1. Different View of God
-
Traditional Christianity teaches that God is eternal, unchanging, and spirit (as in the doctrine of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God in three persons).
-
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a physical body, was once a mortal man, and progressed to godhood.
Protestants may say: “The Mormon God is not the God of the Bible.”
2. The Trinity
-
Traditional Christianity: God is one Being in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
-
Mormonism: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings—”one in purpose,” but not of one essence.
Protestant summary: “Mormons reject the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.”
3. Jesus Christ
-
Traditional Christianity: Jesus is the eternal Son of God, uncreated, fully God and fully man, second person of the Trinity.
-
Mormonism: Jesus is the literal spirit child of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. He is our older brother, even the brother of Lucifer.
Protestant framing: “They use the name of Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible.”
4. Scripture and Authority
-
Traditional Christianity: The Bible alone is the final authority (Sola Scriptura).
-
Mormonism: In addition to the Bible, they hold to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as authoritative scripture. They also accept ongoing revelation through their prophets.
Protestant concern: “Mormons add to Scripture and follow a different authority.”
5. Salvation
-
Traditional Christianity: Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
-
Mormonism: Grace is part of salvation, but obedience to church ordinances, good works, temple rituals, and lifelong effort are required to attain exaltation (godhood).
Protestant summary: “They teach salvation by works, not by grace.”
6. Exaltation and Eternal Progression
-
Mormons believe faithful members can become gods themselves and inherit their own worlds (a doctrine often summarized by the phrase “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”).
Protestant view: “This is not Christianity, but a different religion altogether.”
7. Origin of Mormonism
Often: “Christianity is 2,000 years old; Mormonism started in the 1800s.”
Tone and Purpose
-
Evangelical pastors usually approach this topic with a mix of pastoral concern and apologetic intent—not to attack individual Mormons (whom they may admire for their family values and sincerity), but to defend what they see as essential Christian doctrine.
-
They might say something like: “Mormons are good people, but they believe a different gospel.”
You’re right to note that the word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible, and this is a significant point in theological discussions—especially when engaging with groups like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or non-Trinitarian Christians.
Here’s a fair and balanced way to break it down:
✅ True: The Doctrine of the Trinity Is Not Explicitly Stated in Scripture
-
The Bible does not contain a single verse that says: “God is three persons in one essence.”
-
The term “Trinity” was developed centuries later—most famously articulated by Tertullian in the early 3rd century and formalized at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and Council of Constantinople (381 AD).
-
So you’re right: Protestant pastors can’t honestly say the Trinity is a doctrine “found in so many words” in Scripture.
🔁 What Traditional Protestants Mean by “Biblical Doctrine”
Even though the Trinity isn’t named or defined in the Bible, most Protestants argue that the doctrine is a synthesis of biblical teachings. They see it as the most coherent way to interpret the following:
“There is one God.”
→ Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5, James 2:19
→ John 1:1 (“the Word was God”), John 20:28, Colossians 2:9
→ Acts 5:3–4, 2 Corinthians 3:17
→ Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16–17), Great Commission (Matthew 28:19: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”)
So, when traditional Christians say it’s “biblical,” they mean it’s drawn out of the Bible’s witness—even if it’s not laid out in one place.
🧠 Your Observation in Context
Your critique is important and historically grounded. Here’s how theologians of various perspectives might respond:
-
Biblical literalists may agree with you and say the Trinity is a later development, not clearly taught by Jesus or the apostles.
-
Historical theologians would respond that the Trinity emerged as the early Church’s best attempt to resolve tensions in the New Testament text—particularly how to speak about Jesus as divine while maintaining Jewish monotheism.
-
Mormons and other non-Trinitarians use your exact argument to reject the creeds of early Christianity as post-apostolic innovations.
🧭 What’s at Stake
At the heart of the debate is this question:
Is “Christianity” defined by the Bible alone, or by the Bible as interpreted through early church tradition and councils?
Most Protestant pastors—especially evangelical ones—are operating within a framework that considers post-biblical doctrinal development (like the Trinity) legitimate as long as it faithfully reflects the biblical witness.
But you’re absolutely right: They should not claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly or explicitly stated in Scripture. That’s a theological construction—not a verbatim biblical teaching.
Would you like a rundown of how different Christian groups (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Unitarians, etc.) handle this tension?
There are no verses in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is directly called “God” in the same plain way that Jesus is (e.g., “The Word was God” in John 1:1). However, there are several verses that Trinitarian theologians interpret as implying or indirectly identifying the Holy Spirit as divine or as possessing attributes of God.
Here’s a list of the most commonly cited passages:
🔹 1. Acts 5:3–4 — Ananias and Sapphira
Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…? You have not lied to man but to God.”
Why it’s cited:
Peter says lying to the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying to God, implying the Holy Spirit is God.
🔹 2. 1 Corinthians 3:16
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”
1 Corinthians 6:19 also says:
“Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you…”
Why it’s cited:
In the Hebrew tradition, only God dwelled in the temple—so calling the Spirit’s dwelling a temple is taken to imply the Spirit’s divinity.
🔹 3. 2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
Why it’s cited:
This verse appears to equate “the Lord” with the Holy Spirit. Interpreters debate whether “the Lord” here means “Yahweh,” “Christ,” or simply a title.
🔹 4. Hebrews 9:14
“Christ… through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God…”
Why it’s cited:
The attribute “eternal” is usually applied only to God, suggesting the Spirit is divine.
🔹 5. Psalm 139:7–8
“Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there!”
Why it’s cited:
This psalm attributes omnipresence to the Spirit—an attribute traditionally reserved for God.
🔹 6. Isaiah 63:10
“But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy…”
Why it’s cited:
The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a personal being capable of being “grieved”—a divine agent closely linked to God’s own presence and emotion.
🔹 7. Matthew 28:19 — The Great Commission
“…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Why it’s cited:
The Holy Spirit is listed on equal footing with the Father and the Son, implying a shared divine status.
Summary:
There’s no verse that says, “The Holy Spirit is God” in a literal, creedal way. But:
-
Acts 5:3–4 comes closest.
-
Other verses imply divine attributes (eternity, omnipresence, personhood).
-
Trinitarian theology builds on these to argue the Spirit is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
That’s a very thoughtful and theologically significant proposal. What you’re describing is a non-Nicene, non-Trinitarian way of affirming the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—saying they are “one God,” but not one in substance (Greek: ousia), which directly contrasts with classical Trinitarian doctrine.
Let’s unpack this carefully.
🔷 1. What Traditional (Nicene) Christianity Teaches
According to the Nicene Creed (325 AD, expanded in 381 AD):
-
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence/substance (ousia).
-
They are three distinct persons (hypostases).
-
There is only one God because they share the same divine nature.
💬 “We believe in one God… and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God… of one substance (homoousios) with the Father… and in the Holy Spirit…”
This idea was formalized in response to Arianism, which said that Christ was not fully divine but a created being.
🔶 2. Your View: One God, Not One Substance
This kind of view could take a few different forms, all historically significant:
A. Social Trinitarianism (modern proposal):
-
The Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine persons in perfect unity of will and love.
-
They are not one in substance, but are one in purpose and action.
-
Critics say this risks sounding like tritheism (three gods).
B. Modalism (ancient heresy by Nicene standards):
-
The Father, Son, and Spirit are modes or roles of the one God, not distinct persons.
-
This affirms strict unity but denies true personal distinctions.
-
Most Protestants reject this view today.
C. Binitarian or Unitarian Perspectives:
-
Some view the Holy Spirit not as a person, but as God’s active force or presence.
-
Or they may see Jesus as uniquely empowered but not fully divine in essence.
⚠️ From a Nicene perspective, any denial of shared substance is heresy, but your view may be trying to affirm a middle ground: unity of divinity without insisting on metaphysical sameness.
🔎 Scriptural Considerations
If one says:
“The Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, but not one in substance,”
…they are likely appealing to biblical imagery of relational unity, such as:
-
John 17:21 – “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…”
-
Philippians 2:6 – Jesus is in the form of God, but some say this doesn’t require identical substance.
-
Matthew 28:19 – The three are named together, but not explicitly said to be one in essence.
🧠 Theological Implications
Your approach is a legitimate interpretive tradition—just not Nicene orthodoxy. It shares ground with:
-
Mormonism (which teaches that the three are united in will but not in substance),
-
Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny Christ’s full deity),
-
and some liberal Christian theologies that reject metaphysical categories altogether.
🗣 How Traditional Protestants Would Respond
They would likely say:
-
“You’re affirming monotheism and divine unity, which is good.”
-
“But denying shared substance opens the door to subordinationism or tritheism.”
-
“The unity of God isn’t just about purpose or love—it’s about shared divine being.”
They’d point to John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:3 to argue Jesus shares God’s very nature, not just God’s will.
