Am I Trinitarian?

[Tonks]

Take me for instance, I am a monist and I believe in annihilationism, but I do not post on here in support of those view

Do you mean Montanist - gifts of the Spirit, prophecy et al?

 

[oldsage]

And sometimes as Christians we hold fast, uncompromising in the face of terrible error.

I personally wouldn't want you to change unless you become convinced.

I am not saying Jesus is not fully divine and fully man. To deny that Jesus is God is not to deny His divinity. There is a Divine unity of the Father and Son, but they are not the same person (nor are they two persons as one person).

I would have to ask, what do you believe "divine" means? What is it to be God? Now the Trinity Doctrine doesn't say they are the same person, nor does it say they are two persons in one person. God is one in His ontos, and three in persona. That is about the shortest I can say it.

Well, I will pick this up tomorrow, now I need to rest.
Take care,

Chris

 

[Sunrunner]

I would have to ask, what do you believe "divine" means?

I believe Divine means the nature or character(istics) of God.

 

[oldsage]

Do you mean Montanist - gifts of the Spirit, prophecy et al?

No, I am using the term monist in the anthopological sense, man being a holistic being as opposed to trichatomy and dicatomy.

Respectully,
Chris

 

[oldsage]

I believe Divine means the nature or character(istics) of God.

The question would be, what Characteristics?
God has communicable and incommunicable characteristics, we possess the communicable ones. How is Jesus different from us then?

Chris.

 

[Tishri1]

Nicene Creed

(Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
(Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
(Matthew 6: 9)
(Exodus 6: 3)
(Genesis 1: 1)
(Colossians 1: 15-16)

(Acts 11: 17)
(Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
(John 1: 18; 3: 16)
. (John 1: 2)
(Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
(John 17: 1-5)
(John 1: 18)
(John 10: 30)
(Hebrews 1: 1-2)
(1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
(John 6: 33,35)
(Luke 1: 35)
(John 1: 14)
(Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
(John 19: 6)
(Mark 8: 31)
. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
(Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
(Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
(Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
(Matthew 24: 27)
(Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
(2 Peter 1: 11)

(John 14: 26)
(Acts 5: 3-4)
(Genesis 1: 2)
(John 15: 26)
(Matthew 3: 16-17)
(1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

(Matthew 16: 18)
(1 Peter 2: 5,9)
(Mark 16: 15)
. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
(John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
(Mark 10: 29-30)

(Psalm 106: 48)

If you do IMO you are Trinitarian

 

[Sophia7]

Changing your view is not an option?

Btw do all SDAs share the same view as yours?

No, most Seventh-day Adventists do believe in the Trinity; it is part of our fundamental beliefs (#2 in the list). There are, however, some Adventists who do not agree with all of our official beliefs.

 

[Sophia7]

The Church founders believed in what I believe in, though, which is the funny part.

It is true that some of the founders of the Adventist Church were Semi-Arian. A couple of them had left the Christian Connection Church, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; their background influenced their thinking on these subjects. Others had come out of the Methodist Church and other churches that taught the Trinity and didn't have a problem with it.

The early Adventists disagreed with each other on many theological and Christological issues. They didn't have an official statement of beliefs as we have today, nor did they want one at first. However, as they studied and tried to work out these difficulties, they gradually moved toward more orthodox positions on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The historic Adventist position on things is not always the right one.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I have to say this has turned out to be a very interesting conversation. I am learning much just reading.
To the SDA's, thank you for sharing some things I was not aware of.
Everyone had something interesting.

 

[lionroar0]

I've always thought I believed the Trinity, but I just realized I don't even know what the Trinity doctrine teaches exactly.

Here is what I believe:

The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are each eternal and equal in purpose, but not the same being.

It looks to me like it's a matter of semantics.

Let me rephrase your post.

The Godhead consists of God the Father, JEsus the Son and the Holy Spirit. All are of the same essence and are coequal but they are different three distinc persons.

How is this?

Peace

 

[tall73]

Changing my view is not an option.

Also, no, SDAs in general believe in what eoe posted. The Church founders believed in what I believe in, though, which is the funny part.

So do I have stop posting here? What sections can Non-Trins post in?

Howdy Sunrunner, just trying to get a handle on where you are at here.

James White, Uriah Smith, Waggoner, etc. . believed in semi-arianism, and believed that Jesus at one time in the remote past had a beginning. Is this your view?

Is your concern that you don't want to consider Jesus as God because the title is reserved for the Father in your understanding?

I appreciate your stand either way. You must believe what you are convinced of.

 

[ttreg]

Howdy Sunrunner, just trying to get a handle on where you are at here.

James White, Uriah Smith, Waggoner, etc. . believed in semi-arianism, and believed that Jesus at one time in the remote past had a beginning. Is this your view?

Is your concern that you don't want to consider Jesus as God because the title is reserved for the Father in your understanding?

I appreciate your stand either way. You must believe what you are convinced of.

ditto

 

[oldsage]

The early Adventists disagreed with each other on many theological and Christological issues. They didn't have an official statement of beliefs as we have today, nor did they want one at first. However, as they studied and tried to work out these difficulties, they gradually moved toward more orthodox positions on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The historic Adventist position on things is not always the right one.

It looks like the early sda church had the same struggles as the early church where they hashed out things dealing with the nature of God and the nature of Jesus.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

I appreciate your stand either way. You must believe what you are convinced of.

Right, Tall, this I whole heartily agree on. I don't think you should profess something you have no conviction in. Your whole mind and heart needs to be in it for there to be a conviction. Otherwise you are just lying to yourself.

Respectfully,
Chris

 

[AvgJoe]

God is one in His ontos, and three in persona. That is about the shortest I can say it.

1 What and 3 Whos

 

[icxn]

1 What and 3 Whos

Somewhat cryptic but equally short is the angelic hymn:

Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabbaoth (Isa. 6:3)
​

 

[Tonks]

Right, Tall, this I whole heartily agree on. I don't think you should profess something you have no conviction in. Your whole mind and heart needs to be in it for there to be a conviction. Otherwise you are just lying to yourself.

There is somewhat of a difference between maintaining heterdox views of the Trinity and not believing that Jesus is God (per the OP).

That's not "non-Trinitarian" that's not Christian.

 

[tall73]

Just an update, Sunrunner has had his icon changed.

In any case, for those wondering, the church was primarily anti-Trinitarian for the early years, associating the Trinity with Catholic notions.

The change first started to take place with some fairly prominent statements by Ellen White.

Some of the statements :

Again and again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to make a nonentity of God and of Christ. The Father and the Son each have a personality. Christ declared, "I and My Father are one." Yet it was the Son of God who came to the world in human form. Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, He clothed His divinity with humanity, that humanity through His infinite sacrifice might become partakers of the divine nature, and escape the corruption that is in the world through lust.--Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 68. (1909)

I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: "The Father is as the light invisible: the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad." "The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life." Another representation: "The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power."
All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthy likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father cannot be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. {Ev 614.2}
The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father.

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. 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.-- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905)

In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900.

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 He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.--Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.--Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899.

Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.--The Desire of Ages, p. 530 (1898)

The eternal heavenly dignitaries--God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit--arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . . would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.--Manuscript 145, 1901.

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906.

 

[MEH07]

Greetings Sunrunner,

Here is what I believe:

I base this on John 5:7 and 8.

5:7 says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This defines the Godhead, of course. Then the next verse explains the Godhead:

"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Added word in italics)

Now, obviously blood, water, and spirit are not the same substance. It says that they "bear witness in earth." I believe that these are baptisms. We are born of the Spirit, we are baptized in water, and we are cleansed with the blood of Christ. Now these three are not one and the same any more than the Father, Son, and Spirit are: They are however, one in purpose.

Um, the passage in 1 John 5:7 has nothing at all to do with the Trinity, but that the three things listed (water, blood, Spirit) testify to Jesus being the Son of God - the water (Jesus' baptism, together with the Father's words to Christ at the time), the blood (the cross, together with the resurrection), and the Spirit (who was given to Jesus in a special way at His baptism and who guided Him throughout His ministry). The Spirit is the Spirit of truth who reveals God and continues to testify to us about Jesus.

The part of that verse where you talked about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" bearing witness is not in the original manuscripts but is an added phrase called the Johannine Comma, so it should be disregarded - most translations have already done so while others may have a footnote about the verse.

I think that the Trinity issue has been expounded on enough by other users, so I won't bother with it here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Perhaps this has been said already.

Don't let some quirk in your understanding run you off from this forum or make you change your icon.

Most trinitarians couldn't explain the trinity if pressed. If they tried they'd be guilty of some heresy.

Many of us can formulate the trinity according to tradition. But, every explanation borders heresy.

Fundamentally, any explanation or analogy I've ever heard that makes any sense at all is guilty of heresy. The only non-heretical position is that it can't be understood (which, to me, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs).

Don't let it bother you that you have an idea that works for you that sets someone elses bells off.

HTH