how do adventists view of the trinity?

[EastCoastRemnant]

Who is the "they" here? I don't think you quite understand the historical situation. The early fathers had a much different idea about the pagan world than later, deeply biased Christians. As Augustine once stressed, the fathers realized there were great treasures to be found among the pagans and these should be used by Christians. So the early fathers did not have the stigma against paganism that later came to haunt Christianity. Had the early church not incorporated Hellenic metaphysics, it probably would not have survived.

Your post would be humorous if I didn't know you were serious...

I know you proclaim the wisdom of the early church fathers but let's see what God said about His people adopting heathen practices...

2 Kings 17:7-9
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made.

Didn't God "cast out" the Greeks from the world stage as well? I don't recall Jesus telling us to adopt Greek philosophy....

Psalm 33:10
The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:

Jeremiah 10:2
Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen...

Ezekiel 11:12
And ye shall know that I am the Lord: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you.

Doesn't sound here like God is a big fan of the heathens ways...

Hog, the Bible clearly refutes your claim that the early church fathers were justified in adopting Greek philosophy. You say that the Church wouldn't have survived without these Hellenic metaphysics, I think the Lord could do just fine without them.... oh ye of little faith, putting your trust in man's wisdom and not the straight testimony.

 

[Hoghead1]

OR - we were not meant to delve into that "whole." We understand in an attempt to control and predict. We are NOT to control or predict God beyond what is revealed to us in scripture.


Right. Try to take biblical theology from Greek paganism. How dumb is that?


But that flies in the face of innumerable scriptures from both testaments that clearly show God has emotions. So that is clearly anti biblical.


Again, anti biblical.


A false understanding of perfection.

That is so opposed to 2nd temple period (and prior) Judaic understanding as to be cringe worthy.

It is true that the passionless God of classical or traditional Christian dogma is a long way from Scripture, as the Bible attributes both deep feeling and also change to God, the latter in about 100 passages. The early fathers were aware of these passages. What they did was argue that these were merely figures of speech that did not at all reveal the true nature of God. Hence, in preaching on God's wrath, Calvin would put in qualifiers, telling the congregation that really, God can't get angry, that such references were merely God accommodating himself to our feeble intellects, mere "baby talk" (to use Calvin's term), figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual reality of God. Neo-classical theism argues that this is a bogus account of Scripture, that if the biblical metaphors do not fit the reality of God, then they are meaningless and reveal nothing.
I disagree with some of your other assumptions. Trying to put the snap shots of God, via Scripture, into a meaningful whole does not at all mean we are trying to control God. Does it mean we are trying to predict God? Well, we all seek to have insight into what God expects of us and is going to do. That's only fair and common sense, I think. That's why we believe in revelation. Mysterious as God may be, we shouldn't lock God up in total mystery.
The fathers were right in what they did, in looking to Hellenic metaphysics, though I disagree with the latter. They had to give an intellectual dimension to the church if it was to survive. Also, as I pointed out, the fathers were wise enough to realize that there were treasures to be found among the pagans. One of the reasons why the Catholic church began and became so popular is that it modeled its organization after the Roman army. It won out over many other forms of early Christianity, as the latter were far more disorganized.
I don't understand your negativity about neo-classical theism. How much reading have you done in this area, to start with? Neo-classical theism is a well-respected, major dimension of contemporary Christian thought.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your post would be humorous if I didn't know you were serious...

I know you proclaim the wisdom of the early church fathers but let's see what God said about His people adopting heathen practices...

2 Kings 17:7-9
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made.

Didn't God "cast out" the Greeks from the world stage as well? I don't recall Jesus telling us to adopt Greek philosophy....

Psalm 33:10
The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:

Jeremiah 10:2
Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen...

Ezekiel 11:12
And ye shall know that I am the Lord: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you.

Doesn't sound here like God is a big fan of the heathens ways...

Hog, the Bible clearly refutes your claim that the early church fathers were justified in adopting Greek philosophy. You say that the Church wouldn't have survived without these Hellenic metaphysics, I think the Lord could do just fine without them.... oh ye of little faith, putting your trust in man's wisdom and not the straight testimony.

The early fathers were aware of all that. However, they were, as Augustine noted, also aware of the fact that there were great treasures to be found among the pagans as well. The Catholic Church was successful because it followed the organization of the Roman army. As I said before, the early fathers wisely recognized that the church needed an intellectual life if it was to survive and that meant borrowing what they felt to be treasures from Hellenic philosophy. I really think you should first study carefully the history of teh early church, before jumping the gun and recklessly casting aspersion on the character of the early fathers.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The early fathers were aware of all that. However, they were, as Augustine noted, also aware of the fact that there were great treasures to be found among the pagans as well. The Catholic Church was successful because it followed the organization of the Roman army. As I said before, the early fathers wisely recognized that the church needed an intellectual life if it was to survive and that meant borrowing what they felt to be treasures from Hellenic philosophy. I really think you should first study carefully the history of teh early church, before jumping the gun and recklessly casting aspersion on the character of the early fathers.

So because man thought it, it must be true... is that your premise? And because paganism did something, that means we make it part of our understanding and worship of God?!

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

As I said before, the early fathers wisely recognized that the church needed an intellectual life if it was to survive and that meant borrowing what they felt to be treasures from Hellenic philosophy.

It's obvious from your posts that you have zero faith that God can do anything without our help.... if that's what intellectualism got you, then I wouldn't consider it a treasure.

 

[Hoghead1]

So because man thought it, it must be true... is that your premise? And because paganism did something, that means we make it part of our understanding and worship of God?!

No, that is not at all what I said. Do not out words into my mouth. Pay attention to what I said. The early fathers sincerely believed that God had implanted treasures among the pagans that the church should us. And what they took up and did use were really treasures that considerably helped the church, enabled it to prosper and survive. Again, I encourage you do study church history.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's obvious from your posts that you have zero faith that God can do anything without our help.... if that's what intellectualism got you, then I wouldn't consider it a treasure.

Do not out words into my mouth. Do not interpret my faith for me. Your thinking is way, way off base here, no where near what I am talking about.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I really think you should first study carefully the history of teh early church, before jumping the gun and recklessly casting aspersion on the character of the early fathers.

I have and this is what the Bible says about the early church...

Rev 2:1-6
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No, that is not at all what I said. Do not out words into my mouth. Pay attention to what I said. The early fathers sincerely believed that God had implanted treasures among the pagans that the church should us. And what they took up and did use were really treasures that considerably helped the church, enabled it to prosper and survive. Again, I encourage you do study church history.

Please name ONE "treasure" the pagans graced the church with?

 

[Hoghead1]

I have and this is what the Bible says about the early church...

Rev 2:1-6
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

You are misunderstanding both the Bible here and the history of the church. Look, do you want to smash down all the great historic churches because they used numerous features from Greco-Roman architecture? True, nobody wanted a church looking like pagan temple because these temples weren't big enough to hold a large worshipping congregation. However, early Christianity did in fact incorporate many features from Greco-Roman civic and imperial architecture, in the construction of its magnificent churches. No Greco-Roman architecture, no churches. Do you want to throw out the NT because it is all written in the pagan language of the Greeks? Look, why was Augustine such a pivotal figure in the history of Christianity? Because he incorporated successful techniques he learned from Roman oratory into his writings. Hence, his writings have served as a model for Christian apologetics all down through the ages. Do you want to throw Augustine out because he relied exclusively on Roman oratorical techniques? Do you want to throw out algebra because it cam from the Arabs? Look, do you realize the Dark Ages came within an inch of sending Christianity and the rest of the west right down the drain and into the hands of the Arabs? Do you realize the Arabs came within an inch of gaining all of Spain and were worshipped by many as liberators because they brought in superior knowledge? Do you realize when and what started the Dark Ages? Do you realize it was Emperor Justinian, who, out of his narrow-mindedness and bigotry, shut down al the academies and banned all the philosophers and scientists, beginning the in year 529 AD, which marks the beginning of the Dark Ages? Do you realize that the Arabs, fanatical as was their faith, were very practical minded and seized every scrap of valuable knowledge they could regardless of where it came from? Do you realize they were the ones who kept alive the great knowledge of the Greeks, so that when the crusaders first discovered Aristotle they and the rest of the west were so dumb that they thought Aristotle was an Arab? Do you realize it was early Christians who torched the great library in Alexandria, thereby destroying an inestimable amount of valuable knowledge? Do you realize that Calvin, vehemently anti-Muslim as he was, stood in the pulpit and held up Islam is representing the kind of truly devoted faith Christians should have? Get with it, fella! Crack those history books and learn.

 

[Hoghead1]

Please name ONE "treasure" the pagans graced the church with?

I just did. See my previous post. Architecture for one. Oratory for another. As I mentioned earlier, organization for yet another. The early Catholic Church modeled itself after the efficient organization of teh Roman army. If you would have cracked a book, paid attention to how greatly disorganized many other forms of early Christianity were, you would have already come to appreciate this fact.

 

[BobRyan]

Do not out words into my mouth. Do not interpret my faith for me. Your thinking is way, way off base here, no where near what I am talking about.

I believe I can help --

Here is what you claim to believe

1. No virgin birth
2. No miracles in the Bible that an Atheist might object to.
3. No 7 day creation week - just evolution
4. No basis for the Gospel as described in the Bible.
5. No interest in believing the Bible account for origins over Darwinism.

How am I doing so far?

 

[BobRyan]

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

The triune Godhead does not reject order. Parents and children are all human - -fully human with all the abilities of a human.

 

[BobRyan]

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. .

Just not in real life.

In real life - "one God in three persons" has been the classic Trinitarian statement. We stick with that. If you are on a mission to tell 2.4 billion Christians that "one God in three persons" is a "tritheism" no matter what Christianity says to the contrary - this may not be the ideal place to promote it.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

In "real life" the Bible says "All scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 not "inspiration from pagan greeks".

In "real life' the Bible says that the text is a case of "Holy men of Old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God" 2Peter 1:19-21

Your suggestion that these are just the words of primitives fumbling around and coming up with the best story they could think of - is not even remotely what the Bible writers say about it.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Just not in real life.

In real life - Ellen White was united Methodist - up until the time she got married. Trinitarian.
In real life - though her Arian husband strongly opposed the Trinity - she never wrote one word against it.
In real life - Ellen White came out emphatically on the side of the Trinitarian doctrine shortly after her husband died.

Prior to that time she merely "quoted the Bible" whenever talking about what the Holy Spirit does - without explaining in detail that He is the "Third person of the Godhead" -- which she did state after the death of James White.

Details matter.

 

[Dave-W]

However, they were, as Augustine noted, also aware of the fact that there were great treasures to be found among the pagans as well.

Augustine was very fond of Aristotle. (a pagan) That is biblically unacceptable on several levels.

 

[BobRyan]

Augustine was very fond of Aristotle. (a pagan) That is biblically unacceptable on several levels.

The heresies of Augustine are legendary.

But here is an interesting one - pertaining to Exodus 20:11


Augustine insisted on “instantaneous Creation” by his own divine fiat – rather than the text’s 7 day week – not because of a textual argument but because of Augustines own superseding-to-the-Bible right of divine preference and dogma.

Augustine considered 7 literal days of time - "slow and plodding" as compared to his "instantaneous" counter proposal.

(God) spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2

The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.


Whoever, then, does not accept the meaning that my limited powers have been able to discover or conjecture but seeks in the enumeration of the days of creation a different meaning, which might be understood not in the prophetical or figurative sense, but literally and more aptly, in interpreting the works of creation, let him search and find a solution with God’s help. I myself may possibly discover some other meaning more in harmony with the words of Scripture.15

The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in Lavallee, Louis. 1989. Augustine on the Creation Days, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 4:464.

 

[Cappadocious]

As I just told you, the Nicene Creed and also later Trinitarian formulations assume the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father.

Non-identity, i.e. distinctness, does not entail separation.

Yes, distinct does entail some real degree of separateness.

You have provided no demonstration for this. On the other hand, with my form/matter example (not an analogy, but an example) I have shown this entailment to be false.

OK, now I follow you on kind-nature. As I aid before, the church fathers went on substance metaphysics

You haven't heard of the primary/secondary distinction in the context of substance metaphysics? Perhaps that is because:

God is introduced as a simple, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad. Then the father tried to introduce the highly complex and relational machinery into this monad. The result was contradiction.

You are trying to read early modern substance metaphysics (Descartes, Spinoza et al) back onto the Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian Fathers.

 

[Hoghead1]

Augustine was very fond of Aristotle. (a pagan) That is biblically unacceptable on several levels.

Oh? Really? And just what might those be? Also, It was Plato, not Aristotle. Augustine said that Plato was the most Christian of all philosophers. As I mentioned earlier, the early fathers strongly believed God had provided treasures among the "pagans." You say Augustine is biblically unacceptable, but, see, that is based on your, underscore "your," definition of the Bible, whatever that my be, not his. Offhand, given a choice as to whom to believe here on the Bible, I vote for Augustine. However, I am curious just what your case is.