To an LDS Fellow on the Tri-unity of God
To a Mr. Ben Pierce on Facebook. 1 Aug 26.
Ben wrote in a response to a short I posted (https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1EA4SqzcSh/). He wrote the following:
“Trinity was not taught by the apostles. Period. It wasn’t taught until 5th century.”
My reply:
Hello sir. Pardon the long response, I know that people will often dismiss them, but I think I’ve seen two responses from you to things I’ve posted recently, and I wanted to be a bit more substantial in this my one reply. I see that you’re LDS.
1. Surely one who follows a man who invented words like “telestial” won’t begrudge us Christians the developmental use of an exegetically accurate term like “Trinity.” Your statement on the date of Trinity doctrine is objectively incorrect, sir. Firstly, Jesus’ incarnation is where the church learned of it. Aside from this, in the ~500 years often called the patristic era a man named Tertullian was the first one to use the term “Trinity” writing ~AD 200-220 in his work “Against Praxeas” (cited below). You said 5th century. He wrote in the very early 3rd. You’re objectively very far off.
2. The word “Trinity” is an accurate word summarizing the Trinitarian monotheism affirmed by all Christians. One could replace the word if one finds a better one; there just doesn’t seem to be one. Each part of “tri-unity” is individually substantiated, and when all the parts are put together, the whole is as inescapable. In the NT Scriptures, there is a Father called God, a Son called God, and a Holy Spirit called God, attributes of God are given to them each alone, and monotheism (not heno/polytheism) is strictly upheld. What we see in the developmental use of a specific summary term like “Trinity” is a Praxeas (or later an Arius) come along. (Most of these early debates usually centered on the person of the Son. You can see the Apostle John (being unlike all since the Apostles under inspiration), writing later in his life against a protognostic belief in 1 John 4:1-6. There the test of the Christ literally incarnating is an example of this challenge then term or counter argument idea I’m talking about with Trinity afterward, sir. When the challenges of the docetics or gnostics comes along, specific arguments or terms arise in evangelism or apologetics. This is to be expected as our message goes out.) When carnal men raise up a challenge, theological language is sought to adapt to if needed and counter their challenges in love and the pursuit of truth. Everyone no doubt appeals to the Scriptures at some level. Good terms like “Trinity” do not rest on a syllable or two, a single Bible passage or two, extra-biblical summary statements, or later church authorities. They’re all exegetical in the only infallible source for revelation, the 66 books of holy Scripture. They’re inescapable truths. Trinity, as I’ve already demonstrated as used long before, in the fourth century took on a more popular precedent responding against Arian theology in the Roman/Constantinian era or world (long after Praxeas). This is likely where you get your 5th century claim, but even it was early to mid 4th. The council of Nicaea 1 in 325 was a great answer on the Deity of the Son. The Apostles Creed (which I affirm today) both came and developed as a result.
Side note: the LDS (coming ~1830) has an entirely different Jesus than the Christian today/than the Apostles/ or Tertullian. LDS arguments would be put down by many of the same arguments used against Praxeas or Arius. You too have a Jesus (and a god you call heavenly father) who is not God by biblical definition. I could use a term that centers my (our) counter against everything LDS such as: “ontological equality.” If your definitions and constituent parts of belief on Jesus and Satan create an ontological equality between the two, you are clearly far outside of Christianity, and would be answered like a Praxeas, an Arius, or a prognostic. The Christian Jesus is not ontologically equal to Satan. They are not brothers. They are not of the same “stuff.” This argument wouldn’t identify everything we disagree about, but it would get to the very heart of it, just as Tertullian’s argument did with “Trinity” against Praxeas, or Athanasius’ argument of the same did against Arius later. I would demonstrate from the Scriptures that there is only one God, that Jesus incarnate is both truly God and truly man, and that Satan is none of these things, etc. You would appeal to the same Scriptures as well, yes, as do all counter claims, but the term would focus us and align or taxonomize our differences and show clearly the differing sides that we’re on.
3. Every one of the Apostles was an experiential Trinitarian. It just rolls off their hearts (1 Peter 1:1-3; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1-14, etc., etc., etc.) They knew of the Father and were taught to call upon him as such, they had walked with the Son who is one with but is not his Father, and they were all filled by the Holy Spirit who the Son said he’d send…amazingly to their advantage. Jesus’s words in John 16 alone exposited rightly would illumine this beyond confusion. But faith is a gift, not mere intellectual pursuit at the same time.
4. God’s holy tri-unity (he is not like his creation) is why we Christians have always baptized in the triune God’s name. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” -Jesus.
If you go to my website, Biblecia.com, and just look at the video or audio pages, along with the written articles, etc., you can keyword search and find tons of material on the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of the Son, things opposing LDS ideology, and tons more. Most LDS people spend no time reading actual Christian theology or history. I invite you to consider our arguments.
Grace to you.
——————
Citation:
Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200–220. Tertullian was an apologist from Carthage. He used Trinitas to describe the one God existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His most famous use appears in Against Praxeas:
“The mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three, however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.”
Note carefully though please, sir: the Christian Church does not get its definition of Trinity from Tertullian. We all accept the term from the rigorously applied data of holy Scripture…where he got it. We get it from the life and teachings of the biblical Jesus. If one simply believes in Jesus Christ rightly, he will learn of his Trinitarian theology from his triune God.
https://subsplash.com/u/bibleciacom/media/d/yhyg24x-gospel-message-may-2018
Ben wrote in a response to a short I posted (https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1EA4SqzcSh/). He wrote the following:
“Trinity was not taught by the apostles. Period. It wasn’t taught until 5th century.”
My reply:
Hello sir. Pardon the long response, I know that people will often dismiss them, but I think I’ve seen two responses from you to things I’ve posted recently, and I wanted to be a bit more substantial in this my one reply. I see that you’re LDS.
1. Surely one who follows a man who invented words like “telestial” won’t begrudge us Christians the developmental use of an exegetically accurate term like “Trinity.” Your statement on the date of Trinity doctrine is objectively incorrect, sir. Firstly, Jesus’ incarnation is where the church learned of it. Aside from this, in the ~500 years often called the patristic era a man named Tertullian was the first one to use the term “Trinity” writing ~AD 200-220 in his work “Against Praxeas” (cited below). You said 5th century. He wrote in the very early 3rd. You’re objectively very far off.
2. The word “Trinity” is an accurate word summarizing the Trinitarian monotheism affirmed by all Christians. One could replace the word if one finds a better one; there just doesn’t seem to be one. Each part of “tri-unity” is individually substantiated, and when all the parts are put together, the whole is as inescapable. In the NT Scriptures, there is a Father called God, a Son called God, and a Holy Spirit called God, attributes of God are given to them each alone, and monotheism (not heno/polytheism) is strictly upheld. What we see in the developmental use of a specific summary term like “Trinity” is a Praxeas (or later an Arius) come along. (Most of these early debates usually centered on the person of the Son. You can see the Apostle John (being unlike all since the Apostles under inspiration), writing later in his life against a protognostic belief in 1 John 4:1-6. There the test of the Christ literally incarnating is an example of this challenge then term or counter argument idea I’m talking about with Trinity afterward, sir. When the challenges of the docetics or gnostics comes along, specific arguments or terms arise in evangelism or apologetics. This is to be expected as our message goes out.) When carnal men raise up a challenge, theological language is sought to adapt to if needed and counter their challenges in love and the pursuit of truth. Everyone no doubt appeals to the Scriptures at some level. Good terms like “Trinity” do not rest on a syllable or two, a single Bible passage or two, extra-biblical summary statements, or later church authorities. They’re all exegetical in the only infallible source for revelation, the 66 books of holy Scripture. They’re inescapable truths. Trinity, as I’ve already demonstrated as used long before, in the fourth century took on a more popular precedent responding against Arian theology in the Roman/Constantinian era or world (long after Praxeas). This is likely where you get your 5th century claim, but even it was early to mid 4th. The council of Nicaea 1 in 325 was a great answer on the Deity of the Son. The Apostles Creed (which I affirm today) both came and developed as a result.
Side note: the LDS (coming ~1830) has an entirely different Jesus than the Christian today/than the Apostles/ or Tertullian. LDS arguments would be put down by many of the same arguments used against Praxeas or Arius. You too have a Jesus (and a god you call heavenly father) who is not God by biblical definition. I could use a term that centers my (our) counter against everything LDS such as: “ontological equality.” If your definitions and constituent parts of belief on Jesus and Satan create an ontological equality between the two, you are clearly far outside of Christianity, and would be answered like a Praxeas, an Arius, or a prognostic. The Christian Jesus is not ontologically equal to Satan. They are not brothers. They are not of the same “stuff.” This argument wouldn’t identify everything we disagree about, but it would get to the very heart of it, just as Tertullian’s argument did with “Trinity” against Praxeas, or Athanasius’ argument of the same did against Arius later. I would demonstrate from the Scriptures that there is only one God, that Jesus incarnate is both truly God and truly man, and that Satan is none of these things, etc. You would appeal to the same Scriptures as well, yes, as do all counter claims, but the term would focus us and align or taxonomize our differences and show clearly the differing sides that we’re on.
3. Every one of the Apostles was an experiential Trinitarian. It just rolls off their hearts (1 Peter 1:1-3; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1-14, etc., etc., etc.) They knew of the Father and were taught to call upon him as such, they had walked with the Son who is one with but is not his Father, and they were all filled by the Holy Spirit who the Son said he’d send…amazingly to their advantage. Jesus’s words in John 16 alone exposited rightly would illumine this beyond confusion. But faith is a gift, not mere intellectual pursuit at the same time.
4. God’s holy tri-unity (he is not like his creation) is why we Christians have always baptized in the triune God’s name. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” -Jesus.
If you go to my website, Biblecia.com, and just look at the video or audio pages, along with the written articles, etc., you can keyword search and find tons of material on the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of the Son, things opposing LDS ideology, and tons more. Most LDS people spend no time reading actual Christian theology or history. I invite you to consider our arguments.
Grace to you.
——————
Citation:
Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200–220. Tertullian was an apologist from Carthage. He used Trinitas to describe the one God existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His most famous use appears in Against Praxeas:
“The mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three, however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.”
Note carefully though please, sir: the Christian Church does not get its definition of Trinity from Tertullian. We all accept the term from the rigorously applied data of holy Scripture…where he got it. We get it from the life and teachings of the biblical Jesus. If one simply believes in Jesus Christ rightly, he will learn of his Trinitarian theology from his triune God.
https://subsplash.com/u/bibleciacom/media/d/yhyg24x-gospel-message-may-2018
Recent
Archive
2026
2025
2024
January
Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 4Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 5Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 6Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 7Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 8
February
March
July
August
December
2023
February
April
May
July
2022
January
February
November
No Comments