how do adventists view of the trinity?

[sparow]

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

The things of God are not determined by what is popular; I don't have a problem accepting that most Christians believe God is one God in three persons; most Christians have abrogated the Law which is the covenant and think something else is the covenant.

I have lost track of the SDA but I have heard some have dropped the seventh day and call themselves Adventists and keep Sunday. There is nothing on this thread that would indicate what most SDA think of the Trinity.

We are told that the road to life is narrow and few find it, the road to destruction is broad and most go that way. One thing the SDA was big on was the remnant that comes out each time Israel crashes and with the remnant God re-establishes the covenant (which is identified by the Ten Commandments); this happened two thousand years ago and the new church was the remnant with whom God made the new covenant; the next remnant to come out will be the final remnant that God will write the Law on their hearts and minds.

SDA Pioneers & The Trinity Part 3, 4, 5, 6 are available on YouTube.

 

[BobRyan]

The things of God are not determined by what is popular; I don't have a problem accepting that most Christians believe God is one God in three persons;

Which is my point -- some other group may not accept the doctrine of "one God in three persons" - but it serves no point to reject the fact that those who do believe in the Trinity claim to believe in "one God in three persons" .

So if one wants to oppose the Trinity - that is the definition of what they are opposing.

I have lost track of the SDA but I have heard some have dropped the seventh day and call themselves Adventists and keep Sunday. There is nothing on this thread that would indicate what most SDA think of the Trinity.

Well this area of the board is for Seventh-day Adventist discussion topics and while there may be others who all themselves "Adventist" but not Seventh-day Adventist - other "Adventist groups" that are not SDA - are not the ones being singled out in this area of the board.

We are told that the road to life is narrow and few find it, the road to destruction is broad and most go that way. One thing the SDA was big on was the remnant that comes out each time Israel crashes and with the remnant God re-establishes the covenant (which is identified by the Ten Commandments); this happened two thousand years ago and the new church was the remnant with whom God made the new covenant;

The remnant is that "which remains" -- it comes out of other groups to the extent that those groups reject the Bible teaching of the remnant and will not allow it in their fellowship.

Many offshoots, sects etc in the days of Christ and of Paul still to this day - the fact that each of them is a "split from something" does not make them all pure in doctrine.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

To me, it is not in the Bible and is a RC teaching/tradition... that's enough for me to reject it.

 

[overcomer]

God reveals His truth to the remnant collectively. The remnant of the Millerites rejected the trinitarianism collectively. It only crept into the SDA church after Ellen White died.

I found this one interesting when I was making a chart for various time prophecy.

Daniel 12: 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

This speaks the rise of the little horn power that takes away daily ministry of Jesus by setting up a counterfeit religious system. This from 508 to 1798AD, 1290 year prophecy. 508AD was the year when the Trinitarians defeated the Arian king Clovis. The Abomination that makes Desolate set up. The Abomination of Desolation is the idolatrous pagan standard sets up on the Holy Place.

 

[BobRyan]

God reveals His truth to the remnant collectively. The remnant of the Millerites rejected the trinitarianism collectively. It only crept into the SDA church after Ellen White died.
.

1. We had 3 published statements of belief before Ellen White died - not one of them denied the Trinity.

2. IT was Ellen White who introduced "Third Person of the Godhead" terms into Adventist literature - and this turned the tide in favor the Trinitarian SDAs starting in the 1880's.

3. James White and others like him held such a wrong idea of the Trinity so as to oppose a doctrine that neither they nor any Christians today believe in.

For example

In 1855 J. James White published an article in the Review and Herald entitled “Preach the Word.” In dealing with Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4:4 “they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” he wrote, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ, ....”


Joseph Bates wrote in 1868, “Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.”


4. But as their view of the definition for the term became more accurate and their understanding of the nature of God improved - the men like James White and Uriah Smith began to see no real difference between their own view of God the Father and God the Son - vs - the Trinitarian one.


But in 1876 he wrote that “S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we apprehend no trial here.”38 And a year later he declared his belief in the equality of the Son with the Father and condemned any view as erroneous that “makes Christ inferior to the Father.”38 (2) Originally Uriah Smith and others taught that Christ was the first created being. Later he adopted the position that Christ was begotten not created (see p. 3 above).............................

37 (The Day Star, Jan 21, 1846)

38 (Review And Herald, Oct 12, 1876)

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You have to acknowledge the elephant in the room... during the entire time Br. White and the other pioneers were espousing non Trinitarian/quasi Arian statements in print under the authority of church publications, she never once rebuked or reproved these statements, which, if you know anything about sister White, she would not have ignored. Is it possible she was just not given proper light up until the 1880's? Perhaps but doesn't seem likely considering the Satanic influence that began infiltrating the ranks during the late 1800's. As I have stated before, the illustration of the trinity used by our church up until recently was identical to the one used by the RC... not a coincidence, imo.

 

[sparow]

God reveals His truth to the remnant collectively. The remnant of the Millerites rejected the trinitarianism collectively. It only crept into the SDA church after Ellen White died.

I found this one interesting when I was making a chart for various time prophecy.

Daniel 12: 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

This speaks the rise of the little horn power that takes away daily ministry of Jesus by setting up a counterfeit religious system. This from 508 to 1798AD, 1290 year prophecy. 508AD was the year when the Trinitarians defeated the Arian king Clovis. The Abomination that makes Desolate set up. The Abomination of Desolation is the idolatrous pagan standard sets up on the Holy Place.

Basically the doctrine of the trinity is a nonsense that came into effect at the council of Nicosia, chaired by a Roman Governor who forced the establishment of the doctrine from numerous differing opinions among the church fathers.

I believe the Millerites and the SDA got the 2300 year prophesy wrong, even if I don't know what is right. The prophesy ends with, "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The cleansing of the sanctuary is when the blood is sprinkled on the holy Place and the blood will be Christ's blood and I am of the opinion that this took place two thousand years ago. Since Christ became the High Priest there is only one sacrifice and one cleansing of the sanctuary but this service is a two thousand year event.

 

[BobRyan]

Like it or not, belief in the Trinity is one of the Adventist Church’s 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Adventists who argue against the trinity do not represent official adventist theology, but espouse a divergent view held by a minority. https://www.adventist.org/fileadmin...rticles/official-statements/28Beliefs-Web.pdf

That is true. And there we find the "One God in Three Persons" statement affirmed by the entire SDA Denomination as a body.

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

The existence of this published-and-voted affirmation by the entire church body is an irrefutable fact of history.

Some small group may wish to debate the doctrine itself - but the existence of that affirmation cannot be erased.

There is nothing on this thread that would indicate what most SDA think of the Trinity. .

I would dispute that given that the world wide church of SDAs meet every 5 years to affirm their existing statement of beliefs or edit/change them if that is the desire of the group.

 

[BobRyan]

Basically the doctrine of the trinity is a nonsense that came into effect at the council of Nicosia, chaired by a Roman Governor who forced the establishment of the doctrine from numerous differing opinions among the church fathers.

The confused view of it - was rejected by early SDA pioneers and that confused view is not accepted by Trinitarians today as being their view of it.

1. We had 3 published statements of belief before Ellen White died - not one of them denied the Trinity.

2. IT was Ellen White who introduced "Third Person of the Godhead" terms into Adventist literature - and this turned the tide in favor the Trinitarian SDAs starting in the 1880's.

3. James White and others like him held such a wrong idea of the Trinity so as to oppose a doctrine that neither they nor any Christians today believe in.

For example

In 1855 J. James White published an article in the Review and Herald entitled “Preach the Word.” In dealing with Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4:4 “they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” he wrote, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ, ....”


Joseph Bates wrote in 1868, “Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.”

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 to see that even Trinitarians on this board agree with the "One God in Three Persons" definition 2 minutes ago #1

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the Millerites and the SDA got the 2300 year prophesy wrong, even if I don't know what is right. The prophesy ends with, "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The cleansing of the sanctuary is when the blood is sprinkled on the holy Place and the blood will be Christ's blood and I am of the opinion that this took place two thousand years ago. Since Christ became the High Priest there is only one sacrifice and one cleansing of the sanctuary but this service is a two thousand year event.

We need a non-Trinity thread for that discussion --- starting one.

 

[sparow]

The confused view of it - was rejected by early SDA pioneers and that confused view is not accepted by Trinitarians today as being their view of it.



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 to see that even Trinitarians on this board agree with the "One God in Three Persons" definition 2 minutes ago #1

I believe, I could be wrong; you cannot seriously bring in this new age non-definition of the trinity to replace the 17 century old doctrine except to deceive yourself. What I see is a false doctrine replaced by an oxymoron.

 

[BobRyan]

Basically the doctrine of the trinity is a nonsense that came into effect at the council of Nicosia, chaired by a Roman Governor who forced the establishment of the doctrine from numerous differing opinions among the church fathers.

The confused view of it - was rejected by early SDA pioneers and that confused view is not accepted by Trinitarians today as being their view of it.

1. We had 3 published statements of belief before Ellen White died - not one of them denied the Trinity.

2. IT was Ellen White who introduced "Third Person of the Godhead" terms into Adventist literature - and this turned the tide in favor the Trinitarian SDAs starting in the 1880's.

3. James White and others like him held such a wrong idea of the Trinity so as to oppose a doctrine that neither they nor any Christians today believe in.

For example

In 1855 J. James White published an article in the Review and Herald entitled “Preach the Word.” In dealing with Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4:4 “they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” he wrote, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ, ....”


Joseph Bates wrote in 1868, “Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.”

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 to see that even Trinitarians on this board agree with the "One God in Three Persons" definition 2 minutes ago #1

I believe, I could be wrong; you cannot seriously bring in this new age non-definition of the trinity to replace the 17 century old doctrine

I think you are engaged in a pointless exercise if your entire effort is to claim some definition for the Trinity - that all Trinitarians today also reject -- then argue that you oppose what is called today - the Trinity "One God in Three Persons"

Either support or reject the modern doctrine - if you reject "One God in THREE Persons" feel free to state why it is you reject it. And in so doing you will be opposing what Trinitarians believe.

But to come up with your own definition -- your own straw man -- then oppose it... only to admit that so also do Trinitarians oppose that same doctrine as you have defined it... has limited usefulness.

 

[Dave-W]

Basically the doctrine of the trinity is a nonsense that came into effect at the council of Nicosia, chaired by a Roman Governor who forced the establishment of the doctrine from numerous differing opinions among the church fathers.

I think you mean "Nicaea." That city is now in Turkey proper and is called Iznik. "Nicosia" is a city on the island of Cyprus. The "official" definition of the Trinity came out of the first Nicean conference of 325 ad and was stated in the Nicean Creed.

BTW - it is only non-sensical if one looks at it from a western greek world view and logic format. In the eastern Hebraic world view and logic framework - it does make sense.

 

[sparow]

The confused view of it - was rejected by early SDA pioneers and that confused view is not accepted by Trinitarians today as being their view of it.



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 to see that even Trinitarians on this board agree with the "One God in Three Persons" definition 2 minutes ago #1



I think you are engaged in a pointless exercise if your entire effort is to claim some definition for the Trinity - that all Trinitarians today also reject -- then argue that you oppose what is called today - the Trinity "One God in Three Persons"

Either support or reject the modern doctrine - if you reject "One God in THREE Persons" feel free to state why it is you reject it. And in so doing you will be opposing what Trinitarians believe.

But to come up with your own definition -- your own straw man -- then oppose it... only to admit that so also do Trinitarians oppose that same doctrine as you have defined it... has limited usefulness.

I don't have a definition of my own for the trinity, I try to determine what the trinity means to you; I am vaguely aware of the details of the 1700 year old teaching of the trinity.

Is there really a modern trinity doctrine; one God in three persons is the old doctrine; doctrine means teaching, who is the teacher of your doctrine and what authority is behind it? The Bible does not teach, "One God in three persons," and this is why I don't know about the trinity; the apostle who said, "All scripture is suitable for doctrine and reproof," meant that the OT was suitable for teaching but not suitable to grow doctrines of men from.

 

[sparow]

I think you mean "Nicaea." That city is now in Turkey proper and is called Iznik. "Nicosia" is a city on the island of Cyprus. The "official" definition of the Trinity came out of the first Nicean conference of 325 ad and was stated in the Nicean Creed.

BTW - it is only non-sensical if one looks at it from a western greek world view and logic format. In the eastern Hebraic world view and logic framework - it does make sense.

Well Dave you seem to know where I was referring; the issue is not logic or world view but whether one allows doctrines of men and traditions of men to replace what God has given.

 

[Dave-W]

the issue is not logic or world view but whether one allows doctrines of men and traditions of men to replace what God has given.

Yes indeed.

The Nicene Creed's description of the Trinity: "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;" has been described as sounding like it was engineered to off-put Jews who were considering the claims of the Gospel. IT takes something very Jewish and makes it sound (at least to Jewish ears) like paganism. And according to Romans 11, the reason we gentiles got the gospel in the first place was to make Jews jealous and drive them to it. So instead, we drive them AWAY. Not good.

The concept of a multi-part Single God is all thru scripture, from the Great Confession of God's Unity (Shema) in Deut 4.6, to the Ancient of Days and the young king in Daniel 7, to the "seven spirits of God" in Revelation.

 

[sparow]

Yes indeed.

The Nicene Creed's description of the Trinity: "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;" has been described as sounding like it was engineered to off-put Jews who were considering the claims of the Gospel. IT takes something very Jewish and makes it sound (at least to Jewish ears) like paganism. And according to Romans 11, the reason we gentiles got the gospel in the first place was to make Jews jealous and drive them to it. So instead, we drive them AWAY. Not good.

The concept of a multi-part Single God is all thru scripture, from the Great Confession of God's Unity (Shema) in Deut 4.6, to the Ancient of Days and the young king in Daniel 7, to the "seven spirits of God" in Revelation.

The trinity concept was established in Paganism and came into the church of pagan converts as did Easter and many other things.

The word God is Pagan and one has to wonder when Christians use it do they have a proper concept; god could describe a Roman governor, a Catholic Priest or a military general. In the Hebrew words used for the God of Israel cannot be used for other Gods and there is a definite concept. Elohim means more than one, it may mean more than two; strangely in one of the Talmuds Moses is called Elohim Moses and in one of the psalms one can read, "Ye are Elohim," I may have been mistaken but I thought the psalmist was referring to Israel.

 

[Dave-W]

The word God is Pagan

It is a title. It is neither pagan nor sacred.

In the Hebrew words used for the God of Israel cannot be used for other Gods and there is a definite concept.

Not true. In Hebrew, only God's proper name YHVH is not applied (in scripture) to other gods, or even men.
Elohay, (singular) Elohim (plural) and Adon are all used to refer to people or the pagan gods of the Egyptians and Canaanites.

Mi kamocha Ba'elim Adonai?
Mi kamocha ne'dar bakodesh;
Nora tehillot, oseh feleh.

Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness;
Fearful in praises, and doing wondrous deeds? Exodus 15.11

Ba'elim is a version of Elohim that is translated "among the gods."

In Genesis 35.2, Jacob instructs all in his household to put away the "strange gods" nekar elohim and to be clean.

 

[BobRyan]

The trinity concept was established in Paganism and came into the church of pagan converts as did Easter and many other things. .

If you have a "One God in three persons" example for paganism - you might want to show it.

When Noah gets off the boat - there are no pagans on planet earth - just Noah's family. I doubt they were pagan.

 

[sparow]

If you have a "One God in three persons" example for paganism - you might want to show it.

When Noah gets off the boat - there are no pagans on planet earth - just Noah's family. I doubt they were pagan.

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

scroll down to "The Pagan origins of the Trinity"