how do adventists view of the trinity?

[Hoghead1]

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....

Yes, true. That is one of the problems with the Tr8inity.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.......

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

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.

 

[Cappadocious]

If you are going to say that there are three separate, unique personalities, then yes, you have posited tritheism, not monotheism.

What is the demonstration for this? Furthermore why must they be separate? What is distinct need not be separate.

 

[Hoghead1]

You have to watch out. Many of the 'church fathers' were just extending pagan Greek thought or philosophy or worse very subtle Gnosticism...

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

Pretty much the same.

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

What is the demonstration for this? Furthermore why must they be separate? What is distinct need not be separate.

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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?

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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:

• 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.

All of the above studies demonstrate that Ellen White played a major role in moving the church away from Arian views regarding Jesus Christ..."

Good post.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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:

• 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.

All of the above studies demonstrate that Ellen White played a major role in moving the church away from Arian views regarding Jesus Christ..."

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)

 

[Hoghead1]

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)

Except that if you carefully what White said, there are very definite parallels to Arianism. There is no doubt about that.

 

[Cappadocious]

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.

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

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?

 

[Cappadocious]

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

That doesn't answer any of my questions. It seems you are saying they all share one nature, Fatherness.

 

[reddogs]

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.

You have to understand that they were all being shown these truths and especially after Ellen White wrote
"The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... 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.

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.... He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897.

From Everlasting.--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)

 

[reddogs]

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.

With what Ellen White was shown it became clear they did not grasp the GodHead and they began to understand the fullness of it.

 

[Cappadocious]

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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"? Also, you say you are following Palamas. Well, he doesn't talk about any sort of "kind-nature." He talks about essence and energies.

 

[Cappadocious]

What is "kind-nature"?

Kind-nature = A common universal e.g. horseness, humanity. Sometimes also known as secondary substance although there is extra baggage there.

Also, you say you are following Palamas. Well, he doesn't talk about any sort of "kind-nature." He talks about essence and energies.

Palamas talked about a lot of things besides the essence/energies distinction. I was bringing him up in relation to the form/matter analogy.