The Trinity?

[Gibs]

The breath of fresh air the churchs of the world, ALL denominational church structures NEED is the truth of His Word taught.

Yes I find this trinity discussion has found all the pros and cons by all who have been following and have made their decision as to the truth of the matter.

Today I will be back soon and add another thought to the thread "The Way" that I started. Yes and since He has made it easy and the last one on earth could walk it but most will not,

Isa 30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Enabled]

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments, I have been busy working at keeping the Law: six days shall you labor.

Quote:

My church had to deal with this precise issue over the last year. One of our youth was baptized, but later got hooked into a non-Trinitarian belief. Our pastor and our board never labelled him. Later, he removed himself from our congregation based on his convictions - he felt we were worshiping contrary to Scripture. Only then did we remove his name from our books. We never treated him differently, though, just because he took that course. I still keep tabs on him, to this day.

You wrote this in response to my comments on the following quote of your own:

Quote:

The take home on the history within the SDA church was that EGW never made the Trinity a test of fellowship - as had nearly every Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian congregation before. The Arian was as welcome to worship and fellowship as the Trinitarian. This was in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity.

I wonder at your choice of words and there order. First why do you say she never made the Trinity a test of fellowship, yet state "in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity"? This I believe to be the reverse of her position on the matter. I agree(d) with you that she never believed in testing points on Doctrine or the resultant dis-fellowship as a manor of changing anothers views but she never held the view of Trinity you state at least not that I have found in her writings.

Just a little background on my history, maybe it will help in discussion as to what my view has been and how it has grown. I was born a pastor's son in the Pentecostal assemblies and know well the history and teachings of Protestantism, including the creeds and Trinitarian-ism and its many variants. Yet despite this as a new member of the SDA church I found her writings decidedly anti-Trinitarian though I have found a number of places that she may have appeared to say things that could be taken differently outside of a knowledge of her view in general.

Now in commenting on your note of the young fellow being hooked I would like to tie it into your comments further along about Arius's teaching being preserved elsewhere. I myself live away from it all (read that NO Big churches near by) and in studying with an old friend we came to the conclusion that Christ is Begotten before time began according to the scripture yet truly divine. Subject (obedient) to his Fathers will yet fully divine; before coming to this earth, on this earth and still in Heaven. All this which doesn't support the Trinitarian view yet all without a Knowledge of Arius and his teachings, whether in fact or the construct of others. We decided to study the history of the church (SDA) and traditional church to see what all this Arius stuff was about as we were are often pointed out as Arian in our conclusions. I guess what I am saying is your answers seem to indicate that one cannot form doctrinal views from scriptural study or SOP without being pegged as followers of someone elses teachings, yet if something is truly in scripture should not even a young child be able to pick it up and understand it as truth in its basic form? By the way I appreciate all quotes and comments all though it is a long time since I have seen a quote that I haven't already read on the matter. We were so concerned about the sacredness of Divinity that we said little and tread very carefully for a long time. It soon became apparent the we couldn't call our previous view solid or even something we would have come up with on our own, thus we concluded Trinity like secret rapture, the living dead, Sunday sacredness etc. was a taught doctrine. I guess this is a lot just to say I believe saying the young-fellow was hooked might be implying he can't think for himself.

Quote:

Perhaps my church is not the normal in action with regard to this...but i think it was indeed the Scriptural and Christ-like thing to do.

Sadly Ted your church is not normal, yet I agree it was the scriptural thing to do. Just for the record as I pointed out earlier it is of late becoming more and more common to strip one of his credentials and yes even dis-fellowship those who don't espouse Trinity or Tritheism. P.S I know the difference!

Just a thought I would like to discuss more as it appears you understand the church from 325 A.D. onward and around that time as some how Christ's church and worthy of regard. Where do you place the ancient churches of the lands that she persecuted as their views differed re: Sabbath, Trinity etc. or do you not recognize a remnant in purity on going?

Well out of day again. I will attempt to respond to the balance of your thoughts another night.

Regards Enabled

[Ted Oplinger]

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments, I have been busy working at keeping the Law: six days shall you labor.

Quote:

My church had to deal with this precise issue over the last year. One of our youth was baptized, but later got hooked into a non-Trinitarian belief. Our pastor and our board never labelled him. Later, he removed himself from our congregation based on his convictions - he felt we were worshiping contrary to Scripture. Only then did we remove his name from our books. We never treated him differently, though, just because he took that course. I still keep tabs on him, to this day.

You wrote this in response to my comments on the following quote of your own:

Quote:

The take home on the history within the SDA church was that EGW never made the Trinity a test of fellowship - as had nearly every Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian congregation before. The Arian was as welcome to worship and fellowship as the Trinitarian. This was in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity.

I wonder at your choice of words and there order. First why do you say she never made the Trinity a test of fellowship, yet state "in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity"? This I believe to be the reverse of her position on the matter. I agree(d) with you that she never believed in testing points on Doctrine or the resultant dis-fellowship as a manor of changing anothers views but she never held the view of Trinity you state at least not that I have found in her writings.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Of course. Christ is the eternal, self-existent, omnipotent Son of God.

If he's "self-existent" he's nobody's son. Otherwise the "Son of God" characterization is inappropriate. And it's been used so frequently.

[Enabled]

Quote:

It is my understanding that not knowing the proper number of participants within the plurality of YHWH Elohim does not invalidate nor abrogate any of the Promises within the Covenant He has made for our salvation. I DO know that plural Elohim means at minimum two Eloha participants within Elohim - and the Bible makes very strong cases for a Father participant and a Son participant. It is the Father and Son around whom the Great Controversy swirls, and in particular, the Son.

Agreed

How do we know this, my understanding of scripture is that Elohim is used in reference to single individuals as well as a plurality of gods why in reference to the God: must it be plural? Consider all of Genesis 1 onward, why when we hit Genesis 3:22 does it all of a sudden become plural just because Moses doesn't say who the LORD God is talking to?

Genesis 3:8 "and they heard the voice (singular) of the LORD God (elohim) walking in the garden in the cool of the day:"

Who are we told walked in the garden with Adam?

Note: EX 7: "I have made thee a "elohim" to Pharoah" speaking of Moses. I believe we stretch the use of the language to edify a preconceived idea instead of taking a simple stated phrase as it reads. Are we not warned about this in Revelation & in Deuteronomy.

Quote:

The take home on the history within the SDA church was that EGW never made the Trinity a test of fellowship - as had nearly every Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian congregation before. The Arian was as welcome to worship and fellowship as the Trinitarian. This was in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I would ask can two go to war under one banner if not united behind one leader?

Her husband was very vocal about his views, also very defined in what it meant (Trinity) and how it effected our view of divine revelation.

Just a note Ted you are the first I have ever entered into discussion with that viewed E.G.White as having been Trinitarian all along, excepting those that have claimed she changed here view point gradually from 1888 on and especially in DA.

I would certainly agree with one comment you made about PP, it would be a real stretch to find full Trinitarian meaning in the great controversy as it is laid out by her in PP.

Getting late Happy Sabbath

Really appreciate the dialogue!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

While the Trinity is well-established and well-accepted throughout most of Christendom today, 130 years ago was a different matter. Aryan beliefs (that the Son of Man is not Deity) still held sway over significant sections of Protestantism. Many Adventists believed the Aryan viewpoint because the churches they came from held such beliefs.

Through prayerful study, though, doctrinal stance changed - in the Adventist church and in other Protestant denominations.

Just because the Catholics hold a certain belief doesn't mean it is automatically antichrist to agree. Roman Catholics hold many beliefs which are true and Scriptural...sadly, this is what enables the Papal system to deceive the unwary, low-information Christian.

I have been reading in this thread, but, there is to much here for me to read it all. So, I will make a couple of comments.

I totally agree with the above quote.

In the beginning days of our denomination a number of our leaders were NOT Trinitarian. Out of this context, to this day, there have remained SDAs who are not Trinitarian. But, the SDA Church has moved to a clear Trinitarian position. However, it has not made this position a test of fellowship.

In my opinion, I believe that EGWS writings present her as a Trinitarian, at least in her later writings.

[epaminondas]

In a way the full blown trinitarian dogma (three gods but also only one god, equal in all respects and one not created by the other) is much like the Sunday sabbath:

• It's nowhere clearly spelled out in the Bible
• There are clear passages making it impossible
• There are clear passages declaring the opposite to be true - the seventh day being the Sabbath and the Father being the only true god
• The proponents of both falsehoods cherry pick - present only what may support their case while ignoring all against their case
• Its proponents rely on vague passages needing much interpretation to bend it to even maybe coming close to supporting their position
• Apart from that, they rely on what's not even in the Bible but their own thinking to justify their position - a single god can't be a god of love and the seventh day where? We all know about the dateline

A consequence of the trinitarian concept is the fallacy that (1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 1 god) and (1/3 god = 1 god). Not that this bothers trinitarians. They invoke magic to deal with this. I can't understand how anyone can subscribe to a concept that demands they believe what they know is not true.

Cherry picking can have only two reasons:

1)Ignorance of passages harmful to one's case.

2)Full knowledge of these passages and leaving them out on purpose hoping that the people they address don't know these passages - dishonesty.

An example of 1) is the following:

Quote:

“‘We find in Canaanite an increasing tendency to employ the plural Ashtorôt ‘Astartes,’ and Anatot ‘Anaths,’ in the clear sense of totality of manifestations of a deity’ (William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, second edition, p. 213).” (As opposed to the singular for Astarte and Anath.)

The plural for Astarte is used many times in the Bible. This does harm the case for elohim (plural) referring to more than one god.

An example of 2) is the following:

Quote:

NETfree: John 17:3. Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

and

Quote:

NETfree: I Corinthians 8:6. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.

Anybody who is reasonably familiar with the Bible, especially theologians, should know these passages. As these passages, and many more like them, are so very relevant in any discussion about the trinity, ignoring them is less than honest. In contrast, there are no passages in the Bible as clearly for the trinity as these are against it.

Even though Christianity is not a polytheistic religion, most Christians are in fact polytheists. It is a sad indictment against the intelligence of most Christians that even though the Bible so clearly says that the sabbath is the seventh day and no one less than Jesus said the Father is the only true god, most Christians still get these two very clear points wrong.

[Dr. Waite]

Why is there any need to question the doctrine of One God in Three distinct Persons? We cannot explain it but the Scriptures teach the Divinity of the Father, the Divinity of Christ, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

sky

My Bible does not state clearly that the one only true God is composed of three distinct persons.

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, taught that there is only one person who is the "only true God". See John 17:3

Many claim that the Bible teaches that there is one "godhead" that is composed of three distinct persons and the god they worship is the King James bible word "godhead". But this is a poor translation.

In 1881, when the KJV was in common use and the first English revision of its New Testament was published, an article by H. V. Reed appeared in the magazine Restitution. He wrote: "The word godhead is not good English: it means nothing in itself and conveys no idea to the reader: What is a godhead?" It is merely a bad translation. The Greek manuscript word should be rendered 'divinity' or 'deity'. Many Bible scholars and translators have realized that 'godhead' does not convey clear meaning. Weymouth, Moffatt, Smith-Goodspeed, Farrar Fenton, RSV, Good News, NAS, Living Bible, NIV, J. B. Phillips, Bible in Living English, Jerusalem Bible, NWT, Emphatic Diaglott, and The Everyday Bible versions, all recognizing its inadequacy, use some word or phrase other than 'godhead' seen three times in the KJV, where, in Acts 17:29, Rom. 1:20, Col. 2:9, it represents a different Greek word each time.

In Acts 17:29, the word theion is an adjective and the correct translation is "divinity" or "deity"

In Romans 1:20, the word theiotes is a noun and the correct translation is "divinity" or "divine nature"

In Colossians 2:9, the word theotes in a noun and the correct translation is "deity".

My Bible teaches that there is only "one true God" who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. See John 17:3

There is an "only begotten Son". See John 3:16 He came out of the "only true God". See John 8:42 and John 16:28

There is a "holy spirit" who is sent from the "only true God" and comes in the name of the "only begotten Son". See John 14:26. The "holy spirit" proceeds from the "only true God". See John 15:26.

[Enabled]

Quote:

In the beginning days of our denomination a number of our leaders were NOT Trinitarian. Out of this context, to this day, there have remained SDAs who are not Trinitarian. But, the SDA Church has moved to a clear Trinitarian position. However, it has not made this position a test of fellowship.

(In bold)This appears to me to be only a matter of opinion Gregory, I'm not sure who's, yours or another as you don't say. In my studies I find that to a man they were non-Trinitarian, with Kellogg and a few others prior to E.G. Whites death becoming believers in some form of Trinity.

(In Red) again I must disagree as I know personally of 4 elders (four others I don't know) from various divisions around the world who have lost their credentials and been subsequently dis-fellow-shipped in the last 2 years as a result of retaining a non-Trinitarian point of view. Times are changing, a creed taken must soon be defended or it in the ways of men has no purpose in the end.

Of the elders in our congregation: (2) not decided yet not accepting a 3 in one God, (1) Trinitarian, (5) non-Trinitarian accepting the Father (God)and the Son (Lord). (2) that say they are Trinitarian but clearly describe a belief that is Tri-theistic.

Happy Sabbath

Brother George Knight I believe to be the most honest in stating that none of our founding Fathers would of a clear conscience be able to join the church today and accept the fundamentals as they are stated in regards to God.

[Gibs]

EGW and all the old men had to get died off before they could pull off the deception of the trinity and Satan did not waste much time.

Why is it so important? One must know who His Saviour is before he can have one! So who who is God, the one and only true God, was He not in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself?

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Dr. Waite]

You state:

Quote:

(In Red) again I must disagree as I know personally of 4 elders (four others I don't know) from various divisions around the world who have lost their credentials and been subsequently dis-fellow-shipped in the last 2 years as a result of retaining a non-Trinitarian point of view. Times are changing, a creed taken must soon be defended or it in the ways of men has no purpose in the end.

The reason they are disfellowshipped is that they believe that the "GOD" who is the God of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 20:17) who is the "only true God" (John 17:3) is NOT the same "GOD" who is a "unity of three co-eternal persons".

Would the Lord Jesus Christ who taught that there is only one person or being who is the "only true God" and never taught that God is a "unity of three co-eternal persons" be able to join the corporate SDA church of Silver Springs, MD today as a member?

[o2bwise]

Hi,

My own study of the Godhead began maybe 15 years ago and led me to a non-trinitarian position. Some time later I would find that the position I came to is nearly identical to that of Joseph Bates, Andrews, James White, Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner, and many others.

What a blessing that was!

I think there is much to say on this subject and for my first post, I'll volunteer just a couple.

First, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible and so it makes sense to assign to the word the definition given to it by those who came up with the term. It is my understanding that the definition includes the following.

From:

http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_More/100%20and%20More%20Mysteries%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

(e) Three persons means three expressions, extensions, manifestations, or modes otherwise theologically called hypostases or prosopons.

(f) The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.

(g) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son by a mediate procession.

(h) The Three Persons are truly distinct from each other by virtue of the processes of filiation and spiration, which however, does not make them separate Entities with independent self consciousness.

Do proponents of the Trinity actually believe Christ lacks independent self consciousness?

If no, you are not trinitarian. You are a tri-theist.

Second, how does TRUTH generally come to a person? The reason I ask is because my understanding of Adventist history is that the Trinity/tritheist doctrines came to Adventism predominantly through deception and deception may very well be the most biblically condemned sin of all.

Think on this!

What of those secret meetings between Froom, Anderson, and other Adventist leaders with evangelicals Martin and Barnhouse? What of the evangelicals letting Adventists know they were considering branding SDA a non-Christian cult primarily over its plethora of non-trinitarian writings? What of the release of Questions On Doctrine (a book with no authorship)? While the leadership feeds the laity with trinitarian theology, how often does the leadership inform the laity of the related beliefs of its pioneers? Or that even Waggoner right in Minneapolis in 1888 was clearly non-trinitarian? Or that Jones was as well? Does the leadership let the laity know the theological arguments of its pioneers?

Both the silence and the vocal are deafening.

It is deception through and through.

Man!

Blessings,

o2

[Gerr]

I have also been studying the same subject for several decades off & on. I am convinced that the Bible speaks of 3 persons who are one.

[Dr. Waite]

I have also been studying the same subject for several decades off & on. I am convinced that the Bible speaks of 3 persons who are one.

Three persons who are one what?

[Gerr]

It's nowhere clearly spelled out in the Bible

The Bible clearly speaks of a Father, Son, & a Holy Spirit who are all called "God", and yet are one.

Originally Posted By: epa

A consequence of the trinitarian concept is the fallacy that (1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 1 god) and (1/3 god = 1 god). Not that this bothers trinitarians. Cherry picking can have only two reasons:

You stumble over 1+1+1=1, yet you have no problem with 1+1=1, or 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1!!!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I have also been studying the same subject for several decades off & on. I am convinced that the Bible speaks of 3 persons who are one.

Three persons who are one what?

One Elohim called YHWH.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

Three persons who are one what?

[color:#3366FF]

You answered: "One Elohim called YHWH"

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, taught that there is only one true God who is one person who is his Father. See John 17:3

[Gerr]

You answered: "One Elohim called YHWH"

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, taught that there is only one true God who is one person who is his Father. See John 17:3

Here is Jn 17:3, ESV | ýJn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

[o2bwise]

OK, continuing on.

It is my personal belief that the confession that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is foundational. Furthermore, that the truth of the Godhead fully endorses what would be the most apparent, literal meaning of the above.

In fact, a child could understand it.

Hebrews 8:2 (emphasis supplied)

2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the TRUE tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Question:

Was the sanctuary God instructed Moses to build FALSE?

Answer:

No

Therefore, the Bible, if permitted to interpret itself, sometimes assigns a meaning to the word TRUE such that what is not TRUE is also not FALSE!

I suggest the word TRUE may mean ORIGINAL.

If we were to apply this logic to mankind, who is the only true man? Adam.

But, does this mean there are no other men? No! But, only Adam is the one original man.

Let's apply this to the subject of the Godhead assuming Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

John 5:18 NKJV

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

If God at some time before creation gave birth to a Son, the above verse makes all the sense in the world. While the Father's being is not dependent on anyone, the Son's very existence was dependent on the prerogative of the Father to have a Son. And just as I am a man because I am of the literal lineage of humankind, so it follows that Christ is God because He is of the literal lineage of the Father.

This would mean that polytheism is not heresy, but Bible truth. And retention of oneness is assigned NOT to theos, BUT to ORIGINAL-THEOS and since no son can be the original, the oneness is applied to Father only.

EJ Waggoner in Minneapolis in 1888 corroborates (Christ Our Righteousness is Waggoner's wife's shorthand of what he spoke at the 1888 Minneapolis GC Session - emphasis supplied):

But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels; He is "a Son over His own house." Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only-begotten son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. So He has "life in Himself." He possesses immortality in His own right and can confer immortality upon others. Life inheres in Him, so that it cannot be taken from Him, but having voluntarily laid it down, He can take it again. His words are these: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17, 18.

In the NT, when the word God is rendered, the vast majority of the time the one true God is implied. In fact, a count of the number of times God is obviously referring to the Father only is astonishing - and most of those times, the Son is also mentioned, but as someone OTHER THAN the One that had just been referred to as God.

How glorious it is to confess that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Living God!

Blessings,

o2

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry,

I would that you knew Bill AND Tom.

And I advise you not to conclude that Tom is Bill!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

(In Red) again I must disagree as I know personally of 4 elders (four others I don't know) from various divisions around the world who have lost their credentials and been subsequently dis-fellow-shipped in the last 2 years as a result of retaining a non-Trinitarian point of view. Times are changing, a creed taken must soon be defended or it in the ways of men has no purpose in the end.

I will not argue your example. Local congregations basically have the authority to disfellowship whomever they please.

However, I will say again that the SDA Church has allowed people who reject the doctrine of the Trinity to remain SDAs if they wish to remain, and this continues to the present day. I can think of people whom I have known who are members and reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of these have remained employed and as clergy.

[Gibs]

All us people of simple understanding find no mystery in the following texts!

First off, the Holy Spirit is not another God but is what God is!

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Next verse is why Christ is God, The Father, the one and only God is in Him!

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Yes Jesus is another person, but where is your third? 2 persons involved but one and only one God who is in Christ Jesus!

Now notice one can no more pluck them from Jesus's hand than the Father's and verse 30 Jesus tells ya why.

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

And so I worship but the one and only True God and to worship Jesus is to worship the Father and to worship the Father is to worship the Son.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gerr]

Modalism, pure & simple. Unbiblical!!!

[Gibs]

Not unbiblical to us of simple understanding that take Him at His Word. That I must choose to do always.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Guest]

Hi Gerry,

I would that you knew Bill AND Tom.

And I advise you not to conclude that Tom is Bill!