Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, true. That is one of the problems with the Tr8inity.I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion given the evidence of scripture we have? Jesus is quoted many different ways being subservient to thes Father and His Will. And the Spirit is said to never speak for itself but only the Father and Son....
I think much of the puzzlement we have with the Trinity isn't due to the mysterious nature of God as much it is due to muddled thinking on the part of the church fathers.The mystery of the GodHead is something we humans have not been able to fully grasp, but when we get there it will be as plain as day.......
No, it's not hared to grasp; it's just the formulations reflect muddled thinking. If you are going to say that there are three separate, unique personalities, then yes, you have posited tritheism, not monotheism. So you need to move onto another model.They are one, but yet they are distinct, so Christ could have done His own will when He was on earth and being tempted, yes He could sinned but did not. And He relied on the Father to overcome...hard to grasp.
What is the demonstration for this? Furthermore why must they be separate? What is distinct need not be separate.If you are going to say that there are three separate, unique personalities, then yes, you have posited tritheism, not monotheism.
That is somewhat of a misconception on your part, at least the way you pout it. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. The Bible gives us but snap shots that often conflict. it is left the reader to piece these together into a unified whole. Therefore, the fathers did look to Hellenic metaphysics, to certain major schools which viewed the world of time and change as evil, a big illusion. The divine, the "really real," was a wholly immaterial, wholly simple, wholly immutable realm. The result was the classical Christian model of God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. The problem was that the fathers defined God as a monad, a nonrelational, wholly simple being. Then they tried to introduce the highly complex, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad. The result was confusion and contradiction.You have to watch out. Many of the 'church fathers' were just extending pagan Greek thought or philosophy or worse very subtle Gnosticism...
John starts out with a powerful affirmation that the Second Person of teh Trinity is God. Where, however, does John say this about the Spirit? Also, the subrodinationism is a major problem. I pointed out before that it makes the Father and Father alone God, the Boss of bosses.Pretty much the same.
Yes, distinct does in fact mean separate. What is the evidence? Well, it's common sense, really. If you say there are three, distinct personalities, then you have three Gods, not one. If you look to three men and say they all have in common human nature, you still have three men. That was a point Gregory of Nyssa brought up. Hence, he said that the three persons or personalities were one God in that they worked in a more perfect harmony or unity than any three humans could. I know you don't like to study the fathers, but you should at least take a look every once in a while.What is the demonstration for this? Furthermore why must they be separate? What is distinct need not be separate.
Check online. There are definite statements she made that were Arian in nature. That is a well-established fact. That is one major reason why many conservative Christians reject her and the SDA.Bob, I havent seen anything in her writing at the start or before the Desire of Ages period where she supports any Arian or Semi-Arian views, have you come across anything?
Good post.All the main leaders were anti Trinity/Catholic but Ellen White turned it around...
"Anyone knowledgable about Seventh-day Adventist history, however, knows that many of the SDA pioneers held Arian or semi-Arian views. In his article, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference of SDAs, articulated the situation accurately when he wrote:
While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890s a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian position (page 1).
Why did many early SDA pioneers espouse Arian views? How did they eventually move away from Arianism and semi-Arianism to the biblical position regarding Jesus Christ? For those interested in Adventist history on this subject, the following sources are indispensible:
All of the above studies demonstrate that Ellen White played a major role in moving the church away from Arian views regarding Jesus Christ..."
- Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pubublishing Association, 2002), 190-231. This book is the best place to start since the following articles are scholarly articles.
- Jerry Moon, “The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 1: Historical Overview.”
- Ibid., “The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 2: The Role of Ellen White.”
- Merlin D. Burt, “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity.”
- Jerry Moon, “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine.”
- Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists.” This is a scholarly version of the above article with a similar name.
- “Trinity Symposium,” sponsored by the Adventist Theological Society, and held on the campus of Southern Adventist University during the spring of 2006.
Except the fact that none of them were (at least through their writings) Arians... not one of them espoused that Christ was created... another red herring put out to dissuade people from understanding it on their own. (not you Reddogs, as you are only parroting someone else's words)All the main leaders were anti Trinity/Catholic but Ellen White turned it around...
"Anyone knowledgable about Seventh-day Adventist history, however, knows that many of the SDA pioneers held Arian or semi-Arian views. In his article, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference of SDAs, articulated the situation accurately when he wrote:
While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890s a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian position (page 1).
Why did many early SDA pioneers espouse Arian views? How did they eventually move away from Arianism and semi-Arianism to the biblical position regarding Jesus Christ? For those interested in Adventist history on this subject, the following sources are indispensible:
All of the above studies demonstrate that Ellen White played a major role in moving the church away from Arian views regarding Jesus Christ..."
- Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pubublishing Association, 2002), 190-231. This book is the best place to start since the following articles are scholarly articles.
- Jerry Moon, “The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 1: Historical Overview.”
- Ibid., “The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 2: The Role of Ellen White.”
- Merlin D. Burt, “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity.”
- Jerry Moon, “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine.”
- Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists.” This is a scholarly version of the above article with a similar name.
- “Trinity Symposium,” sponsored by the Adventist Theological Society, and held on the campus of Southern Adventist University during the spring of 2006.
Except that if you carefully what White said, there are very definite parallels to Arianism. There is no doubt about that.Except the fact that none of them were (at least through their writings) Arians... not one of them espoused that Christ was created... another red herring put out to dissuade people from understanding it on their own. (not you Reddogs, as you are only parroting someone else's words)
As I have pointed out elsewhereYes, distinct does in fact mean separate. What is the evidence? Well, it's common sense, really. If you say there are three, distinct personalities, then you have three Gods, not one. If you look to three men and say they all have in common human nature, you still have three men. That was a point Gregory of Nyssa brought up. Hence, he said that the three persons or personalities were one God in that they worked in a more perfect harmony or unity than any three humans could. I know you don't like to study the fathers, but you should at least take a look every once in a while.
We're not talking here about form and matter. Not a good analogy. Also, what do you mean by "his being'? His personality? What? How id this any different than saying there are three gods, three personalities who all share a common nature?As I have pointed out elsewhere
, three persons does not entail three Gods per the third sense of nature used. The three Persons are each the same one God without being identical to each other. This is because the Father is God and his being as he has it, rather than a common divine nature, is had by the Word and Spirit. In virtue of this they are Divine.
Furthermore, distinctness does not entail separation. Form and matter are distinct yet inseparable in actuality. As for the Fathers, I'll take Palamas, here.
Form and matter is, in fact, a good analogy. All I had to give was one counter-example to break the enailment.We're not talking here about form and matter. Not a good analogy. Also, what do you mean by "his being'? His personality? What? How id this any different than saying there are three gods, three personalities who all share a common nature?
Form and matter is, in fact, a good analogy. All I had to give was one counter-example to break the enailment.
As for being, I mean the that which God is or has, particularly rather than commonly. As for why it isn't three Gods sharing a common nature, it is different because a particular rather than a common nature is shared.
There is one God.
All three persons are numerically the same God.
All three persons are not identical to one another.
I took a quick look at some of the writings of EJ Waggoner. He seems to not state clearly if he is trinitarian or not. He did say that Jesus was the "comforter" promised in John 14.16; thus diminishing the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
“Jesus is the Comforter. “If any man sin, we have a Comforter with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”(1John 2:1 r.v., margin.)(EJ Waggoner The Everlasting Covenant Page 302)
I have been interested in his teachings the last couple of years. He died in my dad's hometown 13 years before dad was born. So far (even though the spelling of our last name is identical) I have not found if we are actually related.
With what Ellen White was shown it became clear they did not grasp the GodHead and they began to understand the fullness of it.True - she was raised Methodist - and never published anything on that subject that a methodist could not sign up for. She was always Trinitarian. But she does not come out fully attacking some of the views published by her husband -- until after he dies.
However it looks like even James started to step back from his own anti-trinitarian arguments before he died.
It seems you only accept one category of nature, that is, kind-nature. The Fathers were somewhat familiar with Aristotle and thus were familiar with particular nature as well. Since that seems to matter to you, check it out.That doesn't answer any of my questions. It seems you are saying they all share one nature, Fatherness.
It seems you only accept one category of nature, that is, kind-nature. The Fathers were somewhat familiar with Aristotle and thus were familiar with particular nature as well. Since that seems to matter to you, check it out.
The three Persons do not share a kind-nature, i.e. Fatherness. Rather they have the same particular nature of being God as the Father has it.
3 persons =numerically one God
3 persons =not identical to one another.
As for questions, they are your burden.
What is "kind-nature"?
Palamas talked about a lot of things besides the essence/energies distinction. I was bringing him up in relation to the form/matter analogy.Also, you say you are following Palamas. Well, he doesn't talk about any sort of "kind-nature." He talks about essence and energies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?