Trinitarian explanation of the creation of man - What is it?

[Pastor_Chick]

As I have read some of the threads where the Trinity/non-Trinity debate continues, I do not detect any hope for resolution. In fact, it appears to become more confused with time. Obviously, we have a major split in Adventism over this one doctrinal difference.

It has often helped me to go back to creation to begin my investigation. In this thread, I would like to see if the Trinitarian explanation of the creation of man can reconcile the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. I even wonder if the Trinitarians will agree on one version of that creation story.

[skyblue888]

"And God (the Godhead) said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Gen.1:26.

In the Testimonies it is written that the the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all involved in creation.

Ever read that statement?

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

[..]

In the Testimonies it is written that the the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all involved in creation.

Ever read that statement?

sky

Share it.

[skyblue888]

You look for it! hehe

Just kidding.

I am looking for it.

sky

[skyblue888]

First, in Vol.6 of Bible Commentary,p.1074, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are spoken of as "The three great powers in Heaven..." or "three persons"

[skyblue888]

"We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,--and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God." Special Testimonies, Series B, No.7, p.51.

In Counsels on Health, p.222, again speaking of the three great powers of Heaven, it is written that "they gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption."

Redemption is creation all over again.

Since they gave "themselves" to the working out of the plan of redemption which is creation all over again, then they must have been working together when they made man.

"Then God (Godhead) said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Gen.1:26.

I am still searching for a more specific statement. I believe John317 posted it once. May be he knows where it is.

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

Maybe this one will suffice:

The Father and the Son engaged in the mighty, wondrous work they had contemplated, of creating the world. [...] Angels beheld and rejoiced at the wonderful and beautiful works of God. [...] After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it,the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, "Let us make man in our image." (ST 01-09-79) [...] The holy pair united with them, and raised their voices in harmonious songs of love, praise, and adoration, to the Father and his dear Son, for the tokens of love which surrounded them. [...] The hour for joyful happy songs of praise to God and his dear Son had come. [...] the rebel leader and every angel who united with him in questioning the authority of the great Jehovah, had been driven out of Heaven; and that this fallen foe was now an enemy to all that concerned the interest of God and his dear Son. (ST 01-16-79) [...] The heart of the Son of God was touched with pity for the lost race. Upon his lovely countenance rested an expression of sympathy and sorrow. Soon he approached the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father, and he seemed to engage in close converse with him. The anxiety of the angels was intense while Jesus thus communed with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the cloud of glory; the third time he came forth his countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, man could again have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. [...] With a holy sadness Jesus comforted and cheered the angels, and informed them that hereafter those whom he should redeem would be with him, and ever dwell with him; and that by his death he should ransom many, and finally destroy him who had the power of death. And his Father would give him the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, and he should possess it forever and ever. [...] But the Son of God, who had in unison with the Father created man, could make an atonement for man acceptable to God, by giving his life a sacrifice, and bearing the wrath of his Father. (ST 01-30-79)

I do not perceive that the prophetess left anything out of the story,-- well, unless it would be that other nameless "person." The angels were there.

Oh, I did not ask for "quotes" about the "3 persons." I think we have a fair list of those already. No need to clutter the thread with gross repetitions.

What I have asked for is the Trinitarian explanation of the creation of man.

[skyblue888]

This was a great quote brother Chick, but that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead, was not involved, for without Him, nature would die.

sky

[ClubV12]

Those are most excellent quote(s) you've posted Pastor Chick, on the plan of redemption. The intensity, the counsel of the Father and the Son. That is worthy of reading again and again letting it sink in. I am not surprised that in this counsel the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, but it does not mean the Spirit was not present.

[Light Fox]

So... would either of you be willing to offer an explanation of how the Spirit was present? That's what I understood the OP to be looking for. While I find it strange that she would happen to leave out the Holy Spirit as a third being in that picture - and some other similar ones - I'd be interested in knowing what the Trinitarian explanation for what "He" *was* doing there is.

Similarly, my understanding of the way that man was created in the image of God was this - man was created, a living being. Out of man was taken woman; another being equal in standing, brought forth from the being of the first. These two had union with one another, becoming "one flesh."

Thus, man - and marriage - demonstrates the image of God.

But I only see two there. That seems to fit well with the idea of the Father and the Son as distinct beings, united as "one Spirit" through their shared Holy Spirit. Given that, what is the Trinitarian perspective on this? Where is the Spirit both in creation, and in the "image of God" that we were given shortly thereafter?

[jasd]

QR frame:

There is indication that there were male and female created by spoken word – and there was Adam formed by hand into whose nostrils Gd breathed – and afterwards, again seemingly created by hand – Eve.

One might conclude that there were two distinct lines of mankind created – one by spoken word and another by other means...

Per the activities of the Holy Spirit at creation:

Gd, throughout the creation epic is indicated by the uniplural Elohim; which, most specifically per the matter at hand – lends itself to there being other members of this Elohim/Gdhead (Moses, angel(s), and other exceptions noted and excepted).

The pronouns “us” and “our” validate the uniplural aspect of Gd as it obtains in Genesis 1. There is seemingly a third member of that Gdhead introduced in Genesis 1:2 – the ruach-Elohim.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(or, as the Syriac would have it – the Spirit ‘brooded’ upon the waters)

Father of Elohim, Son of Elohim, and Spirit of Elohim – treble aspects of the uniplural Elohim/Gdhead.

Seems that a third member of the Gdhead is introduced in verse two.

Lastly, EGW seemed not to have accepted the Trinitarian view until 'bout a half-century after first having become a part of the early pioneers...

[Light Fox]

Thanks for your input, Jasd. I certainly agree with you regarding the plural nature of Elohim at the creation. I think we (might?) have some disagreement on the concept of what this means, however? I've not heard the term "Father of Elohim", nor "Son of Elohim." That would imply a plurality beyond either individual; I have yet to see that in the Scriptures.

The Father is distinctly "El," and the Son also "El" when spoken of in the singular. As such, there is the Father "El", the Son "El," together which are "Elohim." The Spirit of the already plural term for God is introduced in Genesis 1:2, which seems to me to further discount the idea of it as a third person. Considering the relevant commentary from Ellen White above (that the term "us" was spoken between the Father and Son, not a third) this seems to be the most consistent view of Genesis 1:2 from an Adventist standpoint.

[Kevin H]

God the Father and God the Son are the objective manisfestations of God, the Holy Spirit is God working with our subjective and who always points towards Jesus. If we find him sharing the spotlight then it is not the Holy Spirit.

[ClubV12]

Seems to me that is much like trying to prove a negative.

Even with a sanctified imagination I won't speculate as to where or why the Holy Spirit was not mentioned in this counsel between the Father and the Son as it concerns Jesus taking on humanity and making the ultimate sacrafice on man's behalf!

[jasd]

>>I've not heard the term "Father of Elohim", nor "Son of Elohim."<<

Indeed. I doubt that you have heard the Father or the Son incorporated thusly with Elohim. I simply proffered them in a more elementary manner to coincide with the Spirit of Elohim in Genesis 1:2. As I’ve iterated them – they are meant to imply such as

EGW of the SDA church, Smith of the SDA church, Baates of the SDA church, etc – with SDA church being, in this case, the uniplural term – with those mentioned – all SDA churchpersons in the uniplural.

Of course, I don’t think that one might verify that “Son” per se – is in view until His incarnation upon this earth as the Son of Mary. OT literature doesn’t seem to provide uw with a Son of Elohim/Gd.

>>That would imply a plurality beyond either individual; I have yet to see that in the Scriptures.<<

Not sure how you mean your statement to be taken...; however, I don’t think that it can be forwarded that neither EL is not part of an Elohim plurality.

There are simply too many texts in the OT which sustain the individuality of the Spirit; therefore, the Spirit of Genesis 1:2 surely indicates other than Gd the Father or Gd the Son emoting – but another of the Elohim who broods upon the waters...

>>The Father is distinctly "El," and the Son also "El" when spoken of in the singular.<<

As well, Father/El of/within Elohim, etc...

>>As such, there is the Father "El", the Son "El," together which are "Elohim." The Spirit of the already plural term for God is introduced in Genesis 1:2,<<

That’s what I said, “Spirit of Elohim” brooded upon the waters; otherwise, if it were the Spirits of both the two Els, then the text ought more specifically to read “Spirits of Elohim” brooded upon the waters.

>>Considering the relevant commentary from Ellen White above (that the term "us" was spoken between the Father and Son, not a third)<<

No disrespect, but perhaps EGW ought not to be part of a discussion per this matter – as she herself was hither-thither re the Trinity for most of writing life.

>>...this seems to be the most consistent view of Genesis 1:2 from an Adventist standpoint.<<

Just how consistent is the Adventist point of view?

[Pastor_Chick]

Will the "Adventist Trinitarians" please come forth with their explanation of the creation of man and how it reflected the "image and likeness" of God? This should not be a complicated request if you understand the Word of YAHWEH.

"Babylon" is "confusion." Let us avoid it at all costs.

[John317]

As I have read some of the threads where the Trinity/non-Trinity debate continues, ...Obviously, we have a major split in Adventism over this one doctrinal difference.

This isn't true. There is no "split" in the SDA church over the Trinity. There is a small minority who don't accept the Trinity, but it is very small indeed and has absolutely no influence. A "split" would suggest that a fairly significant number disagree. There are a vocal few who who are trying hard to make that minority grow, however. And the growth is due largely to the Internet and all the misinformation people are free to disseminate on it.

Satan, of course, loves to see the SDA church arguing over this issue, which is really a side-issue. The truly important topic that the church needs to be united on and teaching is the Three Angels Messages, but if Satan can get the church to experience division over "side-issues," there won't be the unity that we need to proclaim the gospel.

Ellen White saw this as a side issue, which is why she refused to "discuss" it or argue about it. She said that if people don't see the truth on the Christ's deity from reading and preaching about it, it wouldn't go any good to argue about it. She was right.

[John317]

I am still searching for a more specific statement. I believe John317 posted it once. May be he knows where it is.

Genesis 1: 2 shows clearly that the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the world.

Ellen White says in Education 134: par. 4 that it is only by the same Holy Spirit that was brooding on the waters during creation week that the Scriptures can be rightly understood.

There's also this:

"From the beginning, God has been working by His Holy Spirit through human instrumentalities for the accomplishment of His purpose in behalf of the flalen race." God's Amazing Grace, page 190.

And: "Before this [the time of Christ] the Spirit had been in the world; from the very beginning of the work of redemption He had been moving upon men's hearts." God's Amazing Grace, 191.

The following proves that the Holy Spirit was active in the universe at the time of the creation and the Fall:

"The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption." God's Amazing Grace, page 190.

[John317]

Lastly, EGW seemed not to have accepted the Trinitarian view until 'bout a half-century after first having become a part of the early pioneers...

Ellen White gained a great deal of truth about the Godhead between 1888 and 1900. However, all of her writings on the topic harmonize because she never wrote anything on the topic that God hadn't shown her. She never wrote merely her private opinions. If she had, she clearly would have written things that needed to be changed later on. Between 1844 and 1890, she still was unclear about many things in regard to the Godhead. It is for this reason that she wrote little about the Holy Spirit in her first volumes, such as in Spiritual Gifts and The Spirit of Prophecy. It is also the reason that her clearest statements with respect to the nature of the Godhead-- the "heavenly trio"-- were written in the 1890s and the first years of the 20th century.

[John317]

No disrespect, but perhaps EGW ought not to be part of a discussion per this matter &#150; as she herself was hither-thither re the Trinity for most of writing life.

>>...this seems to be the most consistent view of Genesis 1:2 from an Adventist standpoint.<<

Just how consistent is the Adventist point of view?

Since this is "clubadventist," Ellen White's comments are certainly relevent. Anyone who doesn't believe in her or accept her prophetic ministry is also free to ignore her statements.

[John317]

Will the "Adventist Trinitarians" please come forth with their explanation of the creation of man and how it reflected the "image and likeness" of God? This should not be a complicated request if you understand the Word of YAHWEH.

This would be about like my titling a thread "Arian or Semiarian Explanation of the Creation of Man-- What is It?" and afterwards asking Arians to post their exlanation of their understanding.

Why don't you tell what your understanding of the creation of man is? Then Seventh-day Adventists will respond.

[John317]

Maybe this one will suffice:

Originally Posted By: EGW

The Father and the Son engaged in the mighty, wondrous work they had contemplated, of creating the world. [...] Angels beheld and rejoiced at the wonderful and beautiful works of God. [...] After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it,the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God says to his Son, "Let us make man in our image." (ST 01-09-79) [...] The holy pair united with them, and raised their voices in harmonious songs of love, praise, and adoration, to the Father and his dear Son, for the tokens of love which surrounded them. [...] The hour for joyful happy songs of praise to God and his dear Son had come. [...] the rebel leader and every angel who united with him in questioning the authority of the great Jehovah, had been driven out of Heaven; and that this fallen foe was now an enemy to all that concerned the interest of God and his dear Son. (ST 01-16-79) [...] The heart of the Son of God was touched with pity for the lost race. Upon his lovely countenance rested an expression of sympathy and sorrow. Soon he approached the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father, and he seemed to engage in close converse with him. The anxiety of the angels was intense while Jesus thus communed with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the cloud of glory; the third time he came forth his countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, man could again have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. [...] With a holy sadness Jesus comforted and cheered the angels, and informed them that hereafter those whom he should redeem would be with him, and ever dwell with him; and that by his death he should ransom many, and finally destroy him who had the power of death. And his Father would give him the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, and he should possess it forever and ever. [...] But the Son of God, who had in unison with the Father created man, could make an atonement for man acceptable to God, by giving his life a sacrifice, and bearing the wrath of his Father. (ST 01-30-79)

I do not perceive that the prophetess left anything out of the story,-- well, unless it would be that other nameless "person." The angels were there.

Ellen White did not have as clear an understanding of the Godhead in 1879 as she did in the 1890s and early 1900s. The above paragraph does not contain any false information, but neither is it complete. It is like the books of Moses that way-- they aren't false but neither do they tell the whole story.

Just because Ellen White doesn't say anything about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean He wasn't there and taking an active part. You learn this by including the statements she made in the 1890s and early 20th century.

[Pastor_Chick]

The Trinitarians, who are far more in number than the non-Trinitarians, are seemingly reluctant to explain the "creation of man" in Genesis and to show how God created man in "His image and likeness."

[God created man in His own image; . . . male and female created He them] Here is clearly set forth the origin of the human race; and the divine record is so plainly stated that there is no occasion for erroneous conclusions. (FLB 29)

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Why don't you tell what your understanding of the creation of man is? Then Seventh-day Adventists will respond.

John,

This is no trivial topic, as pointed out in the writings. I honestly do NOT know how a Trinitarian Adventist would explain the creation of man (the process) and how the creation of man demonstrates "the image and likeness of God."

While you are almost "proud" in suggesting that non-Trinitarians are in the great minority among Sabbath-keeping Adventists (you used other words), you may be lacking knowledge of the many defections. More and more Bible students are discovering the absurdity of the "3 in 1" "co-equal/co-eternal" theory to describe the Deity.

Of course, if I were a member in the SDA denomination and did not want to lose my good standing, I might be tempted to keep quiet, though privately believing what the Bible really teaches. The "few" who cannot keep quiet are seeking discussion.

John, you do not know me. You may have learned some about me on CA, but my person is unknown to you. I am an honest believer and am always willing to change when presented with truth.

[Scion]

I have discovered, in my readings, that the original position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was distinctly non-Trinitarian. In fact, it was blatantly anti-Trinitraian. While it may be true that Ellen White was "unclear" about some things regarding the nature of the Godhead, the fact of the matter is that in the 1800s the Trinity doctrine was already present, fully formed, and accepted by many other Churches. The fact that she was "unclear" about the nature of the Godhead despite the presence of this doctrine, and that she did nothing to correct the very vocal opposition to the Trinity doctrine (Adventists considered it a "dangerous heresy" until the early 1900s!) speaks volumes as to whether or not she "became Trinitarian" at some point during her life. She corrected many, many, many misunderstandings that our preachers taught, and about matters orders of magnitude less important that the nature of our Creator.

The Trinity doctrine long pre-dated Adventism, therefore it would be disingenuous to say "increasing light" led to the acceptance of this paradigm, for that would mean the Spirit led us (in our period of most intense study and personal humility as a people) away from the Trinity only to lead us back to it at some later date? That's not how increasing light works. For my part, I believe the pioneers had it right, and there has been no divinely inspired resource, writing or commentary that exists to correct their position. First, I don't believe it works doctrinally. There is a "spirit" in man that is not separate from man himself, and there is also a "spirit" of God... but we are saying that Spirit is separate? Second, I don't believe it works historically. Anyone who's studied the history of Catholicism knows that the propaganda that "The Trinity doctrine was developed and accepted at the Nicean Council" is the coloring-book version. It took a great deal of pressure and coercion to get the theologians of the day to sign on to it... and even then many rebelled, leading to a second, more pressured and coercive Council of Rimini thereafter to "finalize" it. Those who didn't accept it were exiled or stripped of their position. Wonderful way to obtain the conclusion that "100% of our (current) clergy are Trinitarian," isn't it? Those who refused were no longer the "current clergy."

Reading over this thread, I find that a lot of those on the pro-Trinity side are missing the point. The pioneer position was not that "The Spirit does not exist, and was not present at the creation of man." Far from it. Ellen White correctly identified the "three" great worthies of Heaven, and so providing quotes and verses to show that the Holy Spirit may have been there at the Creation, and down through history, does not address the issue at all. The question here is about the nature of the Holy Spirit, and it was the near unanimous position of early Adventists (so far as I can tell) that the Holy Spirit is not a Person in the exact sense that the Father and Son are "Persons." This is the reason why the Spirit is never called "God the Holy Spirit" in the Bible, and why nobody ever talks to the Spirit, or prays to the Spirit, etc. Of course, the Holy Spirit communicated to humans at various points, in exactly the same way that Daniel and David could say that their "spirit" was sorrowful. The spirit of man can seem very clearly to act independently of our thoughts and desires (it actually says so in Romans 8:26) but it is not a separate person. The Speaker was always God the Father, usually through an intermediate such as a prophet or angel. When Ezekiel spoke, it was the "Spirit" speaking through Him, but the Person speaking was God Himself. Now if we are created in God's image... I mean really in His image, then what reasoning is there to suggest that this works differently for that grand Prototype of God's nature as manifest in us?

Ellen White gave some fairly direct quotes about the nature of the Holy Spirit. Again, not that the Spirit does not exist... no one is disputing Its presence (and yes, Ellen White called it an "It;" something she never did with the Father and Son). She said in the Desire of Ages that the Holy Spirit was Christ Himself, without the Personality of humanity. This agrees with 2Cor 3:17, which says that "The Lord (a title exclusively used for Jesus Christ in that context) is that Spirit." She said in another place (I forget the exact spot) that the Son was the "only being in the Universe" that could enter into the counsels of the Father. In fact... let me look that up.

Ah, here it is, from The Great Controversy:

Quote:

Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. “By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. (The Great Controversy, Page 493)

So here we see the Father and the Son as the only beings "in all the universe" that are considered equal and worthy of worship. Notice, this is not a matter of Ellen White merely not mentioning the "third Person," but rather, even though the word "person" is sometimes used of the Spirit in a few limited settings, it is not - ever - considered a "co-equal, co-eternal third person of the Godhead" as the wording of the Trinity would have us accept. We cannot accept some quotations and ignore others. There is a way to harmonize the meaning of all inspired, works, and it is our responsibility to take everything into account. We can't even make the "argument from silence" that "just because she doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, this doesn't mean the Spirit is not there." She is talking in positive, precise language in that quote about authority, worship, and intellect, not about presence, and in such a way as to specifically preclude the contention that "the Spirit may have been there also." I don't believe that this was a mistake, or a misunderstanding. There is a clear declaration in the most commonly quoted and powerfully inspired Adventist literature that there is a difference between the Father and Son (who are worshiped by Heavenly beings), with their Spirit (which is not).

So again, I have to come to the conclusion that the Pioneers were right, and I really don't find any Scripture or Adventist writing that they haven't accounted for in their studies or reasoning to the contrary. I don't think this makes me any less of an Adventist... in fact, I honor the conclusions of our forefathers, and stand firmly on the foundations of our faith.