Non Trinitarianism in Adventism

[thecolorsblend]

I don't know of any active Seventh-day Adventist members around here that would be called anti-trinitarian or non-trinitarian.

Irrespective, I think the point Wgw was making relates to the non-Trinitarian influences before and during White's time. I believe the 7DA denomination is self-confessed Trinitarian. But that isn't the issue.

 

[Wgw]

I don't know of any active Seventh-day Adventist members around here that would be called anti-trinitarian or non-trinitarian.

In my personal experience, there is a lot of confusion. A lot of the so-called anti-trinitarians prove their anti-trinitarianism by saying that they believe that Christ was begotten, seemingly unaware that that is part of the classic, Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

Some modern Protestants believe that "only begotten" means "unique," and thus these may not believe that Christ was begotten at all, other than 2000 years ago. I have met some who might think they are proving that they are trinitarian by denying that Jesus was begotten, not realizing that they are thus denying part of the classic doctrine of the Trinity.

As for the 1850's through 1880's, I do not see how some of the statements from back then really promote an anti-trinitarian or non-trinitarian position. For example, some other faith described the Godhead as consisting of one God without body and without parts, composed of three persons, the second of which has a body. So an early Adventist criticized this description of the Trinity doctrine. So sometimes an early writer might be reacting to someone else's formulation back then, and not to what we think of today when we think of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I provided references to works by Adventist scholars describing these views as anti-Trinitarian. Are you proposing to disagree with your coreligionists on this issue?

Also, your continued lack of personal assent to the Nicene Creed is troubling. One could hypothetically believe in the Trinitarian doctrine while rejecting other aspects of the Creed, or while holsing to an erroneous interpretation of what the Trinity means. Trinitarianism is, by itself, not enough.

 

[Pickle]

I shouldn't think so. If it was, there would scarcely be so much corporate division inherent to the Christian Church.

The purpose of a creed is to identify those most salient, non-negotiable points adherents of a given religion cling to most closely. The purpose (and beauty) of the Nicene Creed which I recite at Mass every Sunday is that the entire parish gives verbal assent to this fine distillation of Christian belief. Indeed one's beliefs can (and arguably should) go far beyond merely what's listed in a given creed.

No, the purpose is to establish non-negotiable points to which one must agree in order to accurately refer to oneself as a Christian. By defining, for example, the nature of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed, I can be sure that the other members of my parish (and larger Church) all understand and agree with me on this common definition.

Moreover, it permits diversity on truly irrelevant issues. In America, the two dominant parties are the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. A creed allows Republicans and Democrats both, people who perhaps have very different ideas about how the country ought to be governed, to be united on those things which matter the most without getting distracted by petty, divisive issues such as partisan politics.

It's worked quite splendidly for millennia.

To me, it falls short in a couple ways that I can see. (a) When it refers to one baptism, that's vague. I believe in one baptism, just like Paul referred to, but I believe that that baptism is believer's baptism by immersion. The persecutors of the Donatists or the Anabaptists might have thought that it meant that you can't be baptized more than once, even though we have a record of a rebaptism in the book of Acts.

(b) There is nothing that I saw that refers to something more important than mere intellectual assent. James did say that the devils believe and tremble. I didn't see anything in that creed that pledged one to live a life of faith and obedience. I didn't see anything that suggested a commitment of life to God.

 

[Pickle]

I provided references to works by Adventist scholars describing these views as anti-Trinitarian. Are you proposing to disagree with your coreligionists on this issue?

Also, your continued lack of personal assent to the Nicene Creed is troubling. One could hypothetically believe in the Trinitarian doctrine while rejecting other aspects of the Creed, or while holsing to an erroneous interpretation of what the Trinity means. Trinitarianism is, by itself, not enough.

Yes, I see things differently after reading those early statements for myself. Now if you disagree, then quote here some early statement that you think proves your point, and I'll take a look at it.

What should be troubling to you is your insistence on my assenting to a particular creed when I already told you I don't do that. The Bible is my only creed. That has been the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for a very long time. I'm not about to violate my conscience just because you are trying to pressure me to do so. If you think some position I take is unorthodox, then feel free to point it out, showing me from the Bible where I am wrong, and I will change my position.

 

[Wgw]

To me, it falls short in a couple ways that I can see. (a) When it refers to one baptism, that's vague. I believe in one baptism, just like Paul referred to, but I believe that that baptism is believer's baptism by immersion. The persecutors of the Donatists or the Anabaptists might have thought that it meant that you can't be baptized more than once, even though we have a record of a rebaptism in the book of Acts.

And alas here you spectacularly miss the point as to what Donatism was about; the primary objection to it was the idea of the efficacy of sacraments relying on the personal sanctity of the priest administering them. Aside from this deviation, Donatism was broadly similiar to the Catholic, Orthodox Nicene Church.

(b) There is nothing that I saw that refers to something more important than mere intellectual assent. James did say that the devils believe and tremble. I didn't see anything in that creed that pledged one to live a life of faith and obedience. I didn't see anything that suggested a commitment of life to God.

That's not the purpose of the Creed. The Creed is a liturgical statement of correct doctrine regarding the identity of God and our Lord.

I would note by the way in raising these objections to the Nicene Creed you are basically admitting you are not Nicene, per se.

 

[Pickle]

Irrespective, I think the point Wgw was making relates to the non-Trinitarian influences before and during White's time. I believe the 7DA denomination is self-confessed Trinitarian. But that isn't the issue.

He did refer to present day supposed agitation of non-trinitarianism, and that's why I mentioned that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

To me, it falls short in a couple ways that I can see. (a) When it refers to one baptism, that's vague. I believe in one baptism, just like Paul referred to, but I believe that that baptism is believer's baptism by immersion. The persecutors of the Donatists or the Anabaptists might have thought that it meant that you can't be baptized more than once, even though we have a record of a rebaptism in the book of Acts.

The issue then is a lack of specificity. Fine and dandy. In my case, that's a matter for the Magisterium to decide upon (and indeed they have).

The purpose of that section of the Nicene Creed is to emphasize the importance of baptism rather than get into the nitty-gritty of how precisely it is to be done.

(b) There is nothing that I saw that refers to something more important than mere intellectual assent. James did say that the devils believe and tremble. I didn't see anything in that creed that pledged one to live a life of faith and obedience. I didn't see anything that suggested a commitment of life to God.

The reason for that is because that's not the purpose of the Creed. It is intended to serve as a list containing the doctrines with which all members in good standing are expected to agree.

All due respect but your objections appear to relate to a relative lack of specificity inherent to the creed. The creed is not intended to be a "one stop shop" for all your Christianity needs. It's supposed to lay the foundations for shared beliefs and communion. What you have specifically cited up to now is out of scope for what a creed is supposed to be.

 

[Wgw]

Yes, I see things differently after reading those early statements for myself. Now if you disagree, then quote here some early statement that you think proves your point, and I'll take a look at it.

What should be troubling to you is your insistence on my assenting to a particular creed when I already told you I don't do that. The Bible is my only creed. That has been the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for a very long time. I'm not about to violate my conscience just because you are trying to pressure me to do so. If you think some position I take is unorthodox, then feel free to point it out, showing me from the Bible where I am wrong, and I will change my position.

If in fact your position is that even admitting your beliefs are reflected in the Nicene Creed is an affront to the integrity of your belief system, a violation of your conscience, I respect that, but it does suggest an active non-Nicene or anti-Nicene school of thought in Adventism that is opposed, if not perhaps to the doctrine of Nicea, to the idea of Nicea, what the Nicene Fathers did, and to the product of their work.

 

[Wgw]

He did refer to present day supposed agitation of non-trinitarianism, and that's why I mentioned that.

This agitation is not supposed; I have provided documentation that it exists, from an Adventist source.

 

[Pickle]

And alas here you spectacularly miss the point as to what Donatism was about; the primary objection to it was the idea of the efficacy of sacraments relying on the personal sanctity of the priest administering them. Aside from this deviation, Donatism was broadly similiar to the Catholic, Orthodox Nicene Church.

But I have personally read the religious laws in the Theodosian code, and I know the penalties that were legislated against those who baptized a second time. If such a baptism occurred on your property, you were in danger of losing your property, it being placed in the "fisc" or treasury.

That's not the purpose of the Creed. The Creed is a liturgical statement of correct doctrine regarding the identity of God and our Lord.

So when are statements that go beyond mere intellectual assent made? What we require becomes what is important in people's minds. If all we do is count memory work toward one's grade, students will think that memory work is what is most important, no matter what one says about other areas of learning. When are statements that go beyond mere intellectual assent ever made?

I would note by the way in raising these objections to the Nicene Creed you are basically admitting you are not Nicene, per se.

Not at all. Merely supporting our position that having another creed other than the Bible is less than ideal is by no means a denial of any part of the creed that is less than ideal.

 

[BobRyan]

Secondly, I have seen no one even bother to respond to the evidence I have presented of active anti-Trinitarian agitation in the SDA at present, and dominance of non-Trinitarian views in the 1850s-1880s.

There were disputes about this subject in the 1800's but not by Ellen White - and nothing was ever stated in the published doctrinal statements of the SDA church in the 1800's or 1900's or to this very day - to give life to the speculative accusations made in the OP.

Now you are down to "yes but didn't at least someone differ ... maybe 150 years ago" --

Not the sort of thing one might have "expected" given the content of the OP.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would like to add that I have said my last about creeds and the like in this thread.

However, if any of you are interested in continuing that line of discussion, it would be my pleasure to open a separate thread about creeds.

 

[Pickle]

This agitation is not supposed; I have provided documentation that it exists, from an Adventist source.

Like I said, these non-trinitarians are arguing in favor of part of the Trinity doctrine, and thus the agitation is supposed.

I was surprised on day to read in one of the main newsletters of these people how Froom was so wrong in saying that the Son and Father were ... okay, I'm a little rusty on this. Homoousious, same substance, same essence. That newsletter condemned Froom for using one of these three expressions, and then asserted that they themselves believed Christ and the father to be one of the last two expressions. I wrote the author and pointed out that what he said he believed meant the same as what he condemned Froom over. They just don't know what they are talking about.

If you want to refer to it as agitation of self-proclaimed anti-trinitarians, then yes, that would be accurate.

 

[BobRyan]

Others, including you, are handling the official subject of this thread at least as well as I could .

I think you are telling the truth in that case.

 

[BobRyan]

If in fact your position is that even admitting your beliefs are reflected in the Nicene Creed is an affront to the integrity of your belief system, a violation of your conscience, I respect that, but it does suggest an active non-Nicene or anti-Nicene school of thought in Adventism that is opposed, if not perhaps to the doctrine of Nicea, to the idea of Nicea, what the Nicene Fathers did, and to the product of their work.

The long way to say "SDAs follow the Bible and not the traditions of man"??

While it is true that the SDA denomination accepts the Bible doctrine on the Trinity - it is not true that they do so at the dictates of the Nicene "creed". The creeds of man - may on occasion get something right - and when they do - we applaud them but still do not follow "their dictates". We prefer the actual Word of God.

 

[mmksparbud]

I have never encountered any SDA that did not believe in the Trinity as stated. They would have been soundly rejected.
I never read anything in EGW stating a non-Trinitarian view. Somebody please provide a quote. I get very tired of people saying EGW said this or that when she never did, and that includes SDA members. umm--I was guilty of it myself couple times, I now research everything first.

I will withdraw for now--a car hit about 50 people outside the Planet Hollywood here in Las Vegas, car ran up a curb--30 people in hospital including a child dragged under a car and UNCONFIRMED reports of gunfire in the building itself, may have been just a part of the chaotic noises. No other info. I've been on here too long anyway, my neck is killing me and I have traction tomorrow--I'll check in later.

 

[Wgw]

I have never encountered any SDA that did not believe in the Trinity as stated.

Prepare to encounter some:

http://bkankuzi.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-i-am-non-trinitarian-seventh-day_5831.html

 

[Pickle]

If in fact your position is that even admitting your beliefs are reflected in the Nicene Creed is an affront to the integrity of your belief system, a violation of your conscience, I respect that, but it does suggest an active non-Nicene or anti-Nicene school of thought in Adventism that is opposed, if not perhaps to the doctrine of Nicea, to the idea of Nicea, what the Nicene Fathers did, and to the product of their work.

If you know much about us, you would know that we believe that Nicea decreeing that Easter was to be observed on Sunday was wrong. This was one of the steps in the long process of changing the Sabbath of the 4th commandment into Sunday. And I have read the oppressive laws in the Theodosian Code against the Quartodecimeans too.

For one thing, using civil power to force people in a question of religion constitutes fornication with the kings of the earth in Revelation 14; 17; 18. The church should get its power to persuade from her husband, King Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, not from civil rulers.

But if you then say that Adventists are anti-Nicean, you will be giving the wrong impression if that term denotes anti-trinitarianism.

Great Controversy asserts that it was over the question of Sunday that Rome first tried to lord it over everyone else, something to that effect. That is referring to Bishop Victor excommunicating the churches of the east who remembered Christ's death and resurrection on Nisan 14 rather than on Sunday. Now that's not an historical error, is it?

 

[Wgw]

The long way to say "SDAs follow the Bible and not the traditions of man"??

While it is true that the SDA denomination accepts the Bible doctrine on the Trinity - it is not true that they do so at the dictates of the Nicene "creed". The creeds of man - may on occasion get something right - and when they do - we applaud them but still do not follow "their dictates". We prefer the actual Word of God.

So you admit you reject the Nicene Creed as a "tradition of men?" Hmm?

I have to confess that this is enough to make me regard the point I set out to make in the OP regarding Adventism and Nicea as having been made. I am going to request this thread be closed.

I should like to thank @Sophrosyne and @thecolorsblend for their interesting contributions.

Bon soir!

 

[BobRyan]

I have never encountered any SDA that did not believe in the Trinity as stated. They would have been soundly rejected.
I never read anything in EGW stating a non-Trinitarian view. Somebody please provide a quote. I get very tired of people saying EGW said this or that when she never did, and that includes SDA members. umm--I was guilty of it myself couple times, I now research everything first.

I will withdraw for now--a car hit about 50 people outside the Planet Hollywood here in Las Vegas, car ran up a curb--30 people in hospital including a child dragged under a car and UNCONFIRMED reports of gunfire in the building itself, may have been just a part of the chaotic noises. No other info. I've been on here too long anyway, my neck is killing me and I have traction tomorrow--I'll check in later.

Sorry to hear about the accident - we pray for those that were injured.

I have no doubt that there is somebody some place on planet earth that claims to be SDA and yet also teaches something that is against the doctrines of the SDA church. I also have no doubt that in the 1800's as doctrines were being added to the core set that all SDAs believe - that differing opinions based on the home denomination from which various members were coming from -- were being taught or at least debated and discussed.

But when it comes to the actual published doctrines of the denomination in the 1800's and 1900's and to this very day - I find them to be rock solid with nothing at all in them arguing against the Trinity. Hence we find this thread in the "Controversial Theology" section - supposedly about the SDA denomination having some non-trinitarian doctrine - or at least Ellen White promoting a non-Trinitarian doctrine -- and there is simply nothing to it.

It seems that "since then" the discussion is reduced to "well didn't someone have a variant view - ever?" - which is another question altogether. Certainly in every denomination "someone ever had a view that was at variance"