how do adventists view of the trinity?

[Hoghead1]

Augustine brought these pagan Greek thought into the church, talk about birds of the same feather...

Look, as I pointed out the early fathers did bring in key aspects of Hellenic philosophy and with good reason. You're unduly reading in a later concept of "paganism."

 

[BobRyan]

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.

As even their own catholic historians point out - Catholic features "borrowed from paganism" came into the church at the time of Constantine -- when even Constantine was interested in marrying paganism to Christianity.

This is irrefutable.

And has nothing to do with the Trinity.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. Therefore, the early fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics.

Why apostasy came into the church - and various apostates turned to paganism is an interesting history - but has nothing to do with the Trinity.

Unlike today, the early fathers had a much more favorable attitude toward "pagan" philosophy.

Certainly that is true of apostates and heretics and a few Christians may have unwittingly joined in it.

We prefer the Bible "instead".

 

[BobRyan]

As already noted --

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 creation" 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.

 

[love2obey]

Ellen White isn't talking about one God who manifests Himself in three parts, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and where one part is able to prey to another part, where the Trinity is so complex it cannot be understood.

the complexity of the Trinity is so unique that to understand it one has to separate or see each as a different individuals. yet the moment we keep them separate we are wrong because God is 1. Jesus, the Son, is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God. All 3 is God and that is not 3 make 1. Blessings

 

[BobRyan]

"God" is an infinitely complex subject - by every measure.

 

[sparow]

the complexity of the Trinity is so unique that to understand it one has to separate or see each as a different individuals. yet the moment we keep them separate we are wrong because God is 1. Jesus, the Son, is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God. All 3 is God and that is not 3 make 1. Blessings

I am surprised that a SDA would be a Trinitarian. Some people do use the Trinity to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not knowing there is a doctrine called the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is only as complex as men have fabricated it complex; an essential component of it's doctrinal definition is that it is so awesome no one can understand it. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of men and the important question is; is this doctrine of men in place of what God has given; and in as far as I have studied the doctrine, it is a blind guess as an image of God that violates the second commandment.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am surprised that a SDA would be a Trinitarian. Some people do use the Trinity to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not knowing there is a doctrine called the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is only as complex as men have fabricated it complex; an essential component of it's doctrinal definition is that it is so awesome no one can understand it. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of men and the important question is; is this doctrine of men in place of what God has given; and in as far as I have studied the doctrine, it is a blind guess as an image of God that violates the second commandment.

Yes, I agree that the Tr8initarian doctrines are human-made teachings. However, I do feel it important for us to describe God. You can't just say you believe in an X and leave it go at that, you need to describe kind of God you believe in, give God a character.

 

[BobRyan]

I am surprised that a SDA would be a Trinitarian. Some people do use the Trinity to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not knowing there is a doctrine called the Trinity.

Matt 10:28 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matt 28 -- why is it surprising that SDAs would hold to the "one God in three Persons" doctrine of the Triune Godhead commonly called "trinity" in today's language?

d the important question is; is this doctrine of men in place of what God has given;

Is Matt 28 the "doctrine of men" or the teaching of Christ??

 

[sparow]

Yes, I agree that the Tr8initarian doctrines are human-made teachings. However, I do feel it important for us to describe God. You can't just say you believe in an X and leave it go at that, you need to describe kind of God you believe in, give God a character.

This reminds me of the Atheist who says God does not exist; even here God needs some sort of definition to not exist which becomes a sort of oxymoron. God reveals Himself primarily in the OT as "I AM".

If one tries to define God over and above what God has given one will always define something that can be disproven; this in the context of only the truth can save one.

 

[sparow]

Matt 10:28 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matt 28 -- why is it surprising that SDAs would hold to the "one God in three Persons" doctrine of the Triune Godhead commonly called "trinity" in today's language?



Is Matt 28 the "doctrine of men" or the teaching of Christ??

You may have been coached into reading a peculiar meaning into Matt. 28:19. You interpret the scripture to support the doctrine.

Most of the semantics of scripture are lost to us but the part of that scripture that stands out is the word NAME; name (concept) is was used differently by the Hebrews than how we use it; does scripture give a name for these three and are those baptised into that name known by the same name; could the name be The new Jerusalem or even Israel.

Older SDA views can be found here: http://www.remnantofgod.org/search/cgi-bin/runsearch.php?q=trinity&pvdc=0&op=and&cnt=10&sort=0

 

[Hoghead1]

This reminds me of the Atheist who says God does not exist; even here God needs some sort of definition to not exist which becomes a sort of oxymoron. God reveals Himself primarily in the OT as "I AM".

If one tries to define God over and above what God has given one will always define something that can be disproven; this in the context of only the truth can save one.

No, that is no oxymoron. Atheists often are rejecting a certain model of God. For example, atheists are often turned off by the double-bind message of the churches whereby God is depicted as saying, "Love me, or I'll beat the tar out of you and send you to Hell."
Scripture is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built. What we have are snap shots that often conflict. It's up to us to piece them together into a unified picture of God. Consequently, the early fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics, which enshrined the immune and the immutable. Hence, the classical or traditional Christian definition of God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. In point of actual fact, this traditional model stands in real tension with Scripture. The Bible presents a very anthropomorphic image of God. God is attributed genuine emotion and , in about 100 passages, is said to change. In addition, Scripture ascribes just about every body part to God, suggesting the Hebrews God as having a body. And most of the biblical predication is relative predication. You can't be a father wito8t children, a creator without a creation, etc. Hence, Scripture is affirming God is a relational being who has entered into a genuine relationship with us.

 

[BobRyan]

You may have been coached into reading a peculiar meaning into Matt. 28:19. You interpret the scripture to support the doctrine.

Most of the semantics of scripture are lost to us but the part of that scripture that stands out is the word NAME; name (concept) is was used differently by the Hebrews than how we use it; does scripture give a name for these three and are those baptised into that name known by the same name; could the name be The new Jerusalem or even Israel.

Older SDA views can be found here: http://www.remnantofgod.org/search/cgi-bin/runsearch.php?q=trinity&pvdc=0&op=and&cnt=10&sort=0

Yet there is no "older SDA view" where Ellen White (a United Methodist and then a Seventh-day Adventist) ever rejects the Trinity. Rather she writes that "the Holy Spirit is the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead".

And there is no "older SDA view" published in any of the "Statements of Belief" of the SDA church in either 1800's or 1900's showing that they ever condemned the Trinity as a formal statement or doctrine of the group as a denomination.

So then on this topic - let me guess -- 'rejects the Trinity' as well??

 

[BobRyan]

No, that is no oxymoron. Atheists often are rejecting a certain model of God. For example, atheists are often turned off by the double-bind message of the churches whereby God is depicted as saying, "Love me, or I'll beat the tar out of you and send you to Hell."
Scripture is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built. What we have are snap shots that often conflict.

This from someone who rejects the virgin birth, rejects the Bible account of creation, rejects the world wide flood and rejects the resurrection of Christ - his ascension into heaven and pretty much any miracle in the Bible that an Atheist might object to.

 

[sparow]

"God" is an infinitely complex subject - by every measure.

The Bible is written for simple folk and it has everything simple folk need to grow into harvestable fruit.

 

[sparow]

Yet there is no "older SDA view" where Ellen White (a United Methodist and then a Seventh-day Adventist) ever rejects the Trinity. Rather she writes that "the Holy Spirit is the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead".

And there is no "older SDA view" published in any of the "Statements of Belief" of the SDA church in either 1800's or 1900's showing that they ever condemned the Trinity as a formal statement or doctrine of the group as a denomination.

So then on this topic - let me guess -- 'rejects the Trinity' as well??

"Trinity" is only a word not found in the KJV, that means three, not one. I have no reason to believe God is one person with three hats; or that the God head is restricted to three. I am not a disciple of Paul but I agree Paul was brilliant and in Acts 17:29 he said, "Being then then the offspring o God, we ought not to think the God head is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man". While Trinity is a word in the English language where it has a most common usage, as a doctrine or jargon it's meaning becomes precise and inflexible and is a device used by man, but not this man.

I used to know a SDA paster well, about 30 years ago, I don't remember discussing the Trinity with him, but at that time I was naïve regarding what wasn't in the Bible. It was about two years ago that I was accused of not being a Trinitarian and I was stunned and I looked into what the Trinity was.

 

[BobRyan]

"Trinity" is only a word not found in the KJV, that means three, not one. I have no reason to believe God is one person with three hats;

three Gods in one person is not the doctrine of the Trinity.

Rather - One God in three persons.

So if you want to object to that doctrine fine - but at least state what it is.

While Trinity is a word in the English language where it has a most common usage,

True -- just as I "Jesus" and "Church" and "Christ" and "Bible" and "car"

It does not make these words evil or the meaning that is placed in them evil - just because they are english words that were not used in the Greek or Hebrew text in the english form. So also the 28 Fundamental Beliefs - are in the Bible but the Bible contains not statement that is "28 Fundamental Beliefs" in its title etc.

As i said - some people may place a unique meaning on the term "Trinity" - but most Christians - including SDAs - mean "One God in three persons" the "Triune Godhead" -- an infinitely complex topic that we don't have full understanding of - by any means.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is written for simple folk and it has everything simple folk need to grow into harvestable fruit.

Uses simple statements to describe infinitely complex realities -- but that does not mean that all of reality is really not complex or that the Godhead is not infinitely complex - including the nature of God.

 

[sparow]

Uses simple statements to describe infinitely complex realities -- but that does not mean that all of reality is really not complex or that the Godhead is not infinitely complex - including the nature of God.

Reality can be seen in two ways; there is the reality that is outside of man's comprehension and which man wrestles to understand, and then there is the reality that mankind is the centre of. Here man concludes, "I am because I can think I am", and God states, "I AM because I AM." Man's ability to perceive reality is only as good as his mental thinking function. For man realities are created; God creates a reality for us in the Bible and it is not complex; complex only applies when one steps outside his pay grade or job description and replaces God's reality with one of his own.

I suspect you do not know what the doctrine of the trinity is, or that you can have the Trinity without the doctrine:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/pagan-roots-of-the-trinity-doctrine-ed-torrence-2002

http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...t-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the

http://www.ucg.org.au/library/god/is-god-a-trinity?gclid=CMy80e7s8cwCFQaXvQodq6QGPQ

http://www.trinitytruth.org/paganoriginsofthetrinity.html

 

[BobRyan]

I suspect you do not know what the doctrine of the trinity is, or that you can have the Trinity without the doctrine:

Then why not do something instructive - why not post a thread in General Theology where you ask that question and see if EVERYBODY does not come back with "ONE God in THREE Persons" - as an "experiment" I will try it and add a "poll" to the thread.

Only those against the Trinity - reject that definition from what I have seen -- but I am happy to test that idea here on this board that is full of Trinitarians in the General Theology section.

Which means that those who reject the Trinity are rejecting a belief that Trinitarians also reject.

Let's do the experiment rather than talking past each other.

Click this link

2 minutes ago #1