Friday, March 15, 2013
Answering Anti-Mormon Stuff - The Trinity
As I stated last time only the Standard Works are Scripture to us. None of these quotes of past GAs in the church are anything more than their personal opinion, and have not been sustained by the church membership as revelations from God. Note the following from a church President, made when he was the church President.
President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
Now to the claims of a Biblical Trinity.
Firstly we have a non-descript attempt at explaining what God is, other than to say that he reveals himself as 3 different people.
Then we have a quote from Matthew which doesn't disagree with Mormon doctrine in the slightest. We also believe in those 3 separate people.
He denies Modalism yet he also believes there are 3 beings, not separated but as one being - sounds like Modalism to me.
Next he quotes Philippians 2:11 _
"And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
He mentions that this demonstrates that God is the Father. Yet it additionally mentions that Jesus is classified as "Lord." What is more it is stating that Jesus does things to glorify God. This is declaring that Jesus isn't God in the ultimate sense, but Heavenly Father is.
Next he quotes John 20:28 _
"And Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God."
We also know that Jesus has acted as a God to this planet in behalf of the Father. Yet as John 5:19-20 says, "Then answered Jesus and said to them, surely, surely, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things soever he does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel."
So Jesus is saying that he needs instructions from God the Father as to what to do.
Additionally "You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 14:28
This is saying that the Father is greater than the Jesus Christ. So if Jesus is God in the ultimate sense then how can anything be greater than Jesus is?
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13
This doesn't explain whether it is talking of Christ appearing as "the great God" or Heavenly Father appearing with Christ. So its interpretation is arguable.
2 Peter 1:1 also suffers from this same problem.
"But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Hebrews 1:8
These are the words that God the Father said to his Son. Let's look at some verses in the same chapter also on the same subject.
"Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:4-5
In other words God made Christ at some point. And also he gave him a more excellent inheritance. Now how could he need to do that if Jesus was already God the ultimate and had no beginning as a God?
Next note _
"You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." Hebrews 1:9
So because Christ demonstrated that he loved righteousness more than his fellow spirits Jesus Christ's God gave him a special position. It doesn't sould anything like a trinity to me.
"See, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23
We don't doubt that Jesus is the God appointed to this earth, as he earned his position by his righteousness. Yet Jesus himself is said to have grown "in wisdom" and "in favor with God" over time (Luke 2:52).
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
We've already looked at why he is called God. The term "everlasting Father" can create some confusion. We know he is the Father of the creation. He directed the creation. Secondly he is the Father in the sense that he did the works of the Father.
"For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9
Let's look at the next verse after this one _
"And you are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power." Colossians 2:10
The word "fulness" in verse 9 comes from the Greek word "pleroo", meaning to fill up something. The word "complete" in verse 10 comes from the Greek word "pleroma" referring to what is filled.
So verses 9 and 10 are saying that because Christ is filled with all the qualities of the Godhead, the church members in him are also filled with this fulness. This doesn't make them all God as well. This wasn't the meaning of verse 9.
Quoting John 1:1 makes an interesting problem in regard who's version of the Bibles in print we read. Additionally to that it depends on whether we look at the idea that it should be interpreted in symbolic form (as is often argued in Protestant churches). But let's look at the most common Protestant interpretation _
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
Well that sounds totally confusing: A word WITH God but who IS God. Yet if we read this a common Protestant way it has the Father needing to have the Son because otherwise he'll be missing the word.
However some point out that the text can equally be translated "and the word was a God". This would make it consistant with the rest of the New Testament that rejects a trinity.
We don't deny that the Holy Spirit acts in behalf of the Father and the Son.
In regard the next line of quotes we don't disagree that Jesus Christ is the God conducting all things pertaining to this planet. He is the only God for here and beside him there is no God.
It must be understood that the Old Testament was given to a hard hearted people who still wouldn't follow God even after seeing miracles. Jesus wasn't going to confuse the issue by explaining that he actually had a Father in Old Testament times. Even in the New Testament to the Jews he still stuck to the Law given to Moses. It was only when people came out to listen to him to learn that he gave instructions such as the Sermon on the Mount. Here he expressed that God was OUR Father. He also explained that God was quite understandable.
In regard the trinity let's look at the following quote from Luke _
"And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." Luke 18:19
Jesus is declared that he is not "good" (whatever that meant in Hebrew), and that only God is. So how can he be God?
Jesus prayed to God on his knees and in regard to his apostles and those who believed their words Jesus said _
"That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me." John 17:21
So Jesus is asking the Father that in the same way he and the Father are one, that all these others may also be one in them. So if we are to believe this was a trinity, it now has thousands of additional people in that one God. Obviously he wasn't really saying he is one in substance with God anymore than the apostles were one.
I would pose the question to trinitarians in regard their god; how can they regard Christ suffered on the cross since he was also supposedly in heaven with God at the same time? Or why did God need an angel to come and give him strength (Luke 22:43)? And how could part of himself leave himself (Matt 27:46)? Why was he praying to himself, didn't he know what himself was going to say (John chapter 17)?
The trinitarian idea has more Biblical holes than a sponge.
Posted by Doug Towers at 7:53 PM