can see why someone might have good cause to not adopt the Trinity concept and still be a sincere Christian.
I believe it is only through Christ will I be saved. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and a Christian...a non-trinitarian Christian.
Loved this. Just recently viewed a video of a young lady who said she had asked her LDS seminary teacher and bishop if there was a scripture in the Bible suggesting Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost were separate beings. She said they couldn't come up with one and that is why she "confessed Jesus" and became a "Christian". You have a great list of references showing it makes perfect sense that they are separate individuals...one in purpose.
ReplyDeleteThis would never happen every Bishop and probably all Seminary teachers know at least to quote the baptism of Christ and The stoning of Stephen.
DeleteI hope you don't mind if I offer a couple of thoughts about Trinitarianism. By way of full disclosure, I believe in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed.
ReplyDeleteLooking broadly at Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition, there are essentially only a few options for how we might characterize God:
1. There is only one God, but he is manifested in different ways -- for example, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are all nevertheless actually the same person. This belief is often mistaken for Trinitarianism, but it is actually modalism, aka Sabellianism. It is considered heretical by virtually all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. Modalism is very difficult to reconcile with the New Testament, as you suggest in your post.
2. There is only one God, who is also called God the Father. Jesus may have been a very special person, but he was essentially human rather than divine. This belief is held by most Christian Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses, along with some other relatively small groups. Among non-Christians, this belief is held by Jews and Muslims. The Holy Ghost, if accepted at all, is typically viewed by those who hold this belief as an impersonal force emanating from God the Father.
3. There is only one God, but God includes three separate and distinct persons: God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, aka the Holy Spirit. This is Trinitarianism. You are correct that it is not expressly articulated in the Bible, and it is certainly not a doctrine that any of its believers can claim to grasp fully. But it does reconcile two apparent sets of beliefs that were held by Jesus: his repeated pronouncements about his relationship with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and his upholding of traditional Judaism, which is strongly monotheistic. ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One.")
4. There is more than one God, and these Gods include God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. As I understand it, this belief is held by most Mormons. This plurality of Gods is not necessarily equivalent to polytheism in, say, the Greco-Roman or Hindu traditions, since Mormons view these three Gods as being completely united in their will and purpose.
I hope this is helpful toward understanding how different groups characterize God.
In your view, what is the difference between 3 and 4? When you wikipedia the Trinity, the three are one being manifesting Himself in one of the three forms at any given time. But by your definition, there is no difference other than the decision of whether you put an "s" on the end of God or not. We don't refer to them as the "Gods". We refer to them as the "Godhead" which actually completely fits your definition of the Trinity in number 3. You do not describe the Trinity the way most do. I find that fascinating and wondering if you're like a few of my friends of other faiths (including pastors) who don't really believe in the Trinity the way mainstream Christian theology defines it.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed, which I also understand to be accepted by mainstream Christian theology.
ReplyDeleteI agree that by combining all three persons in what Mormonism calls the Godhead, the Mormon view gets close to Trinitarianism. The key difference, it seems to me, is the belief of most Mormons in the plurality of Gods.
Here is what I understand to be the core Mormon belief, as outlined in the entry Plurality of Gods in Elder Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine (1979 edition, p. 576):
"Three separate personages -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there are an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods."
Kevin, just so you know....Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was published in 1958 and again 1966 (2nd edition). I've never heard of a 1979 version and don't believe one exists. McConkie's book was written before he was called as an apostle, it was peer reviewed by Mark E. Petersen, then an apostle and found to have more than 1000 errors. It was pulled from the book market and never re-published after that. The Church's official position is It is not considered official doctrine nor canon and that was their official position from very early on. Instead, it is one respected man's best conclusions which he didn't get approval from anybody for. Even so, that book was not well received and McConkie had to eat humble pie on that one. Part of the problem was the authoritative tone he took in the book when it wasn't his authority to exercise. And the quote you just used is one that isn't part of our official canon, teachings or doctrine. We've never been taught about this infinite number of holy personages...that was McConkie's extrapolation. Whether he stood by that or not in later years is doubtful. We have no stories or references to these "gods". And I certainly wouldn't mix it in with the Mormon concept of the Godhead.
ReplyDeleteI believe your definition of the Trinity and my definition of the Godhead are so close that it is enough to be friends over and not worry. We will not be saved based on the correctness of our theology anyways. We are saved on Christ's merits. And there is no requirement that we understand correctly all mysteries of God to qualify for his gifts of salvation.
Still, eternal progression might be a very interesting topic....I'm being a bit brave here but let me share some of my beliefs on this topic. Forgive my tone in this post. I'm a bit spirited at times.
http://classicmomscorner.blogspot.com/2011/08/eternal-progression-of-soul.html
Are you by any chance, a pastor or minister?
You're unusual in your depth of understanding and in your ability to look at issues from different sides.
Thanks for your observations and your kindness. I like to be friends with everybody, and I've always found Mormons to be very friendly people. I also agree with you that we are saved on Christ's merits, though we all struggle to understand God "through a glass, darkly."
ReplyDeleteAs for the book Mormon Doctrine, I have no way of knowing how authoritative Elder McConkie considered it to be. My copy, incidentally, is dated 1979, and appears to have been published by Bookcraft. The copyright date is 1966, but there has apparently been some revision because the entry on Negroes refers to the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.
It does seem that Elder McConkie's views have some precedent in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s last sermon. His sermon of 6/16/1844, which a BYU website says is recorded in History of the Church 6:473-479 and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 369-376, says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."
As for other Gods beyond these three, the sermon also includes the following: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?" I think this relates to the belief that there are generations of Gods going back in time.
In answer to your question, I'm not a clergyman or anything like that. But I do find that reading up on other faiths helps me to better understand my own. Thank you for suggesting your post on eternal progression. I'll read it soon.
The origin of God the Father is a mystery. The human mind does not comprehend something without a beginning. It doesn't really compute in our linear existence. We can accept by faith that there is no beginning, but it is hard to imagine or make sense of it. Having said that, Joseph Smith is asking a question to which he applies his deductive reasoning. He does not declare this as revelation from God nor as an official addition to the canon. And likewise today it is not included in our official doctrine or canon. It's interesting, it's a possibility, but not something pressing for me. Nor do I feel like I have an official answer to a prophet's question from the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteWe LDS are unique in that we have such an extensive written history of just about every opinion, every impromptu sermon, every learning curve of nearly every early LDS leader. Were you to go into any other church and go back 200 years and look at everything every leader ever said, you could heckle and entertain yourself endlessly. I question the practice. If they made it scripture and canon and official doctrine, that's one thing. If it is their theories, musings, personal opinions, etc. and not claimed as official revelation...that's another category. It's something to ponder, investigate, but not something our religion hinges itself on.
As far as taking exception to whether one says three distinct personages are one God or really three Gods....we're both saying there are three. Three is three. We agree to the three personages and their roles. How you want to officially title them: One God, The Godhead, Three Gods, the Trinity...is not nearly important as how much you adhere and follow their teachings and admonitions. No one will be judged by what title they chose to describe the same Deity. The point is irrelevant and affects nothing especially when your authority or origin of belief comes from a 4th century creed (adopted from a liturgical poem) and in and of itself never claimed as revelation...I believe these things are interesting, but not so pertinent to anyone's salvation. Those who take great offense and discount others for not using the same words fall under the "strain at a gnat, swallow a camel" club.
Of course you have not taken that tone. Just thinking out loud and typing at the same time...which often get me into trouble. Have a meeting, going to run. You're very enjoyable...