On the Trinity

[Gregory Matthews]

The Trinity: In the following article, John Peckham reflects on the Trinity.

https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/understanding-the-trinity-2/

 

[Gustave]

I believe the following video illustrates the main point I hope to make here. I want to be charitable and don’t want to misrepresent what Seventh-day Adventists believe so please, if something jumps out as incorrect let me know so that I can correct my understanding.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_BmpgarHYk&t=1s

 

In the above video SDA Pastor Nelson Mercado (of Nashville Tn) describes the SDA view of the Trinity and provides two additional views (Consubstantial Trinity & Modalism). The part I’m going to be illustrating starts at around the 11:30 minute mark of the video where Pastor Mercado lists 3 “versions” of the Trinity Doctrine.

 

I’m fairly certain there are no SDA’s who believe Modalism, so I’ll set aside discussing that particular heresy. This leaves, according to Pastor Mercado, Tri-Theism  Vs. The Consubstantial Trinity. While Pastor Mercado admits that “some” within the SDA Church subscribe to the Consubstantial Trinity he says they are very few in number and are likely scholars.  Mercado goes on to state that when an individual is baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church they agree to the “Trithestic Trinity”. This appears to be accurate because my copy of “Seventh-day Adventists Believe – A Biblical exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines states on page 85 that at the creation of man God had parts in the form of a man.

 

Mercado calls the 3 differing views “Trinity” but there is only one Trinity Doctrine and it’s the Consubstantial Trinity.

 

Mr. Peckham’s article describes a Trinity Doctrine a Mormon in good standing could easily subscribe to - if such a Trinity Doctrine existed, it doesn’t exist which is why Mormons openly reject / repudiate the Trinity Doctrine.  What follows are some statements Mormons with standing in that faith tradition have made  – note the sources.

 

“Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God. This does not imply a mystical union of substance or personality. Joseph Smith taught: Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me…that they may be one as we are."…I want to read the text to you myself-"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." [TPJS, p. 372; cf. John 17:9-11, 20-21; also cf. WJS, p. 380].” https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhead

 

“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. Page 71 https://archive.org/details/aremormonschrist0000robi/page/72/mode/2up?q=trinity

 

“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, because it is not Biblical. Page 72 https://archive.org/details/aremormonschrist0000robi/page/72/mode/2up?q=trinity

 

“And there is no passage of scripture or combination of scriptures for which the doctrine of an abstract, absolute, transcendent, consubstantial, coeternity unity in Trinity existing unknowably and incomprehensibly WITHOUT BODY, PARTS, or PASSIONS and outside space and time can be called a fair “summary”. There is a vast difference between a summary and an elaboration. Page 73

https://archive.org/details/aremormonschrist0000robi/page/72/mode/2up?q=body

 

 

The Seventh-day Adventists during Ellen White’s ministry were very clear in why they rejected the Trinity – they said the Trinity Doctrine was “spiritualism”  because it destroyed the material body of the Father - which by default DESTROYED one of their most important Pillar Doctrines – THE PERSONALITY [flesh body of members and parts] of God.

 

“The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what became of the body of Jesus who had a body when he ascended, who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere” Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854

 

 

The above sentiments are pushed forward repeatedly by the Sabbath Herald and other Adventist publications with the help of Ellen White’ s blatant endorsement of a series of anti-Trinitarian articles written by D.M. Canright, Ellen & James White which started appearing in the Sabbath Herald August 29, 1878.

 

“And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible.”

 

&

 

“We must know the Father as the only true God. Then there is no true God besides the Father. But we must also know his Son Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. How simple and plain is this doctrine, and how abundantly sustained by the Holy Bible.”

 

&

 

“All are familiar with the first chapter of John. This has been called the stronghold of trinitarians and the dread of unitarians ; but the simple truth is very plain. It does not show that the Son of God did exist with the Father before the world was, and that he made the world. Thus it reads :— " 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. All things were made by him ; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life ; and the life, was the light of men." "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." John 1 : 1-4, 10. But does it not say that the Word was God ? Yes ; and it says that he was with God. Being the Son of God, of course he is properly called God. That is his name;; but he was not the very and eternal God himself, for it says that he was with God. If he was with God this implies that he was distinct from God the Father.” D.M. Canright ,Signs of the Times March 21, 1878

 

I’ve quoted the above to show what SDA teaching was when Ellen White was alive and while Adventism had zero problems calling Jesus God - it came with the understood caveat that Jesus WASN’T “the very and eternal God Himself” yet had no problems calling Jesus God as long as it was in the sense of military unit with varying ranks of soldiers. In my view this proves that according to SDA teaching the Father was God alone in the ultimate sense and was a SEPARATE BEING who possessed a material body of flesh, bones, organs, members and parts – the same as a “perfect man” would have (see: Ellen White’s endorsement in the Sabbath Herald, September 5, 1878 D.M. Canright Personality of God continued article)

 

Another way I was thinking of demonstrating the trithestic belief of SDA’s is by using the Book of Jude where Michael the archangel disputes with the Devil over the corpse of Moses. Jude identifies Jesus as the Lord God who led the Children of Israel out of Egypt and distinguishes Jesus from Michael here. If as SDA’s claim – that Jesus is Michael (which is prior to the Incarnation) it again demonstrates two hominid God’s completely separated with the only oneness being in thoughts, purpose and actions (exactly the same as Ellen White taught).

[Gustave]

What I'm attempting to do here is show that God must be one Being. Jesus said if someone saw Him they saw the Father - i.e. the Incarnation was "God manifest". Prior to the Incarnation God was not manifest, God had not yet become man while still remaining God.

Jude describes that the Devil wanted to take possession of Moses' corpse and Michael the archangel was there contending against the Devil from doing that - we see that Michael referred Lucifer to the Lord to be rebuked and herein is the problem. 

Jude 5: "I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:"

We can see it's Jesus here that saved the people out of Egypt. 

You can also clearly see in Deut 5, 15 and Hosea 13,4 that there was ONLY ONE Lord God that brought the Children out of Egypt and both at that event and at the time Satan contended with Michael the archangel over the corpse of Moses Jesus (AKA the Lord God) had not Incarnated yet and yet Jude makes a clear distinction between Jesus and Michael the archangel. What I'm saying is at the point of the exodus AND the dispute over the corpse of Moses God was a SINGLE BEING (and most certainly still is). What changed is that the 2nd Person of the Trinity became man without ceasing to be God - This is why Jesus said if someone had seen Him they had also seen the Father because God was manifested in Christ Jesus. 

If as SDA's believe - that Michael is another name for Christ - there is a problem because Jude said Michael referred Lucifer to the Lord for rebuking yet Jude said Michael WASN'T or IS NOT the Lord. Anyway it configured you now have 2 Lord God's. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I think it would be of value for Dr. Peckham to respond to the comments that Gustave has made to the Review articles.  I am attempting to contact Dr. Peckham and invite him to respond.  However, I am finding this to be more difficult than I had thought it would be.  I do not expect to know if I have been successful for several days.

  I have attempted to contact him today (March 9, 2024) in the following ways:

* By e-mail,  I have an address, but it is limited and I am not on the list to send to him.

* By telephone,  I have a work phone number, he won't hear my message until he goes to his office.

* By mail today,  that will take several days to get to him.

 

[Gustave]

It's all good Pastor Matthews, I would be interested in hearing him explain the Mormon concept of oneness and how that's somehow different than what he's suggesting. Its also ok if Dr. Peckham doesn't respond - there are plenty of sharp people in this forum that could share points on how they believe the Divine Nature could be segregated and one Person who possesses it could lose it and eternally cease to exist - forever becoming as if they never existed in the 1st place. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I have his office telephone number.  I will probably try to telephone him on Monday, if I do not hear from him prior to then.  But, I am typically quite busy on Mondays distributing food to the needy.  So, I may not bee able to reach him on that day.

[Gustave]

Days from now, weeks, months or never - it's all good. 

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTICE:  The Adventist Review has posted on their website a comment that I made that mentioned this discussion of Dr. Peckham's articles.  In that comment, I did not provide a URL as I suspected such would endanger the posting.  However, I gave enough information that would allow anyone who really wanted to view this discussion, could do so.    Here is what they posted:

 

I appreciate the present position of the

 Review that allows for some level of discussion of issues on which SDAs do not totally agree. Such is representative of our actual membership. In addition it fosters spritual growth along lines that may be important to the direction that this denomination takes.

Along this line, the recent articles by Dr. Peckham are important. The nature of the Godhead is fundamental to understanding salvation and Christianitiy in general. However, the publication of those articles serves a very limited population of people, even when posted on the Internet.

The Internet has other discussion groups, such as Club Adventist, and I moderate it, which exist to foster discussion between the various groups within Adventism, and also the public at large. Currently Dr. Peckham's articles have become a part of our discussion of this issue. Our discussions would be much more valued, and effective, if he had the time to participate in them. In his absence, I and others, are placed in a position where we are limited in our ability contribute.

While I appreciate such articles, I also wish for circulation beyond the limits of this website.

 

[Gustave]

As usual you are the consummate professional and a credit to your Church Pastor Matthews! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  Thank you.

[Gregory Matthews]

March 16. 2024.

 

Well, for the moment, my comment on Dr. Peckham's articles has been removed by the Review.

[phkrause]

On 3/16/2024 at 12:15 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

March 16. 2024.

 

Well, for the moment, my comment on Dr. Peckham's articles has been removed by the Review.

Have they given any reason?

[Gregory Matthews]

I have discovered a problem with one of the computers that I use.  That problem is related to the cookies that the Review uses on its website.  The result is that the computer that I use most of the time does not always report fully the status of my post, which results in some comments that I have made to be in error.

As to my comments about Dr. Peckham's articles on the Trinity as I now understand it: The Review has neither posted, nor removed my comments.  They remain waiting to be approved.

I have asked the Review to enlighten me as to how I can work to remove this glitch.  

March 18, 2024  I think that the problem has now been fixed. 

[phkrause]

Well that is interesting! I was going to suggest cleaning out the cookies in/on your computer, never thinking that it could be from another website, because usually when problems arise it's usually on your end!! We continually are learning new things!!

[phkrause]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:35 AM, Gustave said:

If as SDA's believe - that Michael is another name for Christ - there is a problem because Jude said Michael referred Lucifer to the Lord for rebuking yet Jude said Michael WASN'T or IS NOT the Lord. Anyway it configured you now have 2 Lord God's. 

Gustave check out Jon Paulien's threads in the: "Feeds from Adventist bloggers or forums" He has a few threads in there about Michael.

[Gregory Matthews]

March 26, 2024

Effective today, the Review has posted the following comment on their website:

 

Understanding the Trinity

Gregory Matthews 12 days ago

I appreciate the present position of the Review that allows for some level of discussion of issues on which SDAs do not totally agree. Such is representative of our actual membership. In addition it fosters spritual growth along lines that may be important to the direction that this denomination takes.

Along this line, the recent articles by Dr. Peckham are important. The nature of the Godhead is fundamental to understanding salvation and Christianitiy in general. However, the publication of those articles serves a very limited population of people, even when posted on the Internet.

The Internet has other discussion groups, such as Club Adventist, and I moderate it, which exist to foster discussion between the various groups within Adventism, and also the public at large. Currently Dr. Peckham's articles have become a part of our discussion of this issue. Our discussions would be much more valued, and effective, if he had the time to participate in them. In his absence, I and others, are placed in a position where we are limited in our ability contribute.

While I appreciate such articles, I also wish for circulation beyond the limits of this website.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am still working on getting a more scholarly response to some of the posts that Gustave has made, as I believe that such is deserved.

[Gustave]

it will be interesting to see what happens here.  Way to move the ball down the field Pastor Matthews! 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am moving slowly, and I have not yet played my full hand of cards.  In my current thinking, I have two actions yet to take.  We shall see what happens.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  I am in contact with a SDA scholar who is willing to assist us.