If you consider yourself a non-Trinitarian believer in Jesus, do I have a challenge for you!
With the permission and support of Michael Patton, I am proposing a formal debate on this blog on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity, to be conducted over a six-week period (beginning sometime after the New Year; scheduling is flexible). I am looking for one individual to argue for a position contrary to the Trinitarian position, while I will argue for the Trinitarian view.
Here is how I propose we proceed:
Week #1: My opponent and I would set forth our understanding of the nature of God (his attributes, e.g., omnipotent or not, omnipresent or not, incorporeal or corporeal) to make sure everyone understands what, if any, differences we have on that subject.
Weeks #2 and #3: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity/person of Jesus Christ.
Week #4: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity, status (person or non-person), and/or nature of the Holy Spirit.
Week #5: The two of us would each set forth a case for our position with regard to the Trinity (I would be for it, my opponent against it).
Week #6: Each of us will post one closing statement, with those blog entries open for questions from anyone.
At each stage of the debate, each of us would have an opportunity to rebut the other’s arguments by commenting on each other’s blog entries, and each of us would be free to give a closing response defending our position and/or criticism of the other’s view. To prevent either debater from overwhelming the other with reams of material cut and pasted into the debate, we will each agree to keep our total word count per week (including rebuttals, etc.) to no more than 10,000 words. Note that each stage would be given one week except for the second stage, which will be given two weeks. The debaters may choose to continue Q&A with others beyond the sixth week at their discretion, but the formal debate will be over at the end of the sixth week.
During the sixth week, anyone who properly registers to leave comments will be able to ask both of us any questions pertaining to these issues relating to the Trinity. These questions are to be posted in response to our closing statements. The 10,000-word limit will not apply to the debaters’ responses to these questions.
After the formal debate is concluded, a poll will be posted on the blog asking four questions:
1. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
2. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did < Name to Be Determined >, the non-Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
3. In your judgment, who won the debate? Note: This question is not asking you which person’s viewpoint you think is correct, but whose viewpoint was better defended here.
A. Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian
B. < Name to Be Determined>, the non-Trinitarian
C. It was a draw
4. What is your own view with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity?
A. I am a Trinitarian
B. I am a non-Trinitarian
C. I am undecided
I am willing to debate anyone who agrees with the following terms:
1. The individual must use his or her real name. After all, I am putting myself on the line; I expect my opponent to do so as well.
2. The individual must defend a specific understanding of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. That is, the individual must defend a specific theological alternative to the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be anything — Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine, Oneness Pentecostalism, Biblical/Evangelical Unitarianism, etc. — but it must be a specific, identifiable, existing belief system. No “Lone Ranger” who thinks he alone knows the truth; no “Theological Sniper” who attacks my doctrine but offers no alternative position that can also be evaluated and critiqued. In order to put this doctrinal alternative in context, my opponent must identify the specific religious denomination, sect, group, movement, or whatever, with which he or she associates as a believer. I must and of course will also do the same; I will defend a specific understanding of these matters, namely, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity common to evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and traditional Orthodox believers. I am an evangelical Protestant, a member of a Baptist church, and will defend the Trinity within that theological context.
3. The individual must agree (as I will) that for the purposes of the debate, everything the Bible says pertaining to God, and specifically pertaining to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is true and authoritative, and that the purpose of the debate is to determine which of our two doctrines is most faithful to the teachings of the biblical authors as a whole. The Bible is stipulated here to be the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture. My opponent and I may cite any published translation of the Bible or refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts; if the translation of a particular passage is disputed for some reason, each of us will be free to offer whatever justification we think best in support of our view. I don’t mind if my opponent gets his or her doctrinal ideas from some other source, but the debate must be focused exclusively on which doctrine best reflects or represents the teachings of the Bible.
4. The individual must agree (as I will) that the debate will focus solely and directly on the theological issues pertaining to the Trinity specified above. Both of us will commit ahead of time to refrain from attacking the other person’s religion, its history (e.g., alleged scandals), its leaders, or its teachings on subjects extraneous to the issues directly impinging on the doctrine of the Trinity. This means, for example, that if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, I won’t be bringing up the Miracle Wheat scandal, Russell’s courtroom difficulties, Rutherford’s temper, the failed predictions concerning 1914, 1918, 1925, etc.; and likewise, my opponent will not be bringing up Constantine’s lack of baptism, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Michael Servetus’s execution, etc.
5. The individual must agree (as I will) that at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the debate, he or she will provide in this forum a list of resources, which may include as few as two books and as many as six books, that best represent the viewpoint he or she will defend. The list of resources may also include from one to three websites or web pages defending that viewpoint. Neither of us is expected to agree absolutely with everything in the resources we list; the purpose of the list is to give each other, and those following the debate, some understanding of the general perspective from which we defend our respective viewpoints.
With these stipulations, I am willing to debate anyone. If any of the non-Trinitarians here would like to go find someone to come debate for their side, that would be fine. If more than one non-Trinitarian offers to debate me, we’ll set up a poll and invite non-Trinitarians only to vote for their champion. To nominate yourself or someone else (with that person’s permission), just respond to this post with a comment, identifying yourself or your nominee by name and indicating your agreement to the terms stipulated above.
Some of you already know me, but for those who don’t, I am an evangelical Christian apologist and the author of a dozen books, including Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Baker, 1989) and Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), which I co-authored with Ed Komoszewski. I have worked at several well-known apologetics ministries, have taught several elective courses in The Theology Program, and am currently the Director of Research at the Institute for Religious Research.
232 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate Challenge"
Is my attempt to sign up on the Theologica forum going to be approved? As a Mormon, I never take those kind of things for granted.
hey that rhymes….
Mr Bowman, I see that your debate structure does not include a section devoted to the protagonists’ understanding of the Father. Is there a reason for this?
If anyone hasn’t already noticed, the Dave Barron who commented on this thread is not the same Dave Barron from Scripturaltruths.com.
Hi Rob Bowman!
(Off-topic Request)
I only have a marginal interest in this debate topic of the Trinity…, but if or when you have both the time and interest to debate a liberal protestant on a topic which you feel is damaging to historical Christian doctrine, I’d be particularly keen to read and observe that debate.
In particular, I’m thinking of you debating James McGrath who is a Liberal Protestant. On a topic of mutual agreement and interest between the two of you. (Obviously).
Dave Burke,
I am not aware of any non-Trinitarian theology that treats the Bible as the unerring word of God but that does not regard the Father as God. Where doctrinal differences arise with regard to the Father are in his nature (e.g., Mormons believe the Father has a physical body) and his relation to the other two persons. But there is in any case room in the first and fifth weeks for the debaters to set forth their views on the person and nature of the Father.
Rob,
I would also like to recommend Dave Barron as your opponent in this debate. I do not think you will find a more staunch, outspoken and studied anti-trinitarian out there.
I would be very interested in entering the debate regarding the “Trinity” as a non-trinitarian Messianic believer.
How do I get registered, when does it start and what are the requirements of the participants?
Rob,
I’d be willing to defend the Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) perspective on the Godhead as I understand it–with the understanding that my perspective on Mormonism is not to be considered the “official” Mormon perspective. You know a bit about me, my discussion style, etc.
I would suggest that clarifications be made on a few other points, specifically, what each participant understands such things as “Trinity,” “personality” (or personhood), “being,” and “unity,” or “oneness” to mean.
If we aren’t clear on such terms as are central to the concept of Trinity, or on what is meant by Trinity itself, we will likely make little progress in understanding.
In this regard, I would suggest that as part of a rebuttal, each participant be required to demonstrate an accurate understanding of the arguments presented by the other prior to attempting to either refute or present an alternative argument.
For those who don’t know me, I claim no special theological qualifications. But I am an active member of the Mormon church. I served my LDS mission in Protestant (Evangelical) dominated regions of the U.S., and studied for my Ph.D. in psychology under a well respected scholar in the field who is also an Evangelical Protestant working for the past 15+ years at Mormon owned Brigham Young University. So I feel that my experience in understanding and responding to Protestant viewpoints in both Mormon dominated and Protestant dominated contexts may be somewhat helpful in facilitating an understanding of where our perspectives overlap and where they truly diverge.
My dissertation addressed naturalistic bias in moral education, and contrasted it with (general) theistic viewpoints on morality, calling for a consideration of theistic perspectives in moral education. I’m also currently working on an article (with the above-mentioned Evangelical scholar) in response to a call for religious literacy in public education that we feel contained unacknowledged and problematic biases in favor of perspectives on religion from the “New [aggressive] Atheism.” I am currently also a full-time faculty member at BYU.
M. A. Wilson,
The requirements for someone who wishes to be my opponent in this debate are listed in the blog entry on which you are commenting here.
Mike,
You certainly meet the stipulated terms for the debate. Consider yourself a nominee.
Rob, thanks for the clarification. I had Mormon theology in mind when I asked that question, since they believe that although the Father is God, He is not uniquely so (ie. there is more than one god). Perhaps you feel that this is adequately addressed under the parameters of the first week.
I would like to take up your challenge.
Currently engaged as co-founder and administrator of an online Christadelphian forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums) I am a lifelong Christadelphian with some years of debate experience and serve as a pastor within my community.
I have debated the Trinity online with Robert Turkel (“J P Holding”, of tektonics.org) and enjoyed some informal exchanges with Edgar Foster on JW Christology and the history of Arianism. For a couple of years I was also a regular at Matt Slick’s forums (www.carm.org) where I debated his evangelical staff and members alike.
I would be ready to debate in the new year.
Oops, I clicked on the submit button before I’d finished editing.
Rob, I would like to add that I have no professional theological qualifications, though I did study Christian history at university and consider myself well read for a layman.
I am extremely familiar with evangelical theology and Christology (particularly the work of Norman Geisler, James White and William Lane Craig). My debate experience spans 10 years and I have been working as a pastor for 12 years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dave Burke,
I’d accept you as a candidate (we now have a few), but I do have a reservation. Your reference to J. P. Holding as Robert Turkel (with Holding’s name in quotation marks) suggests a polemical style that would not be welcome here.
For those unfamiliar with this controversy, J. P. was born with the name James Patrick Holding. His name was changed in infancy to Robert Turkel. When he started his online ministry, he used his birth name in part because he was working for his state’s correctional system and felt using his birth name would help protect his family from potential dangers. Some critics of J. P. thought they could discredit him merely by attacking him for using a name other than his legal name. In July 2007 he legally changed his name back to his birth name. Yet some people hostile to evangelical Christianity still make an issue of J. P.’s name, as Dave Burke’s comment reflects.
Hi Rob,
You see to have read an awful lot into a casual reference (there’s no need to second-guess my motives; just take me at face value, please) but I do apologise if I inadvertently caused offence.
I did not know that Holding was his birth name, nor did I know that he had legally adopted it in 2007. (We originally crossed swords in 2003 and we were both using pseudonyms at the time, which didn’t strike me as problematic and still doesn’t).
Since JP was “outed” by Farrel Till (late 1990s I think?) and both names spread all over the internet, I wasn’t aware that his name was still a big deal. It doesn’t make any difference to me what name he uses; after all, I use a pseudonym on my forum, as do most of the people who post there. That’s no reflection on any of us.
In any case, since JP has formally adopted the name of Holding and abandoned his prior anonymity, this is all a moot point – isn’t it? An innocent reference to a defunct name now abandoned by its former owner is hardly polemical, nor does it constitute “making an issue”! 🙂
Hi Rob,
I have been familiar with many Unitarian Movements for several years now. Out of all of them, I see the Christadelphians and having the most reverence for the Bible as God’s Word (regardless if they may or may not be wrong on a few topics), because they appeal to the Scriptures as the final authority for theology and doctrine. This movement is strong in the UK and Australia, and it is beginning to move in North America as well. Having said that, David Burke has been extremely influencial to the layman of the Christadelphian movement more so than many of the people such as Sir Anthony Buzzard, Servetus the Evangelical, and David Baron. He is widely respected in the Unitarian movement of those not a part of the Christadelphian movement, and has spent countless hours online engaging and dialoguing with Christians from all denominations. If you chose him as your debating parter, and could without question show the Trinity to be, in fact, what the bible teaches and be able to handle the objections presented by David Burke, then in turn offer objections that he could not be able to handle, I promise you you will accomplish much in your debate with him.
Please heartily consider debating David Burke.
So many are saying they define God or the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet if he were to stand in a line up most would not recognize who he is…
So many take their stance on doctrine and or movement. Yet they leave behind the cause of Christ for the argument of knowing him or his portrait just a bit better than the next guy.
I’ll follow the debate and read the statements, but none of it will bring me any closer to him, as my relationship is with God and him alone…
Who is going to debate with Rob? What is his qualification?
Dave Burke,
The only people who ever refer to Holding as Robert Turkel are critics of his. You might think this would be over and moot given that he made the name change legal over two years ago, but not so; there are still some nasty critics who won’t let the issue go:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorRobertTurkel.html
But I accept your assurances and am happy to have you as another candidate for the debate.
Thanks Troy, that’s very kind of you. I appreciate your support.
Rob, thanks for that. Please be assured that I’d give you a polite and courteous debate, without rancour or polemics.
Tesfaye,
You will have to read the original post. It is all laid out there.
Deleted by moderator for violating the rules of this post.
[Edited by mod for distracting a provoking a debate on this thread]
If someone wants to also include the viewpoint of non-Christians in the discussion please feel free to contact me.
Will the debate primarily consist of trading proof-texts? One has to go deeper than that and consider that not all texts in the Bible are on equal standing historically speaking, and Jesus himself wrote nothing. As for those who did write the N.T., one must consider that historians view some verses as possibly being later than others in terms of later church doctrines being read back into say, the Gospels, like the verse in Matthew about baptizing in the names of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I’m game…where do I sign up?
Xavier, I believe you need to give your name, credentials, and what tradition you will be representing.
A couple of names who I heard being mentioned on cyberspace that would be good for this debate from the Oneness Pentecostal camp are:
David S. Norris, PhD, professor at Urshan Graduate School of Theology (UGST), who just published a major work on Oneness theology
and
Daniel L. Segraves, PhD (ABD), also professor at UGST, who has written various commentaries on books of the Bible.
I may just send them an email to see if either are interested, if anyone hasn’t done that already.
Deleted by mod for being off topic.
Hello to all. I hope all are doing good.
There are a few recomendations that I believe would be very good opponents for, Mr. Bowman.
I will list these Jehovah’s Witnesses names that Mr. Bowman could contact to see if they are interested in debating him.
Rolf Furuli, Edgar Foster, Ed Andrews, Solomon Landers.
I would like to see what Mr. Bowman and others think about debating these individuals or other scholarly Jehovah’s Witnesses?
I would love to see a Oneness Pentecostal take up the non-Trinitarian side of this online debate. There are good reasons for this. For one, OPs maintain the fully deity of Jesus Christ as well as his full humanity (they are essentially Chalcedonian in their christology but pre-Nicene in their theology proper).
Also, OPs already hold to the Protestant canon of Scripture – the 66 books of the OT and NT. So there would be no tendency at attempt to bring any other authoritative texts into the matter. And also, OPs read and utilize the same bible translations as Trinitarians and do have their own sanitized translation (as some non-Trinitarians do).
Furthermore, I am a Oneness Pentecostal myself and would very much enjoy reading the interchange.
David Norris and Dan Segraves would both be excellent choices. Another possible OP candidate would be Jason Dulle who runs a blog at http://theosophical.wordpress.com/ and has written many articles on this issue at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/.
Are there any thoughts on the individuals that I mentioned?
Could they be possible candidates for you to debate, Mr. Bowman?
Mark,
The four Jehovah’s Witnesses you mentioned (Furuli, Foster, Andrews, and Landers) would probably all be fine, although I am unfamiliar with Andrews. I don’t think I know how to contact him or Furuli.
Would you like to contact these four gentlemen and direct them to this blog?
JohnDave and Chad,
I would be happy to have Norris, Segraves, or Dulles considered for the debate. I confess I am not familiar with Norris (I am, however, familiar with the work of Segraves and Dulles).
Rob and Chad,
A few days ago, I sent them an email that links them to here. I haven’t heard anything from either, but I’m assuming that if either wants to do it, then one of them will say something.
Rob, if you really want to show your sincerity and make this interesting you would debate a representative from the Oneness camp (Those who believe Jesus is God ) Also a representative from the alternative view like (the so called;) Biblical Unitarians, or JW’s, and not Just one or the other to the exclusion of Oneness, like they are all somehow the same thing. You have your yahoo debate group and have excluded Oneness for years and have only debated Sabin a very Nice man but no debater.
Manuel,
The person whose sincerity is in question is you. I have already stated my openness to debating three different advocates of the Oneness position. I “exclude” Oneness Pentecostals from a Yahoo group that is called the Evangelical and JW Theologies Group for the obvious reason that Oneness Pentecostals are neither Evangelical nor JW.
You make a fair point that Oneness and JW and Biblical Unitarian theologies are not all alike. But my proposal was for one debate, not three or more. However, I have been giving some thought to this very matter and may come up with a solution. What we don’t need is your kind of criticism distracting from the issues.
Rob, So only your” kind of criticism” is allowed because you have truth and you say so. I was just being Honest.
Manuel,
Is it “honest” to criticize me because I “excluded Oneness” from a group that you know is devoted to discussion between evangelicals and JWs? Yes or No?
Any further comment from you that ignores or evades this question will be considered a nuisance.
Yes, I consider it honest! I would not exclude anyone from my group and do not. I am able to handle any and all differing belief systems at the same time, to be fair, maybe you are not so equipped. what is your reasoning?
Rob, Calling the group Evangelicals and JW’s does not cut it my book, as I call my group trinity versus Oneness, but I love for biblical Unitarain’s or JW’s to come my way.
Manuel,
I am happy to discuss theology with Oneness believers. I have done so in the past many times, including the debate you mentioned I had with Robert Sabin. I have stated publicly right here that I would be happy to debate David Norris, Dan Segraves, or Jason Dulle, all Oneness advocates. It is frankly dishonest to suggest that I am unwilling to engage Oneness believers in discussion when I have stated otherwise right here!
I also have the right to form a discussion forum specifically for discussions between evangelicals and JWs, and that is what I did. You already knew this but neglected to mention it when you criticized me for “excluding” Oneness believers from that group. That was dishonest, Manuel. I also “exclude” New Agers, Muslims, liberal Protestants, Mormons, Biblical Unitarians, etc., *from that group* because it is a *specialized* forum for evangelicals and JWs only.
I also have another forum, the Biblical Apologetics Yahoo Group, which is open to people of any religious background. I would welcome Oneness Pentecostals to participate there as long as they focused on relevant issues. I would *not* welcome someone who comes to criticize the stated purpose of the forum or to attack individuals, as you are doing.
[comment deleted; see #47 above for permissible comments]
Hello Rob. I have read many of the debates between you and Greg Stafford and between you and Jason BeDuhn and others. I’ve read the entire dialogues and I have to be honest when I say that, in general, you “lost” those debates and, specifically, you were dishonest in some cases. I had, at the time, copied all of those discussions and saved them as Word documents. But, they’re also still available online. Especially noteworthy, in my estimation, is you and BeDuhn generally agreeing that the theos in John 1:1c could be “qualitative”, thus eliminating the possibility that the intended meaning is “ho theos” of 1:1b.
“If you conclude that all nouns without the article in Greek are indefinite, you’re right”
“He agrees that John wishes to emphasize qualities in John 1:1c.”
“I have no objection of translating qualitative nouns with the indefinite article in English when the qualitative emphasis is obvious. This is not the case with “a god” in John 1:1c. A translation like “the Word was D/deity” accurately reflects that qualitative emphasis John intends.”
But, now you wish to have another debate, only this time it is “trinity versus non-trinity” and you said “I am willing to debate anyone who agrees with the following terms”, but then it seems that you “require” that whomever debates you have a certain set of qualifications.
Personally, I believe that I could debate this with you and defend the non-trinitarian perspective quite well and fairly completely. But, I think you are really looking to debate the trinity with only someone who’s written several books and is called a “scholar”. Is that a correct assessment?
Paul Rosenberger,
What is it with these accusations against me of dishonesty? In your case, you didn’t even back up the accusation with an example (despite your use of the word “specifically”). And please don’t try. This isn’t the place for personal attacks, as Michael Patton has already made clear.
Furthermore, your accusation of dishonesty and your assessment that I have lost my previous debates have zero credibility in light of your additional remarks. You refer to my debate with Jason BeDuhn and claim that in that debate I made certain statements regarding John 1:1 — statements that you quote for us. They didn’t sound like me, but I checked the entirety of my debate with BeDuhn — nothing. That’s not surprising, because my debate with BeDuhn was about John 8:58, not John 1:1! I then Googled your first two quotations and (with some difficulty for the second) found them. These quotations come from Robert Hommel’s debate with BeDuhn. In case you still don’t get it, my name is Robert Bowman, not Robert Hommel. Don’t feel too bad — you’re the second anti-Trinitarian to post a comment here confusing me with someone else. Still, I think we can safely conclude that I can’t have lost that particular debate, since I wasn’t one of the debaters!
You then question my debate challenge and take exception, implicitly, to my stipulating certain qualifications for anyone who wishes to answer the challenge. Instead of dealing with any of those stipulated qualifications, though, you make up one or two I *didn’t* say: “But, I think you are really looking to debate the trinity with only someone who’s written several books and is called a ‘scholar’. Is that a correct assessment?” No. Not only did I not specify such qualifications, in comment 14 I specifically denied making any such requirement: “I deliberately did not stipulate any requirements for my debate opponent in regards to education, ministerial status, etc.”
However, I now realize, after seeing more than one post like yours, that I should have specified two additional requirements:
6. My potential worthy opponent must show that he knows who it is he is to debate, just by not confusing me with someone else.
7. My potential worthy opponent must show that he can actually read and successfully interpret English, just by restating accurately the stipulated requirements for participating in the debate.
I’ll thank you to leave me out of this Robert.
I am not “anti-Trinitarian.”
Seth,
This is ridiculous. Your original claim when you first commented here was that I was allegedly angling to get a Mormon to debate me. I assume from that comment, and your other comments, that you are yourself a Mormon. Now you deny being “anti-Trinitarian.” Well, if you as a Mormon are not anti-Trinitarian, why would you have ever imagined that I was seeking a Mormon to take the “anti” position against my Trinitarian position??
I realize that some Mormons will sometimes claim that they do believe in the “Trinity” but just not the Trinity of the creeds. However, Mormon leaders, teachers, scholars, etc., appear as best I can tell to use the term “Trinitarian” uniformly to refer to the creedal doctrine that Mormons explicitly and emphatically reject. For example, Robert Millet, a leading LDS theologian and apologist, writes:
“First of all, it is worth stating what is fairly obvious: trinitarian ideas concerning God — that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are simply three manifestations of one and the same being — are unscriptural, foreign to the spirit or content of the New Testament, and doctrinally untenable. Trinitarianism is a creation of man, a costly compromise between Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine that was perpetuated when the Christian church had fallen into apostasy after A.D. 100” (Selected Writings of Robert L. Millet, Gospel Scholars series, 114-15).
Sounds somewhat “anti-Trinitarian” to me!
The _Encyclopedia of Mormonism_, edited by Daniel Ludlow, states:
“Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe God to be the Creator of the universe, and that God’s being is trinitarian — that the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist simultaneously in one divine nature. LDS doctrine is, on the other hand, tritheistic; it is subordinationist” (EM 257).
The LDS book _Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things_ actually lists the trinitarian God along with the false gods of the Egyptians and Canaanites:
“The Lord God (Jehovah) was their God. (A great contrast to Osiris, Ammon Re, Ptah, Horus, Anubis, Hapi, Sobek, Khnum, Atum, and hundreds of other false deities in the Egyptian Pantheon, not to mention the Canaanite Baal, or the later trinitarian God of the current Christian creeds.)” (55).
I conclude that the LDS Church is decidedly anti-Trinitarian. Wouldn’t you agree?
We’re only “anti-Trinitarian” in the sense that we are anti-modalism.
Which we tend to equate with “Trinitarianism.” And we always have.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Seth, you have “cleared up” nothing but only confirmed what I said was correct. If you equate Trinitarianism with modalism and are anti-modalism, then by your own admission you are anti-Trinitarian. That you arrive there by falsely equating Trinitarianism with modalism is a problem on your end, not on mine.
Mormons usually tend to think that all other Christians are modalists.
This is due to traditional Christianity’s inability to explain the Trinity in a way that actually makes sense. So we, always trying to think the best of people, generously ascribe to you a theology that actually makes sense.
And say what you will about it – modalism is actually a coherent statement of theology.
A case of Mormons being misled by their better nature I guess.
But that doesn’t mean that we cannot turn over a new leaf and actually claim the word for ourselves – when properly understood.
That’s the nice thing about being a Mormon – it’s always an adventure of learning new things.
I think you have to find a mormon to debate you. The mormon “Godhead” is polytheistic and as far removed from mainstream Trinitarian theology as you can find. I recently debated a mormon on this very subject and he used the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan as his principal argument in support of 3 separate and distinct Gods. He said: “You have Jesus there in the river being baptised by John, the voice of His Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit flying above their head. How can God be in 3 different place at the same time?” I said one word: trilocation and he laughed at me.
I said to my mormon debater that he was trying to defend his non-trinitarian, polytheistic beliefs through the eyes of a finite human logic. Mormons tend to take the mystery out of God.
What is even more strange to me is the mormon belief that God is married and has a wife in Heaven and they procreate.