Question on the Trinity Doctrine

[Clio]

I'm starting a new thread because if I put this in the current Trinity Doctrine thread I'm going to not just hijack it, but possibly derail it entirely, and I don't want to do that.

First let me state that I believe Jesus to be exactly what He said He is when He was here on earth. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, save through Him. He is the Only Begotten Son of the Most High, who died as atonement for my sin, and graciously offers me salvation through faith and grace by shedding His Blood on my behalf.

So... with all that being true... why does it matter if it's a Trinity or a Trio that form the Godhead? We will certainly be educated in all of these mysteries when we get Home.

What difference does it make to our salvation as long as we stand on our gift of faith from Abba in Jesus Christ His Son?

All we really have succeeded in doing here is to draw a divisive line, inject rancor and a lack of compassion into this place, and abrogate the injunction to not argue over doctrine.

Doctrine isn't going to save us. Whether it's a trinity of not isn't going to save us. Knowing and believing in a trinity or not isn't going to save us and therefore is irrelevant.

The only salvation is through Jesus. Period. And it's not necessary to have a definitive answer on the Trinity in order to believe that Jesus is the Son of the Most High, that He came to earth in the flesh, lived a sinless life, shed His Blood as an atonement for all sin for all time, was resurrected by the Father, ascended in glory to present His Blood to the Father, and to confess with one's mouth that He is Lord.

Whether or not there's a Trinity in any sense of that word, seems to me to be pretty much irrelevant.

We just have to accept by faith the Grace that is offered us.

Clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Clio, I will respond to your very valid question. But, I do not know that I will give you a good answer. Let me make a point which probably is not directly related to the question that you raised here:

Most of us have a problem conceptualizing the idea of a Trinity that is one God, not three Gods. The best explaination that I have found is quite simplistic, can be understood by children, and possibly adults:

a) I have one rope. It has three strands to it, but it is one rope.

I have one egg. It has a yolk, white, and a shell. But, it is one egg.

Well enough of that. To be more responsive to your question:

Everything that we learn about God and our salvation is of value, even if is is not fundamental to salvation.

The nature of the Godhead tells us something about God, and what our salvation cost.

Our belief that a created being is our Saviour may tell us whether or not we can work out our salvation. After all, if a created being effected our salvation by the life he lived, why cannot we also effect our salvation by living the same life. If one created being could do such, perhaps others can also do such.

On a point that is interesting to me:

Many cultures have creation myths in which humanity is either created by, or saved by, another created being. Sometimes that being, although created, is a god.

I have just fininshed reading a small book on Hinduism: CIVILIZATION AND TRANSCENDENCE. Hinduism has three gods to be worshiped. [NOTE: Hinduism has 360,000,000 gods. Individual Hindu worshipers may differ in who the gods are that they worship, or more than three may be worshiped.]

According to ISKCON the first and primary god, that is fully above all is "Lord Krsna." He has a consort "Srimati Radharani" (SR). SR is the female mediator between humanity and Krsna.

The secondary one to be worshiped is "Lord Caitanya," who has four associates. Lord Caitanya is god incarnate (the incarnation of Krsna in our time) and therefore fully god. As such, Lord Caitanya has not been eternally pre-existant. There was a time whe Lord Caitanya came into eistance.

The third important one is (For us in North America, and some other places.) "His Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada." He is not god. Rather he is Krsna's ambassador, and therefore deserves the same respect that one would give Krsna.

Now, one might ask what all of this stuff about Hinduism has to do with your question.

1) Our concept of God, has something to do with the object(s) of our worship. There are many religions today that demonstrate that their belief in a Savior who was once created, has led their group into the worship of additional created beings.

2) Dennis has tied the doctrine of the Trinity to the Roman Catholic Chruch. I can associate the teaching that a god who once did not exist, but became our Saviour, is tied to many other pagan religions.

NOTE: This is very true in a study of the ancient Greek gods. Many of their saviour gods and godesses were created beings.

Well, Clio, take this thread back in the direction you want it to go, if I have hijacked it. I will attempt to restrain myself. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/icon_salut.gif" alt="" />

[Clio]

Thank you Gregory.

You're right. It didn't really answer my question. I guess I need to chew on this some more. It'll come.

Clio

[Derrell M]

Gregory, Is it possible that Adventists sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater in our enthusiastic disposal of everything taught by the Catholic Church? It seems that we sometimes tend to presuppose their entire teachings to be wrong simply by virtue of their being Catholic.

On another topic, I believe that God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, creation, the science of it all, the universe, the relationships, what these entities are, etc, is entirely beyond our little human capability to even begin to comprehend. Woody Allen once said, "I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown." No harm in trying, but I view any definitive statement on these matters as carrying the credibility of a Chinatown cab driver (No offense intended) stating that he has mapped out the universe.

As Clio said, "Whether or not there's a Trinity in any sense of that word, seems to me to be pretty much irrelevant.

We just have to accept by faith the Grace that is offered us."

[Nan]

This is not quite on topic, but I thought it the best place to post the comment. The Trinity concept is not one that has exercised me greatly - meaning, I have not studied into it in great depth - I have accepted the generally held conclusions of the majority of Christendom, as described above.

My comment is that the discussion on the Trinity seems another avenue for the discussion of the nature of Christ - there seems to be little said about the role of the Holy Spirit. Is this a fair description of a lot of what is going on in the related threads ?

And like Clio, I thank and praise our God for His creation and provision for our needs, spiritual, physical, emotional and intellectual.

[Clio]

Nan -

I don't think that roles are being discussed at the moment. I think what is being argued is whether or not God is a Trinity or a Godhead Trio.

And I think that is irrelevant.

Now... a study on the ROLES of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit might be both enlightening and interesting.

When I contemplate my relationships with each, Abba, Jesus and the Spirit, I have to state categorically, that my relationship with Each is different.

I don't think that actually answers your questions, but I am mostly just musing out loud.

Clio

[archierieus]

Speaking for myself, Clio, my concern pertains to the Divinity of Christ. As Gregory pointed out, that is what is being challenged in some circles. I believe that is a very important truth to establish. As far as the Trinity or Godhead Trio, I understand that to be a mystery which is perhaps beyond comprehension, and certainly am not going to try to speculate. I simply recognize that there is a Godhead with three Beings. But, when my Lord and Savior is said to be a lesser being, then yeah, someone's gonna hear from me.

Regards, Dave

[Clio]

Amen!

Now... since that's solved.....

Clio

[Nan]

Yes Dave, that is the point I was trying to make. Thank you for expressing it more clearly.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Gregory, Is it possible that Adventists sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater in our enthusiastic disposal of everything taught by the Catholic Church? It seems that we sometimes tend to presuppose their entire teachings to be wrong simply by virtue of their being Catholic."

Yes.

The Seventh-day ADventist Chruch, and Protestants in general, all have major doctrinal differences with the Roman Catholic Chruch. However, we (The SDA Chruch.) is more like the Roman Catholic Chruch than many realize. We do share some common doctrines, on some levels.

I will give you one example of a common belief that the RC and SDA chruchs share. We both believe that there is a spiritual authority that governs our life and teachings.

However, we differ, in some ways, as to what that spiritual authority is.

[Susie]

Sometimes we just have to take things by faith.

I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.---That sounds like a Trinity to me.

And that is good enough for me.

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

As far as the Trinity or Godhead Trio, I understand that to be a mystery which is perhaps beyond comprehension, and certainly am not going to try to speculate. I simply recognize that there is a Godhead with three Beings. But, when my Lord and Savior is said to be a lesser being, then yeah, someone's gonna hear from me.

---

AMEN!! Dave, well said!

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .when my Lord and Savior is said to be a lesser being, then yeah, someone's gonna hear from me."

That is part of the issue that is felt by many to make the doctrine of the Trinity very important.

Another question thought to be very importiant is whether or not a created being could be our Saviour.

Dennis is correct when he states that in his understanding, he is not stating that Christ is not Devine. You see, this growing element in Adventism who denies the standard doctrine of the Trinity typically believe that Christ was devine. But they do believe that there was a time in which Christ was not, and a time in which Christ came into being. I am one of those who believes that everything associated with salvation, and the cross is ov vital importance.

There are aspects of the nature of Christ that I do not believe are firmly settled in the Bible, and therefore I believe are NOT of fundamental importance. But, I do accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Dennis is correct when he states that in his understanding, he is not stating that Christ is not Devine. You see, this growing element in Adventism who denies the standard doctrine of the Trinity typically believe that Christ was devine. But they do believe that there was a time in which Christ was not, and a time in which Christ came into being. I am one of those who believes that everything associated with salvation, and the cross is ov vital importance.

---

So let me reflect this view back at you, Gregory.....

God and Jesus were of the same substance, and at some point in time, they divided into God the Father and God the Son.

Each had the same qualities, the same divine characteristics, but at some point in time, there was this creating Jesus/this point in time where one moment, He did not exist, and the next moment, He existed....

Is this a fair reflection of what is attempted to be conveyed?

So, what about the Holy Spirit? Is there a person as the Holy Spirit, as what you understand Dennis is attempting to relate to the rest of us? Could you explian that a bit more...

[melvin mccarty]

Just a thought, I dont know if anyone believes that Christ was created. Do we "create" our children? Is there possibly a difference between "creating" and "begetting"?

mel

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "God and Jesus were of the same substance, and at some point in time, they divided into God the Father and God the Son. Each had the same qualities, the same divine characteristics, but at some point in time, there was this creating Jesus/this point in time where one moment, He did not exist, and the next moment, He existed . . ."

Neil, I just read your post this AM. I would have responded sooner if I had read it sooner, but somehow I have missed it.

No, it is not an accurate stement of what I wanted to convey. Sorry that I did not do it well, and thanks for asking for clairfication.

Let me see if I can figure out where I failed to communicate, and correct on that point. If you continue to have questions, please continue to ask. As the doctrine of the Trinity is really beyond our full understanding, and complex, anyone else should feel free to correct me if I mis-state something about it.

Under the standard doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all of the same substance, and have all been eternally existing, with no time when any of them did not exist.

What I have stated above raises three major questions:

1) Does this then give us a polytheistic Godhead of three gods? The Trinity doctrine says "No," it does not. These are not three gods who function independently of each other.

I sometimes think in very simple, childish terms. I am going to share a illustration that I learned at a very early age. As do all human constructions of divine reality it is limited, faulty, and cannot represent 100% the absolute reality. But, that may be because the divine reality is beyond our comprehension. The reality is that we often get into trouble when we attempt to limit God to what we can understand.

Imagine a rope of three strands. It is one rope. Yet it is comprised of three different parts, or strands. Each strand is absolutely equal, and of exactly the same substance, with exactly the same function. Yet is is not three ropes, but it is one rope.

I personally like that illustration.

There is also a second illustration which has some problems that the one of the rope does not have. Imagine an egg. It is one egg, yet it is comprised of a yolk, a white, and a shell, yet it is one egg. The problem with this illustration is that the three parts of the egg are of different substances, and the Trinity doctrine says that all are of the same substance. However, one aspect of the egg illustration that is of interest is that the three parts have three different rolls. The shell does not have the same role as the yolk, etc. Under the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit has a different relationship to us than does God the Father, or Jesus Christ.

2) A second problem is raised by the fact that we often talk about the "three persons" of the God-head. I also use this same terminology. This is a problem in that it restricts God to what we humans understand as persons. And, it causes people to think of a poly-theistic trinity.

I prefer to use the term, "personal being." As I use it, I do not define it. To me, this takes it beyond the limits of my human understanding of "person." It also, to me, allows the Holy Spirit, to have a personal being that differs, but has the same substance, from that of God the Father, but I do not have to say that such is the reality. I simply leave such beyond my experience and knowledge. Such is something that I can discover in eteernity.

3) The third issue related to the fact that the Bible does present Jesus as a uniquely begotton son. What is meant by this?

I start off with the understanding that when the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ was uniquely begotton, that it is telling us that His begetting was different from what I experince in this human world. In other words, I cannot accurately describe His begetting in the same reality that I experience in my human life.

In human life, to be begotten clearly has a time when one came into existence, with a prior time when that one was not in existence. But, I have already stated the the doctrine of the Trinity has Christ eternally existing, with no time when Jesus Christ did not exist. If this is the reality, then, it is certainly a unique begetting. But, what then is the meaning of the Biblical statement that Jesus Christ was begotten? It does seem to be a mystery.

There is an interesting verse in Psalms 2:7:

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hasth said unto me, 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." KJV

"I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, 'You are my Son, today I have become your Father." NIV

Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 clearly apply the above to Christ. So, I look back to that ancient passage in Psalms as providing us the answer. What is that answer?

First, I note that the passage in Psalms was written many years before the Advent of Christ. I think the sixth verse indicates that the seventh verse is to be applied to Christ, rather than a human person.

The 7th verse seems to point to a specific day in the future when God the Father would become the Father of a Son. But, it would be in a unique kind of a begetting, one that had never before happened.

To me, that unique kind of begetting occured when the pre-existent Jesus Christ was born in human form. That was a unique kind of uniting of God with humanity. It occured though the power of God the Father. At that moment this relationship of Father and Son began. Christ was truly begotten on the day of His physical birth. Yet, he was also pre-existent prior to His birth.

Does this answer all questions? No. But, this is my thinking. I hope that this communicates better what I beleive. Feel free to ask further questions, if you desire.

[wicklunds]

[i have deleted a one word post. Dennis, I have been giving you preferential treatment. I am going to enforce the rules here to a greater degree--GM.]

[Gerr]

Here is another "great mystery", "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and two shall become one flesh." Eph 5:31,32 NKJ.

Here is a case of Biblical arithmetic in which 1+1 is not =2 but 1+1=1.

Gerry

[Clio]

But it's not really a mystery.

It has to do with the Blood Covenant. Every man woman and child from before Abraham on, in that part of the world understands marriage as another form of Blood Covenant.

It is through this that the two become one. One of the characteristics of this sacred covenant is that both parties to the covenant share one nature.

It is through this principle that the husband and wife become one, and it is through this principle that when we enter into Blood Covenant with Jesus that we receive His nature. It is how we put off our carnal natures and put on the Nature of Jesus. It is how we come to have the "mind of Christ".

It is no mystery. It is the spiritual effect of entering in to a covenanted marriage before the Most High. Even though the meaning has been lost, and in many instances corrupted through the evil that is in this world, Abba's principles still operate.

And when His Children ask His Blessings on marriage, He begins to transform it, making that marriage into the plan He had for it when marriage was first introduced to Adam and Eve in Eden. And it was a Blood Covenant, even there.

Eve is created from Adam's rib, a bone, in which the marrow actually manufactures blood.

Clio

[Suzanne Sutton]

[:"blue"]The Trinity

Here are some statements from the Spirit of Prophecy regarding the Trinity:

1 BC:1120- "By our baptismal pledge we avouched and solemnly confessed the Lord Jehovah as our Ruler. We virtually took a solemn oath, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that henceforth our lives would be merged into the life of these three great agencies, that the life we should live in the flesh would be lived in faithful obedience to God's sacred law."

5BC.1110 - "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Three Holy Dignitaries of Heaven, have declared that they will strengthen men to overcome the powers of darkness."

Evangelism:615 - There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.

Evangelism:307 - "As Christians submit to the solemn rite of baptism, he registers the vow that they make to be true to Him. This vow is their oath of allegiance. They are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus they are united with the three great powers of heaven."

Brethren, there are many other statements in the Spirit of Prophecy to this effect, as well as various Bible text. For example we have 1 John 5:4-9 which speak of the three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (verse 7) (While many try to say that this text does not belong in the Bible, I do not believe this. Indeed the context of these verses go on to note that by the same token there are 3 that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one. (verse 8)

Suzanne[/]

[Kevin H]

I'll come back with some more informaton on the differnt roles of the members of the trinity, I just got home from working all night.

Anyway, what happens is that when we do away with the trinity, we tend to only make one aspect, God the Father, become God in entirety, and we become focused on God's authority and focus on the law the law the law till we are as dry as the hills of gilboa.

The danger of Revelation 12 and 13 are how Satan trys to undue the oneness of the trinity in our minds, the dragon and the two beasts are the three aspects of the trinity where they are either independent of each other or cooperating for their own selfish purposes, as opposed to being one.

For Ellen White the great controversy is looking at Satan's three deceptions which are against the three aspects of the Trinity, and how they are answered by the three angels messages.

When James White was editor of the Review he had printed a couple of anti-trinitarian articles, but in a survey interviewing people who knew him all but one said that they had no idea how he felt about the trinity as he was not open on this topic as he was on others. The only person who did not give this answer was a man who as an 8 year old boy his family once had lunch with the Whites and he said that at the dinner James talked against the trinity. In his research on James White, Elder Wheeler came upon a letter James wrote towards the end of his life where he wrote that the arguments for the trinity were starting to make more sence to him then the arguments against it.

Although most of our ministers and members were anti-trinitarian in the 1800s, it was not an official part of our membership but an optional belief. William Spicer's father was a trinitarian. He was an Adventist Minister who left the ministry due to pressure to preach anti-trinitarian sermons, but stayed a faithful laymember and was able to be in full standing as a member dispite being a trinitarian.

I mentioned how when I was at Andrews in the mid-1980s I came across in the White estate vault a complaint written in the 1890s or early 1900s complaining about Mrs. White becoming an trinitarian and blaming W. W. Prescott's influence for making her a heritic on this topic. Now I did not write down the exact reference, but in the book on the trinity by Moon et. el. there is a reference on how due to statements that Mrs. White's staff was incerting trinitarian ideas into her writings without her knowlege, Elder Andresen in 1903 went to visit Mrs. White to check to see if she had become trinitarian and if she did write those things. Yes she did and he saw the words in her own handwriting, and in 1903 he became a trinitarian and remained one the rest of his life. While I cannot produce the quote I found, I can refer you to the Andresen quote where he also talks about similar quotes existing.

Another interesting point, scholars of second temple Judaism are saying that at the time of Jesus, the Jews believed in the doctrine of the trinity and did not give it up until the Church-Synogogue split in 135 AD.

I hope this helps

[Gregory Matthews]

Suzanne:

Thank you for your post, and references.

As to the I John passage: Regardless of one's personal belief, we are better off not using a text that has substantial evidence for not being in the Bible.