Recent Book on the Trinity

[Gregory Matthews]

Paul Petersen & Robert McIver,  BIBLICAL & THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ON THE TRINITY. Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 234 pages.

 

YOu may purchase this book from: 

 

http://atfpress.com/biblical-and-theological-studies-on-the-trinity.html

 

for $34.95.

 

 

Amazon also carries the book, but at a higher price.

 

 

 

The word ’trinity’ is not in the Bible. The expression of the doctrine was developed over a long period and finalised only in the fourth century. Many Christians who want to be biblical have questioned the official church doctrine on the Godhead. The following collection of articles from a a Seventh day Adventist conference in Sydney emphasises, however, that the concept of the trinity is thoroughly biblical. The book covers a variety of aspects of the discussion of the doctrine, both biblical, historical, and theological, such as the trinity in the gospel of John, the meaning of ’monegenes’, Kellogg and the trinity, and Islam and the trinity.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg and others,

Out of curiosity, do all SDAs believe the Trinity? I thought that in the early days at least there was a range of opinion on this subject, but possibly down the track it became one of the set beliefs of the SDA Church. For my part I do not accept the Trinity as I believe there is One God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I attended a SDA seminar series on Daniel for a while and one evening they presented the Trinity instead. Most of the participants agreed that John 10:30 gave support to the Trinity. It took a few years for me to properly consider this verse, and reach an understanding to my satisfaction, and I believe that this particular verse and the context following teaches that Jesus is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

part of the issue is that we try to place God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit into "human" constructs, when we really have no idea what constitutes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

[Gregory Matthews]

TrevorL: 

 

The doctrine of the Trinity is an exceedingly complex doctrine that is not well understood by, probably, most people.

 

In the early days of our developing Church, there ws a subset of leaders, to include James White who did not believe in the Trinity.  These people largely came from a group known as the Christian Connection.  With the passage of time, many ot these people, to include Ellen White, became Trinitarian.

 

Yes, the SDA CHurch is officially Trinitarian.  However, the SDA denominaiton of today is a diverse group of people who are not in total agreement in many areas of belief and practice.  As such there is a subset of people who are not Trinitarian. and do remain members in good standing, as  is true for other areas of belief.

 

With the rise of "Fundamentalism" in our culture today, there is a desire of some of our members to return to what they believe to be the  historic beleifs of early SDA leaders.  In actual fact, they do not always udnerstand what those historic beleifs are.   The result is that a subset of this gorup advocated a return to a non-Trinitarian view.  This is being strongly advocated by some today. 

 

The subject of the Tinity is discussed in volumne 12, of THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST BIBLE COMMENTARY:  HANDBOOK OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY, and primarily on pages 120 - 129.

 

The book that I cited in the begining post is a much larger work which consists of 234 pages.  I intend to purchase it, but I will need to wait a bit to do so.

 

In any case, I encourage those who are interested in this subject to read widely on the subject and to suggest that the two books that I have mentioned will be helpful for understanding the SDA background.

 

NOTE:  As to the book mentioned in the opening post, It is available from Amazon, and can be shipped from a United States location, or it can be ordered direct from the publisher, and shipped form Europe.

[Kevin H]

One thing that I'd like to add to Gregory's post: Elder Wheeler who did James White's biography spoke a few years ago at the New York Campmeeting. He pointed out that while most of those who came from the Christian Connection were anti Trinitarian, that James White was remarkably quiet on the topic. Later interviews with people who knew him said that while they talked about him with many topics, they did not really know his views on the topic of the trinity. That was one subject he tended not to talk about. There was a man who as a little boy, his family once had the Whites over for lunch and he said that at the meal James talked against the trinity. But that was the only person who they interviewed who knew him that had more to say than that he did not talk about the topic.

 

Elder Wheeler also found a letter James wrote shortly before his death where he wrote that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against the trinity.

[Kevin H]

An additional point is that as Mrs. White's Great Controversy theme developed, it became more focused on the trinity. She has Lucifer forming 3 deceptions; and they correspond to the 3 aspects of the trinity. She sees importance in many of the 3s in the Bible and they tend to point to the 3 aspects of the trinity, including the 3 angel's messages.

 

Studies of Revelation show that the dragon of Revelation 12 and the beast and false prophet of Revelation 13 are the aspects of the trinity that are not in a oneness of self sacrificing love, but are either separate or cooperate for their own purposes. 

 

The Exodus 20 version of the 10 commandments can be broken into 3 thirds: The first third consists of 3 commandments that tell how to love God supremely. The last third consists of 6 commandments on how to love our neighbor as our selves (the work of the Holy Spirit in making us loving and loveable people) and the middle third consists of one commandment that ties the two ideas together and says that the only way we can love God supremely and or neighbor as our selves is through resting in a relationship with God.  

 

Thus the trinity has grown more and more central to Adventism.

 

An interesting foot note and I hope that I can learn more information on this. But Methodist Archaeologist Dr. Jim Fleming use to be a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. One of his colleagues was a Rabbi who was the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism. Dr. Fleming said that this Rabbi discovered that the Christian doctrine of the trinity was actually Jewish in origin. That it was developed by second temple Rabbis in dealing with the Greek and Roman world and explaining Old Testament concepts that made sense to an Eastern mindset but not to a western mindset.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, James White was not an ardent critic of the Trinitarian doctrine.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

here's my [unpopular] view of the Trinity:  the whole trinity concept was in pagan religions long before it entered the realm of Christianity...

 

it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it may have been incorporated into Christianity in an effort to make the newly converted-from-paganism feel more comfortable and be able to relate to the faith...

[Gustave]

One thing that I'd like to add to Gregory's post: Elder Wheeler who did James White's biography spoke a few years ago at the New York Campmeeting. He pointed out that while most of those who came from the Christian Connection were anti Trinitarian, that James White was remarkably quiet on the topic. Later interviews with people who knew him said that while they talked about him with many topics, they did not really know his views on the topic of the trinity. That was one subject he tended not to talk about. There was a man who as a little boy, his family once had the Whites over for lunch and he said that at the meal James talked against the trinity. But that was the only person who they interviewed who knew him that had more to say than that he did not talk about the topic.

 

Elder Wheeler also found a letter James wrote shortly before his death where he wrote that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against the trinity.

 

James White was a militant anti -Trinitarian that demanded feality to his arian creed....

...Ellen White was required to repudiate the Methodist Creed she was initially instructed in.

...And further affirmed that Christ was liable to sin & as a creature could have sinned & lost His salvation.

...This is bedrock Arian doctrine.

 

 

 

JAMES WHITE

Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God. They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb.” (James White, 1868, Life Incidents, page 343)

 

 

JAMES WHITE

The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

 

JAMES WHITE

The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first.” (James White, January 4, 1881, Review & Herald; found in EGW Review and Herald Articles, vol. 1, page 244)

 

 

JAMES WHITE

We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father’s law, that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament, are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord’s supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. August 5, 1852, Review & Herald, vol. 3, no. 7, page 52, par. 42

 

JAMES WHITE

Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doctrine of the trinity, also the doctrine of man’s consciousness between death and the resurrection, and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one of the excellent of the earth. Not long since, this aged pilgrim received a letter from friends in Wisconsin, purporting to be from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, believing that the dead know not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirits of the dead, knowing everything, come back and converse with the living. Thus truth is a staff in his old age. He has three sons in Mill Grove, who, with their families are Sabbath-keepers.” (James White, June 9, 1853, Review & Herald, vol. 4, no. 2, page 12, par. 16)

 

 

JAMES WHITE

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not. “Here are they [in the period of a message given just before the Son of man takes his place upon the white cloud, Rev. 14:14] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” This class, who live just prior to the second advent, will not be keeping the traditions of men, neither will they be holding fundamental errors relative to the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. And as the true light shines out upon these subjects, and is rejected by the mass, then condemnation will come upon them. When the true Sabbath is set before men, and the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon them, and they reject this holy institution of the God of heaven, and choose in its place an institution of the beast, it can then be said, in the fullest sense, that such worship the beast.  (James White, September 12, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 5, page 36, par. 8)

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

 

All will have to agree that James white had Arian beliefs that probably came from his Christian Connection.  As to how one would describe the strength of those beliefs, that is largely a matter of words and people who substantially agree can disagree as to a choice of words.  I chose my wording in the context of the anti-Trinitarian beliefs of other early denominational leaders.  In my opinion, there were others who were more firmly fixed and more verbal as to their beliefs than was James White.    Again, that can be debated.

 

I will suggest that the dates of his various statements are of value.  I note that you have quoted a statement of his that was made about seven (7) Months prior to his death.

 

I will remind you that in the last decade of his life (actually a bit longer) James White was under great stress and poor health.  Accordingly,  during that period of time one could find many statements made by James White that were blunt, pointed and probably  stated with more force than he would have used at an earlier time in his life.

 

Your post raises another issue:  You seemingly have not mentioned the leaders in our developing SDA denomination who were somewhere between the Arian position and the Trinitarian position.  They were probably "binitarian."    With your knowledge of our denominational history, I assume that you know this.  In any case, due to the binitarian influence in our development, it just may be that some of our early denominational leaders were not as fully Arian as they are often thought to be.

 

As an example of a binitarian denomination that exists today see the Church of God (Seventh-day).  [Yes, I know that there is more than one denomination with a form of this name.]  One of these denomilnations is binitarian.

 

 

NOTE:  The majority of information that we have today related to Arianism comes from its enemies.  We have very little actual knowledge as to what the actual original teachings were.  On that basis, there are those who would disagree with you as to what you say is "Bedrock Arian doctrine"  Again, that is simply playing with words.

.

[Gustave]

Hi Gregory, the primary source I'm drawing from would be the Canons of Nicea along with the Synodal Letter associated with it...

...Which, in part, states:

 

Portion of the Synodal Letter ( pertaining to this issue )

First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God IS by his free will capable of vice and virtue; SAYING ALSO that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.

 

 

I will concede that there were others who were more vocal in their slander of the Trinity Doctrine within the denomination...

...Such as Kellogg & of course Ellen White.

 

I also concede that there were, within the denomination, other individuals who had different slants of the SDA Godhead Doctrine...

...However these slants were also heretical in nature - as I'm certain you would admit.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, the Synodal letter:

 

I find the following part of that letter most interesting:

 

 

All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words.

You correctly quoted it.

 

Did you get the importance of it.  The Council of Nicea condemed him without proving what he actually taught!  He was not allowed to defend himself.

 

Your Synodal letter simply alleges what he taught but did not grant him the privilege of defending himself by correcting any err as to what he actually taught.

 

That is the issue.  We, today, have most of our information about him from his enemies.  Why?  Becasue his enemies destroyed any of his wriltings that they could locate.

 

Of course, I beleive that Arius was wrong. 

 

Did Arius rell say that the Saon of God was capable of virtue as a creature?    If he did, I would have a problem with that.  As a creature, you and I are only capable of virture by the grace ofGod, and that is limited.

 

Again, we are discussing words.  But, to me, as I understand the anti-Trinitarian teachings of Arius, the "bedrock: is centered elsewhere than the issue of a nature capable of vice and virture.

[Gustave]

The Council of Nicea condemned him without proving what he actually taught! He was not allowed to defend himself.

 

2nd Peter 2,1 does not appear to have a provision whereas the individual promulgating the heresy can defend himself....

...1st Corinthians 11, 19 appears to be the same way.

 

Your Synodal letter simply alleges what he taught but did not grant him the privilege of defending himself by correcting any err as to what he actually taught.

 

321 to 325 = 4 years of Debate over his "Doctrine"

 

Of course I believe that Arius was wrong]

 

I'm glad you said that - I think you would be shocked as to how many Adventists I've spoken with that don't see it the way you do...

...There are many of them.

 

Arius taught that Christ was capable of BOTH Vice & Virtue....

...In other-words Arius taught Christ could swing either way.

...Ironic that the same exact teaching is attributed to the prophet Muhammad.

 

"God" is the only sure bet & as such there is no possibility of failure with 'God'...

[Stan]

here's my [unpopular] view of the Trinity:  the whole trinity concept was in pagan religions long before it entered the realm of Christianity...

 

it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it may have been incorporated into Christianity in an effort to make the newly converted-from-paganism feel more comfortable and be able to relate to the faith...

The concept of the three Gods of Hinduism (raw) is rather fascinating.

[Gregory Matthews]

2nd Peter 2,1 does not appear to have a provision whereas the individual promulgating the heresy can defend himself....

...1st Corinthians 11, 19 appears to be the same way.

 

I am not certain what you said above, and I am unceratin as to your reference in Corinthians.

 

However, based upon what I think you are saying in the first part of your quote:

 

 

I seem to have failed to write clearly enough for you to understand waht I wanted to say.

 

One defense that a person could make is:  I did not teach that.

 

Arius was not allowed, as I understand your quote in the Letter to even come before the council and tell them that he did not teach what they said he taught.

 

That is the issue that I have been attempting to make:  We really do not know exactly what Airius beleived and taught.  Notice I said, exactly.  The majority of information that we have about what he taught is what his enemies said he  taught. 

 

I do believe that we know in some very general terms what he taught.  I beleive that Arius was wrong.  But, I think that the boundaries of our knowledge as to what he taught are very limited.

 

To illustrate my point:  Let us say that I accuse you of teaching false doctrine.  I file charges against you for teaching false doctrine.  I present what I say are your teachings. Everyone agrees that what I have presented is false doctrine.  Have you been given a fair trial?  No!  Not if you are not allowed to defend yourself by saying that you are not teaching what I say you are teaching.

 

Our klnowledge as to what Arius taught is limited.

[Aliensanctuary]

the whole trinity concept was in pagan religions 

For me, trinity or no trinity is a non-issue. God and Spirit, are one, because Spirit is part of God. The Son of God is the Son of Man who will someday rule planet Earth. God, using Spirit, told the Son of Man what to do and what to say. The Son of Man is not the only Son of God, but is the only human-born Son of God, as the scriptures state. Adam, too, was a Son of God, according to the scriptures. Adam was supposed to rule planet Earth, but became infected with the Virus of Evil, thus disqualifying himself as ruler of this world.

 

Thus, there is only One: God/Spirit who created and rules the universe. The Son of Man was chosen to teach humans about God, then to rule the Earth after the selfishness of Evil, and everyone choosing it, is destroyed.

[Ron Amnsn]

One thing I've noticed about trinitarians, is that they can't describe their belief without using at least a few of the many trinitarian words and phrases that are not found in the Bible.

 

In Scripture God describes himself, not in terms of three-ness, but rather in terms of one -- a unity. 

 

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)  Notice that Jesus did not say, "I and the Father are two-thirds of a trinity."

 

Jesus included this description when he pointed out the foremost commandment: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4 quoted in Mark 12:29)

 

So the followers of Jesus should be safe to abandon the trinitarian jargon and describe God the way that Scripture does.

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

While you can find quotes from James White against the trinity, there must have been something about him for the church to interview his friends as to their recollections on their conversations with him when it comes to this topic, and for all but one of them to basically say "I never really thought about it before you asked, but I really don't know how he felt about the trinity. If it was discussed he would just mostly listen and not really contribute."  

 

Then there is that letter very close to the end of his life where he wrote that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against the trinity. This letter trumps the other quotes because this appears to be his LAST word on his view of the topic since very soon after writing this he died.

[Kevin H]

here's my [unpopular] view of the Trinity:  the whole trinity concept was in pagan religions long before it entered the realm of Christianity...

 

it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it may have been incorporated into Christianity in an effort to make the newly converted-from-paganism feel more comfortable and be able to relate to the faith...

 

Again, and you might contact Jim Fleming of Biblical Resources LLC/ Explorations in Antiquities Center  http://www.biblicalresources.net/ http://www.explorationsinantiquity.net/ but Dr. Fleming points out that his colleague, a Rabbi at Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel, who is the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism, says that the concept of the trinity comes from Second Temple Judaism to explain concepts that Eastern mindset can find in the Old Testament but which was not that clear to the Greeks and Romans and others with a Western mindset. That the trinity was a doctrine where as the church/synagogue split of 135 AD was split between Jews and Christians, where neither had quite what Jews, including Christians believed prior to 135 AD. The that church ended up emphasizing the threeness and the Jews emphasizing the oneness.

[Gregory Matthews]

Suggestions that the idea of the Trinity came from 2nd Temple Judaism:

 

http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin

 

Objections to the idea that the idea of the Trinity came form 2nd Temple Judiasm:

 

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/176972/how-the-trinity-impacted-judaism-via-kabbalah/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

 

Comment:

 

There is a wealth of material available on this subject, including material that supports Pam's idea that there may be a pagan influence in the doctrine of the Trinity.    If one googles: " the concept of the trinity comes from Second Temple Judaism"  One will find a large number of listings.

 

I have only posted a couple of URLs.  I do not claim that any of what Ihave posted is authorative.  I simply find it interesting.  As a  matter of fact, I believe that much of what I find posted on the Internet  is interesting, but not authorative.

 

So, I am posting this comment, with URLs simply to stimulate your thought and perhaps further study.  Again, I am not posting it because I think it is authorative.  Have fun.   Enjoy yourself and any further study that you may give to this subject.

[JimTN]

Back in 2007 AMAZING FACTS published my 8th book entitled "What About the TRINITY?" I was rather shocked to hear that some within Adventism actually doubted the existence of the Trinity (which I always capitalize, it is a form of writing "God" and you would never write God as "god" would you?...)

Yes, SDAs in the beginning had an unclear understanding of the Trinity, but when Sister White published THE DESIRE OF AGES it was settled -- the Holy Spirit, which in Scripture is always referred to as "he" and not "it," was officially understood to be the 3rd PERSON of the Godhead within our church!

*Edited by Gail as inappropriate*

Jesus himself talked of the importance of the Holy Spirit, and how sinning against Him will NOT be forgiven, so there it is -- if any believer on this planet thinks it's OK to "downplay" the importance of admitting that the 3rd Person of the Godhead *IS* God, they are merely voicing their spiritual ignorance and they need to "update" their understanding.

Far before the Universe existed God existed -- in multiple parts, all equal -- because He/They/Them knew there was a purpose and a need for it to be that way, which later played out as sin entered God's Universe. God the Father could not come down to Earth and die for us, God needed to remain 100% alive and sustain the Universe! And God knew that He would also have to be "invisible" to monitor fallen mankind so we couldn't see Him, but someday in Heaven we probably WILL be able to see Him -- even angels on this planet can be invisible, there are length waves of light that are beyond our ability to see -- so one day we'll probably see the Holy Spirit as He really is, and not just shape-shifted into a dove or whatever other form He might choose!

Until then, I strongly suggest that anyone who doubts the Trinity seriously, SERIOUSLY pray about it -- it does not harm to believe -- but it might do a lot of harm "not" to believe...

As I included in my Trinity book, our bodies are comprised of something like 63 trillion individual cells -- yet we all still think that each of us is just "one person"...

So why is there a problem with believing that God is God in Three Persons?

[8thdaypriest]

I worship the Father as God eternal and over all.  I worship Him as "head of Christ" (I Cor 11:3)  I worship Him as the father and God of Christ (Rev. 1:6). 

 

I believe that God beget another being out of Himself.  That second Being then became the agent of His Father in creation, mediation, judgment and redemption. 

 

I worship Jesus Christ because God His Father has commanded us to worship His Son. 

 

I do not worship the Holy Spirit as a third being.  There is no command in Scripture that I pray to, confess to, praise, or in otherwise worship the Spirit as a separate being.

We are told to thank the Father FOR the Spirit . 

 

Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" (Luk 11:13 NKJ)

 

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever1!" (Rev 5:13 NKJ)

 

How many Beings are glorified here??  TWO

 

Paul opened his letters "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 1:7, I Co 1:3, 2 Co 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph 1:2, Phi 1:2, Col 1:2, I Th 1:1, 2 Th 1:2, Phm 1:3).  What?  Did Paul forget to include the Holy Spirit - 10 times??  

 

1 Corinthians 8:6  “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

 

The Spirit proceeds FROM the Father.  The Spirit of the Father fills the Son completely, and the Son then will baptize us with the Spirit and fire. 

 

    Acts 2:33 “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.”

 

Matthew 3:11  “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me [Jesus] is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33).

    Anything repeated four times in Scripture is absolutely foundational !!!
    Jesus would baptize His followers with the Holy Spirit.  
    He would “receive” this Spirit from His Father.

 

There is a series of studies at my website on the question of The Holy Trinity.  

 

I received so many requests that we decided to make a combined file with all of the Trinity series.

That file can be downloaded onto a memory stick and then you can take it to Office Depot or another such and get a print-out with a nice binding.  It will cost you about $15.00. 

I do not charge for the studies at my website.  The LORD has already provided very well for me. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint
 

[Stan]

Who is man, finite man, that thinks he can describe something we can not fathom... yet...

[JimTN]

And this is exactly why there is a "controversy" about the Trinity -- because there are indications that the Holy Spirit is just something that comes from God -- and it IS still a mystery! Human beings do not know all there is to know about God, and the rumor has it that the redeemed will spend Eternity learning about God... so mankind studying for just 4,000 years or so is just a drop in the bucket of Time!

There is a "vagueness" in Scripture... many things are not outrightly explained in depth... for us now here near the End of Time we can confidently say that Jesus/Yeshua pre-existed in the Old Testament as Michael the Archangel, but do we fully understand it? No. Did Scripture fully explain it? No. But is it "hinted" at? YES.

Accordingly, whenever a Bible writer writes a statement about how God the Father and God the Son are equals and how both are God, I can see how that is merely a statement that takes the subject "only so far" and that there could be MORE to it! And the part where there is "more" is the part that would include the Holy Spirit also being God.

Which is why I say it's best to INCLUDE the Holy Spirit, instead of EXCLUDING Him -- and when we learn in Heaven what it is all about, I'm pretty sure that God will not penalize us if we've "over-credited" the Holy Spirit with being the 3rd Person of the Godhead!

[JimTN]

Rachel wrote: >>I believe that God beget another being out of Himself. That second Being then became the agent of His Father in creation, mediation, judgment and redemption.<<

I don't pretend to know how Jesus/Yeshua/Michael pre-existed with God -- if Jesus was begotten out of YAHWEH at some time that pre-dated our Universe, then I'm fine with it...

In fact Satan may have mimicked this when Satan inspired men to come up with the idea of Zeus and how the other Greek gods grew out of Zeus's back -- but if Jesus was brought into existence that way, it's the equivalent of how amoebas reproduce: THEY SPLIT IN HALF AND BOTH ARE COMPRISED OF THE SAME MATERIAL.

So both God the Father & God the Son would be THE SAME GOD!

Again, this is a topic to be raised in Heaven where we "ignorant humans" may finally get some answers...

The Holy Spirit to people may seem like a mist, a spirit, a vapor -- BUT WHAT DOES THAT HOLY SPIRIT LOOK LIKE TO GOD THE FATHER?

"He" the Holy Spirit may appear to be as much God as God is!

"He" the Holy Spirit would've come from God, i.e., SPLIT OFF FROM GOD...

So here we are, trying to understand "God"... and if God sent us 2 Separate Beings that both emanated from Himself, THEN IT WILL BE SAFER TO REFER TO ALL THREE OF THEM AS **GOD**!