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

[John317]

John:

Christ is the "way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

Christ said: "For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son to have life in himself" John 5:26

John 1: 4 says that the Word had "life in Himself." When he became a man, the Father gave the incarnate Son to have life in Himself. But as God prior to coming here, He already had life in Him. After all, He was God essentially and in THE HIGHEST SENSE.

As the Son of God on earth, a man, Christ depended on the Father for ALL THINGS. Christ the man could no nothing on His own.

Ellen White says plainly that the pre-incarnate Christ was "self-existent". What is the meaning of "self-existent"? Is not the Father also "self-existent"?

Nothing exists without Christ's creating it, right? See Col. 1: 15-17; Heb. 1: 3; John 1: 1-3.

Col. 1: 17 says that Christ existed before ALL THINGS, and that in Him ALL THINGS are being held together. This last clause means AT ALL TIMES-- i.e, continuously. That is, Christ has always been-- and has NEVER stopped-- holding the whole universe together. Heb. 1: 3 agrees: He upholds ALL THINGS by the word of HIS power.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

There had to have been a time when he was given this "life in himself". If he had always had this "life in himself" why did he have to have it given to him from the Father?

Because He became a man and as such lived in total dependence on the Father just as we must live.

[Pastor_Chick]

We know that Christ was the active "person" of God in the Old Testament.

And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. (Exo. 31:18)

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. (PP 372)

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? . . . Now the Lord is that Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (ST 07-10-93)

The apostle Paul says to his Corinthian brethren, "Ye are. . . the epistle of Christ. . . . written not with ink, bu with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." For the disciples of Christ are his representatives upon the earth. (SW 06-30-08)

CHRIST, HIMSELF says:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:33)

And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. (Exo. 31:18)

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. (Luke 11:20)

It is Christ, Himself who writes His laws in the hearts of His people. Christ, Himself has the "finger of God" for such purpose. Christ, Himself is the "Spirit of the living God."

[Pastor_Chick]

At the Creation of man, the inspired Word tells us that the "holy pair" received proper names. This is the character of YAHWEH to distinguish His creation by their names. YAHWEH, Himself, places great emphasis on His proper name, including it in the Decalogue.

Consequently, we find examples throughout the Bible of the importance of proper NAMES.

"God" is a title, but "god" is also a title. Those titles refer to differing entities, and each goes by unique proper names. That is why on Mt. Carmel, Eli-YAH (which means "My God is YAH") stipulated the difference in the two choices being considered by proper names - Baal or YAHWEH.

We find that even the false gods had their NAMES. YAHWEH condemns the mention of those names, but does NOT condemn the title "false gods."

Here is a prime example of the fact that the HOLY SPIRIT (which is a title that literally means "healthy breath") has no proper name:

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? (Prov. 30:4)

Only the two divine rational beings (the "true God," see 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3) have proper names. Their shared Spirit has NO PROPER NAME, just as YOUR spirit and MY spirit have no separate names from ourselves. We are created "in the image and likeness of God."

Adding to that theme...

And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Zec. 6:12, 13)

The everlasting covenant is "the counsel of peace [that] shall be between Them both." Those are the two named rational beings of the Deity - the Father and the Son (viz, YAHWEH and YAHSHUA).

For the inspired commentary:

"And the counsel of peace shall be between Them both." The love of the Father, no less than of the Son, is the fountain of salvation for the lost race. Said Jesus to His disciples before He went away: "I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father Himself loveth you." John 16:26, 27. God was "in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19. And in the ministration in the sanctuary above, "the counsel of peace shall be between Them both." "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. (GC 416, 417)

[Scion]

Hi John,

I'm sorry, but I am finding it a little challenging to follow some of your replies, since you tend to spread them out, and intermingle them with replies to other people. I'll try to be as brief as possible in my own replies to sort of prevent that from happening in the future.

a) I read through the six things you wanted me to keep in mind. I knew all those already. They seem to consist largely of "arguments form lack of evidence" to wit, "If EGW didn't agree with the Trinity doctrine she would have said so." Without getting too deeply into the concept of burden of proof, the simple fact of the matter is that all the various SDA preachers were teaching against it. In other words, they were saying, "This doctrine is not only false, but dangerous." You would interpret her silence on that matter as acceptance of the exact opposite opinion of the teachers that were supposedly teaching error! I can't accept that; it just doesn't make any sense.

None of those things even begin to deal with the Great Controversy quote (which you asked about on another thread as well) that specifies that the Father and Son are the ONLY beings in the universe who were involved in the divine counsels and worshiped by Heavenly Beings. Again, I am not saying there is no Holy Spirit. I am not saying that the term "living being" does not apply to the Spirit. What I am saying is that we have positive statements from the pen of inspiration directly refuting the "co-equal, co-eternal" wording that the SDA Church now accepts as a true doctrine. The term "Trinity" specifically, not just "Godhead," or even "three great worthies," (which do not imply anything about relative authority or divinity, or equivalent nature) speaks to a very particular concept that Adventist Literature simply doesn't support.

It would be "handwaving" to provide quotes about three worthies and three living beings and claim that these statements give the opposite impression. They don't. The Trinity doctrine implies much more than "three somethings working together as one," and if we wish to say "Well, the Adventist Trinity is a little different from the Catholic Trinity," as I have seen some imply, then you have to stongly question the policies and motives of those who even decided to accept the title at all. We might as well call our Churches "cathedrals" (which has a very specific meaning) and then take pains to explain that "our cathedrals are different." Why invite that kind of trouble? It certainly does nothing to promote the Gospel of Salvation.

You close one of your posts apparently asking for evidence that Adventism did not become Trinitarian during the life of Ellen White, and seem to base the contention that it had on the statement(s) of one individual. Yes, he was a major figure in the literature, but so were Kellogg and Uriah Smith, both of whom were not always in harmony with Mrs. White's visions. That cannot be taken as evidence to support the wholesale idea that the constituency of Adventism suddenly adopted a position they had previously strongly opposed. ALL the writings from early Adventism are either a) silent on the matter of the Trinity, or vehemently opposed to it. The statement, "Adventism became Trinitarian during the life of its prophet" is therefore an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence - but from the person making that claim, not from those defending what the writings actually say. Arguments from silence, or the statements of one or two individuals in isolation do not nearly approach that level of persuasiveness... at least not for me.

[Gustave]

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.

I'm not sure what the standard operating procedure is within SDAism...

...In Trinitarianism the answer is simple.

...God is "ONE".

The Father, Son & Holy Spirit equally share the Divine essence, Nature or Substance which is God...

...And as such the creations of man was just as much the will of the Son & Holy Spirit.

...As it was the will of the Father.

Genesis 1,26

And God [ FATHER, SON & HOLSY SPIRIT ]said, Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth

Genesis 1,27

So God [ FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT ] created man in his own [ FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT ] image, in the image of God [ FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT ] created he [ FAHTER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT ] him; male and female created he [ FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT ] them

Mal 2,10

Have we not all one father? hath not one God CREATED us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

The "Father" Created us.

John 1,3

All things were made BY him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

The "Son" created us.

Job 33,4

The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life

The Holy Spirit created us.

"One" God created man.

[Pastor_Chick]

Gus,

Thank you for that very simple outline of your belief. It is informative.

Now, please expand on what you have provided to include

1) How did the "fruit" of the creation of man manifest the "image and likeness" of God?

2) Why did God create two persons instead of three?

Thank you in advance.

[Gustave]

Gus,

Thank you for that very simple outline of your belief. It is informative.

Now, please expand on what you have provided to include

1) How did the "fruit" of the creation of man manifest the "image and likeness" of God?

2) Why did God create two persons instead of three?

Thank you in advance.

From the Catechism

ARTICLE I

"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"

Paragraph 6. Man

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"

356 Of all visible creatures ONLY man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

218 Gen 1:27.

219 GS 12 § 3.

220 GS 24 § 3.

Why did God create two instead of three????

...Perhaps because with only two people three would have been a crowd.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Why did God create two instead of three????

...Perhaps because with only two people three would have been a crowd.

Gus,

I was hoping for better scholarship. I wonder if the "Adventist Trinitarians" have a "more advanced" idea?

[Dr. Rich]

God did create more than one/two people with the 6 day creation as found in the Septuegint. God made all of the races at this time which was probably thousands of years before Adam. The reason for Adam later is to have human witnesses to testify to them who the real creator was since Satan had the whole world believing that his was their God.

Ever hear of the Scorpion King? There what a real good reason Adam was placed in a special Garden.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Pastor Chick

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? (Prov. 30:4)

Prov 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, [even] the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

For reason of the underlined and bolded in the above text – perhaps it may behoove us to withhold using verse 4 to validate the concept of the Son being in view in the OT. It may in fact parallel Psalms 22 in that it portrays NT events rather than current.

It seems that when Gd speaks to “begotten” in the NT – it is proximate then that the One slain from the foundations of the earth becomes truly the begotten... Gd/Son – of Holy Writ.

[miz3]

But here's the thrust - the SOP, along with Daniel & others, show us the connection between abstemiousness and spiritual understanding.

It is true that Daniel and his friends seemed to stand for a abstemiousness type diet at the beginning.

However Daniel certainly did not stick with such a diet.

"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war.[a] The understanding of the message came to him in a vision.

2 At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3 I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over."

Daniel 10:1-3.

It appears that Daniel later on in his life chucked the "simple" diet for the more choice diet like the others were eating.

Yes, I know it says he would not use the choice diet for three weeks but that was because Daniel was under so much stress from the vision and what it meant.

It does not mean that vegan diets or any diets take away from ones spirituality. Jesus also said this while he was on earth.

"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean."

Matthew 15:10-20.

See also Mark chapter seven!

As the text from Jesus states, the uncleanness comes from inside the human. It does not come from his diet!

[John317]

Hi John,

I'm sorry, but I am finding it a little challenging to follow some of your replies, since you tend to spread them out, and intermingle them with replies to other people. I'll try to be as brief as possible in my own replies to sort of prevent that from happening in the future.

When I respond to one person's post, I don't mix that response with the responses to other people. But of course on any thread, I do respond to as many posts as possible. I'm not sure how this makes you confused. I've never had any such complaints from others before.

If what you complain of is a continuing problem for you, perhaps you could explain exactly what you are talking about so I will be able to do something about it.

[John317]

a) I read through the six things you wanted me to keep in mind. I knew all those already.

If you knew them, why are you contradicting them, and why do you apparently NOT know them?

Here are the six:

1) Ellen White never condemned the Trinity doctrine per se. (She never even used the term, although she did use a word with a similar meaning, trio.) What she fought against were certain false teachings that some have included in the Trinity doctrine.

2) Among our Church in the 1800s were SDA members who believed in the Trinity, including some SDA pastors; and these were never told they must change their viewpoint. Clearly, if our church was officially anti-Trinitarian, this would not have been the case.

3) Our Church's published doctrines during the 1800s were not anti-Trinitarian. I myself accept the SDA doctrines published in the Review and Herald in the 1800s, although they are not complete and are not communicated in the best way.

4) James White published statements in the Review and Herald saying that anti- or non-Trinitarian beliefs were not to be made a test of character or fellowship.

5) The reason that most SDAs were non-Trinitarian was not due to the church's study of this topic and its decision as a body to reject the Trinity, but it was due to the fact that most of the former Millerites who became SDAs were from churches which had been non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian.

6) During the 1800s, our leaders were never in agreement in the matter of the Godhead. Until about 1880, Uriah Smith taught that Christ was a created being. James White and Ellen White were not in agreement. E.J. Waggoner did not agree with his father, J.H. Waggoner. All were in various degrees of change.

Originally Posted By: Scion

They seem to consist largely of "arguments form lack of evidence" to wit, "If EGW didn't agree with the Trinity doctrine she would have said so."

Only #1 dealt with this issue, and it is very important that Ellen White never did condemn the Trinity doctrine as a whole, as her husband did; but rather she critized particular views that SDAs don't hold.

Therefore it appears you didn't pay attention to what those six points are saying.

Originally Posted By: Scion

Without getting too deeply into the concept of burden of proof, the simple fact of the matter is that all the various SDA preachers were teaching against it. In other words, they were saying, "This doctrine is not only false, but dangerous." You would interpret her silence on that matter as acceptance of the exact opposite opinion of the teachers that were supposedly teaching error! I can't accept that; it just doesn't make any sense.

It is not true that all SDA preachers were teaching against it. Many SDA preachers did not teach against it at all, and some SDA preachers believed in the Trinity.

There was very little in the Review and Herald about the topic, and what was said about it often revealed that the Pioneers did not understand what Trinitarians believed.

It is significant that James White wrote in the Review and Herald that the doctrine of the Trinity should not be a test of character or fellowship.

[John317]

What I find you doing is using your reasoning to infer things that are in clear opposition to plain statements by Ellen White.

Use the clear statements. Both the Bible and Ellen White are clear on the teaching that Christ is not the Holy Spirit. She says that the Holy Spirit is a distinct personality that is representative of Christ but is not Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit personifies Christ. The Holy Spirit was in existence and as one of the three living persons of the eternal Godhead at the time of the Fall and at the creation of the world. See Education 134.

[John317]

As the text from Jesus states, the uncleanness comes from inside the human. It does not come from his diet!

Christ wasn't even talking about eating to be healthy. The whole issue dealt with ritual. Jesus is not denying that we should wash the germs off our hands, nor is Jesus saying that we should pay no attention to Lev. 11. Rather, Christ is arguing that we are not made spiritually unclean by lack of ritual washings. What makes us unclean in God's eyes are the things in our minds that come out of our mouths or result in evil deeds.

Some Bible editions have Jesus saying that all foods are clean, but Jesus never said any such thing.

[John317]

God did create more than one/two people with the 6 day creation as found in the Septuegint.

Quote please.

[John317]

I was hoping for better scholarship. I wonder if the "Adventist Trinitarians" have a "more advanced" idea?

Give us your idea of "better scholarship." Any examples?

[John317]

Why did God create two persons instead of three?

Prove from the Bible that God made mankind as male and female because there were only two persons of the Godhead. Is that what you are thinking?

If so, please show it from the Bible and Ellen White that this is the reason for the origin of man and woman.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

[...]

Why did God create two instead of three????

...Perhaps because with only two people three would have been a crowd.

Gus,

I was hoping for better scholarship. I wonder if the "Adventist Trinitarians" have a "more advanced" idea?

You are asking a question Scripture does not address...

...At least not that I'm aware of.

...It's possible that MANY people existed at the time of Adam and Eve.

And Adam and Eve were simply the first two people that God infused souls into....

...And separated from the rest by placing them in the Garden of Eden.

I have no idea pastor chick - clue me in.

[miz3]

What makes us unclean in God's eyes are the things in our minds that come out of our mouths or result in evil deeds.

Exactly my point!

Thus, it is "not what goes into a person's mouth" that makes them unclean. Nothing!

Second what happened to Daniel and the "choice food" that he eats? Apparently Daniel chucked his "simple diet" of Daniel chapter one.

Did such a change in diet affect his closeness with God? Some are suggesting that our diet does affect our closeness to God.

[skyblue888]

What I find you doing is using your reasoning to infer things that are in clear opposition to plain statements by Ellen White.

Use the clear statements. Both the Bible and Ellen White are clear on the teaching that Christ is not the Holy Spirit. She says that the Holy Spirit is a distinct personality that is representative of Christ but is not Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit personifies Christ. The Holy Spirit was in existence and as one of the three living persons of the eternal Godhead at the time of the Fall and at the creation of the world. See Education 134.

Amen to this and to all that you have posted on this topic.

I just can't fathom all the theories that are floating around these days about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is one God in Three Persons. This is clearly taught in the Scriptures and in the Testimonies. It has always been clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures but theology, as studied and taught, has darkened counsel by words without knowledge.

sky

[John317]

...It's possible that MANY people existed at the time of Adam and Eve.

Since Adam and Eve lived for many centuries after being exiled from Eden, we know for a fact that there were many people alive during the time Adam and Eve lived. The Bible records their names.

But the Bible also shows that Adam and Eve were the first human pair. There's no valid evidence in the Scriptures that other humans were made before Adam.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

And Adam and Eve were simply the first two people that God infused souls into....

This is contrary to the Bible. God's word says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and "he became a living soul." Gen. 2:7.

Nothing is said about God infusing souls into people.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...And separated from the rest by placing them in the Garden of Eden.

I have no idea

They weren't separated from the rest by being placed in the Garden of Eden. There were none others in existence at that time. All humans descended from Adam. He was the first man and Eve was the mother of all the living [humans]. Gen. 3: 20.

[skyblue888]

Gordon, are you implying that the reason why some of us cannot see light in what you and some others are teaching re: the Trinity, is because we are not vegans?

sky :)

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...It's possible that MANY people existed at the time of Adam and Eve.

Since Adam and Eve lived for many centuries after being exiled from Eden, we know for a fact that there were many people alive during the time Adam and Eve lived. The Bible records their names.

But the Bible also shows that Adam and Eve were the first human pair. There's no valid evidence in the Scriptures that other humans were made before Adam.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

And Adam and Eve were simply the first two people that God infused souls into....

This is contrary to the Bible. God's word says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and "he became a living soul." Gen. 2:7.

Nothing is said about God infusing souls into people.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...And separated from the rest by placing them in the Garden of Eden.

I have no idea

They weren't separated from the rest by being placed in the Garden of Eden. There were none others in existence at that time. All humans descended from Adam. He was the first man and Eve was the mother of all the living humans. Gen. 3: 20.

Amen.

sky :)

[John317]

..

I just can't fathom all the theories that are floating around these days about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is one God in Three Persons.

I agree.Thank you for this comment. This is why I believe it's important that we study and talk about this subject. I think our church needs to spend more time studying it and preaching about it from the pulpit and in our Sabbath Schools. I think it's an obvious error to believe that we can take it for granted that SDAs understand it and know what the Bible teaches about it.