SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

There is no scripture in the Bible that says that Jesus made Peter the head of the Church!! As JoeMo mentioned the only head of the church was James and as far as I can see/read he never went to Rome. As the head of the church he was in Jerusalem and not Rome??

The Apostles' binding and loosing power was conditional to their communion with Peter. Peter was given singular Authority apart from the rest of the Apostles. The Keys are / were the Biblical Symbol of that Authority. 

Does your Bible say that the Apostles collectively were given the Keys or does the Bible you have say the Keys were ONLY given to Peter?

I'll be interested to hear your answer. 

[JoeMo]

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The Apostles' binding and loosing power was conditional to their communion with Peter. Peter was given singular Authority apart from the rest of the Apostles. The Keys are / were the Biblical Symbol of that Authority. 

Are you getting this idea that Peter was singularly named the head of the church from the following passage?

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  (Matt. 16:18-20)

If so, notice a couple of things  Jesus said "I tell you that you are Peter". The Greek work used for Peter was "Petro", which means a small stone.  The He said "on this rock I will build my church".  The Greek word used there for rock is "petra", which means a huge immoveable rock; like the Rock of Gibraltar.  In this, Jesus was referring to Himself - the Chief Cornerstone.

Another acceptable translation for the phrases "will be bound" and "will be loosed"is "will have been bound" and "will have been loosed".  Using this translation, the verse seems to say that whatever pronouncements are made in heaven will have already been  communicated to the Apostles by the Spirit.

When Jesus allegedly gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, could it be that Jesus was giving the keys to all His disciples?  In the context of the chapter, Jesus and Peter were indeed with all the disciples at the time.  Jesus had to entrust the Kingdom to some human representatives on earth, since He was leaving.

It is also possible that, although Peter appears to have been the spokesman for (aka loudmouth of) the apostles,  James could have been made the head of the church in Jerusalem (hence - the entire Christian Church) so Peter could go on missions.

Christianity wasn't even legal in the Roman Empire until the 4th Century. How long could Peter have possibly been a pope in Rome; in a society mostly hostile to Christians?

[8thdaypriest]

27 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

In this, Jesus was referring to Himself - the Chief Cornerstone.

Amen! 

Revelation 1:17-18 "And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. "

 Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,`These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":

Opens what?  Answer:  the grave/death

John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"

Only Jesus can release from death.  "In Him was life" (John 1:4).  

John 5:25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live."

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

 

[Gustave]

16 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Are you getting this idea that Peter was singularly named the head of the church from the following passage?

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  (Matt. 16:18-20)

If so, notice a couple of things  Jesus said "I tell you that you are Peter". The Greek work used for Peter was "Petro", which means a small stone.  The He said "on this rock I will build my church".  The Greek word used there for rock is "petra", which means a huge immoveable rock; like the Rock of Gibraltar.  In this, Jesus was referring to Himself - the Chief Cornerstone.

Another acceptable translation for the phrases "will be bound" and "will be loosed"is "will have been bound" and "will have been loosed".  Using this translation, the verse seems to say that whatever pronouncements are made in heaven will have already been  communicated to the Apostles by the Spirit.

When Jesus allegedly gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, could it be that Jesus was giving the keys to all His disciples?  In the context of the chapter, Jesus and Peter were indeed with all the disciples at the time.  Jesus had to entrust the Kingdom to some human representatives on earth, since He was leaving.

It is also possible that, although Peter appears to have been the spokesman for (aka loudmouth of) the apostles,  James could have been made the head of the church in Jerusalem (hence - the entire Christian Church) so Peter could go on missions.

Christianity wasn't even legal in the Roman Empire until the 4th Century. How long could Peter have possibly been a pope in Rome; in a society mostly hostile to Christians?

Jesus asked ALL the disciples WHO He was. Some replied John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or perhaps another Prophet BUT SIMON replied, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST'. Jesus immediately says 'TO SIMON' that He's changing his name to PETER and on the heels of that gives Peter binding & loosing power AND THE KEY'S to Christ's Kingdom. 

Later on Jesus gives the group collectively the power of binding & loosing while omitting the power of the Keys to the collective group.

If a group of people collectively have a specific power and ONE PERSON within that group has that power independent of the others AND additional responsibility / power that the others do not have what does that tell you? What do you infer from that? 

If EVERYONE has power NO ONE HAS POWER. 

For a Biblical run through of how Jesus' statement to Peter would have been understood by a group of Religious Jews - read Isaiah 22. The meaning is unequivocal. 

So, no, it's not possible that Jesus gave the keys to all the apostles. That's certainly not the way "the keys" were described as being  transmitted in Isaiah. 

Read Acts 15 again, it's James that Supports Peter. Verse 13 & 14:

"Men, brethren, hearken unto me: SIMEON HATH DECLAIRED [exegesato]  how God at the first...…" 

Strong's G1834

Look it up.

James deferred to Peter.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/5/2019 at 9:53 AM, JoeMo said:

Using hindsight, while I firmly believe that Christ had a free will and could have sinned, even if I'm wrong, the fact is that Christ did NOT sin; therefore we have access to the Kingdom and eternal life.

Gustave made an interesting statement saying that if Jesus could sin that means God could sin.  God has the ultimate free will - He can do whatever He wants.  Because He is God, whatever He does is right.  Sin is falling short of His target.  I can't reconcile in my head how God God can have a free will, yet - by His very definition - can do no wrong.  Does that make sense?

I like your point Joe. 

The definition of sin is "transgression of the law" - to knowingly rebel against the will of God.  How could God the Father "rebel against" His OWN will.  That would make no sense. 

God's Son - on the other hand, had his own separate will.  He was a separate being, therefore He could have knowingly refused the will of His Father. 

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus prayed fervently, asking to be released from crucifixion.  He prayed, "nevertheless not My will, but Yours be done"  (Luke 22:42).  Why use those words, there was only one will? 

John 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

Why not say something like "Our will" if they really had the same will?

[8thdaypriest]

19 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Jesus asked ALL the disciples WHO He was. Some replied John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or perhaps another Prophet BUT SIMON replied, 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST'. Jesus immediately says 'TO SIMON' that He's changing his name to PETER and on the heels of that gives Peter binding & loosing power AND THE KEY'S to Christ's Kingdom. 

Later on Jesus gives the group collectively the power of binding & loosing while omitting the power of the Keys to the collective group.

If a group of people collectively have a specific power and ONE PERSON within that group has that power independent of the others AND additional responsibility / power that the others do not have what does that tell you? What do you infer from that? 

If EVERYONE has power NO ONE HAS POWER. 

For a Biblical run through of how Jesus' statement to Peter would have been understood by a group of Religious Jews - read Isaiah 22. The meaning is unequivocal. 

So, no, it's not possible that Jesus gave the keys to all the apostles. That's certainly not the way "the keys" were described as being  transmitted in Isaiah. 

Read Acts 15 again, it's James that Supports Peter. Verse 13 & 14:

"Men, brethren, hearken unto me: SIMEON HATH DECLAIRED [exegesato]  how God at the first...…" 

Strong's G1834

Look it up.

James deferred to Peter.

 

 

Just read through Isa 22 again.  Trying to figure out what point you are making.  The LORD God said he would "throw you away violently" to the chief steward Shebna, because he used royal funds to build himself a luxurious sepulcher monument.  Then Eliakim was called to that job.  He is given "the keys to the "house of David".  Then he also would "be cut down and fall" v.25. 

The "keys" to the storehouses of the king involved his job/position.  It's not talking about executing people, or sparing their lives. 

I've always read the verse about binding and loosing, as being about binding demons and loosing human beings from the control or harassment of demons.  When I command demons to depart in the name of Jesus Christ, the angels in the heavenly realm force the evil ones to depart. 

Peter was not the only Apostle to command demons.  And believers today have been given the same authority over the enemy. 

 

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Just read through Isa 22 again.  Trying to figure out what point you are making.  The LORD God said he would "throw you away violently" to the chief steward Shebna, because he used royal funds to build himself a luxurious sepulcher monument.  Then Eliakim was called to that job.  He is given "the keys to the "house of David".  Then he also would "be cut down and fall" v.25. 

The "keys" to the storehouses of the king involved his job/position.  It's not talking about executing people, or sparing their lives. 

I've always read the verse about binding and loosing, as being about binding demons and loosing human beings from the control or harassment of demons.  When I command demons to depart in the name of Jesus Christ, the angels in the heavenly realm force the evil ones to depart. 

Peter was not the only Apostle to command demons.  And believers today have been given the same authority over the enemy. 

 

Shebna is informed that God & King Hezekiah have lost confidence in Shebna and that shortly he will replaced by another. The Scripture states that God's own authority was required to remove Shebna (who was the vizier of the King). 

Eliakim will replace Shebna.

This dynasty started with King David is still continuing under King Hezekiah who was the 14th King of Juda. The King's during this time DIDN'T rule alone, there were "ministers" or "vizier's". 

"The Key's" had been passed down for 400 years by this time. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Shebna is informed that God & King Hezekiah have lost confidence in Shebna and that shortly he will replaced by another. The Scripture states that God's own authority was required to remove Shebna (who was the vizier of the King). 

Eliakim will replace Shebna.

This dynasty started with King David is still continuing under King Hezekiah who was the 14th King of Juda. The King's during this time DIDN'T rule alone, there were "ministers" or "vizier's". 

"The Key's" had been passed down for 400 years by this time. 

The "keys" of David's physical kingdom, are not quite the same as "the keys of hell and of death".  Yes - it is a metaphor for authority over.  I can buy that.  I still say that Christ is the only one with the authority over death, and sheol (the abode of the dead - both righteous and wicked). 

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The "keys" of David's physical kingdom, are not quite the same as "the keys of hell and of death".  Yes - it is a metaphor for authority over.  I can buy that.  I still say that Christ is the only one with the authority over death, and sheol (the abode of the dead - both righteous and wicked). 

Its not one or the other 8thday. 

Anymore than Moses' position usurped God's position. 

Jesus was a Jew speaking to a Jewish audience - I can guarantee you they understood Jesus in a Jewish religious context. 

The keys had been transmitted down the line for 400 years by the time of Isaiah 20. 

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

Its not one or the other 8thday. 

Anymore than Moses' position usurped God's position. 

Jesus was a Jew speaking to a Jewish audience - I can guarantee you they understood Jesus in a Jewish religious context. 

The keys had been transmitted down the line for 400 years by the time of Isaiah 20. 

Do I understand you?  Are you saying that Jesus delegated the authority to forgive (or not) to Peter?

[Gustave]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

Do I understand you?  Are you saying that Jesus delegated the authority to forgive (or not) to Peter?

How did you draw that correlation - from what I posted? 

In any event, to answer your question, YES. Peter was, in addition to the other Apostles, delegated the authority to forgive sins. You would obviously know I would believe this. 

"Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20, 21

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

"Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20, 21 

We are told to forgive others, that God may forgive us.  It is good to know that God will not punish a fellow human being for a sin, if I have asked the Father to forgive that sin against me.  Jesus did that while He was being crucified.  Those soldiers did not ask for that forgiveness. 

On the other hand:

Believers (all assumed to have received the Holy Spirit) were to separate from their fellowship, those who persistently committed open sin.  Paul addresses the case of the man who was sleeping with "his father's wife).  Paul argues that openly defiant sinful fellow members of the church, harm the reputation of the church.  The church was to separate such persons from fellowship.

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people." (ICor 5:9)

v. 11 "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, etc. etc. etc.

v.5  "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 

I don't think Paul was telling believers to literally destroy anyone's flesh.  He was telling them to let the openly defiant suffer the hard consequences of their behavior, so that they might one day repent.  It was not a done deal.  That person could repent and find salvation at a future point in his lifetime.

[8thdaypriest]

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I think Paul understood who "the Rock" was and is.  The church is "built on" Jesus Christ. 

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.  He is "the cornerstone" that "the house" is built up on. 

It is what Peter said - not Peter himself.  Peter said Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God".  The church is built on that fact - nothing else.  The church is certainly not built up on Peter the disciple. 

The Holy City New Jerusalem has 12 "foundations", each one named for one of the 12 Apostles.  The Holy City is not built on the men themselves, but on their message.  The men were simply the Apostles of that message.  Just like we do not enter the Holy City through one of the 12 sons of Jacob.  We enter "through" Jesus Christ. 

[Gregory Matthews]

On the issue of forgiveness of sin, SDAs and Catholics often do not communicate well.  So, I will make my comment and welcome Gustave to make any corrections that he choses to do.  While I could cite Roman Catholic doctrinal statements that I believe would support what I post, I will not do so in an attempt to be brief,  As I understand Roman Catholic doctrine:

*  The power and ability to forgive sin rests with God alone.  However, I acknowledge that some Catholic statements on this may be confusing to people who are not Roman Catholic.

*  Jesus, who was God, did delegate, to Peter the other apostles and the successors of Peter down to this day authority to state that a specific sin had been forgiven.  This authority was not   inherent in that human, but resided in God, who had given this authority to my stated humans.

*  This Roman Catholic belief is sometimes stated in the sense of the Priest having the authority to forgive sine.   It should be remembered that while the priest may announce that a sin has been forgiven,   that forgiveness ultimately rested in God's action.

*  I will also say that regardless of the actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, there are probably members who understand it differently and believe that it is the power of the priest who forgives.  Well, there are SDAs who do not correctly understand SDA teaching.

*  I will leave it to Gustave to talk about what it means for one to be absolved of a sin,

 

[Gustave]

Thanks Gregory, the following may help 8thday understand where I'm coming from better. 

Absolution Formula: "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  In one sense I was asking for some clarity as to the Catholic understanding of "absolution" to include if it has any difference from forgiveness.

As one point,  is "absolution" related to relief from spending time in purgatory?

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

O.K.  In one sense I was asking for some clarity as to the Catholic understanding of "absolution" to include if it has any difference from forgiveness.

As one point,  is "absolution" related to relief from spending time in purgatory?

 

My understanding is that the answer would be no.

In the case of purgatory an individuals soul may require added purification. Granted, everyone who goes to purgatory will eventually be fully purified so that they can enter the joys of heaven. Perhaps I'm not understanding the question. Are you steering toward Indulgences and is your question does absolution from a priest reduce time in purgatory?  My understanding is NO, it would not.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I was asking if absolution reduced the time in purgatory.

So, is "absolution" simply another word for "forgiveness?" 

If not, what is the difference between absolution and forgiveness?

 

[JoeMo]

On 8/11/2019 at 12:43 PM, Gustave said:

In any event, to answer your question, YES. Peter was, in addition to the other Apostles, delegated the authority to forgive sins. You would obviously know I would believe this. 

How about the opposite side of the equation?  According to Catholic doctrine, do my sins HAVE to be forgiven by a priest before they are truly forgiven?  If a priest refuses to give absolution, is God bound by their decision?

When I was a Catholic kid (about 13 years old - about 56 years ago), a priest refused me absolution because I ended my confession with "that's all Father" (like I was taught at 7 years old) instead of "I'm sorry for these sins and the sins of my past life", like they were taught at his parish.  Then he told me I was going to hell. I spent the next few years convinced that I was doomed to hell; and it's one of the reasons I abandoned Christianity during my late teens and early 20's.  Thank God someone told me about the Bible verse that says only God can forgive sins.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

How about the opposite side of the equation?  According to Catholic doctrine, do my sins HAVE to be forgiven by a priest before they are truly forgiven?  If a priest refuses to give absolution, is God bound by their decision?

When I was a Catholic kid (about 13 years old - about 56 years ago), a priest refused me absolution because I ended my confession with "that's all Father" (like I was taught at 7 years old) instead of "I'm sorry for these sins and the sins of my past life", like they were taught at his parish.  Then he told me I was going to hell. I spent the next few years convinced that I was doomed to hell; and it's one of the reasons I abandoned Christianity during my late teens and early 20's.  Thank God someone told me about the Bible verse that says only God can forgive sins.

No, as Gregory said previously, it's GOD who forgives the sins. Are there bad Priests? Of course there are. That you would take the single word of a single Priest and stew on them from age 13 to your early 20's and summarize the Catholic Church from it makes me question how you've remained a Seventh-day Adventist for so long? Have you never heard something from an SDA Pastor that you believed was wrong or offended you in some way? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a serious question? 

I've heard things from Priests plenty of times that I knew were BS. 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Have you never heard something from an SDA Pastor that you believed was wrong or offended you in some way? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a serious question? 

I've heard things from Priests plenty of times that I knew were BS.

I have definitely heard BS from SDA pastors.  But I never held SDA pastors in the same esteem (as an adult) as I held priests in (as a young teen).  At that time, I still thought priests spoke for God. I was even planning to attend the Franciscan Seminary.  But since I was going to hell, I figured I was no longer qualified for the priesthood. (A couple years later when my interest in girls started peaking, I didn't want to be a priest anymore anyhow). This experience happened prior to Vatican 2; and at 13 years old I was still drinking heavily of the old-time Catholic Kool-Aid.

Being totally honest, I have been so offended at SDA's in high places that I have temporarily left the church.  But I could never find anything better, so I came back.  Also being honest, I'm not the most compliant SDA in the denomination.  My beliefs would not change, nor would I doubt my salvation if the denomination felt it necessary to relieve me of my membership.  My salvation is in Jesus Christ; not in any denomination.

[B/W Photodude]

On 8/8/2019 at 10:25 PM, JoeMo said:

?  Good to see you back, B/W.  You have been missed.

Been a busy summer. Had my grandchildren (4 & 7) again for two months. Kids can be huge time suckers! I have gotten behind in studying and reading and work around my house. They go home in 5 more days. My wife works so I end up with all the daycare for them. 

Also had a medical event which had me in the hospital for the first time in over 55 years! But all is good and turned out well.

[phkrause]

I notice this thread has been dormant for a number of years, but I came across an article by Marvin Moore the editor of Signs of the Times, from the November 2021 issue, so I thought I'd share it you all.

The Trinity Doctrine: Is It Biblical?

https://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=44188664521.739

If for any reason you can't access, I will copy and paste it, just let me know!!

[Gustave]

What Marvin Moore is explaining in that article isn't the Trinity Doctrine - Moore is saying that The Father and Son are one in the same manner as a husband and wife being of one flesh, united in purpose (goals) are one.

In the ancient Greek religion, the Olympian God's were united in purpose to defeat Kronos the Titan. Zeus, Hades, Hephaestus and others were ONE despite being multiple "personages" - as the battle moved along some of the "God's" were killed off leaving only Zues, Hades & the Demigod Perseus to square off against Kronos the Titan. Basically, if you changed the plural "God's" into God Hephaestus, Zues & Hades become "parts" of God. 

Below is the Mormon understanding.

"Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2). The Godhead (lightplanet.com)

"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost......However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it"

"The Latter-day Saint concept of God differs from that of Nicene orthodoxy in more than just the latter's trinitarian doctrine. The Latter-day Saints teach that God the Father is an anthropomorphic being--that is, that he has a tangible body: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (D&C 130:22 .)" The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God (lightplanet.com)

&

"Mormons believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ who is the Savior of the world, and in the Holy Spirit.  We believe that they are three separate people who are perfectly united in their perfection and purpose.  

The Trinity is the teaching that the supreme being is “one God in three Divine persons.”  Though the details of this theology differ between religions, the basic statement of three divine persons acting together as a godhead is something Mormons agree with.  We believe God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct individuals just like you and I are separate individuals; however, that Christ, God, and the Spirit are part of a godhead and are entirely united in their perfection and purpose."  Do Mormons Believe in the Trinity? A Mormon explains. – Purpose in Christ

In reviewing the materials I've previously posted here on this forum where SDA's have defined what the Personality of God meant and how it specifically differed and stood apart from the Trinity Doctrine in all honesty I'm wondering how Mr. Moore could write an article like that??? 

It reminds me of a reality tv show from several years ago about Bigfoot where a large group of Bigfoot believers were in a meeting and one part of the group was advocating that the Bigfoot should be treated like a "big game animal" and should / could be hunted responsibly while the other group was demanding Bigfoot be placed on the endangered species list and have Federal protection. Bigfoot doesn't exist so the argument those folks were having was rather moot is it not? 

If Mr. Moore reflected the SDA view of the Trinity the anti-Trinitarians within the SDA Church who take issue with it shouldn't confound what Moore is saying with the historic Doctrine of the Trinity - what Moore is advocating there isn't the Trinity - it's so similar to what the Mormons believe one could say it's literally the same thing. 

Years ago I watched Sean Boonstra (a well known SDA) provide a talk on the Trinity - Boonstra got it right - that video was removed from the it is written website however. I'm glad I motion captured it!   

 

 

 

[Gustave]

To boil it down better I'd say this issue can be reduced to the following:

"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost......However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it"

That bolded part of the quote and of course the accompanying articulation where the Father is affirmed to be an anthropomorphic "Person" with a tangible body of flesh and bones is what I understand to be the issue here. From my understanding the SDA position isn't like the Mormon position - it IS the Mormon position. 

The Father (tangible flesh and bone hominid), The Son (tangible flesh and bone hominid) & Holy Spirit a spiritual entity not in possession of a flesh and bone body. Each member being "A PART" of the Godhead whereas it could be said that if one died and eternally ceased to exist than "PART OF GOD" would eternally cease to exist. 

These affirmations are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine of:

The Baptists / The Lutherans / The Methodists / The Greek Orthodox Church / The Catholic Church / Presbyterian Church / Episcopalian Church / etc.