Blessed Trinity, an Unblessed Monstrosity???

[archierieus]

I also found it interesting that 'God,' theos, occurs in the nominative singular, AS DOES 'logos.' John had just written, 'kai ho logos een pros toon theoon . . .' It occurs to me that John's use of the nominative singular here has significance, as emphasizing that Christ is indeed GOD. Without the article? Yeah, but I believe that in Greek grammar, that could be taken either way: either as 'a god' as you pointed out, Jim, or as clearly identifying GOD, not one of a multitude of gods such as the heathen worshipped. As you point out, John says so much about the Word throughout his gospel, that his meaning is unmistakable.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

oops! typo: should read, 'kai ho logos een pros ton theon' the accusative singular. Ahh, a senior moment.

Dave

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Questions on Doctrine was actually written and published during the early to middle 50s, long after 1928 or 1930.

And it simply is not true that the Trinity doctrine came into SDA beliefs as a result of Leroy Froom or anyone else at that time. (The truth is that Uriah Smith's book, Looking Unto Jesus, was the last publication of any significance by an SDA giving an Arian view of Christ. It was published in 1898, the same year as The Desire of Ages. Smith's book was only printed once and sold very few copies here and in Australia. It clearly advocated a minority viewpoint among SDAs, particularly in light of Ellen White's plain statements in DA opposing the Arian views.)

---

When it was actually published is insignificant. What is most specious is the fact that it came in at all. It never should have. But it did. What can I do about it? Warn people against its subtle inroads. Causing doubt and unbelief in the Father and the Sonship of Jesus Christ. Causing doubt as to whether Jesus actually came in the flesh of humanity or not. This is what that spirit of antichrist is about.

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Since Questions on Doctrine was written and published in the early 1950s, it should be obvious to anyone that it had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened about a quarter of a century prior to its existence.

---

Oh I disagree with this hearsay.

Quote:

---

John317 said:

As for Ellen White teaching an Arian view of the Godhead, anyone who believes she taught such a view hasn't taken into consideration her statements that Christ revealed Himself to Moses at Mt. Horeb as the "I AM"; that it was Christ who gave both the moral and ceremonial law to Israel; and that "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, and underived." (See DA 52, 307 and PP 366) Please see the Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen White, Vol. 1, pp. 509-512, where many references are given that describe the preincarnate Christ in Old Testament times. Jim

---

Ellen White taught the correct view of the Godhead, that not being a trinity. That is all we need to know. If she was a trinitarian, why not come out of confusion and state it unequivocally? The truth is, it was because she was not a trinitarian. This is the logical conclusion. Like her husband and sons do testify, she never once spoke out about a trinitarian interpretation of the Godhead, and more specifically, she never once talked about the Holy Spirit being a "person." This is the most important fact that flies in the face of trinitarian claims. Evangelicals can take much of the credit for making our denominational workings much like that of the Sunday Evangelical churches like Rick Warren, and Bill Hybels. This is not the peculair way God has marked out for the remnant. When the storm and tempest sweeps away the structure, the evangelical masses will have either been converted or they will abandon ship. There will be hundreds of thousands of Desmond Fords. Will you be among them? I pray not. Turn the boat around...

Dennis

[wicklunds]

A question for all you trinitarian defenders out there:

When Jesus was on the cross, He shouted, "My God My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (eloi eloi lama sabbacthani) If He said this, Was He speaking to Himself? How could this be? I think you get the picture, Jesus could not have been God the Father. Anyone claiming that Jesus and God the Father are one and the same person are not hitting on all cylinders!!! Don't be coming in my church teaching that stuff!!!

Dennis

[John317]

The idea that Christ was created or came into being at some point means that God the Father sent a proxy here to suffer and die instead of coming and living Himself among us. Somehow that notion does not sound right to me and more importantly seems clearly to contradict many Bible texts that come to mind. Also it means that a created being died for the sins of other created beings. It doesn't matter if that created being was created or came into being trillions+ years ago; he still is a creature and not God nor can have the same nature as God, for a creature simply can never be God. That would also mean that God commanded angels to worship a creature and that in Revelation 5:14, the elders worshipped a created being, or at least a being that once did not exist. Wouldn't that would mean God is commanding his creatures to violate His moral law?

Does it increase our confidence and faith to know that God did not come here but instead

sent a proxy in His place, to explain Him and tell us and show us what He is like? How could Jesus be exactly like the Father if Jesus is not of the same nature as His Father?

Looking for the Bible answers to these questions is part of the reason that I believe it is important to understand what the Bible teaches about the nature of Christ. Jim

[wicklunds]

He didn't send a proxy, He sent His only Begotten Son. That is what the scripture says, that is what we ought to believe.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "When Jesus was on the cross, He shouted, "My God My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (eloi eloi lama sabbacthani) If He said this, Was He speaking to Himself? How could this be? I think you get the picture, Jesus could not have been God the Father."

I am not aware of anyone here that claims that Jesus was speaking to himself, or that Jesus was God the Father.

Re: "Anyone claiming that Jesus and God the Father are one and the same person are not hitting on all cylinders!!! Don't be coming in my church teaching that stuff!!!"

No Trinitarian teaches that Jesus and God the Father are one and the same person. If you believe that Trinitarians teach such, you clearly do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

The idea that Jesus and God the Father are one person was an ancient heresy that existed at one point.

Dennis, you seem to be confused as to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is.

[wicklunds]

Greg,

I am waiting for your help in understanding sir...

Dennis

[wicklunds]

When the scripture speaks of God, who is it speaking of?

Dennis

[Taylor]

The trinity = 3 seperate "individuals" for lack of a better term, who are so alike in thought, mind and character that they are united. They do not oppose each other, do not see things differently but, they do have different roles.

God the father (whom Jesus called on when he was dying)

God the Son = Jesus (Whom God gave and sent on a mission to this earth)

God the Holy Spirit = the comforter sent by Jesus to his disciples (as well as many other mentions of him.)

This concept is found all throughout scripture.

[wicklunds]

Thanks Taylor,

I would agree that all three entities are united in purpose, that is a must. But I certainly take issue with the idea that the Holy Spirit is a "person", who thinks and feels (though the scripture figuratively attributes feelings to it, saying it can be grieved, etc...). The Holy Spirit would not be a spirit if it were like a physical body. Therefore, on this premise, it is altogether different than the Father and the Son. It is the Holy wind proceeding forth from God. It is not a person in a trinity. This, I believe to be a lie of the devil.

Dennis

[Bravus]

Couple of quick comments (I've stayed out of this thread so far):

1. The confusion we're witnessing here, on all sides, is due to the finite (our minds) attempting to contain the infinite (the nature of God). It is simply beyond us, and we'll be happy once we recognise that.

2. One thing Seventh-day Adventists understand is that, at least for humans, there's no such thing as a spirit without a body. Adam *became* a living soul when God breathed into him. So the notion of the Father and the Son being of different nature to the Spirit because the Spirit is a spirit... may not fit within that understanding, although of course see (1) above.

[John317]

Evidence That the Bible Teaches Jesus Christ Is God

Here is a partial list of the evidence that the KJV offers showing that Jesus Christ is Diety, or God:

1) Isaiah 9:6-- "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

2) Micah 5:2-- "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting [margin: eternity]." (Compare Matthew 2:6)

3) John 1:1-4. (Compare with Matthew 1:23)

4) John 8: 58-- "Jesus said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Compare Exodus 3:14. Also, if you believe Ellen White was a true prophet of God, see her comment at DA 307 where she says that it was Christ who presented Himself to Moses at Mt Horeb as "I AM," under the Name of Yahweh, or Jehovah.)

5) John 20:28-- "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

6) 1 Cor. 10:4-- "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (See Ex. 17:6 and compare 1 Peter 2:6-8 and Isaiah 8:14.)

7) Phil. 2:6--"...[Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God..." (See following verse.)

8) Col. 2:9-- "for in Him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

9) 1 Tim. 3:16-- "...God was manifest in the flesh..." (So reads the majority of the ancient Greek manuscripts. Only a little more than a handful of manuscripts read differently and even most of those also did origninally read "God.")

10) Hebrews 1:3-- "...[Jesus Christ] being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power..."

11) Hebrews1:10-- "But unto the Son he [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever..."

12) Hebrews 1:10--"And Thou, Lord [Jesus Christ], in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; the heavens are the works of thine hands."

13) 1John 5:7-- "For there are three that b ear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and trhese three are one [margin: united]."

14) Revelation 22:13-- "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and the Last." (Also see Revelation 1:8,11,17; and compare with Isaiah 41:4 and Revelation 21:6)

For those who are willing to accept the testimony of other translations besides the KJV, such as the New King James, New American Standard, New International Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized, New Revised Standard, and, indeed, dozens of other modern translations, please also read Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Romans 9:5 (NIV). You will notice that the correct translation of the verses in Titus and 2 Peter directly call Jesus Christ both our God and Savior.

For the proof that this is the correct way to translate the verses in Titus and 2 Peter, see p. 147 of A Manual Grammer of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey; also p. 130 of Ray Summer's Essentials of New Testament Greek; and p. 1053 of Refresh Your Greek by Wesley J. Perschbacher, 1989.

After describing the Granville Sharp grammatical rule, and demonstrating it by showing that 2 Peter 2:20 says Jesus is both Lord and Savior, the authors go onto to point out that the same rule applies to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, meaning that these verses both say that Jesus is our God and Savior. That is to say, these verses refer not to two persons but to a single person, Jesus Christ.

Ellen White is in total harmony with this Biblical view, as evidenced by a few clear statements:

1) "Christ had not ceased to be God when He became man. Though He had humbled Himself to humanity, the Godhead was still His own." Desire of Ages 663, 664.

2) "From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father." DA 19

3) "Jesus claimed equal rights with God." "[Jesus] had declared Himself equal with God." DA 25

4) It was He [Christ] who declared Himself to Moses as the I AM." DA 52

Please read all of pages 24 and 25 of Desire of Ages. They help us to understand why it is important to know Jesus as our God and Savior. Jim

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Couple of quick comments (I've stayed out of this thread so far):

1. The confusion we're witnessing here, on all sides, is due to the finite (our minds) attempting to contain the infinite (the nature of God). It is simply beyond us, and we'll be happy once we recognise that.

2. One thing Seventh-day Adventists understand is that, at least for humans, there's no such thing as a spirit without a body. Adam *became* a living soul when God breathed into him. So the notion of the Father and the Son being of different nature to the Spirit because the Spirit is a spirit... may not fit within that understanding, although of course see (1) above.

---

Thank you Bravus,

Part of the problem with this whole thing is that our Church passed a doctrine into its fund. beliefs that:

1. Is confusing at best

2. Cannot possibly do justice to the complexity of the Biblical Godhead.

3. Contradicts the leading of God through our pioneers during the first fifty years of existence of this denomination.

4. Denies the Father/ Son Relationship.

5. Denies that Jesus came in the flesh as fully human and fully divine.

6. Denies that the Holy Spirit is not equal in all respects to the Father and Son, but rather, it is a person.

7. Finds its roots in paganism that predates Rome.

8. Is the central doctrine from which all others come from in the Roman Catholic Church.

9. Is the central doctrine of Evangelical Protestantism, the most of which, deny the necessity of keeping the 7th-day Sabbath, and have made startling concessions and compromises through the ecumenical movement started by papal Rome.

10. Has allowed Satan to hijack the 3rd angel's message and basically nullify it, at least temporarily.

I will say one thing that may be positive in the short term.

I think it may have enabled the gospel to reach parts of the world that have hertofore been unreachable. This is not at all bad. But I question whether the gospel that has been preached, is the saving message. Maybe Jesus is using this false movement to pave the way for His end-time loud cry to be given.

Just a thought.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

If this doctrine is so confusing, why have we made the trinity a fundamental belief? We don't go a making creeds out of subjects that are unknown even to the angels.

Dennis

[John317]

Dennis,

You ask who is the Bible speaking of when it speaks of God. The answer is that it may be speaking of God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, depending on the context. It will help to remember that the word God is a title, not a personal name.

Who then is the Bible speaking of in the following verese: 1) John 20:17; 2) John 20:28; Hebrew 1:8; John 1:1 (last part); 3) Acts 5:3,4? Jim

[wicklunds]

I don't believe this...

[John317]

Dennis, You said,

"If this doctrine is so confusing, why have we made the trinity a fundamental belief? We don't go a making creeds out of subjects that are unknown even to the angels."

Please tell us exactly what it is about it that is so confusing to you. No one understands everything about it. We will be learning about God throughout eternity after all and we will never completely understand everything. It should be enough that the Bible and the SOP plainly teach that Jesus Christ is eternally one with God the Father. We accept it not because we understand everything about it but because it is clearly taught in the Scriptures and we accept it by faith. Don't you agree?

See my Post # 197631 on Monday Dec 5 at 10:40 PM. I believe there you will find more than sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ is both our God and our Savior. Jim

[John317]

You say you don't believe this (evidence from the Bible), but you don't say why not and you don't deal with the texts themselves. Why don't you? Jim

[John317]

Dennis,

Of course God the Father sent his only begotten Son-- that is plainly what Scripture teaches-- but if that only begotten son was created and was not God, then God did not come here, did he? That being the case, how can you deny that God sent a proxy? If God sent a creature to die-- someone who did not exist at one time and came into being by whatever means-- then it is self-evident that God did not come but that a created being did. That created being--whether you want to call Him "only begotten Son" or more properly "the one and only Son," -- if he was indeed created, then he most certainly falls within the definition of proxy for God. Isn't it your view that Jesus Christ was not God coming to this earth to suffer and die for sinners, but rather a created being coming to die for other, albeit lower, created beings? Jim

[John317]

Dennis, Just how does the doctrine of the Trinity deny the relationship between the Father and the Son? Jim

[archierieus]

I should like to continue exploring some Biblical passages that pertain to Christ. By way of review (and without being unduly repetitive) we recall that "all things were made" by Christ. Keeping that in mind, let's take a look at Psalm 90:1,2:

"A Prayer of Moses the man of God.>> Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."

Who is the 'Lord' here: the answer appears clear because of the following reasons:

a) Christ is stated in Scripture to have made 'all things.'

'Lord' is YHWH, Whom Christ claimed to be when speaking to the Jews. He quoted Himself saying to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. Christ claimed to the Jews, to be YHWH. That is why they picked up stones. Thus, YHWH in Ps. 90:1 is Christ.

c) Also of interest is Ps. 33:6--"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." "Lord," here also, is YHWH, or Christ. Comparing with Gen. ch. 1, therefore, we see that when it says that "God said, let there be light," etc. etc., it was CHRIST WHO WAS SPEAKING! Christ was the Creator. Christ and the Father together, created the world, with, of course, the Holy Spirit ("and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" for example) Hence, of course, Elohim rather than Eloha.

Thus, we note in Ps. 90:2, that YHWH, Christ, is described as "from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." I should like to comment on a suggestion made previously, that the depiction in Dan. 7 of the 'Ancient of Days' is in fact the Father and NOT Christ, and that 'one like the Son of man" is Christ, hence, Ps. 90:2 could not refer to Christ.

We notice, firstly, the time in which this scene takes place. It would be the endtimes, in fact, shortly before the return of Christ. Hence, AFTER the incarnation! After Christ assumed His role as "the Son of Man." Throughout history, Christ has indeed taken different roles. The fact that, in the scene depicted in Dan. 7, Christ appears as the Son of man, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY CONFLICT with Christ's PREVIOUSLY having assumed a different role, that is, in creating the world. If, indeed, both the Father and Christ were Ancient of Days, then, in Dan. 7, the Father maintains that role, while Christ appears in His ministry as the Son of man.

Well, there are few things worse than lengthy, boring posts, so, enough for now!

Regards, Dave

[John317]

Dennis,

I am interested in knowing how the doctrine of the Trinity has "hijacked" and "nullified" the Third Angels Message. Please elaborate. Jim

[jasd]

QR frame:

Inasmuch as the writings of EGW have been advanced in this thread as source/authority -- both sides of the issue…

The Holy Spirit is a Person: --EGW

to the students at Avondale College in AD 1899 – “We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.” --44 Evangelism, 616.

“We have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person , is walking through these grounds,…” --MANUSCRIPT RELEASES/7MR - Manuscript Releases Volume Seven [Nos. 419-525] (1990)/MR No. 487 - The Holy Spirit Is a Person ...MR No. 487

“…the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, …” --The Desire of Ages, page 671, paragraph 2

Per the Sonship of Christ: Except for several indistinct passages in the OT... the 'Sonship' of Christ is epistemologically New Testamental, is it not?

Why?

[archierieus]

Just as a point of interest, browsing in the Psalms, I noted Ps. 89, which speaks of YHWH, or Christ. Look at v. 8:

"O LORD God Almighty, who is like you?" Also, v. 11:

"The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth;

you founded the world and all that is in it."

In v. 26, YHWH, Christ, is described thusly:

"You are my Father,

my God, the Rock my Savior."

Oh, by the way, there was an error in my previous post. I did much of it from memory, but decided just now to double-check. In Psalm 90, YHWH is addressed. However, v. 1 uses a different name, 'adonay. Note what NIDOTTE, the dictionary of OT theology and exegesis, has to say:

"OT The name 'adonay (449x) may be a modified pl. form of 'adon (30x H123), with a first person sing. suff.; the vocalization is changed slightly (long final a) so as not to be confused with "my lords." Yet its usage suggests it is (or has become) another name for Yahweh, "Lord"; hence the ending may be a nom. afformative rather than a suffix. Either way, the form may signify majesty or intensification; sing. vbs. are used. Because its meaning was similar to ba`al1 (H1251), it may have emerged as the suitable alternative. In a great majority of instances 'adonay is directly linked to Yahweh (315x). It is rarely used in divine speech (5x)."

My apologies!

Dave