1. Totally different View of God
-
Conventional Christianity teaches that God is everlasting, unchanging, and spirit (as within the doctrine of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God in three individuals).
-
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a bodily physique, was as soon as a mortal man, and progressed to godhood.
Protestants could say: “The Mormon God just isn’t the God of the Bible.”
2. The Trinity
-
Conventional Christianity: God is one Being in three individuals (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
-
Mormonism: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings—”one in goal,” however not of 1 essence.
Protestant abstract: “Mormons reject the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.”
3. Jesus Christ
-
Conventional Christianity: Jesus is the everlasting Son of God, uncreated, totally God and totally man, second individual of the Trinity.
-
Mormonism: Jesus is the literal spirit little one of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mom. He’s our older brother, even the brother of Lucifer.
Protestant framing: “They use the identify of Jesus, however not the Jesus of the Bible.”
4. Scripture and Authority
-
Conventional Christianity: The Bible alone is the ultimate authority (Sola Scriptura).
-
Mormonism: Along with the Bible, they maintain to the Guide of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Nice Worth as authoritative scripture. In addition they settle for ongoing revelation by means of their prophets.
Protestant concern: “Mormons add to Scripture and observe a distinct authority.”
5. Salvation
-
Conventional Christianity: Salvation is by grace alone by means of religion alone in Christ alone.
-
Mormonism: Grace is a part of salvation, however obedience to church ordinances, good works, temple rituals, and lifelong effort are required to realize exaltation (godhood).
Protestant abstract: “They educate salvation by works, not by grace.”
6. Exaltation and Everlasting Development
-
Mormons imagine devoted members can change into gods themselves and inherit their very own worlds (a doctrine usually summarized by the phrase “as man is, God as soon as was; as God is, man could change into”).
Protestant view: “This isn’t Christianity, however a distinct faith altogether.”
7. Origin of Mormonism
Usually: “Christianity is 2,000 years previous; Mormonism began within the 1800s.”
Tone and Function
-
Evangelical pastors normally strategy this subject with a mixture of pastoral concern and apologetic intent—to not assault particular person Mormons (whom they might admire for his or her household values and sincerity), however to defend what they see as important Christian doctrine.
-
They could say one thing like: “Mormons are good individuals, however they imagine a distinct gospel.”
You’re proper to notice that the phrase “Trinity” by no means seems within the Bible, and it is a important level in theological discussions—particularly when participating with teams like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or non-Trinitarian Christians.
Right here’s a good and balanced method to break it down:
✅ True: The Doctrine of the Trinity Is Not Explicitly Said in Scripture
-
The Bible doesn’t comprise a single verse that claims: “God is three individuals in a single essence.”
-
The time period “Trinity” was developed centuries later—most famously articulated by Tertullian within the early third century and formalized on the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and Council of Constantinople (381 AD).
-
So that you’re proper: Protestant pastors cannot actually say the Trinity is a doctrine “present in so many phrases” in Scripture.
🔁 What Conventional Protestants Imply by “Biblical Doctrine”
Though the Trinity is not named or outlined within the Bible, most Protestants argue that the doctrine is a synthesis of biblical teachings. They see it as essentially the most coherent method to interpret the next:
“There’s one God.”
→ Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5, James 2:19
→ John 1:1 (“the Phrase was God”), John 20:28, Colossians 2:9
→ Acts 5:3–4, 2 Corinthians 3:17
→ Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16–17), Nice Fee (Matthew 28:19: “baptizing them within the identify of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”)
So, when conventional Christians say it’s “biblical,” they imply it’s drawn out of the Bible’s witness—even when it’s not specified by one place.
🧠 Your Remark in Context
Your critique is necessary and traditionally grounded. This is how theologians of assorted views would possibly reply:
-
Biblical literalists could agree with you and say the Trinity is a later growth, not clearly taught by Jesus or the apostles.
-
Historic theologians would reply that the Trinity emerged because the early Church’s greatest try to resolve tensions within the New Testomony textual content—notably how to discuss Jesus as divine whereas sustaining Jewish monotheism.
-
Mormons and different non-Trinitarians use your actual argument to reject the creeds of early Christianity as post-apostolic improvements.
🧭 What’s at Stake
On the coronary heart of the talk is that this query:
Is “Christianity” outlined by the Bible alone, or by the Bible as interpreted by means of early church custom and councils?
Most Protestant pastors—particularly evangelical ones—are working inside a framework that considers post-biblical doctrinal growth (just like the Trinity) reliable so long as it faithfully displays the biblical witness.
However you’re completely proper: They need to not declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly or explicitly acknowledged in Scripture. That’s a theological development—not a verbatim biblical instructing.
Would you want a rundown of how totally different Christian teams (Catholics, Japanese Orthodox, Unitarians, and many others.) deal with this pressure?
There aren’t any verses within the Bible the place the Holy Spirit is immediately known as “God” in the identical plain means that Jesus is (e.g., “The Phrase was God” in John 1:1). Nonetheless, there are a number of verses that Trinitarian theologians interpret as implying or not directly figuring out the Holy Spirit as divine or as possessing attributes of God.
Right here’s a listing of essentially the most generally cited passages:
🔹 1. Acts 5:3–4 — Ananias and Sapphira
Peter mentioned, “Ananias, why has Devil crammed your coronary heart to misinform the Holy Spirit…? You haven’t lied to man however to God.”
Why it’s cited:
Peter says mendacity to the Holy Spirit is equal to mendacity to God, implying the Holy Spirit is God.
🔹 2. 1 Corinthians 3:16
“Do you not know that you’re God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”
1 Corinthians 6:19 additionally says:
“Your physique is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who’s in you…”
Why it’s cited:
Within the Hebrew custom, solely God dwelled within the temple—so calling the Spirit’s dwelling a temple is taken to indicate the Spirit’s divinity.
🔹 3. 2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and the place the Spirit of the Lord is, there may be freedom.”
Why it’s cited:
This verse seems to equate “the Lord” with the Holy Spirit. Interpreters debate whether or not “the Lord” right here means “Yahweh,” “Christ,” or just a title.
🔹 4. Hebrews 9:14
“Christ… by means of the everlasting Spirit supplied himself with out blemish to God…”
Why it’s cited:
The attribute “everlasting” is normally utilized solely to God, suggesting the Spirit is divine.
🔹 5. Psalm 139:7–8
“The place shall I’m going out of your Spirit? Or the place shall I flee out of your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you might be there!”
Why it’s cited:
This psalm attributes omnipresence to the Spirit—an attribute historically reserved for God.
🔹 6. Isaiah 63:10
“However they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; subsequently he turned to be their enemy…”
Why it’s cited:
The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a private being able to being “grieved”—a divine agent intently linked to God’s personal presence and emotion.
🔹 7. Matthew 28:19 — The Nice Fee
“…baptizing them within the identify 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 standing.
Abstract:
There’s no verse that claims, “The Holy Spirit is God” in a literal, creedal means. However:
-
Acts 5:3–4 comes closest.
-
Different verses indicate divine attributes (eternity, omnipresence, personhood).
-
Trinitarian theology builds on these to argue the Spirit is totally God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
That’s a really considerate and theologically important proposal. What you’re describing is a non-Nicene, non-Trinitarian means of affirming the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—saying they’re “one God,” however not one in substance (Greek: ousia), which immediately contrasts with classical Trinitarian doctrine.
Let’s unpack this rigorously.
🔷 1. What Conventional (Nicene) Christianity Teaches
In response to the Nicene Creed (325 AD, expanded in 381 AD):
-
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence/substance (ousia).
-
They’re three distinct individuals (hypostases).
-
There’s just one God as a result of they share the identical divine nature.
💬 “We imagine in a single God… and in a single Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God… of 1 substance (homoousios) with the Father… and within the Holy Spirit…”
This concept was formalized in response to Arianism, which mentioned that Christ was not totally divine however a created being.
🔶 2. Your View: One God, Not One Substance
This type of view may take a couple of totally different kinds, all traditionally important:
A. Social Trinitarianism (fashionable proposal):
-
The Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine individuals in excellent unity of will and love.
-
They don’t seem to be one in substance, however are one in goal and motion.
-
Critics say this dangers sounding like tritheism (three gods).
B. Modalism (historical heresy by Nicene requirements):
-
The Father, Son, and Spirit are modes or roles of the one God, not distinct individuals.
-
This affirms strict unity however denies true private distinctions.
-
Most Protestants reject this view at present.
C. Binitarian or Unitarian Views:
-
Some view the Holy Spirit not as an individual, however as God’s energetic drive or presence.
-
Or they might see Jesus as uniquely empowered however not totally divine in essence.
⚠️ From a Nicene perspective, any denial of shared substance is heresy, however your view could also be making an attempt to affirm a center floor: unity of divinity with out insisting on metaphysical sameness.
🔎 Scriptural Issues
If one says:
“The Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, however not one in substance,”
…they’re probably interesting to biblical imagery of relational unity, equivalent to:
-
John 17:21 – “That they might all be one, simply as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…”
-
Philippians 2:6 – Jesus is within the type of God, however some say this does not require similar substance.
-
Matthew 28:19 – The three are named collectively, however not explicitly mentioned to be one in essence.
🧠 Theological Implications
Your strategy is a reliable interpretive custom—simply not Nicene orthodoxy. It shares floor with:
-
Mormonism (which teaches that the three are united in will however not in substance),
-
Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny Christ’s full deity),
-
and some liberal Christian theologies that reject metaphysical classes altogether.
🗣 How Conventional Protestants Would Reply
They’d probably say:
-
“You’re affirming monotheism and divine unity, which is sweet.”
-
“However denying shared substance opens the door to subordinationism or tritheism.”
-
“The unity of God isn’t nearly goal or love—it’s about shared divine being.”
They’d level to John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:3 to argue Jesus shares God’s very nature, not simply God’s will.