I have a question?

[GuardianShua]

Originally the Adventist church did not support the trinitarian doctrine, because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture. Also it is propogated by secret societies. But as more baptist came into the Adventist Church it was re-established. Now my question is: The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

 

[djconklin]

because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason?

Also it is propogated by secret societies.

Which one's? Can we see the proof?

The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to?

 

[GuardianShua]

Quote:
because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason? = Reply: Yes.


Quote:
Also it is propogated by secret societies.

Which one's? Can we see the proof? = Reply: I think all of them but one. It woud be a lot of trouble for me to dig my books out. Ill go and check my off line computer.


Quote:
The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to? = Reply: Someone in the Trinitarian post produced a document.

 

[GuardianShua]

Here's some more info on the trinity doctrine.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col 2:16-18)

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim 6:20)

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to a Jewish Gnosticism (science is"gnosis" in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). Is the "profane and vain babblings" the Church had to combat?

The worshipping of angels was then and is now one of the distinctive marks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today use's angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control their destiny. The first few chapters of Hebrews is another example, in correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says: "The principal elements of Gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia also states that: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."
The Roman Catholic Church with its philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries such as saints and angels is the same distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah.

The angel that the Kabbalists call Metatron, is the female god of the Kabbalah, which they call the "Shekhinah", it has emerged into Catholic theology as Mary.
The Catholic Church also absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics into a system of celibacy for monks, priests and nuns.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says he was a Kabbalist, "an initiate of the mysteries."
The Pharisees who are Masonic like Kabbalists; they were Hellenistic Jews and the enemies of Jesus Christ.

The Jewish Encyclopedia: "We are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from."

"Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalms 51:11).
Moses received the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11).
Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1). Was he filled with another person inside his body? No. He was filled with the presence of God.

"He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he, which baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33).

So here we see a change. People are now given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. This will automatically mean more people (not just prophets and patriarchs) would receive the Holy Spirit.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). Peter told the people at Jerusalem about Jesus being crucified and they responded by asking what they should do.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Was Peter telling them they could receive a person into their body? No.

So after the day of Pentecost (which is the same day as the Feast of First Fruits) people were able to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. No longer was this the domain of only a few as in the Old Testament. However those being called were still relatively few compared to the world population.

There is no mention of the trinity in the entire Bible. There is only one place in which the original Greek of the New Testament mentions the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. For an explanation of this read: The False Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity.

Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original apostles. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings.

It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is also known as Tertullian. In the second century he was the first to introduce trinitarism into Christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.

The idea of individual substanence hypostasis was first introduced by Origen. Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would adopt the idea of the Son being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually led to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea.

Arius gained many followers as he taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father.
Arians were the followers of Arius.

The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Basilius, also known as Basil whom was bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.

Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that "the middle person of the three," was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two "body-guards": the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

How the Trinity Doctrine Entered Christianity
God commanded, "You will not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7 NRSV) Because of this command the translators of the Septuagint, did not transliterate the name "Yahweh" into Greek. They believed that the transliteration would have been a misuse of God's name. Instead, they translated it as "Kyrios," which in English is the word LORD. So therefore, the word Lord/Kyrios, became the name of Yahweh in Greek. It was a common title for masters or men of authority. Also, the New Testament writers applied it to Jesus. In the end, Jesus and God shared the same name: Lord/Kyrios.
In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: "He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God." Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an "improperly called god," and must not be worshipped as God.
Wrong interpretations and the distortion of God's word is what supports the doctrine of the trinity.

When asked, "Which is the most important commandment of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important of all the commandments is, hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is One." (Mark 12:29)

That is what we find throughout the scriptures:

"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6)

"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5)

"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9)

"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6)

"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4)

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)

"There is but one God, the Father, whom made all things, and us by Himself, and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom we are in. (1 Cor. 8:6)

"This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
This last quotation is Jesus speaking; addressing God in prayer as the one true God, and speaking of himself as separate from that one true God.

 

[GuardianShua]

Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence
for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this
would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned
on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical
criticism.

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the
historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must
be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by
the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact
words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the
second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural
proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in
(AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief
Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew
28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other
Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some
scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out
that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that
the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was
perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in
the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian
formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does
not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is
doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from
early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal
usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic)
Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian
order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows
only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5;
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the
second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs
only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and
Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such
formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be
disputed." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical
situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early
Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the
mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and
that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in
the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism
performed with the name of the Trinity."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this
statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For
Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the
most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of
this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not
baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus
alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in
My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later
Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth
century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship
as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
"The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this
world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The
command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late
doctrinal addition."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the
threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic
Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse
Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As
to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in
which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if
possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically
says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic
Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured
on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G.
Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that
Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian
Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those
words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all
baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common
and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord
Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites
and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and
Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On
rebaptism") shows."

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes
Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is
little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle
of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline
Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem
is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to
Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the
analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New
Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation.
By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the
Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest
form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it
possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ
given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have
followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the
New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of
this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the
short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and
the longer trine formula was a later development."

A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History
at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again
declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the
name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of
the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed
to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the
original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the
practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the
Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century
retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least,
baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular,
certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text
of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)
profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and
third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far
as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came
from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew
28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence
proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his
library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first
copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus'
actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19:
"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

See Daniel 8:9,12 and 2Tim 4:3.

 

[djconklin]

The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to? = Reply: Someone in the Trinitarian post produced a document.

Virtually anyone can make up a document--I need an exact quote I can look up.

 

[sentipente]

Quote:
because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason? = Reply: Yes.

I'm surprised you would make that claim when nothing in the Bible explicitly makes the case for the Trinity. How do you deliberately introduce something in document and leave it vague enough to go either way? They may have introduced the doctrine but not "into Scripture." If you are so much against what has been introduced by the Catholic church you will have to discard your views on the interpretation of revealed theology. That's their baby as well.

 

[GuardianShua]

Virtually anyone can make up a document--I need an exact quote I can look up.

Here is what one person posted : Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

 

[GuardianShua]

Here is what one person posted : Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

History of Trinity Doctrine Among Adventists

William Miller, the founder of the Adventist movement and promoter of the 1844 end of the world teaching, was a Trinitarian: "I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead — as there is in man, the body, soul, and spirit. And if anyone will tell me how these exist, I will tell him how the three persons of the Triune God are connected" (quoted by James White in Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875, p. 59).

Adventist leader Joshua V. Himes wrote about early Adventists: "At first, they were generally Trinitarians; subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural." Their accepted statements regarding the Godhead were, "That there is one living and true God, the Father Almighty, who is unoriginated, independent, and eternal, the Creator and Supporter of all worlds; and that this God is one spiritual intelligence, one infinite mind, ever the same, never varying. . . That Christ is the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world. . . ." (Joshua V. Himes, "Christian Connection", Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by T. Newton Brown, Boston: Shattuck & Co., 1835, p. 362).

Elder Joseph Bates, who introduced the Sabbath to the Adventists via his meeting with Seventh Day Baptists, became a staunch Anti-Trinitarian: "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. I said to my father, ‘If you can convince me [we] are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son, and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the Trinity" . . . (Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868).

Early Adventist leaders were all Anti-Trinitarians. James White referred to Christ as the "Angel" who led the Hebrews, and was a lesser being than the eternal Father (James White, Christ in the Old Testament, Oakland, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1877, p. 11). J.M. Stephenson wrote that "The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the other. To say that the Son is as old as his father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father" (J.M. Stephenson, "The Atonement," Review and Herald, VI, November 14, 1854, p. 128). These Anti-Trinitarian views are termed "Arianism." Arians believe that the Son is not co-eternal or co-equal with the Father, as stated by the Nicene Creed, but the Messiah was God’s first creation, and hence less than the Father. Arians believe that Jesus was created by the Father at the very beginning of creation, before anything else was created, even before the worlds began.

D.W. Hull said, "The doctrine which we propose to examine [trinitarianism], was established by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and ever since that period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for disbelief in this doctrine, that the Arians were anathematized in A.D. 513. As we can trace this doctrine no farther back than the origin of the ‘Man of Sin’ and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force, than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scripture on this subject" (D.W. Hull, "Bible Doctrine of Divinity," Review and Herald, November 10, 1859, p. 193).

Uriah Smith, perhaps the most famous Adventist writer of the 19th Century, said, "But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present" (Uriah Smith, "In the Question Chair," Review and Herald, LXVII, October 28, 1890, p. 664). In commenting on Revelation 3:14-22, Smith wrote that he believed that the Messiah was "the first created being" by God the Father (Uriah Smith, Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865, p. 59).

Adventist historian J.N. Loughborough wrote, "What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity? There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to Scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous" (J.N. Loughborough, "Questions for Bro. Loughborough," Review and Herald, XVIII, November 5, 1861, p. 184).

J.H. Waggoner wrote, "Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of the Trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism [denial of the divinity of Jesus]. . . .the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but ‘one God,’ the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul’s calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God" (J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement, Oakland, California: Pacific Press, 1884, pp. 174, 153).

Socinianism, another form of Anti-Trinitarianism, says that Jesus did not pre-exist before His human birth, and had no part in the creation of man. Adventist researcher Jonathan Ross says that the Church of God, 7th Day (Meridian, Idaho group) is Socinian, as well as the House of Yahweh in Odessa, Texas, and the Church of God, Abrahamic Faith (Oregon, Illinois).

The Seventh-day Adventist 1889 Yearbook, under the article, "The Godhead," states, "That there is one God, a personal, spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, the One by whom He created all things, and by whom they do exist."

According to John Kiesz (personal interview, April 1991), Adventist leader James White ridiculed the idea of the Trinity, but his wife, Ellen G. White, was a closet Trinitarian. After the 1880’s, the Seventh-day Adventists underwent a doctrinal change regarding the teaching of the Trinity. The 1931 Yearbook says something quite different from statements of the pioneers, who were by this time deceased: "That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." And in 1980, the second point of the "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" states, "2. THE TRINITY—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."

 

[GuardianShua]

Supposedly it was a secret that Ellen believed in trinitarism. The documents are protected in pdf format. It was made know that she believe in trinitarism before her death. I could be wrong, but the documents look like they have been tampered with. I am not an athority in that area, but they did not look right.

 

[GuardianShua]

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

 

[GuardianShua]

Is anyone here that can copy that pdf into another format.

 

[djconklin]

History of Trinity Doctrine Among Adventists

Which came from where? I found it: http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/132.trinityhistory.html

Supposedly it was a secret that Ellen believed in trinitarism.

That seems contradicted by quotes in post #8.

I could be wrong, but the documents look like they have been tampered with.

What made you think that?

I looked at the pdf file -- I liked the last sentence in the 1st paragraph. However, we can move forward in our examination of the evidence. On page 1 Tim Poirer cites from DA, 678. We should note here, that DA was written in 1898. In the 1888 materials we can find similar sentence:

"Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this Satanic captivity was amazing. {1888 1493.2}"

Later in 1897, she wrote:

"Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing." {SpTA10 25.2}

 

[GuardianShua]

The problem could be the format that they used for the document. Or they did doctor the document. Anyway, it is not really important if Ellen did or did not believe in trinitarism. What do's matter is what Christians do with the information that is available today.

 

[GuardianShua]

In regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." /// The words "Let us" were not there in the original Hebrew. The words "LET US" are A.I.T. Assisted In Translation. Or in other words; not really there. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"

#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.

#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.

#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."

#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."

N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. "7. For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.

K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.

NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

Commentary

Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)

The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.

 

[GuardianShua]

I'm surprised you would make that claim when nothing in the Bible explicitly makes the case for the Trinity. How do you deliberately introduce something in document and leave it vague enough to go either way? They may have introduced the doctrine but not "into Scripture." If you are so much against what has been introduced by the Catholic church you will have to discard your views on the interpretation of revealed theology. That's their baby as well.

sdhnm,hyil,xfvbsd

 

[djconklin]

The problem could be the format that they used for the document. Or they did doctor the document.

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion?

 

[GuardianShua]

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion?

I have worked a little bit with picture files, and when you alter the appearance it can cause some distortion.

 

[GuardianShua]

I'm surprised you would make that claim when nothing in the Bible explicitly makes the case for the Trinity. How do you deliberately introduce something in document and leave it vague enough to go either way? They may have introduced the doctrine but not "into Scripture." If you are so much against what has been introduced by the Catholic church you will have to discard your views on the interpretation of revealed theology. That's their baby as well.

Yes, but it is implied. And it is believed by many. Changing one word can change the intire meaning.

 

[GuardianShua]

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion?

Even if Ellen did believe in trinitarism, it is not important. All human being are fallible. Not even the angels (messengers) are pure in His sight.