how do adventists view of the trinity?

[overcomer]

The denominational creed holds zero weight as far as our faith is concerned. Our motto has always been "no creed but the Bible."

It's preposterous to say Ellen White introduced trinity to our denomination.

1. Her husband who accepted many reproves from her remained a non-trinitarian until his death.

2. Her sons remained non-trinitarians after their mother's death.

3. The old timers remained non-trinitarians and slammed LeRoy Froom (remember him?) when he tried to introduce trinity after EGW's death.

4. There is no record of EGW ever reproving the pioneers of their rejection of trinity.

5. EGW wrote the third person of the Godhead is christ's own spirit. Allow her to explain herself. And that's quite different from Trinitarian teaching on the co-equal co-divine three persons.

6. EGW wrote the pioneers preached 1st, 2nd and 3rd angels messages in 1843, 1844 and there after. That's additional proof (after the Bible) that the pioneers had it right with regard to who to worship: the Father or the trinity.

7. ML Andreassen went to see EGW after the alleged trinitarian quotes in Desire of Ages. Guess what? He remained a nontrinitarian until his death.

8. EJ Waggoner in 'Christ Our Righteousness' wrote antitrinitarian messages published in 1890. What did EGW say about their message of righteousness by faith???

So if you are correct in saying EGW introduced trinity, she would have been a lousy wife, a lousy mother & a lousy prophet because nobody around her knew about it and were converted to it.

And more importantly she would have been a false prophet because she wrote the pioneers preached the 3AM and were sealed to be among the 144000. That means they didn't have defiled Babylonian beliefs. Quote was written in 1855.

I think plenty of scriptural evidence and SOP writings have been shown in this thread. Any open minded person can see trinity for what it is: unscriptural pagan mystery that's rooted in sun worship.

I'm sorry you can't see it. But I'm finished trying to reason with you. You should ask God for some eyesalve to see past this central mystery of Catholicism.

I'm just glad I'm not deceived by it and many fellow believers are getting it. We are preaching the 3 angels message as it was preached in 1843, 1844... and striving to be among the group whose foreheads have the Father's name written, not the name of mystery Babylon.

 

[BobRyan]

The denominational creed holds zero weight as far as our faith is concerned. Our motto has always been "no creed but the Bible."

you can choose to believe whatever you wish - but you can't label the entire SDA denomination with it. And the voted position of the church is documented. Honesty demands that we admit to historic fact. The fact is the current doctrinal statement of the denomination is posted - and voted - and is not whatever any one member would simply "prefer" no matter how sincere.

Honesty demands accuracy in statements.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

you can choose to believe whatever you wish - but you can't label the entire SDA denomination with it. And the voted position of the church is documented. Honesty demands that we admit to historic fact. The fact is the current doctrinal statement of the denomination is posted - and voted - and is not whatever any one member would simply "prefer" no matter how sincere.

Honesty demands accuracy in statements.

So of the denomination got together and added to the fundamentals that ther Pope is now our head, would you hold to it? Just because it's a modern part of our church doesn't make it representative of the pioneers message.

 

[BobRyan]

So of the denomination got together and added to the fundamentals that ther Pope is now our head, would you hold to it? Just because it's a modern part of our church doesn't make it representative of the pioneers message.

If someone asked me - what does xyz-denomination believe - and they had just voted the Pope as their head - I would say "XYX-denomination believes the Pope is their head -- I don't like it - but that is what they believe".

Honesty matters.

 

[Dave-W]

I have never met an Adventist that was not Trinitarian. And I lived near Andrews Univ for about 30 years. So I met quite a few. Including Andrews profs.

I was watching evangelist John Carter on 3ABN the other day and he is firmly trinitarian. I used to listen to him regularly on Andrews' radio station.

 

[BobRyan]

I have never met an Adventist that was not Trinitarian. And I lived near Andrews Univ for about 30 years. So I met quite a few. Including Andrews profs.

I was watching evangelist John Carter on 3ABN the other day and he is firmly trinitarian. I used to listen to him regularly on Andrews' radio station.

and of course we have this -

Beliefs :: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church


Trinity (Fundamental Belief 2)
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal 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. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.) 1 John 5:7-10 KJV Mark 12:29-30

So while some individuals may choose to believe this or that... the documented voted fact about the denomination is the one we see in its own voted statement of beliefs.

Any individual may object to whatever part they like - everyone has free will.

But it does not change the voted and stated position of the denomination.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Just because a group of men that were motivated by acceptance with the other protestant churches, released Questions on Doctines and influenced a generation of policy makers, doesn't make it the message God gave to us.

Of course you can believe that because the church canonized it by consensus that it must have some validity if you chose but it is nothing more than the traditions of men. If you doubt the origins of the change look at the pictorial representation of our understanding of the trinity... exactly the same as Romes. Coincidence?

 

[BobRyan]

Just because a group of men that were motivated by acceptance with the other protestant churches, released Questions on Doctines and influenced a generation of policy makers, doesn't make it the message God gave to us.

Of course you can believe that because the church canonized it by consensus that it must have some validity if you chose but it is nothing more than the traditions of men. If you doubt the origins of the change look at the pictorial representation of our understanding of the trinity... exactly the same as Romes. Coincidence?

The posts that are of the form "Seventh-day Adventists believe this or that - but they should not believe it ... it is a mistake" - is what I would expect from someone who does not believe what we say we believe in our doctrinal statements.

And that would be accurate in that it admits what the SDA denomination teaches while at the same time complaining about it in some way.

But to claim that the SDA denomination does not teach and believe what it says it believes would be wrong.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The posts that are of the form "Seventh-day Adventists believe this or that - but they should not believe it ... it is a mistake" - is what I would expect from someone who does not believe what we say we believe in our doctrinal statements.

And that would be accurate in that it admits what the SDA denomination teaches while at the same time complaining about it in some way.

But to claim that the SDA denomination does not teach and believe what it says it believes would be wrong.

We teach spiritual formation in our seminaries and churches.... is that good Adventist beliefs and practices?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

In case you're missing it Bob, our movement is in deep apostasy and what is spewing out of the GC, the seminaries and most of our churches is not God inspired. The wolves have gotten into the henhouse and have made us no better than were the Israelites at the time of Christ's first advent.

 

[mmksparbud]

The denominational creed holds zero weight as far as our faith is concerned. Our motto has always been "no creed but the Bible."

It's preposterous to say Ellen White introduced trinity to our denomination.

1. Her husband who accepted many reproves from her remained a non-trinitarian until his death.

2. Her sons remained non-trinitarians after their mother's death.

3. The old timers remained non-trinitarians and slammed LeRoy Froom (remember him?) when he tried to introduce trinity after EGW's death.

4. There is no record of EGW ever reproving the pioneers of their rejection of trinity.

5. EGW wrote the third person of the Godhead is christ's own spirit. Allow her to explain herself. And that's quite different from Trinitarian teaching on the co-equal co-divine three persons.

6. EGW wrote the pioneers preached 1st, 2nd and 3rd angels messages in 1843, 1844 and there after. That's additional proof (after the Bible) that the pioneers had it right with regard to who to worship: the Father or the trinity.

7. ML Andreassen went to see EGW after the alleged trinitarian quotes in Desire of Ages. Guess what? He remained a nontrinitarian until his death.

8. EJ Waggoner in 'Christ Our Righteousness' wrote antitrinitarian messages published in 1890. What did EGW say about their message of righteousness by faith???

So if you are correct in saying EGW introduced trinity, she would have been a lousy wife, a lousy mother & a lousy prophet because nobody around her knew about it and were converted to it.

And more importantly she would have been a false prophet because she wrote the pioneers preached the 3AM and were sealed to be among the 144000. That means they didn't have defiled Babylonian beliefs. Quote was written in 1855.

I think plenty of scriptural evidence and SOP writings have been shown in this thread. Any open minded person can see trinity for what it is: unscriptural pagan mystery that's rooted in sun worship.

I'm sorry you can't see it. But I'm finished trying to reason with you. You should ask God for some eyesalve to see past this central mystery of Catholicism.

I'm just glad I'm not deceived by it and many fellow believers are getting it. We are preaching the 3 angels message as it was preached in 1843, 1844... and striving to be among the group whose foreheads have the Father's name written, not the name of mystery Babylon.

Where are the quotes that support all your believes? Where does she write that she knows who anyone of the 144,000 is? You have a lot of she said he said, they believed, but not one bit of written proof. That would certainly help.

 

[overcomer]

Where are the quotes that support all your believes? Where does she write that she knows who anyone of the 144,000 is? You have a lot of she said he said, they believed, but not one bit of written proof. That would certainly help.

The quotes you asked for are all in this thread. You are welcome to read them.

 

[overcomer]

I have never met an Adventist that was not Trinitarian. And I lived near Andrews Univ for about 30 years. So I met quite a few. Including Andrews profs.

I was watching evangelist John Carter on 3ABN the other day and he is firmly trinitarian. I used to listen to him regularly on Andrews' radio station.

It's in our official beliefs. Our pioneers all rejected trinitarianism. This belief crept into our denomination in the 1930s.

There are plenty who do not subscribe to it but they arent usually very vocal about it because it's unorthodox and they get violently attacked by trinitarians when brought up in the church.

 

[masmpg]

No... some may have later in life turned from what they had studied and believed, but the majority, I believe, did not.

Here's an excerpt from a good site on the issue...


Here's the link...
http://www.trinitytruth.org/adventistpioneersandthetrinity.html

I know this is old but this link is great. (bookmarked) Thanks ECR

 

[masmpg]

Were the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church trinitarians ?

thank you for your responses

I will only say about the trinity what our church has had much contention over, which led to the compromise between the bible and walter martin. The SDA church believes that Jesus took the human nature of man after the fall. Jesus was fully man and had no advantage over us. Anything written in the questions on doctrine book is not in agreement with the "traditional", or original SDA doctrine.

 

[mmksparbud]

The denominational creed holds zero weight as far as our faith is concerned. Our motto has always been "no creed but the Bible."

It's preposterous to say Ellen White introduced trinity to our denomination.

1. Her husband who accepted many reproves from her remained a non-trinitarian until his death.

2. Her sons remained non-trinitarians after their mother's death.

3. The old timers remained non-trinitarians and slammed LeRoy Froom (remember him?) when he tried to introduce trinity after EGW's death.

4. There is no record of EGW ever reproving the pioneers of their rejection of trinity.

5. EGW wrote the third person of the Godhead is christ's own spirit. Allow her to explain herself. And that's quite different from Trinitarian teaching on the co-equal co-divine three persons.

6. EGW wrote the pioneers preached 1st, 2nd and 3rd angels messages in 1843, 1844 and there after. That's additional proof (after the Bible) that the pioneers had it right with regard to who to worship: the Father or the trinity.

7. ML Andreassen went to see EGW after the alleged trinitarian quotes in Desire of Ages. Guess what? He remained a nontrinitarian until his death.

8. EJ Waggoner in 'Christ Our Righteousness' wrote antitrinitarian messages published in 1890. What did EGW say about their message of righteousness by faith???

So if you are correct in saying EGW introduced trinity, she would have been a lousy wife, a lousy mother & a lousy prophet because nobody around her knew about it and were converted to it.

And more importantly she would have been a false prophet because she wrote the pioneers preached the 3AM and were sealed to be among the 144000. That means they didn't have defiled Babylonian beliefs. Quote was written in 1855.

I think plenty of scriptural evidence and SOP writings have been shown in this thread. Any open minded person can see trinity for what it is: unscriptural pagan mystery that's rooted in sun worship.

I'm sorry you can't see it. But I'm finished trying to reason with you. You should ask God for some eyesalve to see past this central mystery of Catholicism.

I'm just glad I'm not deceived by it and many fellow believers are getting it. We are preaching the 3 angels message as it was preached in 1843, 1844... and striving to be among the group whose foreheads have the Father's name written, not the name of mystery Babylon.

I can't believe all this talk about what the "founding fathers" believed!! I could care less!! Were they the ones that God spoke through? Did they have documented visions that gave them the designation of prophet? Are they the ones that I am going to turn to see what they think?---Absolutely not. I do not care what her husband thought, nor her sons, nor her mother and father, or her cook. She is the designated prophet and it is her statements that I want to know about. I decided that I believe her to be a prophet of God. None of the others qualify and I have no desire to know what they think about anything.

Published in 1898:
The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. {DA 671.2}

That is what she thought and that is the only thing I will go by. I can read the bible, I can see for myself what it says and I can decide if she is biblical or not and her statement is right. I don't care if anyone considers her a lousy wife, a lousy mother or a lousy prophet. I have read her books for myself and I can decide, and have, that she was none of that. To base doctrine on the thoughts of those that are not considered a prophet of God is beyond foolish. It may be interesting to see what they think, but I am certainly not going to give their opinions any authority over hers!!! What's next, find out what her dog thought?
I certainly am going to give more credence to whatever she published later in her life as opposed to the very beginning when things were being slowly understood and defined and more messages from God were received to clarify. More than eye salve is needed here---
Mar 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
Mar 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
Mar 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
Mar 8:25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly

 

[overcomer]

I can't believe all this talk about what the "founding fathers" believed!! I could care less!! Were they the ones that God spoke through? Did they have documented visions that gave them the designation of prophet? Are they the ones that I am going to turn to see what they think?---Absolutely not. I do not care what her husband thought, nor her sons, nor her mother and father, or her cook. She is the designated prophet and it is her statements that I want to know about. I decided that I believe her to be a prophet of God. None of the others qualify and I have no desire to know what they think about anything.

Published in 1898:
The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. {DA 671.2}

That is what she thought and that is the only thing I will go by. I can read the bible, I can see for myself what it says and I can decide if she is biblical or not and her statement is right. I don't care if anyone considers her a lousy wife, a lousy mother or a lousy prophet. I have read her books for myself and I can decide, and have, that she was none of that. To base doctrine on the thoughts of those that are not considered a prophet of God is beyond foolish. It may be interesting to see what they think, but I am certainly not going to give their opinions any authority over hers!!! What's next, find out what her dog thought?
I certainly am going to give more credence to whatever she published later in her life as opposed to the very beginning when things were being slowly understood and defined and more messages from God were received to clarify. More than eye salve is needed here---
Mar 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
Mar 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
Mar 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
Mar 8:25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly

I don't think you even bothered to read her quote on James White, Uriah Smith...? Or what she wrote about our pillars established in 1844, 1845 that stand fast even as blind men trying to move them?

Sounds like to me a lot of yapping without checking on the facts.

 

[masmpg]

The denominational creed holds zero weight as far as our faith is concerned. Our motto has always been "no creed but the Bible."

It's preposterous to say Ellen White introduced trinity to our denomination.

1. Her husband who accepted many reproves from her remained a non-trinitarian until his death.

2. Her sons remained non-trinitarians after their mother's death.

3. The old timers remained non-trinitarians and slammed LeRoy Froom (remember him?) when he tried to introduce trinity after EGW's death.

4. There is no record of EGW ever reproving the pioneers of their rejection of trinity.

5. EGW wrote the third person of the Godhead is christ's own spirit. Allow her to explain herself. And that's quite different from Trinitarian teaching on the co-equal co-divine three persons.

6. EGW wrote the pioneers preached 1st, 2nd and 3rd angels messages in 1843, 1844 and there after. That's additional proof (after the Bible) that the pioneers had it right with regard to who to worship: the Father or the trinity.

7. ML Andreassen went to see EGW after the alleged trinitarian quotes in Desire of Ages. Guess what? He remained a nontrinitarian until his death.

8. EJ Waggoner in 'Christ Our Righteousness' wrote antitrinitarian messages published in 1890. What did EGW say about their message of righteousness by faith???

So if you are correct in saying EGW introduced trinity, she would have been a lousy wife, a lousy mother & a lousy prophet because nobody around her knew about it and were converted to it.

And more importantly she would have been a false prophet because she wrote the pioneers preached the 3AM and were sealed to be among the 144000. That means they didn't have defiled Babylonian beliefs. Quote was written in 1855.

I think plenty of scriptural evidence and SOP writings have been shown in this thread. Any open minded person can see trinity for what it is: unscriptural pagan mystery that's rooted in sun worship.

I'm sorry you can't see it. But I'm finished trying to reason with you. You should ask God for some eyesalve to see past this central mystery of Catholicism.

I'm just glad I'm not deceived by it and many fellow believers are getting it. We are preaching the 3 angels message as it was preached in 1843, 1844... and striving to be among the group whose foreheads have the Father's name written, not the name of mystery Babylon.

I totally agree with you. Despite the argument about the "trinity" being the "Godhead" the real argument the SDA denomination had was the nature of Christ. Walter martin branded us a cult just because we believe that Jesus took the nature of man after the fall, and was fully human and had no advantage over us. The questions on doctrine book, was a curse to the denomination, and has been a curse ever since as we watch church leaders compromise at every step of the way.

The trinity argument boils down to minute hair splitting definitions which are not very uplifting, especially when we argue among ourselves over it. Satan gets the upper hand when that happens. This point of contention will cause great opportunities to slip by. We SDA's on this site can be a great light in the darkness if we would practice what the disciples did during the ten days before the former rain was poured out during pentecost. Sister White breaks it down in great detail in her book Acts of the Apostles.

 

[overcomer]

I totally agree with you. Despite the argument about the "trinity" being the "Godhead" the real argument the SDA denomination had was the nature of Christ. Walter martin branded us a cult just because we believe that Jesus took the nature of man after the fall, and was fully human and had no advantage over us. The questions on doctrine book, was a curse to the denomination, and has been a curse ever since as we watch church leaders compromise at every step of the way.

The trinity argument boils down to minute hair splitting definitions which are not very uplifting, especially when we argue among ourselves over it. Satan gets the upper hand when that happens. This point of contention will cause great opportunities to slip by. We SDA's on this site can be a great light in the darkness if we would practice what the disciples did during the ten days before the former rain was poured out during pentecost. Sister White breaks it down in great detail in her book Acts of the Apostles.

In my opinion, this is no small matter. The trinity destroys our 3 angels message.

It's the same guy (LeRoy Froom) who tried to pervert our traditional belief on this in 1930s. Almost 30 years before he co/authored Questions on Doctrine.

 

[mmksparbud]

I don't think you even bothered to read her quote on James White, Uriah Smith...? Or what she wrote about our pillars established in 1844, 1845 that stand fast even as blind men trying to move them?

Sounds like to me a lot of yapping without checking on the facts.

Sounds to me like you never read where I said I could care less what those who were not considered prophets of God, nor are there any documented prof that they were ever considered such, have to say. She is the prophet and it is her statements that
interest me. It is obviously ridiculous to state that trinitarianism didn't start until 1930 when DA clearly states she calls the Holy Spirit the 3rd person of the Godhead in 1898----That is very much a lot of yapping without the facts. You have no light that I am interested in---none at all. In fact, you are misrepresenting.