Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?

Posted By: Colin

Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 08:04 AM

Sorry to jump the gun on next year/quarter, in Sabbath School, but it's online now, already, and there are issues listed in the lesson we need to sort out, so, why not start early. smile

Is this the best forum for this thread? I nearly put in Sabbath School. smile

Lesson #1 2012: The Triune God.

The lesson emphasises the deity of Christ and the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit - as if any serious Adventist would doubt the divinity of either. frown There are now well-known discussions in the church, and of course on here, on both issues, but is the challenge to the trinity "doctrine" taught among us, properly understood? grin

There are, it appears to me, to be at least two big problems in this lesson: one mistake, and one untruth - grave misrepresentation.

At the top of Monday's section: "Those who question the Trinity doctrine often challenge the deity of Christ." Well, not by the best "questioners" that I've seen among us, since Ellen White's death, and not by our early church as a whole, either, as it happens.

Also, in the Discussion Questions at the end of the lesson, the first words are: "Some early Adventists struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. Today the church has taken a firm stand on the doctrine." "The church has taken", yes, but earlier the whole church rejected the doctrine, teaching yet the deity of the three Powers of heaven: Saying "some early Adventists" is gravely misrepresenting our history, and whoever allowed that must answer to her own conscience (Jo Ann Davidson wrote the lesson draft).

Since when has the Further Reading had but a quarter of the space reserved for Ellen White excerpts??? Check it out!! It's usually all SOP, to encourage us to study the Bible deeper. In fact, just looked again, and there isn't a single Ellen White quote anywhere else in the lesson, at all. Is there a difference between Ellen White and the lesson author on the nature of God?

See Sister White's statment's further below, which match the single, non-trinitarian quote from her in the lesson under "further reading", for in most of that quote in the lesson she says, in DA 19: "From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was ‘the image of God,’ the image of His greatness and majesty, ‘the outshining of His glory.’ It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world."

Since she also, generally in her writings, identifies Jesus as the only begotten Son of God from eternity, this DA 19 statement strongly suggests that 'from the days of eternity' (Mic 5:2, marg.) is a reference to the unknowable point in eternity hinted at also in Prov 8:22, etc, when the Word of God was begotten before creation began, as God's Son. See below, on that, too.

Why, then, did our early church resist this doctrine which now we hold as we suggest our pioneers as much as denied the deity of Christ and his eternal pre-existence? How did our church proclaim Christ's deity but not the trinitry doctrine?

It turned, not on numbers - 3 members of the Godhead, nor on eternal, divine pre-existence of Christ - for we believed that, too: it turned on whether God died for our sins on the cross of Calvary. It turned on the height of grace: the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

Now, the lesson says (on Thursday's) that "God Himself, in the Person of Christ" had to and did die for sin, to be a worthy sacrifice of the atonement: but, haven't you heard it preached among us that divinity cannot die but humanity died, in Christ's death? I certainly have, and this is a trinitarian argument preserving the trinity itself.

Basically, since that doctrine depends on Three Persons maintaining a threesome from eternity to eternity, the death of the Person called "God the Son" is out of the question else the trinity wouldn't survive salvation intact. Separated for a moment, by death - till resurrection, disrupts an eternity to eternity of existence for God. The trinity cannot be a duo..., for it must be a trinity!! cool The trinity doctrine's structure prevents salvation!.... shocked

Meantime, "God Himself, in the Person of Christ" is actually non-trinitarian wording, distinguishing "God the Father" from "the person of his Son" - that's Ellen White's wording, "the person of his Son". She also said that the "Author of life" suffered on the cross: according to SOP, the person whose eternal identity is the Son of God, having become a mortal man, died on the cross in human flesh, but, indeed, deity cannot die.

Listen carefully, now: God, in the person of his Son, died as the Son of man, the Lamb of God. Yet, this is possible, Biblically, only should the Father himself be the God refered to in the Bible as the him who is God, and the pre-incarnate Jesus is the eternal Son of his divine Father, God: yes, not a trinitarian God consisting mysteriously of three-in-one, but the individual, personally distinct God and Father of us all, including Jesus his divine Son.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 08:04 AM

Jesus is God, too, of course, but, being God's actual, eternal, self-existing Son (note: Jn 5:26, yes, personally pre-existing), he is worthy of worship alongside God his Father, from the days of eternity. Also, God himself, that's the Father and not the trinity, can as the non-trinitarian Sovereign of the universe (PP, 34.1 - Sovereign...who had an associate - a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings.) give of himself his only begotten Son to this world to die for us and for sin without causing the Godhead - that's primarily he himself, the Father - to cease to exist, as would the triune God of three-in-one - in the death of his Son on the cross.

To secure that worthy, atoning death, the doctrine of the trinity has to be ejected for blocking and preventing it in principle: that's principally, primarily, why our church rejected the doctrine of the trinity - to secure the worthy sacrifice of the atonement.

Three members of the Godhead there be, but not as a triune three-in-one God, else the cross is lost: God gave his Son for us on the cross by the incarnation, or the triune God ceased to be God at the cross - the One divine Being, consisting of three-in-one, stopped being the triune God...: is that truly the Biblical God? Salvation and the trinity principly and pragmatically prevent each other...

On the odds of whether we were trinitarian or non-trinitarian as a church in Ellen White's day, she personally was made to feel the difference, in New Zealand.
Quote:
“For instance, an effort was made to obtain the use of the hall at a village four miles from Hastings, where some of our workers proposed to present the gospel to the people; but they did not succeed in obtaining the hall, because a school-teacher there opposed the truth, and declared to the people that Seventh-day Adventists did not believe in the divinity of Christ. This man may not have known what our faith is on this point, but he was not left in ignorance. He was informed that there is not a people on earth who hold more firmly to the truth of Christ's pre-existence than do Seventh-day Adventists.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 5th December 1893, ‘An appeal for the Australasian field’)


"God in the person of his Son" therefore pre-dates Bethlehem, whatever the lesson asserts, as Ellen White, again, differs with the lesson.
Quote:
“A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine erfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, ‘Christ our complete salvation’)

...and the Bible most likely teaches so, too. cool

On his eternal pre-existence, since we used to refuse (but we appear now to accept) the co-existence theory - Father and Son each absolutely eternal, and even co-eval - being of the same age, we wrote this, including SOP
Originally Posted By: EGW
“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times. 3rd May 1899 ‘The Word made flesh’)

“The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.”
(Ibid)

Yes, she's saying simply, that Christ's pre-existence as the Son of God had a beginning in the incalculable past; yet, he is the Word of God from the beginning, which seems to be the absolute 'beginning': God the Father was never alone.

Originally Posted By: EJW
“The Word was “in the beginning”. The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase.” (E. J. Waggoner, ‘Christ and His Righteousness’, page 9, 1890)

“It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that He was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created.” (Ibid)

“We know that Christ “proceeded forth and come from God” (John 8:42) but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man.” (Ibid)


Ellen White and Ellet Waggoner agreed on salvation and Christology in relation to the Godhead and the incarnation, didn't they just. grin

Refusing the uniquitous doctrine of the trinity doesn't deny Christ's eternal deity and Sonship, in past Adventist teaching, so let's get the picture perfect, or at least accurate. smile
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
Sorry to jump the gun on next year/quarter, in Sabbath School, but it's online now, already, and there are issues listed in the lesson we need to sort out, so, why not start early. smile

Is this the best forum for this thread? I nearly put in Sabbath School. smile

Lesson #1 2012: The Triune God.

The lesson emphasises the deity of Christ and the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit - as if any serious Adventist would doubt the divinity of either. frown There are now well-known discussions in the church, and of course on here, on both issues, but is the challenge to the trinity "doctrine" taught among us, properly understood? grin

There are, it appears to me, to be at least two big problems in this lesson: one mistake, and one untruth - grave misrepresentation.

At the top of Monday's section: "Those who question the Trinity doctrine often challenge the deity of Christ." Well, not by the best "questioners" that I've seen among us, since Ellen White's death, and not by our early church as a whole, either, as it happens.

Also, in the Discussion Questions at the end of the lesson, the first words are: "Some early Adventists struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. Today the church has taken a firm stand on the doctrine." "The church has taken", yes, but earlier the whole church rejected the doctrine, teaching yet the deity of the three Powers of heaven: Saying "some early Adventists" is gravely misrepresenting our history, and whoever allowed that must answer to her own conscience (Jo Ann Davidson wrote the lesson draft).

Since when has the Further Reading had but a quarter of the space reserved for Ellen White excerpts??? Check it out!! It's usually all SOP, to encourage us to study the Bible deeper. In fact, just looked again, and there isn't a single Ellen White quote anywhere else in the lesson, at all. Is there a difference between Ellen White and the lesson author on the nature of God?

See Sister White's statment's further below, which match the single, non-trinitarian quote from her in the lesson under "further reading", for in most of that quote in the lesson she says, in DA 19: "From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was ‘the image of God,’ the image of His greatness and majesty, ‘the outshining of His glory.’ It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world."

Since she also, generally in her writings, identifies Jesus as the only begotten Son of God from eternity, this DA 19 statement strongly suggests that 'from the days of eternity' (Mic 5:2, marg.) is a reference to the unknowable point in eternity hinted at also in Prov 8:22, etc, when the Word of God was begotten before creation began, as God's Son. See below, on that, too.

Why, then, did our early church resist this doctrine which now we hold as we suggest our pioneers as much as denied the deity of Christ and his eternal pre-existence? How did our church proclaim Christ's deity but not the trinitry doctrine?

It turned, not on numbers - 3 members of the Godhead, nor on eternal, divine pre-existence of Christ - for we believed that, too: it turned on whether God died for our sins on the cross of Calvary. It turned on the height of grace: the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

Now, the lesson says (on Thursday's) that "God Himself, in the Person of Christ" had to and did die for sin, to be a worthy sacrifice of the atonement: but, haven't you heard it preached among us that divinity cannot die but humanity died, in Christ's death? I certainly have, and this is a trinitarian argument preserving the trinity itself.

Basically, since that doctrine depends on Three Persons maintaining a threesome from eternity to eternity, the death of the Person called "God the Son" is out of the question else the trinity wouldn't survive salvation intact. Separated for a moment, by death - till resurrection, disrupts an eternity to eternity of existence for God. The trinity cannot be a duo..., for it must be a trinity!! cool The trinity doctrine's structure prevents salvation!.... shocked

Meantime, "God Himself, in the Person of Christ" is actually non-trinitarian wording, distinguishing "God the Father" from "the person of his Son" - that's Ellen White's wording, "the person of his Son". She also said that the "Author of life" suffered on the cross: according to SOP, the person whose eternal identity is the Son of God, having become a mortal man, died on the cross in human flesh, but, indeed, deity cannot die.

Listen carefully, now: God, in the person of his Son, died as the Son of man, the Lamb of God. Yet, this is possible, Biblically, only should the Father himself be the God refered to in the Bible as the him who is God, and the pre-incarnate Jesus is the eternal Son of his divine Father, God: yes, not a trinitarian God consisting mysteriously of three-in-one, but the individual, personally distinct God and Father of us all, including Jesus his divine Son.
As the early church formed, there were many beliefs brought in from the churches the members came from. But that did not make those beliefs as part of the truths of Adventism, much like Sunday keeping. Each one had to be confronted and studied and the members slowly shown the truth, and like the Sabbath truth it was printed in the main Adventist papers and given at the camp meetings and other gatherings till the members gradually understood and accepted it. So its not fair to say that the church members did not accept the belief of the GodHead. Some did not and had to be shown which Ellen White did.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 08:59 PM

It is plain and simple that Ellen White believed the three persons of the Godhead are three separate and distinct individuals who act in perfect harmony for the well-being of the universe.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Rick H
So its not fair to say that the church members did not accept the belief of the GodHead.

Do you see Godhead as meaning the same as Trinity? - just checking, as the difference matters yet may not be obvious to most.

This is about our historical clash with the doctrine of the trinity, a doctrine we differed with in detail and substance, for good reason. What our church taught - in the methods you mention - was not at all the trinity doctrine, but the Biblically based Godhead led by the Father, etc, and Ellen White didn't change that position for herself or the church to that of the doctrine of the triune God. Have you noticed that in her quotes?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/18/11 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
It is plain and simple that Ellen White believed the three persons of the Godhead are three separate and distinct individuals who act in perfect harmony for the well-being of the universe.

First, MM: don't load her writings with 'our' trinitarian interpretation: that's unethical! - find, for you and me and anyone else, too, where she writes that the Holy Spirit is an individual! cool Divine Spirit - yes, having personality - yes, the omnipresence of the Father and the Son - yes, but an individual indistinct and indepedent of Father and Son, as well??? Please, if there's no evidence, just be honest about it.

She definitely wrote of the HS as the agency of Father & Son: that's NOT an independent individual - face it, please. smile

Also, in last week's lesson, under further study
Quote:
The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. We do not see Christ and speak to Him, but His Holy Spirit is just as near us in one place as in another. It works in and through every one who receives Christ. Those who know the indwelling of the Spirit reveal the fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith (MS 41, 1897).”—Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1112


Have you not read that receiving the Spirit is the experience of accepting and receiving Christ in the heart, the mind of Christ created in us, Christ indwelling us by his Spirit? The Spirit speaks for Christ, not for himself, too: he is Christ's personality spiritually present with us, but it is the Spirit of the Godhead, not an independent individual, as trinitarianism declares. We are under Scripture, not doctrinal declarations, remember. wink cool

You kind of put your foot in it, with your concise statement, as the Holy Spirit is the exception to that..., hence I tackled that, here. The eternal Sonship of Jesus is a primary point in the truth of the Godhead, compared to SDA trinitarianism, so I hadn't dealt with the HS till now.

Also,
Quote:
"Some early Adventists struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity."

...is this true of our church, at all?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/19/11 02:48 AM

Does anyone think the EGW quotes I posted sound like regular, typical statements about the triune God of the lesson, or do they sound like a non-trinitarian belief?

Making sure God can die for us and for sin is rather important, not so. smile
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/19/11 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
M: It is plain and simple that Ellen White believed the three persons of the Godhead are three separate and distinct individuals who act in perfect harmony for the well-being of the universe.

C: She definitely wrote of the HS as the agency of Father & Son: that's NOT an independent individual - face it, please. smile

You already familiar with her statements regarding the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit "is as much a person as God is a person". He "has a personality" and "is a free, working, independent agency." I realize you interpret these kinds of testimonies to prove the Holy Spirit is not an independent agency or person or individual. But, hey, can you blame me for concluding otherwise?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/20/11 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: Colin
M: It is plain and simple that Ellen White believed the three persons of the Godhead are three separate and distinct individuals who act in perfect harmony for the well-being of the universe.

C: She definitely wrote of the HS as the agency of Father & Son: that's NOT an independent individual - face it, please. smile

You already familiar with her statements regarding the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit "is as much a person as God is a person". He "has a personality" and "is a free, working, independent agency." I realize you interpret these kinds of testimonies to prove the Holy Spirit is not an independent agency or person or individual. But, hey, can you blame me for concluding otherwise?

Thanks for finding time for this thread, too. smile

Now, MM, please don't put words in my mouth: "independent agency" I agree with (see below) , so please note that. "Independent individual" is what she doesn't teach, whatever else she says, as I conceded last time. It was your "distinct individuals" that needs examination, in this regard, given we can't actually say that of the HS.

Of course the Holy Spirit is a mystery, so don't interpret from what little is revealed about it to make him more than he is: he is simply, truly the infinite - hence independent agency - omnipresence of Father and Son, the Spirit in fulness of the Godhead.

This, from my second intro post above
Quote:
The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. (SDABC, vol.6,1112)

explains that the HS is Christ's infinite, invisible, personal presence in each of his saints.

Obvious, perhaps: that means we're free of trinitarian, dogmatic formulas making each and all persons of the trinity exactly the same in all manner of ways, like our church's doctrine of the trinity says. Since the Bible and SOP are clearly much more flexible than that, the Holy Spirit is Christ and the Father's presence with us, proceeding from them, and not another person just like them - SDA trinity teaching, having yet their personality, having power to manifest their presence within us.

Equally, Sister White is replete with proclamation that the pre-existent Christ is the only begotten Son of God. It's not just the KJV saying so: he is God of God, etc., Son of God in the fulness of the Godhead alongside his Father. That cannot be gainsayed by simple grammatical arguments, when the meaning of Christ's eternal relation to his Father is so clear in Scripture! cool
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/20/11 06:47 PM

Colin, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-trinitarian view means the Father spent eternity all alone in an empty and formless universe. How do you reconcile it?
Posted By: JAK

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/20/11 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
Do you see Godhead as meaning the same as Trinity? - just checking, as the difference matters yet may not be obvious to most.


You'll have to spell out the difference for me, because I don't see it... dunno Except maybe minor semantics.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 05:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Colin, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-trinitarian view means the Father spent eternity all alone in an empty and formless universe. How do you reconcile it?

Oh, that old chestnut. grin

Reconcile it? - It's not 'unreconciled' in the first place, is it. wink

No need for a "logical conclusion", since we have sufficient revelation - sufficient for us, of course - from Bible and SOP to understand what the truth is: that the "sovereign of the universe has an associate in creation" (PP, 34.1), the Word was with God in the beginning and is divine as the Father (Jn 1:1c), and the Son is spoken of throughout the Bible. smile

...God the Father wouldn't do that to himself, of course, so we shouldn't speculate to that 'logical' outcome. Logic doesn't belong in studying the Godhead, really - it stretches revelation.

As much as God has revealed about the Godhead of the Father and his Son and their Holy Spirit, we have to stop there, accepting it by faith . Sooooo, "God" here means the Father of us all: Jesus is the incarnate begotten Son of God, begotten in "the days of eternity". Yes, that's how Christians generally interpret the Bible, including Ellen White's writings and our church's historical belief. Study to show yourself approved: the 1980 vote was uncomfortable, with everything hidden behind the word "trinity".

Jesus is lastly our High Priest and then also King - after his priestly intercession shall cease. He is, from the beginning, the Word of God, with God his Father, that is: God is the Father of Christ and Christ is the Son of God - since before creation began, "in the days of eternity". "To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." (8T 268.3). We may not delve further into this mystery: we may acknowledge Jesus, our God and Saviour, as the Son of God: that is his identity, as he is our Creator.

His titles are his identities, not 'roles': that's how he could die, God (the Father) himself in the person of his Son, for in him from eternity was the fulness of the Godhead bodily - the Godhead personally manifested to mortal sight. "He who was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God", alongside his Father. Check PP, chapter 1! He consented to be made man, and humbly, again, did his Father's will.

Together, it's perfect, divine family and Biblical drama: creation, redemption, recreation, because of holiness, grace and an active God who gave his begotten Son, who did his Father's will from the beginning.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: JAK
Originally Posted By: Colin
Do you see Godhead as meaning the same as Trinity? - just checking, as the difference matters yet may not be obvious to most.


You'll have to spell out the difference for me, because I don't see it... dunno Except maybe minor semantics.

This is easier than MM's point, perhaps. smile

The difference, within Adventism, is really, really simple. Under Godhead, as we believed as a church earlier, the pre-incarnate Jesus was/is the only begotten Son of God, since "the days of eternity". SDA trinitarianism cancels this wholeheartedly, rejecting "only begotten" as a wrong translation..., and relying on the NIV for our teaching on the person of Christ, not allowing a family or natural link between God the Father and "God the Son", establishing unity and monotheism on their joint purposes in creation and salvation.

I prefer the original Adventist stance, and have found it unchanged in Ellen White's writings. Hence, in this week's lesson study for January next year - two weeks' time, there is no Ellen White quote at all, except those few lines form DA 19, as the last little bit of further reading. As it happens, that little quote has wording and meanings which clash with the lesson's view, that Jesus isn't the only begotten Son of God from eternity - she writes, "from the days of eternity" Christ has been one with the Father...Think about it. grin cool
Posted By: JAK

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 06:33 AM

Ah..er...WHAT? dunno

I didn't get much from that "explaination" except a railing against the NIV. You'll have to be far more precise, and offer some kind of support before I can see you point. dunno

Methinks ye are inventing strawmen just to have an arguement.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 08:56 AM

Sorry - was juggling things here a bit, so didn't re-check it.

No, I'm not blaming the NIV for the SDA doctrine of the trinity. cool

Are you aware of the debate in church journals, etc, etc - it's rooted in the primary, simple difference between the two beliefs - about whether Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, from "the days of eternity" (Mic 5:2, marg.), or not? We certainly used to teach that he is.

That's the beginning of it. smile
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 12:58 PM

Quote:
Basically, since that doctrine depends on Three Persons maintaining a threesome from eternity to eternity, the death of the Person called "God the Son" is out of the question else the trinity wouldn't survive salvation intact. Separated for a moment, by death - till resurrection, disrupts an eternity to eternity of existence for God. The trinity cannot be a duo..., for it must be a trinity!! The trinity doctrine's structure prevents salvation!....

First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die. And second, the point is that a God cannot die, otherwise He isn't God. Therefore, anti-trinitarianism prevents Christ from being God.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 01:14 PM

Quote:
“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times. 3rd May 1899 ‘The Word made flesh’)

“The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.”
(Ibid)

Yes, she's saying simply, that Christ's pre-existence as the Son of God had a beginning in the incalculable past; yet, he is the Word of God from the beginning, which seems to be the absolute 'beginning': God the Father was never alone.

???
Just the opposite is true! Numbers are infinite. Any number you choose, there are infinite numbers before it and infinite numbers after it. That's why Ellen White said that the existence of Christ is not measured by figures. If Christ had had a beginning, His existence could be measured by figures.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 02:42 PM

Indeed - the idea that there is a number soooooo large that you cannot write it out 10 x 10^10^10^10^10 (etc) is silly. The only such number is infinity .

That "number that is not infinite yet too high to name" idea is not "why some early SDAs were not Trinitarian". The non-trinitarian members of the SDA denomination in the 1800's were from the church of the brethren - or Christian connection. Those denominations were already non-Trinitarian so James White and Uriah Smith and some others who came out of those groups - were predisposed to that belief.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 04:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Basically, since that doctrine depends on Three Persons maintaining a threesome from eternity to eternity, the death of the Person called "God the Son" is out of the question else the trinity wouldn't survive salvation intact. Separated for a moment, by death - till resurrection, disrupts an eternity to eternity of existence for God. The trinity cannot be a duo..., for it must be a trinity!! The trinity doctrine's structure prevents salvation!....

First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die. And second, the point is that a God cannot die, otherwise He isn't God. Therefore, anti-trinitarianism prevents Christ from being God.

Then - for your '1st' & '2nd' are true, if you pause for a moment: did our God not die for us? Just what is going on, in the end??

How did Christ, who as God is equal with the law, die and be "God the Son" who cannot die? - that may be a problem, there, if that trinity doctrine definition is indispensible, and we're told it is. After all, God the Son is part of the eternal trinity, and the trinity has to be eternal, can't be separated one person from another even for a moment, to be the trinity. If not absolutely eternal, it's not the divine trinity. Is that the way it has to be? smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times. 3rd May 1899 ‘The Word made flesh’)

“The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.”
(Ibid)

Yes, she's saying simply, that Christ's pre-existence as the Son of God had a beginning in the incalculable past; yet, he is the Word of God from the beginning, which seems to be the absolute 'beginning': God the Father was never alone.

???
Just the opposite is true! Numbers are infinite. Any number you choose, there are infinite numbers before it and infinite numbers after it. That's why Ellen White said that the existence of Christ is not measured by figures. If Christ had had a beginning, His existence could be measured by figures.

Ooops, I should refrain from elaborating on the simplicity of Sister White's statements.... grin

Be careful, too, that you don't misread what she's saying.

Remember these two statements: what do they mean?
Quote:
“For instance, an effort was made to obtain the use of the hall at a village four miles from Hastings, where some of our workers proposed to present the gospel to the people; but they did not succeed in obtaining the hall, because a school-teacher there opposed the truth, and declared to the people that Seventh-day Adventists did not believe in the divinity of Christ. This man may not have known what our faith is on this point, but he was not left in ignorance. He was informed that there is not a people on earth who hold more firmly to the truth of Christ's pre-existence than do Seventh-day Adventists.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, 5th December 1893, ‘An appeal for the Australasian field’)

Quote:
“A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine erfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, ‘Christ our complete salvation’)

Quote:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Those last two go together. smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 05:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Indeed - the idea that there is a number soooooo large that you cannot write it out 10 x 10^10^10^10^10 (etc) is silly. The only such number is infinity .

That "number that is not infinite yet too high to name" idea is not "why some early SDAs were not Trinitarian". The non-trinitarian members of the SDA denomination in the 1800's were from the church of the brethren - or Christian connection. Those denominations were already non-Trinitarian so James White and Uriah Smith and some others who came out of those groups - were predisposed to that belief.

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry, Bob, that's not a reason, either. We're the people of the Book, testing history with the Bible, not just relying on it.

Our church published, taught and believed in Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. Have you seen some of the publications by all the church leaders - yes, all of them!! - of the 19th and some in the 20th century saying so? That's the bedrock difference with our 30 year old trinitarianism (it wasn't official belief till 1980). Yes, Jesus is God because he is begotten of God in the express image of his person. SDA trinitarianism, in contrast, is not like the Nicene Creed, did you know?

Several leading pastors living till the 50s & 60s held to their conviction on that historic teaching, because it's in the Bible and SOP, and their students & fellow church members agreed with them. Judson Washburn, Charles S. Longacres, and W R French: leading theologians and evangelists, and well documented. Their story is told, here, too: http://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/SBDH.htm
Posted By: Kevin H

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 07:11 PM

When mentioning James White, don't forget towards the end of his life he wrote a letter saying that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against the trinity. And if you were to read Mrs. White's letters in the White Estate vault, there as quite a bit of corrispondence with Elder Washburn over how, dispite his massive quoting of Mrs. White, that she keep telling him that he does not understand her message. He kept making excuses to accept the quotes he liked but reject these messages saying that his understanding of Adventism was wrong.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 08:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
M: Colin, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-trinitarian view means the Father spent eternity all alone in an empty and formless universe. How do you reconcile it?

C: God the Father wouldn't do that to himself, of course, so we shouldn't speculate to that 'logical' outcome.

If what you say is true, God didn't have a choice. He was eternally all alone in a dark, empty universe until the day Jesus happened. Or, do you have evidence to suggest God wasn't alone?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/21/11 09:18 PM

I don't really mind being the only one here saying so, but it's a bit odd, really, too:

Is Jesus the literal Son of God, "begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", as Ellen White wrote, as it is written in Heb 1:1-4 and many places else in the Bible?

What does this mean? - written in relation to Heb 1
Originally Posted By: EGW
God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. {8T 268.3}

And then, this
Originally Posted By: EGW
The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate—a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.... When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30. {PP 34.1}
The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings. “By Him were all things created, ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him.” Colossians 1:16. Angels are God’s ministers, radiant with the light ever flowing from His presence and speeding on rapid wing to execute His will. But the Son, the anointed of God, the “express image of His person,” “the brightness of His glory,” “upholding all things by the word of His power,” holds supremacy over them all. Hebrews 1:3. {34.2}

What's her point? What's she getting at?? Doesn't sound like January's first week's lesson, does it: what's the difference? cool

Maybe this'll help some. smile
Quote:
“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in
infinity, but not in personality
.” (Ellen G. White, manuscript 116, Dec. 19, 1905, ‘An Entire Consecration’, see also The Upward Look, page 367)

Any clearer, now?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/22/11 06:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Kevin H
When mentioning James White,...with Elder Washburn.

Whatever they objected to in the Nicene Creed - and there remain objectionables there, what is objectionable in today's 1980 and onwards SDA trinity teaching??

Yes, it's an SDA doctrine, for it's very different to the Nicene Creed, actually. More pertinent to us: it scraps the teaching that Jesus is the pre-existent only begotten Son of God. Now, that's objectionable.

Judson Washburn and the others, famous or not, who objected to the Nicene Creed's mysticism and its other problems, mostly didn't live to see Adventism formally adopt its own trinitarianism. I hope 1980 wasn't the year chosen to introduce the fundamental beliefs the trinity doctrine as central as the Bible only for being at least ten years after the last of the famous theologians opposing the trinity doctrine had died. It's just possible that the famous few would have objected as Milian L. Andreasen objected to Questions on Doctrine 40-odd years prior to 1980. OTOH, it may truly have been one campaign of objections too many, all at once, with the debate on Christ's humanity on top of the righteousness by faith dispute in full swing already. cool

30 years into our trinitarian history, it's time, now, to sort out the trinity doctrine debate and confusion in our church, as it has been waiting its turn. Yes, it's the doctrine that's opposed, not the three Powers of heaven. smile
Posted By: Rick H

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/22/11 10:50 AM

The issue is man doesnt understand the nature of the GodHead, how Christ can be the Son and at the same time be the Creator, the great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Lord of the Sabbath, and yes, everlasting Father....

2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/22/11 03:04 PM

Those who believe that Christ is not from the same "eternity past" as in "from ever lasting to everlasting" just as is attributed to YHWH in the OT - have an issue in Micah 5:2 where the same term is used as in Ps 90:2 for YHWH and eternity past. And the result is that they in fact believe that God the Father spent "eternity alone" without Christ before that in-finite-time birth/creation of Christ.

As for Ellen White saying that Christ was never made/created/born of God before His incarnation --
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

God always has been. He is the great I AM. The psalmist declares, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Ps. 90:2. He is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. "I am the Lord, I change not," He declares. With Him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. He is "the same yesterday, and to day and for ever." Heb. 13:8. (Christ) He is infinite and omnipresent. No words of ours can describe His greatness and majesty. {FLB 42.3}

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. . . . {FLB 46.3}

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. {FLB 46.5}
He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. {FLB 46.6}

It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, "I AM THAT I AM: ... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came "in the likeness of men," He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God "manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. 3:16. {FLB 47.5}

Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/22/11 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Rick H
The issue is man doesnt understand the nature of the GodHead, how Christ can be the Son and at the same time be the Creator, the great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Lord of the Sabbath, and yes, everlasting Father....

We don't understand?? smile

Why, he's "God himself in the person of his Son". grin

As for "everlasting father", since he clearly isn't God the Father, who is God his Father, how is this to be interpreted? What about Jesus the Second Adam and what that means for us? He who is God's eternal Son is become the everlasting human Father of mankind, especially of those who believe.

Your first text shows that God our Father cannot be replaced by Christ as our divine Father, as God the Father isn't Christ, not so: how about what I just suggested, above.
Quote:
2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/22/11 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Those who believe that Christ is not from the same "eternity past" as in "from ever lasting to everlasting" just as is attributed to YHWH in the OT - have an issue in Micah 5:2 where the same term is used as in Ps 90:2 for YHWH and eternity past. And the result is that they in fact believe that God the Father spent "eternity alone" without Christ before that in-finite-time birth/creation of Christ.

Does being of the same nature as God his Father prevent him being God's own Son from eternity? Being the self-existent Son is compatible with being God's only begotten Son: she speaks of both.

Why get hung up over eternity and Christ's pre-existence with his Father: Christ created eternity - for he is above everything created, being himself the uncreated begotten Son of the Eternal God. He is the Word and Wisdom of God, too, so was with God from the beginning. Remember, PP 34.1 says Prov 8:22-30 applies personally to him, agreeing, of course, with Ps 90:2 about Father and Son. Prof. Richard Davidson wrote in the ATS journal that in Prov 8:23 "set up" means to be born: now, Sister White and the Bible combine to posit that, as v.23 there, before creation. Given Jn 1:1, what's all this discussion about? The Word of God was begotten as God's own Son: what could be simpler a Bible truth. grin

She also says, btw, that he is the Son of the infinite God. Being divine, he is also infinite by nature, but equally Son of the infinite God. It's not in his divine nature to trumpet that, though.

It should be in our Christian nature, too, not to want to understand God to the uttermost question for the sake of a rationalised doctrine - the trinity doctrine: how close is such an enquiry to wanting to be like God, knowing everything? And, the Adversary who went that far and never relented, also denied that the Son of God is the Son of God, exalted rightfully above Lucifer, the highest created being in heaven and the universe - the highest being in heaven after God's Son. Lucifer refused to have Christ as his Lord, denying his supremacy over angels as the Son of God.

Best not to put in to the teaching of Christ's pre-existent existence an aloneness of his Father that isn't there except in our imagination: we reckon there's a difference, but Scripture & SOP assure us there isn't. The answer is, simply: No. Is our "reckoning" by faith or more by reason?
Quote:
As for Ellen White saying that Christ was never made/created/born of God before His incarnation --
-------------------------------------------------------

No, Bobryan, that not what I said, or what I believe. cool smile
Quote:

God always has been. He is the great I AM. The psalmist declares, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Ps. 90:2. He is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. "I am the Lord, I change not," He declares. With Him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. He is "the same yesterday, and to day and for ever." Heb. 13:8. (Christ) He is infinite and omnipresent. No words of ours can describe His greatness and majesty. {FLB 42.3}

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. . . . {FLB 46.3}

Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. {FLB 46.5}
He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. {FLB 46.6}

It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, "I AM THAT I AM: ... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came "in the likeness of men," He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God "manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. 3:16. {FLB 47.5}
Posted By: Charity

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/24/11 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die.

If you can find it without too much trouble, I'd like to see that quote.

Regarding the trinity doctrine, it may have been better to call our view of the deity something else, to make it clear we don't subscribe to all the particulars of what other denominations call the trinity, but I can see the rationale for adopting the label. Ellen White who is very precise in her selection of words never used the term herself.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/25/11 02:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Shipowick
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die.

If you can find it without too much trouble, I'd like to see that quote.

smile The quote's there grin : what of it? Well, who or what died on the cross for our sins & for us, as divinity cannot die? The Person whose identity is the Son of God, Creator, died as a man.

Sister White says the Author of life suffered on the cross: for God to die he had to become a man in the person of his Son.

That's why it is so, so crucial - as I titled this thread, that God the Father has an only begotten Son since "the days of eternity", else God could not die for sin since he would not be "God himself in the person of his Son", able to become a man, possibly sin, and be the Lamb of God; for, divinity cannot die.

Quote:
Regarding the trinity doctrine, it may have been better to call our view of the deity something else, to make it clear we don't subscribe to all the particulars of what other denominations call the trinity, but I can see the rationale for adopting the label. Ellen White who is very precise in her selection of words never used the term herself.

With the SDA trinity doctrine Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God since eternity: that's further from the Nicene Creed than we used to be (we opposed its mysticism, among other things), and jeopardises quite possibly salvation itself. How can the Author of life die if he is not actually the eternal Son of God, able to die for sin without threatening the existence of the Godhead? - for, the trinity, were it heavenly reality, would suddenly be two for the first time between eternity and eternity. I'm not being facetious: that's the trinity doctrine's principle.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/26/11 07:44 PM

What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/26/11 09:50 PM

Oh, here is an example of that EGW statement.
Quote:
“I am the resurrection, and the life” (John 11:25). He who had said, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again” (John 10:17), came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Humanity died; divinity did not die. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. {1SM 301.1}

Just a quick thought, here: we are saved to eternal life with the divine life of the Son of God. Obvious perhaps, but worth noting, as we may have to think about it a bit to notice this truth.
Quote:
All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God. However able and talented, however large their capacities, they are replenished with life from the Source of all life. He is the spring, the fountain, of life. Only He who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light and life, could say, “I have power to lay it [my life] down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). {1SM 301.2}

Now, the other side of the coin to the first quote above: the "death of the Son of God" (below).

Sister White clearly and easily, in the same passage here - and again & again - states our old, non-trinitarian belief in the Godhead: divinity cannot die, but the individual whose eternal identity is the actual, personal Son of God - hence, equal with the law, died.

D'you see the difference? Jesus is the Son of God his Father, and so divine with his Father; is he also "God the Son", of the doctrine of the trinity? Could he, as "God the Son", die at all while keeping the trinity of three co-eternal persons co-existing together? The SS lesson a few years ago, speaking of the Christ's death of the cross, within John's Gospel, emphasised the sundering of the Godhead/trinity in God's death: is that Biblically true, actually? Sundering, separating, the Powers of heaven, maybe, but not splitting the Godhead in half!!

Listen to the preacher next time he says that humanity died but divinity did not die, leaving open the possibility of an unworthy sacrifice when not mentioning the death of the eternal Son of God. To preserve the death of the Son of God as Gospel teaching, can we confess that "God the Son" (fundamental beliefs #2 & #4) is not the actual Son of God from eternity? smile
Quote:
The law of God’s government was to be magnified by the death of God’s only-begotten Son. Christ bore the guilt of the sins of the world. Our sufficiency is found only in the incarnation and death of the Son of God. He could suffer, because sustained by divinity. He could endure, because He was without one taint of disloyalty or sin. Christ triumphed in man’s behalf in thus bearing the justice of punishment. He secured eternal life to men, while He exalted the law, and made it honorable. {1SM 302.1}
Christ was invested with the right to give immortality. The life which He had laid down in humanity, He again took up and gave to humanity. “I am come,” He says, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14). {1SM 302.2}

Lastly, that "only he who alone hath immortality", a Biblical statement reserved most likely for the Father, personally, shows that the Son of God defers to his Father in all things, selflessly not claiming that which is his which he has from his Father and which his Father has, too: it is written that God the Father personally alone has immortality, and, while Jesus, God's only begotten Son (see, she openly says that of Jesus, too), has it too, the Bible shows Jesus doesn't claim it but meekly and humbly shows us the Father. God doesn't trumpet it, either. wink grin
Posted By: Charity

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/27/11 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Bobryan
What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe?


This is the definition of the Trinity from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being.[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[3]

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4]


I can't say for sure because I haven't studied our fundamental beliefs on this but I'm optimistic that we don't subscribe to the non-scriptural aspects. The Godhead is a mystery. The trinity doctrine articulated above goes beyond what scripture reveals and muddies the waters.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/27/11 04:27 AM

The question though - is whether anything in the 28 FB is in explicit opposition to any statement made in the quotes listed in your post. I have not found anything to contradict it.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/27/11 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Shipowick
Originally Posted By: Bobryan
What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe?


This is the definition of the Trinity from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being.[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[3]

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4]


I can't say for sure because I haven't studied our fundamental beliefs on this but I'm optimistic that we don't subscribe to the non-scriptural aspects. The Godhead is a mystery. The trinity doctrine articulated above goes beyond what scripture reveals and muddies the waters.

What's not Scriptural? smile

Briefly: God is not three persons, but one: the Father. The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed. The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation, and filling the universe with creative power - but not presence! Thus, they are not exactly the same in every way in possessing the Godhead personally.

The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery. That's what their literature says: I don't care why they say that, as it's not Biblical. It is not in our doctrine, btw, while God as a three-in-one and one-in-three certainly is.

The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity as two persons, instead of the Son of God being the Word of God from the beginning (Jn 1:1). The Word of God is also the begotten Son of God, a being next to God and who created the universe alongside the Father, since he is the begotten Son of God from eternity.

What the Nicene Creed has which our doctrine doesn't have is the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, so from their nature and persons - the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead. Our non-trinitarian beliefs, as Adventists, held to this Nicene teaching, as it is rooted in Scripture.

That should do it for now. Our fundamentals are as bad as the generally held trinity doctrine, and a bit worse in places, too, as you can see. Do we need to pull out all the details, or just as proof, then? In a bit. smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/27/11 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Bobryan
The question though - is whether anything in the 28 FB is in explicit opposition to any statement made in the quotes listed in your post. I have not found anything to contradict it.

in Christ,

Bob

Maybe, maybe not, but what's the Bible and SOP say on the matter? wink

That's why I posted what I did at the beginning of this thread. smile
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/28/11 02:41 AM

If the Bible and/or Ellen White have something to say against a given point in the list of Trinitarian statements you outlined in your post - I have not found it so far.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/28/11 07:08 AM

You didn't?? What of, in post #138211 on p.1 of this thread, that report from New Zealand by Ellen White about facing non-Adventists saying we denied the deity of Christ? What of her and Ellet Waggoner's statements about Jesus' actual, begotten Sonship in the days of eternity?

Both these points are contrary to the Nicene Creed, quite likely mirrored in that wikipedia statement, and the SDA trinity doctrine, aren't they, but have the Bible to back them up?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/29/11 10:44 PM

Quote:
God is not three persons, but one: the Father.

The Son is God, so this statement can only be false.

Quote:
The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed.

Godhead = the essencial nature and condition of being God.

Quote:
The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation

The Spirit is a person.

Quote:
The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery.

Consubstantial means "of the same substance."

“I and My Father are One.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as He put forth the claim that He and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.—The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}

Quote:
The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity as two persons, instead of the Son of God being the Word of God from the beginning (Jn 1:1).

In the beginning the Word already was. It did not come to existence in the beginning.


Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 01:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Colin
Briefly: God is not three persons, but one: the Father. The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed. The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation, and filling the universe with creative power - but not presence! Thus, they are not exactly the same in every way in possessing the Godhead personally.


So let me get this straight: God is one person, but "more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead" is revealed? That's like saying you have one mouth and you have two mouths. You can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other. (You can't have your cake and eat it too. wink )

Then let's get the next point straight: You want to say that God the Father and God the Son can both be persons, but the Holy Spirit cannot? I recall Jesus saying that one could blaspheme Jesus and be forgiven, but won't be forgiven if he blasphemes the Holy Ghost. Does this not seem like you're treading on thin ice here?

It seems like you are saying something similar to the folk who accept that the Ten Commandments are enduring and unchanging, and are still binding today--that is, all but the fourth one!

Making exceptions against the Holy Spirit for a reason? Does the devil have an agenda to push with us against God's Spirit for a reason? Maybe he doesn't want us to be recipients of the Latter Rain--do you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 05:00 AM

Oh dear, how long is this post going to get. smile
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
God is not three persons, but one: the Father.

The Son is God, so this statement can only be false.

Is it? cool The Bible names God the Father personally separate to our Lord Jesus Christ
Quote:
Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:1,3)
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God....Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:1-2)

That gives the Father personal priority and deference above Jesus, his Son: the divine family is personal and pragmaticly holy; for the will of God is sourced in the Father, primarily. Jesus himself wouldn't say that he himself is God, but defer to his Father to sort out that question - affirmatively, too, as the Bible shows, incidentally. He would accept praise, but not assertions. The Bible calls him God's one, begotten Son, and that's what we should humbly confess. In this Spirit, identifying the Father as God individually independent of his Son is even Biblical, not so. smile
Quote:
Quote:
The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed.

Godhead = the essencial nature and condition of being God.

We agree then: the Godhead resides in the Father bodily, and equally so in the person of his only begotten Son; the divine Word was with God from the beginning and begotten of God as his Son in eternity past. That's what the Bible says, too; I don't need to pull out the Special Testimonies, Series B, on that, do I. smile We may wonder a bit about Jesus' actual, divine Sonship in eternity past, but that's what it says and we believe it. At least we used to as a whole church, but many, young and old, still do.
Quote:
Quote:
The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation

The Spirit is a person.

And? That's ambiguous, since the infinite omnipresence of God and Christ isn't a usual sort of person - having personality yes, but the still small voice of God is the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead speaking to our minds, dwelling within us, not the Spirit standing next to us like an individual as Christ himself would; also, the Spirit speaks of Christ, not of itself, for he, the HS, is the Spirit of Christ.
Quote:
I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you...and he that loveth me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him...If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him. (Jn 14:18,21,23)

The Holy Spirit is at least Christ himself abiding with us - the Father abides with us, too grin , for the Spirit of God and of Christ has the power to manifest their presence within us, as Jesus himself said: Amen. grin

The Spirit is the omnipresence of God and of Christ, as I said.

More about the Spirit that we cannot fathom.
Quote:
“It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26, 16:13.” (Ellen G. White, ‘Acts of the Apostles’ pages 51-52, first publ.1911)

We can know that Ellen White was clear all the time till she died that the persons of the Godhead are not trinitarian, all exactly the same in all personal ways in possessing the Godhead.
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery.

Consubstantial means "of the same substance."

“I and My Father are One.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as He put forth the claim that He and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.—The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3}

Of the same substance, yes, but being distinct persons, too: "consubstantial" means two centers of consciousness without form or limb within the mystic substance of the Nicene Creed. No, thank you!
Quote:
Quote:
The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity as two persons, instead of the Son of God [inserted: , begotten of God in eternity past,] being the Word of God from the beginning (Jn 1:1).

In the beginning the Word already was. It did not come to existence in the beginning.

That's what I said, btw. smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 07:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Colin
Briefly: God is not three persons, but one: the Father. The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed. The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation, and filling the universe with creative power - but not presence! Thus, they are not exactly the same in every way in possessing the Godhead personally.


So let me get this straight: God is one person, but "more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead" is revealed? That's like saying you have one mouth and you have two mouths. You can't have it both ways. It's either one or the other. (You can't have your cake and eat it too. wink )

Pardon? wink
Remember this? smile
Quote:
The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son

Now, notice this? smile
Originally Posted By: EGW
As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. The outshining of the Father’s glory, “and the express image of his person,” Jesus, as a personal Saviour, came to the world. {Faith I Live By 40.3}

Jesus was God's only begotten Son in his pre-existence, as the Bible suggests, and not just after Bethlehem. smile As I said in my post, the Father is God next to Christ, his one, begotten Son - two distinct individuals & persons as we think of persons.
Quote:
I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, “If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.” {FLB 40.4}
The revelation of Himself that God has given in His Word is for our study. This we may seek to understand. But beyond this we are not to penetrate.... None are to indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence. The Omniscient One is above discussion. {FLB 40.6}

Doesn't this confirm the Father and Son's individualities, in line with the first FLB quote, and where we should stop in extrapolating the Bible's teaching on God? Two individuals, not just two mouths, or whatever.

Quote:
Then let's get the next point straight: You want to say that God the Father and God the Son can both be persons, but the Holy Spirit cannot? I recall Jesus saying that one could blaspheme Jesus and be forgiven, but won't be forgiven if he blasphemes the Holy Ghost. Does this not seem like you're treading on thin ice here?

Thank you for your concern, GC. smile Been studying the Bible & SOP on this, so our Holy God appears more pragmatic than formulated and rigid, just as the Father has revealed himself, his Son and their Spirit, to us. See also, of course, my reply to Rosangela.

The nature of the Spirit is, first, a mystery: the omnipresence of God and of Christ, having personality, yes, but an independent individual like them, too? The Spirit is sent from them, by them, to speak of them: when we are indwelt by the Spirit, we have the presence of Christ in our life, not so. That's the mysterious nature of the Spirit, isn't it: we can't be so specific about the Spirit, can we?
Originally Posted By: EGW
It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, “the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, “He shall not speak of Himself.” John 15:26; 16:13. {AA 51.3}
The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them....Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}
The office of the Holy Spirit is distinctly specified in the words of Christ: “When He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” John 16:8. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin. If the sinner responds to the quickening influence of the Spirit, he will be brought to repentance and aroused to the importance of obeying the divine requirements. {AA 52.2}
To the repentant sinner, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, the Holy Spirit reveals the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. “He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you,” Christ said. “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 16:14; 14:26. {AA 52.3}
The Spirit is given as a regenerating agency, to make effectual the salvation wrought by the death of our Redeemer. The Spirit is constantly seeking to draw the attention of men to the great offering that was made on the cross of Calvary, to unfold to the world the love of God, and to open to the convicted soul the precious things of the Scriptures. {AA 52.4}

It seems like you are saying something similar to the folk who accept that the Ten Commandments are enduring and unchanging, and are still binding today--that is, all but the fourth one!

Making exceptions against the Holy Spirit for a reason? Does the devil have an agenda to push with us against God's Spirit for a reason? Maybe he doesn't want us to be recipients of the Latter Rain--do you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa. [/quote]
The Spirit is God's regenerating agency, in us: that means we receive the former rain when we are justified and experience the rebirth of grace through faith.

Only as we fully experience the knowledge of grace in Christ of the former rain can we be ready for the latter rain - for which we have been praying and waiting. The quickening influence of Christ's presence in our lives leads us along that path. I'm not demeaning or minimising the Holy Spirit, just suggesting that the Bible says very little about the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead. smile

Another Comforter, sent by the Father in Jesus' name, to dwell within us and make real Christ's righteousness in our minds and the law of Christ in our life.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 07:04 AM

The spiritual reality, peace and fellowship with God, recreated in us by the Holy Spirit of God, is based on God dying for our sins. Yet, since divinity cannot die, who or what died on the cross for our sins? That's the hidden question at the heart of this thread - rejection of the doctrine of the trinity in our church's history: Given this and many, many statements like it saying that God's Son is active in salvation
Originally Posted By: EGW
Jesus died for mankind, and in giving His life He exalted humanity in the scale of moral value with God. The Son of the infinite God clothed His divinity with humanity, and submitted to the death of the cross, that He might become a steppingstone by which humanity might meet with divinity. (Fundamentals of Education, 291.1)

Essentially, is the underlined sentence true - is Jesus the pre-existent Son of the infinite God who became man to die for us? Quite a question, since our SDA doctrine of the trinity excludes Jesus from being the only begotten Son of God in his pre-existence: that's a difference, for the Son of God himself is spoken of. shocked Is our doctrine correct, or must we look again at the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which is authoritative in emphasising truth?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
The spiritual reality, peace and fellowship with God, recreated in us by the Holy Spirit of God, is based on God dying for our sins. Yet, since divinity cannot die, who or what died on the cross for our sins? That's the hidden question at the heart of this thread - rejection of the doctrine of the trinity in our church's history: Given this and many, many statements like it saying that God's Son is active in salvation
Originally Posted By: EGW
Jesus died for mankind, and in giving His life He exalted humanity in the scale of moral value with God. The Son of the infinite God clothed His divinity with humanity, and submitted to the death of the cross, that He might become a steppingstone by which humanity might meet with divinity. (Fundamentals of Education, 291.1)

Essentially, is the underlined sentence true - is Jesus the pre-existent Son of the infinite God who became man to die for us? Quite a question, since our SDA doctrine of the trinity excludes Jesus from being the only begotten Son of God in his pre-existence: that's a difference, for the Son of God himself is spoken of. shocked Is our doctrine correct, or must we look again at the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which is authoritative in emphasising truth?

You are twisting Ellen White's context to say something she never intended. She could just as easily have said "Jesus" instead of "Son of God." It would have been just as true, and yet, He was never called "Jesus" until He was born in Bethlehem. The word "Jesus" was never one of His titles prior to that. But as we know well who is being spoken of by the term "Jesus," she could legitimately have used the word. It would be like speaking of "Paul" on the road to Damascus, nevermind the fact that he was still "Saul" at that time. Once his identity is learned, we can correctly identify him by that identity--even at earlier points in time before that identity was taken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 07:54 PM

Here's an example of Mrs. White speaking of "Jesus" in the Garden of Eden, before it was ever said of Him that "and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
As soon as the Lord through Jesus Christ created our world, and placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, Satan announced his purpose to conform to his own nature the father and mother of all humanity.—RH April 14, 1896. {TA 48.4}


How can "Jesus" create the world when "Jesus" had not yet been given this name? It is the same with the "Son of God." Though He had not yet become the Son of God before Bethlehem, having once gained this identity, it is not incorrect to refer to His prior existence by it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Colin
The spiritual reality, peace and fellowship with God, recreated in us by the Holy Spirit of God, is based on God dying for our sins. Yet, since divinity cannot die, who or what died on the cross for our sins? That's the hidden question at the heart of this thread - rejection of the doctrine of the trinity in our church's history: Given this and many, many statements like it saying that God's Son is active in salvation
Originally Posted By: EGW
Jesus died for mankind, and in giving His life He exalted humanity in the scale of moral value with God. The Son of the infinite God clothed His divinity with humanity, and submitted to the death of the cross, that He might become a steppingstone by which humanity might meet with divinity. (Fundamentals of Education, 291.1)

Essentially, is the underlined sentence true - is Jesus the pre-existent Son of the infinite God who became man to die for us? Quite a question, since our SDA doctrine of the trinity excludes Jesus from being the only begotten Son of God in his pre-existence: that's a difference, for the Son of God himself is spoken of. shocked Is our doctrine correct, or must we look again at the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which is authoritative in emphasising truth?

You are twisting Ellen White's context to say something she never intended. She could just as easily have said "Jesus" instead of "Son of God." It would have been just as true, and yet, He was never called "Jesus" until He was born in Bethlehem. The word "Jesus" was never one of His titles prior to that. But as we know well who is being spoken of by the term "Jesus," she could legitimately have used the word. It would be like speaking of "Paul" on the road to Damascus, nevermind the fact that he was still "Saul" at that time. Once his identity is learned, we can correctly identify him by that identity--even at earlier points in time before that identity was taken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, she could have said "Jesus", his incarnate name - revealed first to Joseph: that is indeed his most well known name. When, though, was the identity of Son of the infinite God" taken? Since eternity, as that is the clear implication of Sister White's statement, here and many, many more times?
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/30/11 10:55 PM

Before we get truly sidetracked, on this thread. wink

This is about what is published in the Sabbath School lesson for the first week in January - yes, next weeks' lesson: hence we're not discussing this on that thread.

Lesson #1 1/2012: The Triune God

The title of the lesson may well not mean what we understand as the Godhead. The lesson, compared to the discussion on this thread, includes no SOP quotes except for a tiny quote filling up a fourth of the further reading section: Is the lesson correct that adventists who ever opposed the trinity doctrine denied the deity of Christ? Does the lesson's defence of Christ's deity sit perfectly with the EGW quote fitted in at the end - and her New Zealand quote in the 2nd post of this thread, on page one?

It appears to me not so, as she speaks of Christ as the actual Son of God since eternity past - being the self-existing Son of God in his pre-existence. The lesson allows the Creator to die on the cross - agreeing with SOP, but also completely avoids the issue of Christ's Sonship - which she spoke of 'incessantly': since divinity cannot die, the Creator needs a divine identity revealed in the Bible and mentioned by Ellen White, that can die without endangering the existence of the "Triune God".

Only as the Father is God himself can he give himself in the begotten person of his Son to die for man without endangering the Godhead which he fully possesses. Were the "Triune God" minimally consisting of three persons, then, while humanity died on the cross in the body of Christ, God himself could not die as God the Son - the Triune God would cease to exist as three. One nature, yes, but three or one person as God?...Who or what died at Calvary? I hope this is a little clearer. smile
Posted By: Charity

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/31/11 04:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Colin
One nature, yes, but three or one person as God?...Who or what died at Calvary? I hope this is a little clearer. smile


I think I follow you. My concern is more along the lines that we preserve the scriptural roles of the Godhead and not become mystical or imbalanced by delving into things that are off limits because they're beyond our grasp. Ellen White's counsel is for the bible student to read and understand the scripture's statements on the character and nature of God for himself. Relying on a creed has inherent dangers because creeds, unlike scripture are human creations and not inspired. As Christ said to Satan, Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 12/31/11 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Shipowick
Originally Posted By: Colin
One nature, yes, but three or one person as God?...Who or what died at Calvary? I hope this is a little clearer. smile


I think I follow you. My concern is more along the lines that we preserve the scriptural roles of the Godhead and not become mystical or imbalanced by delving into things that are off limits because they're beyond our grasp. Ellen White's counsel is for the bible student to read and understand the scripture's statements on the character and nature of God for himself. Relying on a creed has inherent dangers because creeds, unlike scripture are human creations and not inspired. As Christ said to Satan, Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Yes, mystical and erroneous understandings we must avoid, and hold to what the Bible says. smile Creeds are of no interest to me, either.

I was not suggesting, with that line of mine that you quoted, any form of modalism but rather what our church held as our belief before the 1920s. God the Eternal Father, his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead.

While avoiding errors about God, it's also important to see how God is able as God to save man, and that goes to the heart of the matter. smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/01/12 12:19 PM

Now we've got the book in our hands, I looked again, and it's better than I thought. They argue tooth and nail for the trinity doctrine, and fail to make their point! smile

How might I summarise this and avoid boredom??

The lesson openly defends the trinity doctrine against detractors, who remain nameless. Yet, its language isn't truly doctrinal language! It speaks of God Himself dying on the cross: that's language we used 100 years or so before we confessed this doctrine - non-trinitarian language. Moreover, the Creator died for us, the lesson says: that's personal language for God, again not doctrinal language: we used to be very guarded in our language about God, and we should still be.

For the Creator to die for us, he cannot be tied to a three-in-one, triune God else that three-in-one God wouldn't remain in tact: see how inflexible a doctrine can be when it matters?? Typically, doctrinally, God didn't die but humanity died, because divinity cannot die, and God the Son is an inextricable part of the triune God which wouldn't be the trinity without him, separated by the wrath of God and death. That leaves, as the lesson rightly points out, an inadequate sacrifice of the atonement, for lack of a worthy offering if Christ were not fully God. Does the doctrine of the lesson not leave that problem, nevertheless?...

For the Creator to die for us, he must have been, at that moment, God himself in the person of his Son, separable from his Father in whom is the Godhead bodily, intact despite the rending of the Powers of heaven: the Godhead of the Father, in the Father bodily, is not cut in half, for the Godhead is not consisting of three persons!! The Godhead in God's only begotten Son did not die, for it cannot, but God's Son, personally, having taken mortal, sinful human flesh, could, personally, taste the 2nd death for us, even suffering separation from the Father. Without a doctrine requiring three persons in perpetuity, salvation in Jesus is totally assured.

The lesson uses non-trinitarian language to fill a gap its doctrine cannot fill. Whether or not they realise that in the office, do we? This is the hidden reason - the unspoken reason, today - why this doctrine of the trinity is just no good at all, and our pioneers ditched it.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/01/12 12:44 PM

The SDA trinity doctrine cannot be squared with the Bible, however much they try to combine wording, sorry.
Quote:
Key Thought: Scripture contains references and hints to the deity and unity of the divine Godhead.

Though the word Trinity itself doesn’t appear in the Bible, the teaching definitely does. The doctrine of the Trinity, that God is One and composed of three “Persons,” is crucial because it is dealing with who God is, what He is like, how He works, and how He relates to the world. Most important, the deity of Christ is essential to the plan of salvation

The trinity is a doctrine, not a teaching: get a grip! The concept of a triune or trinity God isn't in the Bible, especially not the way our SDA doctrine would have it. God isn't just holy, he is also precise, speaking of the Father. grin

The Godhead has oneness, because "there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:6), and there are two persons in whom is the Godhead bodily because there is "one Lord Jesus Christ", the Son of God since the days of eternity. The Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead has the power to make manifest within us the presence of the Father and his Son: an infinite, independent agency of God, but clearly not, when you think about it, an independent individual. One nature, one Godhead, one God and Father of us all - including the pre-existent Son of God, and that excludes a triunity of God.

Do not be afraid that Jesus is no longer God if the SDA doctrine of the trinity is discarded in favour of Bible texts speaking of his natural, personal divine Sonship and God as his nature Father: that's Biblical and heavenly reality, since the beginning, as Scripture and SOP make abundantly clear. Nevermind the merits or othewise of the Nicene Creed: it's full of holes in its detail, but it's correct when it says "only begotten Son" and "begotten not made". They spoke Greek, and they knew that "monogenes" means just that when speaking of humans and animals, and not just dictionaries. cool
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/01/12 12:56 PM

The trinity doctrine cannot rely only on "subtle textual hints", as the lesson says: that is speculative! - reading into the text, not reading from the text.... crazy

The lesson proved adequately - but not nearly as well as it should have! - the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The lesson did not prove three persons of an entity called the trinity. Instead it used language like
Quote:
The whole point of the gospel is that it was God Himself on the cross bearing the sins of the world.

"God Himself" is a person, not an entity of three or a triunity/trinity: in fact, it's how Ellen White and her contemporaries wrote of the Father! smile She didn't speak thus when refering to "God's only begotten Son", for she used the words like those in quotes for him. The lesson borrowed words from her, again, with
Quote:
...it took God Himself, in the Person of Christ, to remedy sin...

This is, again, wording which doesn't fit our trinity doctrine, for Sister White is saying that the Godhead of the Father himself is in the person of his begotten Son who then took humanity as Christ. This wording, used by the lesson, is crossing the line into non-trinitarian beliefs! - the very opposition it decries for denying the deity of Christ. Think about, that's what that wording means. smile

The lesson, perhaps wisely, left totally untouched the matter of Christ's divine Sonship - lack of space and anyway it's not part of our trinity doctrine, sorry.

God gave his only begotten Son to die for us and for our sins: securing this event requires a correct understanding of Father Son and Holy Spirit so that the nature of God is not eliminated in the process of God himself redeeming man from sin in the person of his Son when Jesus died on the cross: Amen.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/01/12 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin
Originally Posted By: Mark Shipowick
Originally Posted By: Bobryan
What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe?


This is the definition of the Trinity from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being.[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[3]

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4]


I can't say for sure because I haven't studied our fundamental beliefs on this but I'm optimistic that we don't subscribe to the non-scriptural aspects. The Godhead is a mystery. The trinity doctrine articulated above goes beyond what scripture reveals and muddies the waters.

What's not Scriptural? smile

Briefly: God is not three persons, but one: the Father.


1. Not according to the Bible. In Matt 28 we have "In the NAME of the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit". If the "Father" is the "Name" of God - then the other persons being "named" are breaking your inferred rule.

2. Not according to SDA fundamental beliefs where we explicitly accept the teaching of one God in three persons. Thus my question remains - what statement of the Trinity in wiki is rejected by SDA doctrine and/or the Bible?

Quote:

The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father


An attribute of a person (like a footprint or a signature or a fingerprint) can not be "grieved" cannot "speak" and is never given a name such as "in the name of my footprint".

Here again - the suggestion above fails the test of scripture.

And what is more Ellen White refers to the Holy Spirit as the "Third PERSON of the Godhead" - so here again we have the personhood of the Holy Spirit accepted by both the Bible and more modern pen of inspiration.

Quote:

The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery. That's what their literature says: I don't care why they say that, as it's not Biblical.


I agree that going into details "beyond what is written" is to go into an area where you cannot test or verify the claims made.

God is referred to as "invisible" but in the bible "invisible" never means "without substance".

Quote:

The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity


Both Ellen White and the Bible agree with the "from all eternity " existence of Christ applying the same term to the Son as it does to LORD (YHWH) in the Psalms.

Quote:

What the Nicene Creed has which our doctrine doesn't have is the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, so from their nature and persons - the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead.


I agree that neither the Bible nor Ellen White's writings nor our 28 FB claim that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" -- nor did they ever.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/01/12 08:27 PM

As this is actually related to our Lesson #1 Sabbath School topic for the 1st Quarter of 2012, I have moved this into the Adult Sabbath School area.
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 01:34 AM

Elle White refers to the Holy Spirit as "the Third person of the Godhead".

What non-Trinitarian group ever does this?

hence the problem for those that would like to reject the "One God in Three Persons" teaching of FB #2.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 02:03 AM

Thanks, Daryl. smile
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Elle White refers to the Holy Spirit as "the Third person of the Godhead".

What non-Trinitarian group ever does this?

"Group"? I don't belong to a group, btw, thanks. smile I'm an ordinary church member, too: I agree with that statement, given what else she says, too.

Quote:
hence the problem for those that would like to reject the "One God in Three Persons" teaching of FB #2.

in Christ,

Bob

I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 07:29 PM

My reference to "group" was simply to point out that we have a number of well established non-SDA "groups" that are very upfront about rejecting the Trinity.

Not one of them describes the non-Trinitarian position as if it proclaims the Holy Spirit to be "the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead" because doing so would be death to their non-trinitarian arguments.

So any SDA trying to marry idea of The Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" to the classic non-Trinitarian foundation has an argument that fizzles out from the very start and so the arian groups themselves never make it.


in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Colin

I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin


In your view - is the Holy Spirit "1/3 of God"??
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/02/12 11:35 PM

No, the HS is "the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead".
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/03/12 10:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Colin
I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin

This appears to be not far from the Monkey King's transformations (for the Buddhist perspective). Are you saying that there is really only one God, but that He takes three different forms?
Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Originally Posted By: Colin

I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin


In your view - is the Holy Spirit "1/3 of God"??

It looks to me like he's saying that each of the members of the Godhead are 100% of God, or something like an alias to the same substance.

I must say here, I disagree, and I would seriously question the logic and support for such a view.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Colin

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/04/12 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Colin
I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin

This appears to be not far from the Monkey King's transformations (for the Buddhist perspective). Are you saying that there is really only one God, but that He takes three different forms?

.....? smile

Three forms that 'he, the one God', takes? No, 'one God in three forms' - or persons - a divine entity or being: no. smile That phrase is an unhelpful doctrinal formula, and is it really reflecting Bible teaching? The oneness of God is because of one divine nature, for how can a triune God, a group, be the personal, individual God we know who gave us his Son?

The Father is God, as the bible says:
Quote:
There is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6,7)

Those highlights distinguish both their roles side by side and their relation, Jesus being the Son of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Bobryan
Originally Posted By: Colin

I believe there are three members of the Godhead, or, better put, there are three persons who possess the Godhead. This is the opposite to "three persons in one God"! - three in whom is the Godhead is not three in one God. grin


In your view - is the Holy Spirit "1/3 of God"??

It looks to me like he's saying that each of the members of the Godhead are 100% of God, or something like an alias to the same substance.

I must say here, I disagree, and I would seriously question the logic and support for such a view.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not offended by your disagreement, GC, as the question is whether the doctrine of the trinity is compatible with the belief in the Godhead - to which I say no while we are told it most certainly is. Now, remember, we are saved, in the final analysis, by knowing God the Father and Jesus whom he has sent (Jn 17:3), not by endorsing a formulated definition of God. Belonging to the remnant movement also helps, today. wink

....Aliases? Interchangeable forms, all at once or only one at a time? That sounds modalistic, and not what I believe.

"100% of God": that would be each taking up all the being of God..., so that the triune God's entire "one God" 'capacity' would be taken up completely really by only one of them at a time? I think I can conceptualise what you're suggesting I'm talking about,....but did I get it?

No, is the answer. smile

Col 1 is amazing! We all know v.15-18 very well. What about v.19?
Quote:
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell

This is repeated in Col 2:9, but chapter one brings the Father into the picture. Isn't the messsage of the whole Bible that God the Father is the infinite God personally, and in his Son is the nature of infinite divinity as the only begotten of God but he is not the Father personally since he is a distinct individual beside God his Father. Col 1:19 cannot refer only to the Son of God on earth, given what else Colossians chapter one says, let alone the rest of the Bible.

The Spirit of God is, naturally, the infinite Spirit of the deity, Godhead, divine nature possessed by the Father and rightfully, naturally possessed also by his Son - Lucifer must have been blinded by pride from seeing that, for he challenged and "obscured" Christ's authority & supremacy over the angels as God's Son! It represents them to their intelligent creation as well as belonging to them, naturally. Manifesting their presence to us, in us (Jn 14:23), is when we hear him, the Spirit, speak of Christ, etc. That's personality if ever there was God's personal presence with us by grace & faith, by his Spirit indwelling us. Btw, making the Spirit more than God's omnipresence within us - so, making him a real person like them - takes away God and Christ's own personal individuality in heaven, did you know?

In Father & Son each is the fulness of the Godhead bodily: that's Biblical. There's no three persons contained in one divine entity called the triune God: doesn't fit, does it?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/07/12 05:35 AM

Colin,

I guess the "Johannine Comma" is likely becoming a magnet for this same discussion. I just posted something in that thread that might also apply to your post above.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: cephalopod

Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity? - 01/09/12 02:05 AM

There is a massive disconnect relative to this topic because new meanings have been poured into established terms...
...This is a classic example of such.

The Trinity Doctrine identifies ONE God that is without parts - a Nature, Substance or essence...
...This "Substance" is beyond understanding in an infinite sense.
...There are Three distinct Persons who equally possess this ONE Substance ( Father, Son & Holy Spirit ).

In Trinitarian Theology the word "Person" identifies the relationship each member of the Trinity has with each other...
...It does not equate to "PERSONALITY" as identified by Sister White or the Pioneers.

When Sock Puppet says, 'Personality of God' that term explicitly means...
...That God has a "BODY of FLESH" and God is ONLY the Father.
...This can be demonstrated ad nauseum in all our publications throughout sock puppets' life.
...And prior to her exposure in the core grouping of those that became the Pioneers of the SDA faith.

Make no mistake in understanding that 'The Personality of God' was a fundamental Doctrine...
...For on it stand everthing distinctive within the SDA faith.
...The Sanctuary teaching / state of the dead & act of Salvation itself ALL rest on God having a body.


Review and Herald October 8, 1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world. No man who is a Seventh-day Adventist can understandingly take that position; neither can 'a Seventh-day Adventist 'hold that position for a moment. In it is involved a denial of the " Father and the Son," the law of Moses, the prophets, the psalms, the holy angels, the personality of the devil, and all that is according to sound doctrine.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19031008-V80-40__B.pdf#view=fit

Sock Puppet was explicit when God said through her to Dr. Kellogg;

"You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself".--Letter 300, 1903. {5BIO 292.4}

Kellogg had stated that He had come to believe in the Trinity and as a requirement of that Doctrine...
...Made the theological affirmation that God was ALSO the Holy Spirit.
...This destroyed the "Personality of God".
...Because the Adventist faith taught God was a literal Person with a literal dwelling place.

Most Adventists are shocked to learn that Ellen White and EVERY Pioneer were Anthropomorhites...
...This is absolutely indisputable fact.
...Which can be confirmed by simply reading our denominational publications.
...And date checking explicit statements made by Sock Puppet.


The Pioneers were most vocal in repudiating that section of the Creeds which reject God has a body...
...And they took special care to 1st mention the Methodist Creedal statements.
...Prior to moving on in repudiating the other Denominations.

See, 'The Personality of God'.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18780905-V52-11__B.pdf#search=%22 god has a body %22&view=fit


http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18780912-V52-12__B.pdf#search=%22 god has a body %22&view=fit


http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/BR/BR1884__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=152

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/BTS/BTS19061001-V05-05__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=9


"Is the Soul Immortal" page 1
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18550918-V07-06__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=1


"Moral Image and Moral Likeness" page 4
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18600105-V15-07__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4


"Spiritualism as it is" ( claims saying God w/out a body = spiritualism ).
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18650711-V26-06__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4


"God has literal eyes and ears and every member, part and ORGAN of a perfect man"
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18900902-V67-34__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4


"God is a literal Person, page 8"
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18900902-V67-34__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4

"God is a literal Person who dwells in heaven and Christ is with God there.
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18900902-V67-34__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4


There is a slew more I can URL link but I'm fairly sure anyone can get the idea...
...The God of the Pioneers and Ellen White was the Father.
...And they believed to the last person that the Father had a body.

Anyone who promulgated that "GOD" was a simple infinite substance that three distinct Persons possessed...
...Was promulgating "SPIRITUALISM" or "PANTHEISM", period.
...Because that belief "DESTROYED THE PERSONALITY ( body ) of God.
...Who was understood to be the ONLY WISE God.










© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church