Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

What about the TRINITY....have we lost our WAY?


Sauliga
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

think the author of said comment intended "recently" as in the grand scheme of things, and not in YOUR literal sense.

Well....as GM pointed out....recent would not be in the last 100 years! Better to ask than to assume!  Not sure why the yelling caps...have issue with reality of recent being a short time ago?My hearing has not gone bad, thank you very much!! In the 'grand scheme' we all on this planet are rather 'recent' , give or take a few thousands!!

:flower:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The Wanderer:  There is a difference between the Baptismal Vows and the Fundamental Beliefs that remains today.

The Fundamental Beliefs date back to the late 19th and early 20th Cent. and the early days of the founding of our denomination.  They came to modern attention with the publication of the 27 in 1980.

The Baptismal vows have existed for many years and have numbered 13.   In recent times, while the traditional 13 have been retained, an alternative set of Baptismal Vows has been approved which are three (3) in number.  These two sets remain in place at the present time and either may be used in SDA congregations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Baptismal Vow # 1, Reads as follows:

 

  Do you believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

his abbreviation of "IOW."  What does that mean??

In case no one has answered you, "IOW" means "In Other Word".  IMHO, you had better learn the SOP ASAP or you may be SOL. RAOFL!  TTYL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

IOW =  In Other words

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

ASAP = As Soon As Possible

ROFLO = Rolling on the Floor Laughing Outloud

SOL = Sadly Oust of Luck.

RAOFLI =  (You got me on this one.  I have no idea.)

TTYL = Talk To You Later.

I will let a few others fill in the blank and add a few more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the early Adventists simply brought in the Unitarian view that was quite popular in American religious circles in the early 19th century.  I don't really see any reference to them actually sitting down and studying the question out, like they did with the foundational doctrines. 

This was not new with Adventists it was prevalent in the society from which quite a few of them were associated prior to becoming "Adventist pioneers"

The attack on the Trinity came mainly from the Unitarian movement and grew rather strong in the New England area. There were influential thinkers who led the way, like Anglican Samuel Clarke, the Unitarian Richard Price, and Friedrich Schleiermacher, often considered the father of liberal theology who dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity as inconceivable and contradictory. They began to take the position that Christ, though less than God, was more than man--a pre-existent divine being. One phase of Unitarianism went further They argued for what came to be called “humanitarian” christology (Jesus had only a human nature), and denounced worship of Christ as Christian idolatry, urging true believers to leave trinitarian churches for the new Unitarian ones, but this was NOT the original view in the attack on the Trinity.

There was considerable controversy --with  the "Unitarian Controversy" centering at Harvard college. One of the prominent ministers, William Channing, wrote:
"Let them learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We all believe in these....But, the trinitarian believes that the ONE God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is truely God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction." (Religious History of the American People, Syndney Ahlstrom)

The Unitarian movement was influential in shaping the thought patterns of the people.

From this movement there arose an  anti-creedal, anti-Calvinist wing of New England Congregationalism. Their doctrines were Armenian, they studied the Bible, they taught that the Holy Spirit was a divine influence, that while Jesus was a teacher and Redeemer and possessing some Divinity, yet God the Father, was the only supreme God. There were shape disagreements among them just what role Christ held.

There were several books written in the early 19th century  on "Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of the Trinitarians."

This movement produced Connexionism which grew into thousands of independent churches and had by 1850s up to half a million supporters.  Many supporters of the Christian Connexion endorsed Millerism.   Even those not from Connexionist churches endorsed the "spirit" of the movement -- anti-creedal, anti-denominational structure, anti papal, independence.

To be anti-Trinitarian was just part of the whole movement,.   The spirit of the age, was beneficial in bringing new truths before the people -- The Sabbath, the sanctuary, the manner of Christ's second coming, the state of the dead, etc. etc.    These things the Adventist pioneers earnestly sought to understand from scripture.
But for some time it was assumed (not really studied out) that the Unitarian concept of God was correct,  because it opposed "creeds".

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2018 at 11:21 PM, CoAspen said:

I am curious as to what you mean by 'recently'?

recently adverb 

 not long ago, a short time ago, in the past few days/weeks/months, a little while back; lately, latterly, just now.

It was 1931 when the word trinity appeared in some of the Adventist statement of beliefs (not in the Afrikan American churches). But it was officially accepted by the General Conference at the Dallas Convention in 1980. My mother joined the church in the 1950’s and we did not believe in the trinity. Those even then the North American Division had many churches who did not accept until the early 90's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 6:01 PM, chilco said:

It seems the early Adventists simply brought in the Unitarian view that was quite popular in American religious circles in the early 19th century.  I don't really see any reference to them actually sitting down and studying the question out, like they did with the foundational doctrines. 

This was not new with Adventists it was prevalent in the society from which quite a few of them were associated prior to becoming "Adventist pioneers"

The attack on the Trinity came mainly from the Unitarian movement and grew rather strong in the New England area. There were influential thinkers who led the way, like Anglican Samuel Clarke, the Unitarian Richard Price, and Friedrich Schleiermacher, often considered the father of liberal theology who dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity as inconceivable and contradictory. They began to take the position that Christ, though less than God, was more than man--a pre-existent divine being. One phase of Unitarianism went further They argued for what came to be called “humanitarian” christology (Jesus had only a human nature), and denounced worship of Christ as Christian idolatry, urging true believers to leave trinitarian churches for the new Unitarian ones, but this was NOT the original view in the attack on the Trinity.

There was considerable controversy --with  the "Unitarian Controversy" centering at Harvard college. One of the prominent ministers, William Channing, wrote:
"Let them learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We all believe in these....But, the trinitarian believes that the ONE God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is truely God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction." (Religious History of the American People, Syndney Ahlstrom)

The Unitarian movement was influential in shaping the thought patterns of the people.

From this movement there arose an  anti-creedal, anti-Calvinist wing of New England Congregationalism. Their doctrines were Armenian, they studied the Bible, they taught that the Holy Spirit was a divine influence, that while Jesus was a teacher and Redeemer and possessing some Divinity, yet God the Father, was the only supreme God. There were shape disagreements among them just what role Christ held.

There were several books written in the early 19th century  on "Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of the Trinitarians."

This movement produced Connexionism which grew into thousands of independent churches and had by 1850s up to half a million supporters.  Many supporters of the Christian Connexion endorsed Millerism.   Even those not from Connexionist churches endorsed the "spirit" of the movement -- anti-creedal, anti-denominational structure, anti papal, independence.

To be anti-Trinitarian was just part of the whole movement,.   The spirit of the age, was beneficial in bringing new truths before the people -- The Sabbath, the sanctuary, the manner of Christ's second coming, the state of the dead, etc. etc.    These things the Adventist pioneers earnestly sought to understand from scripture.
But for some time it was assumed (not really studied out) that the Unitarian concept of God was correct,  because it opposed "creeds."

Unitarianism rejects the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or three Persons in one God, made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They typically believe that God is one being - God the Father. Jesus was simply a man, not the incarnate deity.

"It seems the early Adventists simply brought in the Unitarian view that was quite popular in American religious circles in the early 19th century.  I don't really see any reference to them actually sitting down and studying the question out, like they did with the foundational doctrines. 

This was not new with Adventists it was prevalent in the society from which quite a few of them were associated prior to becoming 'Adventist pioneers.'"

'This movement produced Connexionism which grew into thousands of independent churches and had by 1850s up to half a million supporters.  Many supporters of the Christian Connexion endorsed Millerism.   Even those not from Connexionist churches endorsed the "spirit" of the movement -- anti-creedal, anti-denominational structure, anti papal, independence.

To be anti-Trinitarian was just part of the whole movement,.   The spirit of the age, was beneficial in bringing new truths before the people -- The Sabbath, the sanctuary, the manner of Christ's second coming, the state of the dead, etc. etc.    These things the Adventist pioneers earnestly sought to understand from scripture.
But for some time it was assumed (not really studied out) that the Unitarian concept of God was correct,  because it opposed 'creeds.'"

I am shock at those who entertain what was provided, without thoroughly checking it out for truth! Not to be disrespectful to anyone but this is not true at all about the early pioneers. Here is the proof:

EGW, Manuscript Release 760 p. 9.5, 1905; J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855; James S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855; James White, Aug 5, 1852 Review & Herald vol. 3, no. 7, p. 52, par. 16

Joseph Bates is so factual, that what he stated needed to be seen here.

"My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points in their faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: their mode of baptism, and doctrine of the trinity. My father, who had been a deacon of long standing with them, labored to convince me that they were right in points of doctrine. … Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, "If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity." The Autobiography Of Elder Joseph Bates, 1868, page 204

In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. 1872 Fundamental Principles of SDA

They were not Unitarians! If you believe the truth about the Woman that fled to the Wilderness of Revelation Chapter 12 you would know that YAHWEH gave them the message and call them out. They like Israel was to bring others back to THE MOST HIGH and all the truth, not only the Sabbath. That's all we live and breath on is the Sabbath and not all the Laws and Commandments. Ex 24:12 That is why we are having this discussion concerning the trinity, which is not found in the Bible. The also had a creed the Bible! Where has truth gone but out the window and far, far, far away!

Happy Sabbath!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2018 at 11:26 AM, CoAspen said:

I asked the question because I have always heard the trinity doctrine taught since...well....forever! I certinly would not have used the word 'recently' since I am not recent!!

Let me give you a breakdown of the history of the trinity among other false beliefs that slowly crept into the Church. As, I first mention, as a youth in the SDA Church in New Haven Connecticut; I attended the Humphrey Street SDA Church School. I grew up in Northeastern Conference of Seventh Day Adventist. As a child we study the church history and the trinity was not taught in our the school. I went to public High School and Afrikan Black Baptist, Holiness, Methodist  students during my day, did not even know what or who Seventh Day Adventist were! But in the news and what was told to us at Church we were an occult by the Protestant world.

The Southern Protestants was taking a new step toward being called Evangelical and it they who stated we were not “Christians.” The Adventist were shock and wanted to smooth things over and this is when the writing call the “Questions on Doctrine,” started in 1957; published by Froom, Anderson, and W. E. Read.

However, when the book came out, it created a great uproar within and without the church. Evangelical Protestants found themselves divided on the issue of the acceptability of Seventh-day Adventists as Christians. Adventists, on the other hand, saw within their ranks an even greater division. Although the book received a de facto imprimatur from the General Conference, it generated a passionate dissent concerning the book’s treatment of Christ’s human nature and the atonement. Single-handedly spearheading this protest was M. L. Andreasen, a retired theologian. Determined to have Questions on Doctrine censured and withdrawn, Andreasen campaigned against it, denounced it as “the most subtle and dangerous error” and “a most dangerous heresy.” M. L. Andreasen, “A Most Dangerous Heresy,” September 1960, Collection 152, box 28, folder 8, Roy Allan Anderson Collection

A survey of other Adventist writers during these years reveals, that to a man, they rejected the trinity, yet, with equal unanimity they upheld the divinity of Christ. To reject the trinity is not necessarily to strip the Saviour of His divinity. Indeed, certain Adventist writers felt that it was the trinitarians who filled the role of degrading Christ’s divine nature.” Russell Holt, “The doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination: Its rejection and acceptance” 1969

There were many Adventist ministers during this time thought we were selling out our faith. There was a major split in our denomination during this time. Dr. Barnhouse a non SDA wrote: Only.., those Seventh-day Adventists who follow the Lord in the same way as their leaders who have interpreted for us the doctrinal position of their church are to be considered true members of the body of Christ. The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism by Walter Martin

Here Froom, himself admitted that what was written was not voted or accept by all SDA.

Distinction is rightly made between Questions on Doctrine as an “authorized” and “authoritative” work, but not as an “official” denominational pronouncement. The reason is simply this: Only endorsement or adoption by a General Conference in session could make it “official.” Movement of Destiny, p. 492 by LeRoy Froom

By 1970’s more and more in came into the Church begin to accept and push the trinity movement. But it still was not official yet! So as I stated many original SDA held on to the non trinity belief. My mother never uplifted the belief in the trinity and she was a Bible worker that brought in many souls into the faith. But it was officially accepted by the General Conference at the Dallas Convention in 1980.

I am a SDA who is different even to those who believe in the two person’s godhead version. I accept the Bible as my creed of faith. I do not believe THEM to be persons that is beneath THEM.  I read that THEY ALL have a spirit body like the angels, we don’t. We are flesh and blood! I do believe in the word unity which in Hebrew is “echad.” It simply means THEY work together and THEY ARE THREE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS each have the TITLE ELOHE- singular and TOGETHER it is ELOHIYM-plural when the Scripture is dealing with all THREE. Example, THEY came down in cloud on Mount Sinai, but MICHAEL ELOHE was THE ONE who SPOKE!  If the heathens realized, during the time of Nebuchadnezzar, that THEY were more than one and the king even stated the same thing even after he accepted THEM, then so do I. The Church School taught me our history, which gave me a strong foundation! The Bible in ancient time showed the appearance of MICHAEL more than once; address in HIS FATHER’S NAME as HIS REPRESENTIVE!

So the unkind remark about me learning the history of the pioneers and my faith in church school goes without saying! Just like women being pastors and the arguments over it. Some accepting it and other not especially the North American Division. 

Let me say this if you read the SDA Bible Commentaries you will find that SDA have more than one view about many subjects. Once we truly accept the Book Daniel and Revelation and you do not hear about Uriah Smith anymore. Why? That is why EGW stated as I have said before that we cannot hold on to what we once thought was right if it can be proven that it is error.

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

Immortal, all-powerful and all-loving, God is a relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The only being worthy of our worship, God is our Creator, Redeemer and Friend. www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity

Now this do not make sense at all. I was truly frown on when I used the word "one body." I wanted you all to get the picture here! But it alright to use the only being-singular, god is our creator- singular- redeemer-singular. Boy this is a good one: god is a relationship of father, son and holy spirit. Really?  There is only one god! Really! Yet, I am scoff at when I provided the correct answer to the question! Really? What does my age and learning in Church School equate to this-pray tell??? The word person which means: a human being regarded as an individual. But Christian theology decides to use the same word to suit it purpose: Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity. 

It is a choice that we all have to make and as different I may be I stand on the Bible. My question to all THE WISE YAHWEH would have given the word trinity but HE didn't, neither did HIS SON, nor THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Bible said HE IS YAHWEH and HE THE MOST HIGH changes not! HIS SON didn't nor has THE HOLY SPIRIT so that's my choice, you have a right to yours! I though we come here to discuss the matter and present our views without questioning or making comments of putting each other down. That saddens me and take away how we should respect other even if we don't agree!

Be at peace and you all be bless and pray for me as I for you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 6:22 PM, stinsonmarri said:

 

Joseph Bates is so factual, that what he stated needed to be seen here.

"My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points in their faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: their mode of baptism, and doctrine of the trinity. My father, who had been a deacon of long standing with them, labored to convince me that they were right in points of doctrine. … Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, "If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity." The Autobiography Of Elder Joseph Bates, 1868, page 204

In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. 1872 Fundamental Principles of SDA

They were not Unitarians! If you believe the truth about the Woman that fled to the Wilderness of Revelation Chapter 12 you would know that YAHWEH gave them the message and call them out. They like Israel was to bring others back to THE MOST HIGH and all the truth, not only the Sabbath. That's all we live and breath on is the Sabbath and not all the Laws and Commandments. Ex 24:12 That is why we are having this discussion concerning the trinity, which is not found in the Bible. The also had a creed the Bible! Where has truth gone but out the window and far, far, far away!

 

I wish to respectfully disagree.

1.   Unitarianism today, is not the same as Unitarianism of the 19th century.   In the early 19th century, what was called the "unitarian conflict"  swept through the churches of New England.
Both Joseph Bates and James White were very much influenced by this movement.

 

History:

William E. Channing (1780-1842) was America’s leading exponent of religious liberalism.  He served as a minister of the Federal Street Church in Boston for 40 years of his life.   In 1815, Channing played a major role in a bitter theological conflict that divided New England Congregationalists.   During the “Unitarian Conflict” theological conservatives, who emphasized Calvinistic doctrines fiercely clashed with men like Channing, who based their “religion” on more humanistic principles of reason.

In 1819 Channing delivered a sermon entitled “Unitarian Christianity” which became the principles of faith for the Unitarianism.  Emphasizing the importance of human reason in interpreting the Bible, Channing denied several Calvinist beliefs – like predestination, original sin and the trinity.

The leaders of the Unitarian Controversy were not, at first, out to found a new religious denomination, for they were strongly anti-creed and anti-denominational in their beliefs.  Instead Channing formed a conference of  Congregational ministers in 1820, which held to similar principles as he himself. 

Within a couple decades, a very considerable body of religionists arose in the United States, who, rejecting all names, appellations and denominational labels among the followers of Christ, simply called themselves CHRISTIANS. Sometimes, in speaking of themselves as a body, they use the term Christian Connexion, though each congregation was it’s own governing authority. The unitarian, anti-trinitarian belief remained strong, though they were not in united on just what role Jesus held, they were united on God the Father as the only true God.

Both Joseph Bates and James White were leading members of the Christian Connexion.

James White was ordained a minister of the Christian Connexion in 1843.

So – yes,  they brought the anti-trinitarian sentiments with them that originated with the Unitarian Controversy.

 

POINT TWO:

Your quote on Joseph Bates shows how he fit in with this controversy.   He grew up when the Unitarian Controversy was ripping the New England Congregationalists in two.  He sided with the Christian Connexion, while his parents stayed with conservative Congregational side.

But notice –

Why did Bates reject the Trinity?
Was it because he studied it out in scripture?  Did he reject what we believe as Adventists today?

No – he didn’t reject the Trinity BECAUSE THE trinity does not teach what he rejected!!!!!
The Trinity does not teach that Jesus Christ, and the Father are one and the same being. 

Obviously Bates, along with J. Himes and others in the Christian Connexion were confused regarding the understanding of the Trinity. 
They rejected Monarchianism—Sabellianism – Patripassianism--     These variant teachings on God, we also reject.   Monarchainism taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same being, in the sense that three names are attached to One Being Who projected parts of Himself out in different forms.

That’s what Bates, and J.White were arguing against –  and mistakenly calling it "Trinity".

Our Trinity belief does not agree with Monarchianims. 
We believe there is ONE God comprised of three distinct “persons”, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are in perfect unity, that is, a oneness in purpose, love, and righteousness, but not one and the same being.

The Bible is clear -- there is ONLY ONE GOD and none beside.  (Yet, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God)  
EGW makes it clear there are THREE persons in the One Godhead -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way -- I'm a third generation Adventist, and I'm a senior!   Yet, not in church school or in church, did I ever hear anyone say that Christ had a beginning, that He was not eternal from everlasting, or that he was not true God, just the Son, but not true God.  Not once did I hear that taught.   In fact my parents and the pastor often worked with JW's who reject the trinity, and they used scripture to point the JW's to Christ as fully God with the Father.   Christ is fully worthy of our worship and praise, because He is God in the highest sense,  yes, He is Almighty God, (see Rev. 1:8)  just as the Father is fully worthy of our worship and praise, because He is God in the highest sense, Almighty God.

The truths concerning the eternal "from everlasting to everlasting" Deity of Christ as God with the Father, was a known fact throughout the 20th century.  It actually wasn't until the year 2000 that I was rudely made aware that a movement had arisen in Adventism trying to take us back to the 19th century anti-Trinitarian Unitarian belief.  Yes, I knew the early pioneers had brought that concept with them, and it was actually a detriment to them to the point where they almost the  lost gospel as it is in Jesus, which was restored in 1888.    To me it was clear that EGW herself,  after 1888, gently moved the church away from the Unitarian belief, and exalted Christ as fully, eternally, true God with the Father.


 

Quote

 

While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting.. RH April 5, 1906

"Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right.  {FLB 46.5} 
     He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.  {FLB 46.6}

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chico: You have the right to disagree with me as I with you. My point is very simple, it makes no sense to degrade THE ALMIGHTIES with the word person. What does it mean to be one being? THE ALL WISE ALMIGHTIES can give clear message on everything but leave off the word trinity or what is like it the word one? Are you serious if so explain this verses?

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24 

So is Adam and his wife one being two? Or is this word one is only for the trinity god? We have allow men to change THEIR NAMES from ELOHI, ELOAHH, ELAH-singular; or ELOHIYM-plural when it refers to ALL THREE speaking of THEM TOGETHER. YAHSHUA said HE came in HIS FATHER'S NAME and it was not accepted, but men will accept another name.

I am come in MY FATHER’S NAME, and ye receive ME not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. John 5:43 

Men in every religion now uses the name god! This name is also like the word trinity that is not Biblical; it was place there by the Middle Age writers. Then the Biblical historians who wants to keep the lie; says EL was for false worship and we just accept it today. Satan quickly had men to change the Hebrew word "ayil," which actually means "mighty one," from "EL," that means ALMIGHTY! Then the English word "lord," that is used even today in England and other countries for men of high ranking. Yet we want to equate that word with THE ALMIGHTIES-really? We want to misuse THE NAME YAHSHUA; which mean YAH saves. HE alway came in HIS FATHER'S NAME as HIS REPRESENTATIVE from Genesis to Malachi. So if we have so easily been caught in these pagan names and customs like Christmas-lie (we know YAHSHUA was not born in the winter and this is a pagan custom-WE KNOW THIS, yet will still celebrate it); New year-lie; Easter-lie (this is so absurd because we know this represent the false goddess they call Astores-really (Now this word too was place in the Bible and not in the original Text)?

So you see, that why now it is easy to believe a lie call trinity! I know that I stand alone and it is alright. What profit a woman or a man to gain the whole world and to lose their soul? I am here for one thing to present to whomever will check for themselves truth! I do not want people just to take my word for anything but to think!!! Prove like the Bible said those things which are true!

We constantly want to state how the pioneers believed and to give titles they themselves did not do-why? They knew who they were and what they believed and not once have I read that they call them Unitarians or Arians!! That is what is done today to explain away how they felt and what they believe since it is go against what is accepted today! I respect them to know one thing they were moving away from the world. They did not understand it all they were on milk and when the 188 message came for them move forward; the church move backward.

Finally, if we think that the keepers of YAHWEH truth is going to be a large crowd think again. Read Rev 7 and 14. The small number will bring in the large number that's how YAHWEH have always work; HE conqueror's by dividing, multiplies by subtracting. There are many around the world that will HEAR HIS VOICE and harken unto HIS WORD! So delusion has come to USA in a big way now. Our government and it laws have been shown not to be perfect and been used in the most deceptive ways. But, YAHWEH is still on the Throne and all of the most greedy, lying, lasciviousness, all kind of disrespect to women has come to the front. If people will follow a man and they themselves claim they are what righteous people and cannot see all of the corruption. Then let me say, it is the same thing about the trinity, the word person, one being, godhead, christ, jesus and god all comes from the same place! Darkness, violence has taken over the world, but light will come from the small group who will stand and obey THE VOICE of THE MOST HIGH. This is where I stand and I will continue to pray for all to make the right choice!

Be bless!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

. My point is very simple, it makes no sense to degrade THE ALMIGHTIES with the word person.

Be bless!

 

 

per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
  1. 1.
    a human being regarded as an individual.
    "the porter was the last person to see her"
      human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More
  2.  

 

 

love
ləv/
noun
  1. 1.
    an intense feeling of deep affection.
    "babies fill parents with intense feelings of love"
    synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment;

   

On the one hand, you do seem to be right. On the other hand, Jesus took upon Himself the form of humanity and became human, yet did not give up the character of God.

 
...21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me....John 17
 
God is Love!~Jesus saves!  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:
1.  a human being regarded as an individual.  "the porter was the last person to see her"
  human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More

 

Yes, my friend you are right, YAHSHUA did take on a human body, but like Adam HE was PERFECT. HE did not have sinful blood and nor did he have the nature or the person which means character of sinful man. HE was never a person HE is THE SECOND ADAM! That Scriptures means the same things as we say to each other as family. We are like our mother and father and our mother and father are like their children-simple to me! It is THEIR LIKENESS or CHARACTER we once had like THEM. By beholding we become changed and YAHSHUA RIGHTEOUSNESS takes over and then we can become like THEM again-I hope all can see and understand this!

Be bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings stinsonmarri,

I assume that what you have stated in your Post is partly the SDA position and partly your own, in the sense there is most probably a range of opinion amongst SDAs. I would like to briefly highlight my differences to your view and the SDA view if this is represented by your comments.

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

Yes, my friend you are right, YAHSHUA did take on a human body,

I assume you are suggesting that there was a separate being in heaven named Yahshua, and that he decided to take on a human body. I believe that Jesus did not exist until he was conceived and born.

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

but like Adam HE was PERFECT.

Where does it say that Jesus was perfect at birth. The word “perfect” has a range of meaning that is different to such words as “holy” and “sinless” which describe Jesus from birth and during his ministry. I believe that Jesus only became perfect when he grew, matured and suffered and then resurrected.

Hebrews 5:7-9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.  

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

HE did not have sinful blood and nor did he have the nature or the person which means character of sinful man. HE was never a person HE is THE SECOND ADAM!

How can you prove that Jesus did not partake of our nature? Consider the repeated emphasis in Hebrews 2:14. Mary was his mother and he partook of her nature. The concept of the immaculate conception is a RC invention. Why do you claim that Jesus was not a person? Yes he is the second Adam, but the first Adam was a person.

1 hour ago, stinsonmarri said:

That Scriptures means the same things as we say to each other as family. We are like our mother and father and our mother and father are like their children-simple to me! It is THEIR LIKENESS or CHARACTER we once had like THEM. By beholding we become changed and YAHSHUA RIGHTEOUSNESS takes over and then we can become like THEM again-I hope all can see and understand this!

Jesus was like his father, God the Father and his mother Mary. Yes we need to be transformed by beholding Jesus as the manifestation of God his Father.

Kind regards Trevor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

To all reading this topic:

Many of the posts contain comments that do not reflect SDA teaching on the subject.

This forum is open to and has many people posting here who are not SDA members and posts are made that do not reflect SDA teachings.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:19 PM, stinsonmarri said:

Chico: You have the right to disagree with me as I with you. My point is very simple, it makes no sense to degrade THE ALMIGHTIES with the word person. What does it mean to be one being? THE ALL WISE ALMIGHTIES can give clear message on everything but leave off the word trinity or what is like it the word one? Are you serious if so explain this verses?

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24 

So is Adam and his wife one being two? Or is this word one is only for the trinity god? We have allow men to change THEIR NAMES from ELOHI, ELOAHH, ELAH-singular; or ELOHIYM-plural when it refers to ALL THREE speaking of THEM TOGETHER. YAHSHUA said HE came in HIS FATHER'S NAME and it was not accepted, but men will accept another name.

I am come in MY FATHER’S NAME, and ye receive ME not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. John 5:43 

We believe there is ONE God comprised of three distinct “persons”, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are in perfect unity, that is, a oneness in purpose, love, and righteousness, but not one and the same being.

It appears you don't understand what I meant by that sentence.

"persons" -- you seem to equate that word with "sinful humans"?   Yet in this subject the  word is used to describe SOMEONE with mind, individuality, character --  it does not degrade, but confirms their individual identity.

When I say "ONE GOD" you seem to equate that with "one being" or One body-- but that is not what we believe,  that's why I wrote "three distinct "person" -- it is not one and the same being, but three distinct individuals that constitute our ONE GOD. 

 

You quote Gen. 2:24 --  yes, Adam and Eve were to be one -- working, planning, loving, worshiping, in perfect unity.   They were two persons forming one unite, they were to cleave one to the other and go through life in perfect unity.   However, human relationships fall far short of the oneness and unity between the three heavenly dignitaries that comprise our God.      

 

The Bible is clear -- there is ONLY ONE GOD and none beside.  (Yet, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God) 
Our One God is three beings in perfect unity.
It is NOT one being that projects three forms,
Nor is it three Gods each with their own agenda --
It is ONE GOD comprised of three distinct individuals in perfect unity. 
EGW makes it clear there are THREE persons in the One Godhead -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Yes, my friend you are right, YAHSHUA did take on a human body, but like Adam HE was PERFECT. HE did not have sinful blood and nor did he have the nature or the person which means character of sinful man. HE was never a person HE is THE SECOND ADAM! That Scriptures means the same things as we say to each other as family. We are like our mother and father and our mother and father are like their children-simple to me! It is THEIR LIKENESS or CHARACTER we once had like THEM. By beholding we become changed and YAHSHUA RIGHTEOUSNESS takes over and then we can become like THEM again-I hope all can see and understand this!

Be bless!

May I say Love is the Person of God and by right of Divine fiat, every follower of Christ is part of the body of Christ.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion ...Genesis 1

19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.... Micah 7

God is Love!~Jesus saves! :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it amazes me that people want to say I do not understand what something means! I guess the dictionary doesn't either! People can change the meaning of words to suit their form of religion and that's okay! I am sorry it does not-simple. You can try to make something out of nonsense that makes no sense at all!!!!! THEY ARE NOT all one singular pagan name god and your false meaning of the word person. So unity is alright for Adam and Eve and not for THE ALMIGHTY ONES how quaint! Twisting things around to try to make it fit sounds like the fairy tale of the wicked sister who tried to make Cinderella shoe fit their feet! Notice it’s a fairy tale!!!!

I provide LHC who gave the dictionary meaning of the person:

A human being regarded as an individual.  Human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature. More: personage, character, customer.

"The Bible is clear -- there is ONLY ONE GOD and none beside." I never read that in the Scriptures???

"My point is very simple; it makes no sense to degrade THE ALMIGHTIES with the word person. LHC was quoting someone else when he wrote this above; but this is very much worth commenting on. This thought is not a part of the Christian gospel." Wow! LHC was quoting from me, and it already shows my name on the quote so what is this for????? Let me comment please; if you don’t agree prove it from the Scriptures and not make it look like no one’s know that I originally wrote it! Why on earth do we have to act like this instead of proving it from THE WORD?

Godhead is not a correct word: The Greek word means divinity.

You know I stand to be corrected; I should have said MICHAEL instead of YAHSHUA which was HIS NAME in Heaven. But HE was perfect just like Adam without sinless blood.

 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of ELOHE. Luke 3:38 (I use the singular form, this is THE FATHER)

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of HIM that was to come. Rom_5:14 

For as all die in Adam, so also all shall be made alive in MESSIAH. And so it has been written, “The first man Adam became a living being,” the last Adam a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. 1Co 15:22, 45   The Scriptures 2009

I also see that it is stated that some of the statements it appears that I have stated are not of the SDA belief. I want to correct that statement, I am a SDA and there are many SDA who do not believe in the trinity, even pastors. The same way there are differences in the rights of women being appointed as ministers. There are Adventist Churches who are independent of the conferences; but they follow the main principles of Adventism. I like many of my faith who does not believe in the trinity; nor do I believe that EGW did as well. There are many things I disagree with the mainstream Adventism practices but that does not change my stand as being a Seventh day Adventist! I am not here to judge anyone, neither should anyone judge me. I am here as I have said many time to present the truth according to Scriptures. I also want all to hold me to the Scriptures and to check out what I say is in THE WORD OF THE ALMIGHTY ONES!  I do not claim that I cannot make a mistake. If I do and you or I see it, I will correct it and let it be known that I have made an error. I am not looking for brownie points or followers but to present the facts and you make your own decision. We must all choose for ourselves but I do want a person to think and not to just follow anything just because it’s a church or denomination that states it. They cannot save any of us, YAHSHUA saves only!

Now I must say this; it is my duty to present what I have study that is it! I do have a magic wand to wave over anyone! The Bible says I must tell what I know and to prove all things. The Berea are a good example, they check out to see what Paul said was truthful. That's all I ask as well. Lastly if the Bible does not say it, I will not believe it. EGW said the same thing: "To the Law and the Testimony if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in it. Isa 8:20

I am just going to give you the historical account of the origin of the pagan trinity into Christianity:

“They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; ... Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons.” — (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VI - Abstain from the Poison of Heretics)

“In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity’ ” (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, “The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos” (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).

“the Tower of Babel was actually the worship of Satan in the form of fire, the sun and the serpent. However, Satan worship could not be done openly because of the many who still believed in the true God of Noah. So a mystery religion began at Babel where Satan could be worshipped in secret.” — (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed.(Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1959) 5, 24)

Seems like this belief is very broad like the Bible said the pathway is and many are deceive by it!

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sauliga says the Adventist church was non-Trinitarian when he was baptized at 12.  I don't think he's 98. Here's the official statement of Adventist belief from 1932 (p. 180). And obviously the Adventist church didn't suddenly go from being "non-Trinitarian" to being Trinitarian. The fact is, a minority of early Adventists were Arian. Ellen White persuaded them they were wrong, based on Scripture.

"That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the sal-vation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28: 19."

 CM1932.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Bill Cork: This is incorrect here is where this came from:

Section XI—Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists

2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28: 19.

EGW died in 1915 and the work of bringing in false belief started. Also the pioneers were not Arians at all. Show in any of their writings this word! Just like you can't find the word trinity in the Bible. Believe me the KJV, Tyndall and all of the rest did change Hebrew words, context ect base on their individual beliefs. Now EGW did state that, EW p. 220-221

Again in the fifties, when I was a child, we did not believe in the trinity as well. The seed of Satan was working but it became official "tradition of men" in the late eighties. It is not Biblical no matter how many try to quote EGW falsely!

Happy Sabbath!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:55 PM, stinsonmarri said:

Brother Bill Cork: This is incorrect here is where this came from:

Section XI—Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists

2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28: 19.

EGW died in 1915 and the work of bringing in false belief started. Also the pioneers were not Arians at all. Show in any of their writings this word! Just like you can't find the word trinity in the Bible. Believe me the KJV, Tyndall and all of the rest did change Hebrew words, context ect base on their individual beliefs. Now EGW did state that, EW p. 220-221

Again in the fifties, when I was a child, we did not believe in the trinity as well. The seed of Satan was working but it became official "tradition of men" in the late eighties. It is not Biblical no matter how many try to quote EGW falsely!

Happy Sabbath!

 

Stinsonmarri, you realize that Ellen White believed ( and taught ) that God ( AKA The Father ) was made out of "flesh" and had all the organs, bones and members of a perfect man? Do you believe that this was right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...