LDS Appeals to J.R. Dummelow and the Trinity

I have been re-reading a book by Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon (Livermore, Calif.: Wingspan Press, 2006, 2009). In chapter 3, “Attacking the Trinity Doctrine,” he accuses Drs. Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks of abusing the work of J.R. Dummelow with respect to the development of Creedal Trinitarianism. On pp. 41-3, we read:

Christian Theologian J.R. Dummelow

Peterson and Rocks are not being entirely accurate in their quoting of scholars. Theologian J.R. Dummelow is quoted to explain to Mormon readers when the idea of the Trinity doctrine came into existence, by definition, in the fifth century . . . Let us investigate Dummelow’s quote, as presented in its entirety from the original source . . . Somebody modified the quote to fit his or her purposes. The following is Dummelow’s quote (Commentary on the Holy Bible [New York: MacMillan, 1920], p. cxiii), the full sentence as it appears in his book, compared to its quotation in the Ensign article and Peterson’s and Ricks’s book:

“Comparing LDS Beliefs,” (p. 7)	Offenders for a Word (p. 66)	Dummelow’s Original text from Commentary on the Holy Bible
“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity . . . was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until* the fifth century, or maybe even later.” * “until” should be “till” in this quote	“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes . . . Dummelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century or* even later.” Dummelow goes on, it is true, to observe that, “the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament, which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of human redemption.” *”maybe” is missing from this quote	Although* the exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century or even later, the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament, which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of human redemption. *”Although” is in the original quote

The changes made to Dummelow’s quote appear to be minor. However, there are reasons to believe that these revisions were orchestrated deceptions . . . the latter part of Dummelow’s statement emphatically upholds the doctrine of the Trinity which is the topic Peterson and Ricks are trying to discredit by this quote!

Actually, Dummelow’s comment would support Social Trinitarianism but does not prove, beyond admitting, at best, there are “hints” of creedal/Latin Trinitarianism (three persons in one ousia/being) in the New Testament. There is the rest of the quote that Paulson  did not provide (using his “logic,” such was clearly an “orchestrated deception” on his behalf!):

The New Testament mainly contemplates the relations of the Divine Persons to man and the universe, regarding the Father as Creator, the Son as Mediator and Redeemer, and the Spirit as Sanctifier (the ' economic ' Trinity) ; but hints are not wanting that this threefold function in creation and redemption is an outward manifestation of certain inward and eternal distinctions in the Godhead Itself (the ' essential ' Trinity). In the early Church the Monarchians, and especially the Sabellians, laid such exclusive stress upon the ' economic ' Trinity, that they denied that there are any real distinctions in the Godhead at all, and taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are only three different modes in which the One Personal God reveals Himself to and acts upon man. The main current of Christian thought, however, has always held firmly to the belief that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represent eternal and necessary distinctions, and those of a personal and ethical as well as of a merely metaphysical kind, within the Divine Substance. Christians have seen in the doctrine of the Trinity not only an intellectual, but also a moral and spiritual revelation of the highest importance.

Elsewhere, Paulson attempts to use early Christian authors in support of the Trinity. He writes:

[A]lthough the word “Trinity” is not recorded in Church writings until the fourth century, it does not discount the premise that the basic idea was held by early Christians in a primitive theology of the early Church or that it is taught in the Scriptures. (p. 45).

Elsewhere (pp. 47-8), he attempts to use early Christian writers, including Tertullian(!) to support the antiquity of the (creedal) Trinity doctrine! However, Paulson must overlook a number of things about their theology and all their writings, not selected proof-texts. Was to Tertullian a “proto-Trinitarian”? No! One can access Tertullian’s writings here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included). However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:

That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)

That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])

That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)

That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)

The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)

One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.

Here are some examples of how early Christian texts were clearly non-Trinitarian, clearly showing that creedal Trinitarianism is not apostolic in origins, but a later, post-New Testament development:

Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?

Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.

Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: He was God before.

Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: Yes, he was.

Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?

Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.

Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.

Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?

Heracl.: Assuredly.

Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?

Heracl.: Yes.

Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.

Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are "no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are "one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying, "I and my Father are one."  Dialogue with Heraclides

1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? (notice that, for the author of 1 Clement and other texts, "God" is exhausted by, not the Tri-une being of God/three persons, but the singular person of the Father. Remember: Trinitarianism, albeit in an ambiguous way, allows for a distinction between the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but not between "God" (and other like-terms [e.g., YHWH; Adonai]) and these persons.)

1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.

1Clem 59:4
We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.

1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

The Didache, variously dated from 50-100:

And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).

We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).

We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).

We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).

Papias (AD 125):

The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

Aristides (ca. 125).:

Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).

For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)

Justin Martyr (100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 48, 49:

And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”

And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”

Some may point to the early Christian use of "Trinitas" whence "Trinity." However, apart from being the root/etymological fallacy, "Trinitas" was not used to denote three persons in one being as it would later be used; instead, it denoted a "Triad." As we have seen, for Tertullian, one of its earliest users, the "Trinitas" consisted of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but (1) for Tertullian, the "one true God" was not the Trinitas, but the singular person of God the Father and (2) Tertullian's theology was opposed to the later, dogmatic theology on the Trinity on many key points.

Finally, it should be noted that Daniel Peterson (or any informed Latter-day Saint for that matter) with the use of “Trinity” per se. As Peterson wrote in a recent essay:

Although Latter-day Saints tend not to use the term Trinity, some Mormon authorities have employed the word to describe their belief in a Godhead of three persons. Thus, for example, here is Brigham Yong, speaking of “the Father of us all, and the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” at the Salt Lake Tabernacle in 1871: “is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes” (JOD 14:92). Similarly, Apostle James E. Talmage’s quasi-canonical treatise on The Articles of Faith contains several references to Godhead as a “trinity” (The Articles of Faith [1919], 38-47). Furthermore, canonical texts peculiar to Mormonism assert the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at least as strong as does the Bible itself. An April 1830 revelation to Joseph Smith, for instance, affirms that “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28). The Book of Mormon concurs, declaring (with an interesting use of the singular verb) that “the Father, and . .. the Son, and . . . the Holy Ghost . . .is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21; c. 3 Nephi 28:10). The impressive testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, published in every printing of the book since the 1830 first edition, concludes by ascribing “honor . . . to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.” “I am in the Father,” says the Lord to Joseph Smith in an 1833 revelation, “and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one” (D&C 93:3; cf. 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; John 17:21; 10:30). “Monotheism,” explained the late apostle Bruce R. McConkie in his influential and oft-reprinted 1958 work Mormon Doctrine,

is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage—are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists. (Bruce R. McConkie, “Monotheism,” in Mormon Doctrine [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958], 511, emphasis deleted).

The question is, therefore, not whether the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are on in Mormon thought, but that the nature of their unity is. (Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity” in Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson, eds. “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch [Orem, Utah: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017], pp. 267-315, here, 269-70)

Paulson has failed to make his case for (1) Peterson and Ricks engaging in “orchestrated deception” in their use of Dummelow and (2) providing evidence for the antiquity of Creedal Trinitarianism. This is all the more telling when we read Paulson's own self-assessment of his book:

[T]he best arguments to prove Mormonism in error are contained in this book . . . This information will help build genuine, persuasive, and biblical support of classical Christianity. Also, this work will demonstrate that Mormonism cannot be considered a mainstream Christian religion . . . Christians reserve the right to determine as a group which churches are mainstream Christian church and which groups are non-Christian cults. (pp. 6, 40, emphasis in original)