Binitarianism

[Andrewn]

I am honestly not sure exactly how prevalent it is among SDA, but I know Doug Batchelor (a very popular and influential SDA minister) has a book on it and I have heard him preach on that topic.

SDA's believe that Lord Jesus is Archangel Michael, but He is still God. Being the Head of angels does not in anyway deny His equality with the Father. This is very different from JW's belief.

 

[Andrewn]

Later, in 1897, Ellen White published a pamphlet declaring the Holy Spirit "the third person of the Godhead".

Sounds like they stopped being Binitarian a long time ago. The literature I got in the mail about the HS being only energy and power must be from JW's then.

 

[AlexDTX]

However, others believe that the spirit is not put into a body until the moment of birth, so even IF it was universally agreed that the spirit alone is the person, it would not be a cut and dry argument concerning a physical body.

Different denominations also differ on what makes a person. Some would insist that it is some combination of spirit and body, and then there are arguments over what a "soul" is and if it is the same as a person's spirit or if the spirit in a person is really just the breath of God that is removed and goes back to him upon the death of the body.

See, it all can get very, very complicated, but even still, it really doesn't compare to the "personhood" of the God-head because "person" in the Trinitarian sense is just a word used to more easily describe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate gods, but still One God. The "personhood" of a human being (or other living being, or corporation) are all very different things.

I don't know. However, I believe that we are made in God's image to help us better understand God. We are body, soul and spirit. Genesis tells us that in the creation of the 1st man God formed the body first, breathed in the breath of life, then the man became a living soul. If the birthing process follows the pattern of creation, then the cells would divide to create the body, followed by the spirit entering the body, and a soul would be the final part of the creation of a person. We usually think of the soul as being the person.

Of course, this is just speculation. The life of the father is in the sperm and the life of the mother is in the egg. We are so used to thinking only in terms of the physical we talk of DNA. But how does the DNA get its pattern for the blue print in the first place? Could it be that a little of the spirit of the father and of the mother combine together to guide the zygote process?

I have no interest in starting a debate on abortion, but the mystery of life captivates my thoughts.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't know. However, I believe that we are made in God's image to help us better understand God. We are body, soul and spirit. Genesis tells us that in the creation of the 1st man God formed the body first, breathed in the breath of life, then the man became a living soul. If the birthing process follows the pattern of creation, then the cells would divide to create the body, followed by the spirit entering the body, and a soul would be the final part of the creation of a person. We usually think of the soul as being the person.

Of course, this is just speculation. The life of the father is in the sperm and the life of the mother is in the egg. We are so used to thinking only in terms of the physical we talk of DNA. But how does the DNA get its pattern for the blue print in the first place? Could it be that a little of the spirit of the father and of the mother combine together to guide the zygote process?

I have no interest in starting a debate on abortion, but the mystery of life captivates my thoughts.

I'm just pushing back a bit since there are a number of different plausible beliefs on what makes up a human person, and many of those with some degree of scriptural support depending on the lenses through which we are interpreting scripture.

That's why there is so much disagreement concerning abortion and other such topics, even among Christians, because there really is no agreement on what a "person" really is, and that's only the start since then there are disagreements over how the rights of persons involved should be determined.

Some groups do not believe in the existence of a separate "soul" per se, and believe that a "soul" is just the combination of a physical body and God's spirit, or breath, and if that breath is taken away, the physical body returns to dust and there is no "person" at that point. Others believe that there is a "soul" separate from God's spirit and the physical body and that it will immediately go to heaven (or hell or purgatory or get trapped in-between as a ghost, etc.)

Others believe there is no such thing as a spirit or soul and that it is all just a function of the physical body and once the physical body is gone, that's it.

There are those who believe that a person's spirit is the person existing long before conception and when it wishes to experience physical life (or when God determines that a spirit will experience physical life), will choose which physical body to be born into.

And we're not even getting into the whole "physical life is all just an illusion" type of philosophies where ALL is spirit!

 

[Andrewn]

Some groups do not believe in the existence of a separate "soul" per se, and believe that a "soul" is just the combination of a physical body and God's spirit, or breath, and if that breath is taken away, the physical body returns to dust and there is no "person" at that point. . . . Others believe there is no such thing as a spirit or soul and that it is all just a function of the physical body and once the physical body is gone, that's it. . . . And we're not even getting into the whole "physical life is all just an illusion" type of philosophies where ALL is spirit!

These are not Christian theories.

 

[bekkilyn]

Why are these theories being mentioned in a Christian forum when they shouldn't affect the worldview of Christians?

Because not all Christians think alike when it comes to this particular topic? One of the biggest issues within Christianity today is that people just assume that other Christians think exactly like they do and have the exact same worldview on every topic and then become indignant when they find out it isn't the case. And then come all the "not a real Christian" type of accusations.

None of the above "theories" are necessarily anti-Trinitarian, and the point isn't to promote any one given "theory" but to emphasize that point that out of the 38,000+ different Christian denominations in the world, they don't all think alike.

 

[bekkilyn]

These are not Christian theories.

Well since we were talking about SDA:

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the word "soul" does not refer to a part of a person that is immortal, but to the person itself. In Genesis, when God breathed into Adam the breath of life, several versions say he "became a living soul." This means that: breath of life + dust = living soul. Therefore, when someone dies, living soul - breath of life = dust. Basically, instead of a person going to heaven or hell at death, or becoming a ghost or an angel, they believe that the person ceases to exist. But because God created each person in the first place and knows who each of us is, he can resurrect or recreate us at the Second Coming without a problem, so it is as if we were asleep all the time we were dead, and that is why it is compared to sleep: the next thing we know after dying, Jesus is calling us from our graves. Adventists also point out that Jesus himself compared death to a sleep when he went to Jairus' house and raised his daughter back to life. He told the mourners that she was only sleeping.

What do Seventh-day Adventists believe about soul sleep
​

While you (or I) may not personally agree with this "theory", we cannot claim it to not be a Christian "theory" since it is clear that there are Christian groups who sincerely believe it to be true.

 

[Ozarks Prodigal]

Many do hold that Jesus and Michael (archangel) are the same person, but I don't think that is a dogmatic belief.

These verses were used as the basis for the belief mentioned but I can't speak as to current beliefs... haven't been around that church for some time. Things may have changed... toss it out in the SDA portion of the forums and see what happens.

Daniel 12:1 (NASB95)

1“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

Revelation 12:7–8 (NASB95)

7And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war,

8and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.

 

[Andrewn]

There was an early belief in Second temple Judaism called "The Two Heavenly powers"

This is a fascinating video. Thank you.

 

[tampasteve]

SDA's believe that Lord Jesus is Archangel Michael, but He is still God. Being the Head of angels does not in anyway deny His equality with the Father. This is very different from JW's belief.

Agreed, it is not the same belief even if there are some similarities.

 

[His student]

AlexDofTX said previously:
Abortion was not my point. My point is that our person-hood is in our spirits, not our bodies. So even a zygote is still a person.

However, others believe that the spirit is not put into a body until the moment of birth, so even IF it was universally agreed that the spirit alone is the person, it would not be a cut and dry argument concerning a physical body.

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

Fully man - body and spirit.

Any Christian who can't determine from the scriptures in which "trimester" the incarnation took place might as well turn in his (or her) Bible so someone else can use it.

 

[Greengardener]

Here's my humble comment. I haven't yet figured out why we needed to try to put an explanation of who God is into a tidy package, and my gut says when we did (hundreds of years before I came on the scene), we didn't quite get it right. Other than some verses questionably inserted after their original writing, we don't have much support in the Bible for the Trinity concept. We do have strong support for the unique unity between God the Father and Jesus, and that testimony came from both of Them. We also have strong support for truth that the Holy Spirit was sent from Them and has the role to guide us toward Them with reminders of what They said. Since that's about as far as the Scriptures support, I'm personally quite comfortable to stay there and not "Trinify" the story, especially since I don't see any benefit (any actual getting closer to the Truth) in doing so. Part of the reason I'm comfortable doing this is because I see a lot of concessions with culture that happened in the church history that I feel compelled to resist. Along with that, I'm completely comfortable with the concept that it's quite OK if I don't understand everything that God is: He is Creator, I am created. He told us in Jeremiah 9/24 what to glory in knowing about Him, and I'm content with that. I realize the various denominations have formed as each thought they had figured out something a little more unique than the last group, and to some degree, it has to be that way as some groups slide away from a better path, but in that system we also find a lot of self promotion still. We were warned by Paul not to divide into people followers, but it will always be our proclivity to try to find shelter in a group rather than to find shelter solely in the safety of His Truth.

 

[bekkilyn]

AlexDofTX said previously:
Abortion was not my point. My point is that our person-hood is in our spirits, not our bodies. So even a zygote is still a person.
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

Fully man - body and spirit.

Any Christian who can't determine from the scriptures in which "trimester" the incarnation took place might as well turn in his (or her) Bible so someone else can use it.

I'm not arguing any particular point concerning what makes a human being a person, but I am pointing out that regardless of what you personally believe to be true, there are many other opinions from a Christian (and scriptural) point of view that differs from yours, even among those Christians who agree that Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine.

What makes a human being a person has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the three equal "persons" of the Trinity. If you don't like using the word "person", then I've seen "parts" used just as sufficiently to describe how the Trinity is composed. They are not three separate gods, but One God. It has nothing at all to do with when a spirit may or may not enter a human body. Regular human beings who are not also God are NOT fully human and fully divine. God in any of his parts was *never* a created being.

 

[His student]

...there are many other opinions from a Christian (and scriptural) point of view that differs from yours, even among those Christians who agree that Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine.

I know of no Christian in the history of the Church, who has even considered the subject for one moment, who believes that the incarnation took place anytime other than at the conception of Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus Christ became fully human at conception - so does every other man - Him sharing in our humanity in the exact way as everyone else.

Any round about compromise with abortion by a Christian that says that the spirit enters a man anytime other than at conception has to deal with that or reject the testimony of the scriptures.

I'm just sayin. Whether that describes you or not - is between you and God.

What makes a human being a person has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the three equal "persons" of the Trinity.

Nor did I say otherwise.

If you don't like using the word "person", then I've seen "parts" used just as sufficiently to describe how the Trinity is composed. They are not three separate gods, but One God.

God has no "parts". Nor is He necessarily made up of 3 persons. Many good Christians question the concept of the Trinity and even reject it outright.

This forum allows for the preaching of all manner of false gospel - nothing concerned with our salvation is certain here. But when it comes to discussing the very nature of God - one way and only one is cut in stone.

Not so in the scriptures IMO.

Regular human beings who are not also God are NOT fully human and fully divine.

Obviously.

God in any of his parts was *never* a created being.

Obviously.

 

[bekkilyn]

I know of no Christian in the history of the Church, who has even considered the subject for one moment, who believes that the incarnation took place anytime other than at the conception of Jesus Christ.

Then perhaps you may need to expand your knowledge of other Christian groups rather than assuming that all believe as you do as to exactly how the incarnation took place.

Since Jesus Christ became fully human at conception - so does every other man - Him sharing in our humanity in the exact way as everyone else.

Most people, including non-Christians, are not going to argue that whatever natural material that exists in a human body at any time during the life of a human, conception or otherwise, is not fully human, but the argument is over whether or not it would be a fully human *person*, however person is defined.

Since Christ has *always* been a person even long before he was ever conceived as a human, and regular human beings have not always been persons, there is no equal comparison here for making an argument one way or another.

Any round about compromise with abortion by a Christian that says that the spirit enters a man anytime other than at conception has to deal with that or reject the testimony of the scriptures.

Your personal interpretation of the scriptures.

I'm just sayin. Whether that describes you or not - is between you and God.
Nor did I say otherwise.

I am not arguing on behalf of my views. My argument is that not all Christians think or believe alike. Again, there are 38,000+ Christian denominations in the world composed of even a greater amount of people.

God has no parts. Nor is He necessarily 3 persons. Many well grounded Christians do not subscribe to the concept of 3 persons in the Godhead. They just aren't allowed to talk much about it here.
Obviously.
Obviously.

Now you are just emphasizing my point about different views within Christianity. However, if you are attempting to explain the traditional view of the Trinity to someone else, then it is typically One God in three equal persons (or parts). And the word "person" has nothing whatsoever to do with how to define a regular human person.

 

[Andrewn]

Other than some verses questionably inserted after their original writing, we don't have much support in the Bible for the Trinity concept.

Which verses are these? What's the evidence they're not in the original?

We do have strong support for the unique unity between God the Father and Jesus, and that testimony came from both of Them. We also have strong support for truth that the Holy Spirit was sent from Them and has the role to guide us toward Them with reminders of what They said.

I see what you said as evidence for the Holy Trinity, unless you have a Modalistic interpretation.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

My information is that Adventists are Binitarian. That is they do not consider the Holy Spirit a person. Is this still true?

The mainline SDA statement is, "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. Matthew 28:19. " Fundamental Beliefs 1931

You may find that view among the semi-arian SDA sects.

This is truly a remarkable development, especially given the strongly Arian and semi-Arian views that were so dominant in the Adventism of her day. Such views were even held by her strong-minded, forthright husband, James White, until fairly late in his life. What was somewhat curious (and in need of some further explanation) is why she never directly attacked anyone who held to this dominant Arian expression, but then seemed to be willing to go against such a grain with her own positive testimony to the full deity of Christ. Most certainly, by the time of the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference, she was clear in her understanding of the full deity of Christ and her affirmations of the Trinity. Her understanding included the clear affirmations of the eternity and equality of the Son with the Father.
Arianism, Adventism and Methodism: The Healing of Trinitarian Teaching and Soteriology</b></font></b></font>

"Our pioneers clearly held Arian or semi-Arian views in regard to the person of Christ. They understood “firstborn over all creation” (Col 1:15) and “only begotten Son” (John 3:16) in a literal sense. The Father, therefore, was first and superior, and the Son, who had a beginning sometime in eternity, was subordinate to the Father. A corollary of this view was the belief that the Holy Spirit is an influence or the power of God, but not a person."
(Gerhard Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute, The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists; Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 160-179)
Were Seventh-day Adventist Pioneers Arians or semi-Arians? — As It Reads

Significant Semi-Arian within Traditional Adventism

http://archive.atsjats.org/10Burt-SDATrinity0601.pdf

Also, SDA are sometimes confused with United Church of God
United Church of God | CARM.org

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Which verses are these? What's the evidence they're not in the original?


I see what you said as evidence for the Holy Trinity, unless you have a Modalistic interpretation.

That is the well known 1 John 5:7 aka the Comma Johanneum.

Oneness people, usually United Pentecostal will claim the baptism text at the end of Matthew was added, using an argument from silence. Their claim can not be proved. But, the fact that it is quoted often in the Early Church Fathers refutes them. They also hate the Didache
at

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache

 

[Daniel Marsh]

38,000+ Christian denominations is a myth, even catholic apologetists refutes that claim because the same source World Christianity Encylopedia claims there are hundreds of catholic denominations. The Catholic Church in that source is counted as a separate denomination in country the Catholic Church is in.

 

[Andrewn]

This is truly a remarkable development, especially given the strongly Arian and semi-Arian views that were so dominant in the Adventism of her day. Such views were even held by her strong-minded, forthright husband, James White, until fairly late in his life.

CT Russel established the Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881. I think it is probable that his group which developed into JW's attracted the Arian elements in the Adventist group leaving the Adventist movement more Trinitarian.