What About The TRINITY? Part 1

Your right and in 2012, I published a book called the biblical defense of Mormonism when it came to attacking Christianity. My specialty was the Trinity. There was something about it provoked me.

I couldn't resist tearing into it anymore than I could resist tearing into a bag of cotton candy. It felt like a fragile doctrine that could be dismantled easily and I believe that if the Trinity were proven false, it would pave the way for people to accept the LDS view of the Godhead is a B St. I was appalled that anyone could reject what I considered so beautiful God was, literally, our father, and as such he had a physical form just like ours. Someday I would be able to give him an actual hog or something familiar about the Godhead. God is our father. Jesus is our elder brother. The Holy Ghost is what he's related to us somehow going to heaven would be like a family reunion and as children of God we would become God's ourselves and continue the cycle. How could someone choose a giant three-headed blob over that the Trinity is truly a stumbling block for Latter Day Saints.

In this episode, your host, the sons of light will be tackling some of the challenges I issued in my Pro LDS book I Michael, the ex-Mormon apologist. Sometimes I Matthew the nuclear Calvinist. Sometimes I'm Paul Bunyan's modal trick right so I thought about reading the apostles Creed.

I figured that's it's not gonna be a 20 minute long Creed is pretty good. I believe in God the father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost. One of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.

Common alright so go over some of the questions that I personally challenges that are issued. Back when I was in LDS apologist so get into some of these on Mars Hill Paul found an inscription to the unknown God. He said he who use ignorantly worship him declare I unto you, it doesn't this imply that God can be worshiped in ignorance and that Latter Day Saints have just as much a right to the term Christian as anyone else. Paul, I like your thoughts on this. I would say no. So my thought on this is called and preached unions merely to give them a right view of God's personal attributes, though he does touch on those things within the sermon acts 1716 because unions were were idolaters, so says that the city was full of idols that is that inscription that Paul sees it, and on to begin this sermon to the unknown God was merely a way for the Indians to hedge their bets if they couldn't please. One of the many other idols of the worship committee and am not unknown God would need to be worshiped as well in order to get what they were seeking. And so Paul's statement is implying that they were already worshiping the one true God just in ignorance. Rather, he's using that ironically their own idol to call to their minds.

The basic question of life who is the true God. Paul's preaching that's that's recorded during acts when written in the context of his audience is a direct inviting commentary on the beliefs of the Stoics and Epicureans. His audience would've heard it for what it was and they would've heard it differently than we may have accurate today. If we are only missing a cursory reading of acts and not paying attention to the context.

So Paul is calling idolaters to repent and worship the one true God is not telling them that there just fine going on living and worshiping the way that they were Jimmy thoughts on that Matthew yeah I agree entirely that I am not sure I thought a lot about this earlier in its I'm wondering if you're asking if it's just kind of syncretistic idea is not like there's only one God, for everybody on the planet. We all can adjust worship him differently thinking that's kind of the intent behind the question yeah I mean we know that there there are certain parameters by which we must worship God, and must come to God like Jesus. He said that he is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through him and so that already that already preclude certain religious systems that deny Christ entirely. Whether they believe he's God or not God's any religious system that tries to get through God outside Christ is not acceptable. So so we can see that that even in just in that one respect, we can see that God doesn't accept the worship of every single religion are every single person with different ideas. So in the end.

And as we greet their scripture and understand that there are certain things that we need to know about God. We need Jesus said, and I believe it's John chapter 8 verse six, where he says that unless that you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. Elsewhere we learn that Christ is God's computer 11 John one John 17, and author of Scripture that he is God, so to worship God, or to worship Christ as anything less than God would be displeasing or unacceptable to God. So I think there are certain things we need to know and believe in order to perform correct worship we can just simply worship our we please and and God will accept it. You know I was.

I was thinking back on this to you a lot because this is just a few years ago when I was thinking this way and I'm just come to see things so differently but I mean I member writing in my book to insane units that Jesus and all manner of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to the German man says like so what if we say something wrong about God or or we don't.

We don't worship him correctly, delisting comes my mind is that the Bible says that there would be false Christ's and if you're worshiping a false Christ.

How can you be a Christian when you true Christians but the VLANs mindset seems to be if you're if you're just believing in the name Christ. It really doesn't matter what his attributes are and I think that's definitely false me and there's a there's a guy in Russia that looks like the paintings of Jesus in the the LDS church and he is claiming to be Christ in you know. Based on that that argument all those people could say their Christian I think it's interesting to winnow the estimate that not kind of retreat disable. We believe in Christ, and so if we don't have the attributes correct. So what when the whole basis of the LDS system is that you had this idea that God restored a correct understanding of himself to the world that have been lost, including the idea that God is embodied so I think when that retreat is made it's it's just think it kinda betrays their own position which which used to be. In my mind and at least in the LDS church that I grew up and used to be a strong position of hey we got the truth about about God and everybody else has been worshiping God in ignorance and it's just interesting to see that retreat being made more and more these days yeah I mean there was like a quote you as many of her investment. Joseph Smith in his first vision like just in two seconds. Learn more about you know God that was in the whole like history of the world rain like LDS theology has always been based around the concept of Revelation that you cannot know God, except Revelation and and I would actually wholeheartedly agree we would just disagree as to the source of Revelation. We believe that the preservative God for us today is is what we rely upon and they believe in continuing revelation and when you go back to that first vision. It's interesting because that's what they are taught to believe that the Joseph Smith knew immediately when he saw the first vision got the fathers a human being just like us and has a separate glorified body. Just like the Lord Jesus.

But then when you read all these varying precision accounts at 1832 account. It doesn't even mention the father let alone that the father has a body of flesh and bone that came later in 1838. So you see is evolution of the account but then now they're using the later more developed account to say all this is what actually happened in this how he learned that the Trinity was false.

This is how we learn this and this and that but really that was added later. So interesting is that they they they claim to this event is the light of Revelation disproving the Trinitarian God, but in actuality based on the evidence it doesn't. We don't have evidence of that at all. Yeah, and there's no no evidence from the first vision account that they're using right now that they even had bodies of flesh and bone because Joseph Smith never touched them. For one thing, and the book of Mormon. It depicts the Holy Ghost as being visible and being a human in form and shape and everything so you know it doesn't really prove anything. Either way, Naster I think it wasn't was was until at least 1840s, right where with doctrine comments 130 where it says that the father is a body of flesh and bone as tangibles man's in what way are we formed in God's image. Also, this Wendy you Paul yes so it's a good segue from what we were just discussing and I have to admit as as I was kind of transitioning out of out of Mormonism and into Christianity and going through the process of rethinking my theology and realigning my beliefs with the Bible. I have to admit this is one of the things that really for a while tripped me up because of the LDS teachings that were there were so strong on that idea that that God is embodied and is easy glorified man and had progressed to be such admit that knowledge was restored to the world through Joseph Smith and so as I was making that transition. Trying to understand God as anything other other than embodied was was difficult for me. It was it was just a challenge to to get beyond that concept in my mind and I think it's fair to note here that the Bible doesn't state explicitly what the image of God and humanity is considers various ways that the Christians understand the image of God. Some note that it seems to refer to qualities or attributes that are present in a person. So the image of God would be like human reason or will or personality. Others see the image of God as something that is present when a person is in relationship to God.

In fact, the image of God is not relationship.

Still others see the image of God is something that a person does and I think that there's truth to all three of those views. But as I studied through the passages that specifically talk about image and likeness. Unconvinced convinced by the context of Genesis that humanity's intended role within creation is the image of God. So when we look at Genesis 1 here, as elsewhere, we can just take the Bible at face value and say that it means what we think it means. In our context, we have to understand the Bible on its own terms. So the question is, what did the terms image and likeness mean in the ancient near East there's an Old Testament scholar that I like quite a bit. John H.

Walton, and he states quote throughout the ancient near East and image was believed to contain the essence of that which it represented the essence equipped the image to carry out its function.

Thus, in an image. It was not physical likeness. That was important, but the more abstract idealized representation of identity relating to the office or role in the value connected to the image." So with that context in mind it's illuminating that in Genesis 1.

Directly after God created humanity in his image. He gives them their mandate there to multiply and replenish subdue the earth and have dominion over so in context, God created humanity not to look like him, but to be his image bearers within his creation. It's also further lighting to look at a passage which Mormons will often bring up to suggest that the image of God's physicality and that's Genesis 53 which describes the birth of Seth Adam and his third son. That passage states that when Adam lived hundred and 30 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Several questions should be raising our minds by this passage. Why are we given the second account of the birth of Seth Genesis 425. Also, the current record since birth. Secondly, why does the Lucas account of such birth contain the terms image and likeness in reference to Seth. Another question why do the births of Cain and Abel. In Genesis 41 and two not say that they were born after Adam's image and likeness of less significance as it that Genesis 51 does not mention became the firstborn son enabled the second born son in the list of Adam's descendents and house all of that inform our understanding of what image and likeness meant in relation to set. Indeed, Cain and Abel.

Presumably both look like their father and physicality. So why are these terms reserved for them in the text for set with these questions in mind, it's reasonable to conclude from the context that image and likeness refers not to physicality but to what a person does their role within creation. Seth is the son who continued Adam and Eve's mandate came did not. He went away from the presence of the board. Genesis 416 and Abel did not because he was murdered by King all of this is touched on in the first reference to such birth, where he says God is appointed for me another offspring instead of able for Cain killed him. Genesis 4 $0.25 name in the Hebrew language.

The word play on the Hebrew word for appointed, suggesting the sense role in the family carried the mandate. And so, although this these passages through me for a time, as I really dug in and studied them within the context of engineer Eastern literature and wordplay that goes on in descendent list within the Bible and all kind of fell in the place and I realized that it makes more sense to see image and likeness of as being the mandate for for what God intended humanity to be in the world rather than image and likeness. Where as we might understand those terms on face value. Okay, I really liked what you had to say there really get the wheels turning in my head to kiss. I was thinking about how the New Testament says that Jesus is the express image of the father and when I was only ass.

I just, you know, I assume, that meant.

You know they're basically twins, like in the in the LDS paintings and everything.

I mean, Jesus says no man has seen the father at any time and that he'd come to reveal him and it's it's interesting because you know we could.

They couldn't see the father but they could see Jesus and Jesus was revealing the father so she was the image of an invisible God and so us as image bearers. It's kind of an interesting thing to think about to kiss you know people that we go and witness to. They don't see God. But the CIS and so we have that that opportunity for them to see God through us ties together does not. It does makes a lot of sense.

Actually any thoughts, Matthew, or shape, keep Dylan's house and say I was. I looked for a couple seconds to go find a book that I found really really helpful to me is called getting the garden right by Richard Marcellos and in it he talks he talks about the image of God and I think it would probably just be reiterating what Paul already said, but he kinda wraps it up by he quotes several passages of Scripture like Ecclesiastes 729 which says behold I found only this, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices and Colossians 310 where it says, and have put on the new self, who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the one who created them.

So yeah, agreeing with you that image does not mean physical image of means. God created us to certain qualities, namely that he wanted us to be upright and having true knowledge of God, which is what God gave Adam and creation. After the fall always kind of loss we have lost entirely, but that image has been marred and so it's only through Christ and redemption that we can have our images are the image of God restored or renovated to what God had intended. So I think letting pollens much more detail, but I think we premature greater so what about all these passages in the Old Testament to describe God is having hands face and back parts for some of them in the lead on my theology professor Dr. Jack Cottrell in his book the faith once for all Bible doctrine for today. He talks about this he says God does not have any of the limitations of material stuff and should never be thought of as having a physical body, contra Mormonism biblical references to God's bodily parts.

For example, face, eyes, ears. Her anthropomorphic.

This means that God is spoken of figuratively in human terms in order to make his actions and attitudes concrete in our minds and also note that the Old Testament also refers to God as having wings, among other things. So to read the passages that speak of God's hands, face, etc. as to read those literalistic leaders meeting God has a physical human body. One would also have to read the other passages that refer to God as having wings literalistic. Leanne, what are we to conclude that God is a bird. In addition to being a human.

So I think it's better to understand things in the way that Dr. Cottrell has described that these types of attributes are given to us figuratively to help us understand God's attributes in concrete ways. So help us understand his power. His school reaches, whatever else it may be, but not literalistic layers and God has a physical body.

I remember I got an email one time from somebody who read my book and he just gave this really simple answer and it really made me mad because I work really hard with all my mental gymnastics. You know, proving that you know God had a physical body need to send one real simple thing to me and it really just threw everything into questions and I've been learning about Christ often means and does actually one of the in the book of ether where she sees the brother of Jared sees Christ finger you know, writing on the stonemasons because you have faith you seen that I will take you know a fleshly body in size. Like all about these Christ often means and so this guy sent me an email. He's like, how do you know that all these instances in the Old Testament aren't Christ often means you know and I'm like I don't I don't know I'm just pretty much ignored him because I couldn't think of anything to say back to that, saying that is the answer but just just how easily it was to just dismantle everything that I work so hard trying to prove that it was the father and and really, none of improvement that that was the father and all and you as you know in LDS theology, Jesus had taken a body yet at that point. So if it's not talking about the father and really tears down the whole LDS argument right away what was speaking about the instance of when when Moses saw the burning bush set up some Moses takes off his shoes because God commands them to think it's in Exodus 3 and he speaks with the Lord in the bush but that the bushes and consumed and it says at some points that he actually sees the Lord in the air. Okay verse two there the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush.

He looked in the bush was blazing. It was not consumed.

So I think most commentators would say that in that instance that many times the Old Testament speaks of not just an angel but an angel of the Lord.

Many times that's that's that's pre-incarnation Christophe and so that in that case it would be Christ that appeared to Moses in the bush and the many times that God appears to mankind when God appears to manage various forms the burning bush being one example. But we see physical appearance of God to man in Genesis where Jacob is is wrestling with God and in that passage, God is wrestling with Jacob all night and it doesn't appear to be God.

You know there's no glory or light or any any kind of indication that it's anything other than a normal man but at the end of it. He realizes that it wasn't just a normal man is wrestling with. But it was God.

And so in that case, God appeared as a man to him and so we see that there are possibilities of these appearances of God to man, but that's but it's not as if that means that that is literally what God the father looks like on his throne, just as the Holy Spirit appeared at the baptism of Jesus in the form of a dove.

That doesn't mean that if you are to see the pure essence or what the Holy Spirit actually is is not saying that the Holy Spirit is a dove, but God can appear to us in different forms like so whether it's figurative language or not, depending on which passage are talking about that business early minute.

That is exactly what God looks like.

I think that makes sense. You know, just because you see something doesn't mean you can assume I mean, what, when you have a theology that says you know God is the same species as you and has a human body, and you see, verses like that come to that conclusion, but I mean that be like seeing the burning bush and be like okay God is a plant you know he has leaves as tangible as the bushes in my front yard. But that's not the case right and and there's there's another instance where I just came to mind was in Genesis 18, where three men appeared to Abraham and they predicted that Sarah would have a son in one years time and so the men and Abraham. They walk toward Sodom and the Lord shares this with Abraham. So we see that it describes that among these three men that one of them was the Lord than it appeared on that's in verse one of Genesis 18 so in God's essence, he is spirit. However, just as angels have appeared to man. Yet angels have their they're not physical. Either they have no physical body, but they can choose to take the form of men. As with the Angels that appeared outside Christ to they can they can show some kind of appearance to man, but this doesn't mean that they have physicality and I think that's where I think that's a problem with D.

St. theology is that if you see something with your eyes. That must mean that it must have physical, tangible flesh, whereas if you think about it the God of all creation could do many things to have us see something whether it's have our motley Place. An image directly to our minds or do some other kind of manipulation of of of space of physics to make us see something, or if it's actually a spirit somehow kind of takes form.

There's so many different ways that that God could appear to us as a man with a having it require that he actually has flesh as I'm trying set, like how in Galatians instances the that Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. But it doesn't mean he's actually an angel of light kind of things I'm saying right absolutely and I think many of the parents is in the Old Testament God is a man are clean kind of visitations of Christ. So only only when we do talk about seeing his back. Whether, if you want to take the position that it's figurative. I can see that but even if it were figurative Moses Rackley's to see the back of God. While we know that Christ is a back so why can it up in Christ appeared to Moses, so interpretation doesn't doesn't bother me doesn't require that God the father. It doesn't require that it be God the father. First of all, that appears and it also doesn't require that had to have a physical, tangible body in first Kings 1911 through 12 Malaysia goes to communicate with God, and we really think I was not in the wind.

He was not in the earthquake and he was not the fire. Does this challenge his omnipresence swing of the sun, but just know that I'm stumbling so we think of God's omnipresence.

We shouldn't think about in terms of the essence of God is present everywhere at all times. Classical omnipresence means that God is God's. God is outside of time and is plain intersex hours and all points but that does not mean that she is his essence is present at all points and so I would say that know this passage doesn't challenge God's omnipresence when omnipresence is understood as it has classically been understood within Christian theology right I would just do some scribbling to about that because I just remember bringing up in the forms back when I was LDS and talking about this interesting like you know if God's omnipresence and he must be present in the most sinful environment possible on earth and and if he's present is in a consenting to editing those kind of my my tax on omnipresence and in what some people would tell me is you know God is capable of being present at all times and in all places, but he doesn't have to be as kind of interesting data to look at it and I really like what Winston said. Goss remembers his names even as a Calvinist I would know that he just died recently her statistical yeah RC Sproul said to Kelly how he talks about God's sovereignty to I think I think that definitely has a place here where it's like everything that happens comes before God's eyes and she has the power to say no this is not going to happen, but minutes him approving or declining things things happening. There is no there's no particle there's no broken particle in the universe. You know everything is under his sovereign control and that's definitely just I think his sovereignty is in a way you know him being present with all things as well just make a point about this question, Mr. X, Mormon apologists yeah I kind of feel like it's a trick question because if you take it on Mormon theology.

God isn't omnipresence right well know, but but if I would argue that back in the day. I would argue that he could be because I would say he was out of time as well enough times, not a factor that even with the physical body, he could still kind of beyond the present, not according to Joseph Smith, though he can't live in every human heart. That's an old sectarian notion, according to Smith, so technically on Mormon theology is not omnipresence. So why would you seek to challenge omnipresence I guess is a Mormon in my view if you're taking Mormonism consistently, but it seems almost like a trick question survey because its Mormons are arguing that God is omnipresent, so it's no sooner saying right. But since since Mormons are arguing that is omnipresent there free to attack omnipresence right, but it's it's just seems like an odd thing to to attack is a sense in a sense it's God's omnipresence that makes it possible for God to be present when I am praying to him in Kentucky and you are praying to him from Dallas and Matthew from New York, and in many millions of other points in the world. And so it seems like attacking omnipresence kind of onion would undercut what I would think for Mormon would be a pretty strong commonality with Christianity and that Mormons believe that God hears and answers prayers and so is this just another one of those areas where Mormon theology taken to its logical conclusion, false in the agonist.

I guess that's why they have to. It's one of the reasons why three of us were talking earlier about some of like the ad hoc nature of Mormon theology and that's why the Mormon theology described for the holiest. The Holy Ghost is embodied because that it's it's by the influence of the holy ghost of that God is present to to everyone in this that's what I was going to cut and as you say, you know, first of all there's no way that I would drive three hours to Dallas to go pray to God when he can hear me just fine here in Austin. So I had to drive three hours to print. No not not not know that I'm a Christian. But then, yeah, I think your member will things Minnelli is theology to his like, oh, like God himself is in omnipresent but he his influence fills the universe you made that point in my book, and so I had no problem attacking God's actual presence.

You know, being omnipresent, but I would still said that you know she can hear prayers from everywhere and that his influence is there, like the sound you know the sons in one place, but we feel its effects on the way here on earth.

You know that's a bad example is half the earth doesn't matter anyways yes sir retreated towards more classically Christian uses of omnipresence than than was to Joseph Smith presented in doctrine and covenants 130 and send in what he said about no.

The father doesn't live in all human hearts since the Holy Ghost that makes all of that possible on Mormonism because the Holy Ghost is on embodied so there there there seem to be limitations, spatial limitations, even even in the ways the Joseph Smith presented his teachings. There seem to be spatial limitations for God. A pillar of light comes down from heaven and two beings to send within the pillar of light right in the same thing same thing with the with Merlin. I am the parents of her own eye in his bedroom.

There there seen there seems to be very as is not saying like what you see that your physical eyes has physicality.

What appears to you has spatial has spatial limitations and has to travel through space in some way versus an omnipresent God on a grant by Michael, just to make one last point, you know to pulsing. That's a trick question. I mean I pretty much agree to me all my points were trick questions back in the day, but if I thought if if LDS theology was consistent that I would be LDS development, I found that it wasn't a sponsor sinking from. If you read first Kings 1911 it says and he said go forth and stand on the mount before the Lord, and behold, the Lord passed by in a great and strong when rent the mountains and broken pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind ever take that from the LDS perspective, it says that he passes by, but the Lord was not in the wind well if they believe that God is a physical God that's localized in space and time, and he passed by, but he wasn't in the wind. How is that possible because they they don't know and see God as being in one place one time. So if you take it as literal as the Lord must've literally passed by, but he wasn't in the wind.

I don't understand if you take out literally how how I let Latter Day Saints understand many spies so fast that he made the wind likely sonic sonic that you like the flash, but anything about this passage from a Christian perspective. So II do think that God is everywhere present, but not in such a way as God is dependent upon creation so his spirit is unlimited in space and time, but not such a way that that for example if you were to burn something that would somehow hurt the Lord in some way because you be damaging his spirit is not as like that anyway got spirit is completely autonomous from creation, but in Scripture we often talk about like the presence of the Lord being coming upon somebody or like the day of Pentecost in acts chapter 2 is of the Holy Spirit descended upon the believers now, but if we believe in the omnipresence of God is not as if the Holy Spirit's presence wasn't there. And then it descended, and that it came there. It's more that God is demonstrating his gracious presence to ease demonstrating that and making it visible or apparent to the believers. So, if we if we about this passage in first Kings 19. I think we can say is that the Lord passed by, but he was not in the wind site you could you could say that God is the only present but but he didn't demonstrate his glory to Elijah you know it when we see when we talk about the glory of God is with Moses, there was a huge cloud that surrounded the Lord's glory overmanaged as it would it would be seeing that God is saying that he wasn't in demonstrate his entire glory or or all of course we can have all talk about that later, but we can't visibly see all of God's glory so is kind of like God's glory was veiled in that action that he performed the first Kings 19 so it it appeared as if it were just like to Elijah, it would appear just as if it were when passing through and then there was fire in an earthquake. But, it would appear seem to be mostly natural. The occurrence was supernaturally was the working of God, but to the visible senses.

It seem like it was just nature doing its thing.

Thank you for doing into this number seven of the out-of-print is not as we love to hear from you. Please visit the out of right is not free to send us a message than with comments or send a message at the time the pain appreciated the page alike. We also have an out of right is another episode. You can also send this is on hear from you soon and subscribe to the other brightness podcast on campus box cast cast the modified stitcher. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel. If you like it shortly right here is a great also connect with Michael just wind blogs, and sometimes Poland as well.

Music for the other brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road.

Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry page.

It Adams Road ministry.com. Stay bright fireflies to show the kind man is a man in the he you and a and and and and and and and and human way will and in