Greg contrasts the biblical Trinity with the polytheism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, answering objections that the Trinity was invented and that Jesus would not pray to God if he is God.

Transcript

Caller: A couple of weeks ago, I had some Mormons come to my front door. Now, this is the first time I’ve ever had Mormons. I’ve had a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, before COVID, I learned how to talk to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I read all the stuff they gave me, I asked questions, and then I started reading books. I’ve read your book Tactics, but I’ve not really studied Mormonism much.

These two very young men—probably in their early 20s—came to the door. They were inviting people to church, and I said, “Oh yeah, that’s great. So, which church do you go to?” And they said, “Well, it’s just a Christian church over on the corner of such-and-such.” And I said, “Oh, okay. What’s it called?” Then they said, “Well, it’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” And I said, “Okay, so you’re Mormons.” Then I said, “Well, I appreciate that you’ve come to invite me to church, but your theology is not correct, and so I would never go to church there.”

One of the guys was ready to play ball. He knew the game. He asked questions. So, he said, “Which of our theologies do you think is not correct?” I said, “Well, for one thing, I’m pretty sure you don’t believe in the Trinity.” And he said, “That is correct.” Then he went on to say that the disciples also didn’t believe in the Trinity and that the Trinity is actually an extra-biblical concept that came out of the Council of Nicea.

By the way, when he said “extra-biblical,” I had in my mind that the Book of Mormon is also extra-biblical, but I don’t know how to talk about the Book of Mormon, and I didn’t want to get myself in any kind of corner.

Greg: And, by the way, the Book of Mormon is not very theological. It’s more of a historical book. It purports to be about Jesus’ visit to America. It’s the other books, like the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, and other writings, that are the theological foundation of Mormonism. So, it’s good that you didn’t venture into those waters because you’re not familiar with them. But, as you’re going to find out—and I know where you’re going to go with your question—you don’t need to know much about Mormonism to be able to defend the Trinity in a biblical fashion.

Caller: So, then he brings up the Council of Nicea, and I said, “Well, I do know some things about the Council of Nicea, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t bring up the Trinity for the first time there.” And then he said, “Well, if Jesus is God, like you say, then when he was praying, who was he praying to?” So, that was kind of a gotcha question. Then I just said, “Well, you know, I don’t know enough about this,” but I would love to learn more because I’m sure they’ll be back. I’ve heard reports from friends of mine that they are definitely on the move in the area, so I’m sure they’ll be back.

I know “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible, so how do you defend that position?

Greg: My general approach is that the Trinity is a solution. It’s not a problem. It’s especially a solution for people who have a high regard for Scripture. This would be Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, and your LDS friends. Since we are both agreeing that the Bible is an authoritative source of information about God, if you don’t have the Trinity, you have a big problem.

But let me back up just a little bit. The Council of Nicea was about this issue in a certain fashion. It wasn’t about the Trinity writ broad, because that’s Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it was about the Son and what it meant to be the Son of God, and the Son’s relationship to the Father. So, it certainly had Trinitarian implications because the question was whether the Son was like the Father, of a similar essence, or if the Son was of the same essence. And I don’t mean the same kind of essence. I mean the same essence itself. Was the Son God and the Father God, even though there’s one God?

So, they did talk about that issue, and they came to the conclusion at the Council of Nicea that the Son shared the same essence as the Father. That is not the Mormon view. The Mormon view is that the Father and Son have a similar kind of essence, just like you would have a human nature and I would have a human nature, but we are distinct individuals. That’s the Mormon view of Jesus’ relationship with the Father. They are both divine, and they both have a divine nature, but they are completely separate, distinct individuals, which means you have three gods in Mormonism, including the Holy Spirit. Mormonism turns out to be polytheistic in their view.

I’m just clarifying that the Council of Nicea did address an issue relevant to the Trinity, but they didn’t cash out the full Trinity. They were just talking principally about the relationship between the Father and the Son. They didn’t invent this idea. The word “Trinity” first shows up with Tertullian, and Tertullian is in the late second century, so you have 125 to 140 years before the Council of Nicea that the word “Trinity” is used. So, it wasn’t invented at the Council of Nicea. It was in play long before that, just as a point of historical information.

So, here’s the question I would ask. When he said, “The Trinity is an extra-biblical concept created in the Council of Niaea,” I would ask him, “Tell me what you understand Christians to mean when they say ‘Trinity.’ What is a definition of the ‘Trinity’?” Let him give you his definition to see if he’s got an accurate definition. If a person has an accurate definition, then there’s no way they would be asking the question “Who was Jesus praying to if he’s God?” because that question is resolved with an accurate understanding of the Trinity.

So, let me give you an accurate way of defining the Trinity. There is one God, but there are three, let’s call them, centers of consciousness. Normally, we talk about three persons, but sometimes that language isn’t clear enough. Inside the one God are three centers of consciousness. The second person took on humanity in the person of Jesus. So, we say God became a man, but strictly speaking, it’s God taking humanity onto himself. So, you have the divine nature in the Son, adding to it a human nature. You have one person, the Son, with two natures: the nature of God and the nature of man. But there’s still only one God.

Now, I understand that seems weird. Fine. It is, but it’s not contradictory, because, on our definition, there is one God and three persons inside—so to speak—three centers of consciousness. One of those, the Son, also called the Word in John 1, took on humanity in the person of Christ. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.” The key thing I’m getting at here is that, on our definition of the Trinity, there is one God but three distinct persons, each of whom is fully God.

The Bible teaches that there’s one God, and it also identifies a difference or a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. All three of them are represented at Jesus’ baptism. The Father speaks over Jesus, and the Holy Spirit hovers in the form of a dove. So, we know they’re distinct, but we also know they are the one God, and we know that because they’re called God and have the attributes of God.

If you go to John 1:3, notice how John starts: “In the beginning was the Word.” The Word is the one who became man in verse 14, but that Word was there in the beginning. Notice how John starts the story of Jesus the same way the Bible starts the story of reality: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And here’s what John says about the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him, nothing came into being that has come into being.” What this shows us in verse 3 is that the one called the Word is the one who created everything that was ever created, which means he couldn’t have been created. So, who is the one who created everything that’s ever been created? God. There’s no option. That’s it. So, the Word who was with God also was God, and he was the Creator of everything.

That passage in John, then, refutes the claim that the disciples also didn’t believe in the Trinity. Absolutely, they did. They didn’t use that word to describe it, but it doesn’t matter if they used that word or not. The standard way of the early church—the disciples, etc.—referred to Jesus was as the Lord, the Son of God, or the Son of Man. All of those words represent full divinity, and that was understood by the people there.

Now, we have this unique situation where God actually takes on humanity. So, you have Jesus, who is the second person, talking to the Father, who is the first person. So, who is Jesus praying to? He’s praying to the Father. But aren’t they both God? Yes. Well, then, is Jesus praying to himself? No. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, who’s talking to the first person of the Trinity.

Listen, when you and I talk to the Father, we do not talk to his essence. We talk to his person. Just like when I talk to you, I’m not talking to your humanity or your human nature. I’m talking to your personhood. In the same way, when we talk to the Father, we don’t pray to his essence. We pray to his person. Jesus is a separate person from the Father, so Jesus can talk to the Father, but he is also fully God. If he’s not fully God, then what do we make of John 1:1-3?

There’s only one way to make the Bible verses make sense, and that is the doctrine of the Trinity. If you don’t have the doctrine of the Trinity, none of the verses make sense that refer to God and Jesus. They contradict each other. But if you have the Trinity, then it makes sense to call Jesus God because the text calls him God. It makes sense to worship him as the Creator because John says he’s the one who created everything that was ever created. But it also makes sense to have Jesus talk to the Father because they’re separate persons. It makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is any other doctrine—certainly not the doctrine of the Mormons, which makes Jesus a separate God, the Father a separate God, and the Spirit a separate God. That’s called polytheism. You have a minimum of three gods.

The question is, does the Bible teach those three elements—that there’s one God, that the Father, Son, and the Spirit are distinct, and that each of them is fully God? Those are the three elements. If you can find the Bible verses that support those three elements, then we have biblical support for what we later came to call the Trinity. It doesn’t matter what you call it or when you call it that. What matters is what’s actually taught in Scripture.

The early church believed Jesus was God. They believed the Holy Spirit was God. In the book of Acts, with Ananias and Sapphira, Peter says, “You lied to the Holy Spirit. You lied to God.” You read the context. So, the Holy Spirit’s God, Jesus is God, and the Father is God. But they’re not three gods. They’re all one God. So, there must be something like the doctrine of the Trinity to make sense of those particular aspects. That’s why I call it a solution, not a problem.