Trinity, Semi-Arian, Modalist Differences and similarities

[tall73]

According to who?

Again, this is not an all or nothing thing here. I never agreed to be placed in either group, nor did I agree with the standards that have been raised up to identify each group.

As far as I am concerned I am just simply a Christian that belongs to the SDA church.

Please do not label me as anything else.

Woob please understand that I do consider you just a Christian and that you belong to the SDA church.

I don't like the rule either. But it is the rule. So let's either enforce it or get rid of it.

My vote is to get rid of it.

 

[tall73]

What do you expect? I am hated. That's why I'm referred to like this.

It seems like everyone in here likes to use me as an example for 'badness'.

Not badness at all. You are caught by a poor rule.

The problem is you are not the only one being caught. But you are apparently the only one the traditional sides seem to have enough sympathy for to let it influence their decisions on it.

Now here is the issue. We did not make these rules or definitions. They were imposed on us. For the first time we have the ability to change them.

Are we going to?

If we are not going to then we have to live with how the rules really read, not how we want them to read.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Not badness at all. You are caught by a poor rule.

The problem is you are not the only one being caught. But you are apparently the only one the traditional sides seem to have enough sympathy for to let it influence their decisions on it.

Now here is the issue. We did not make these rules or definitions. They were imposed on us. For the first time we have the ability to change them.

Are we going to?

If we are not going to then we have to live with how the rules really read, not how we want them to read.

Tall, if you wanted to change this rule, why wouldn't you have brought it up BEFORE we voted on having separate Traditional and Progressive subforas?

If there isn't a guideline, then why even bother having the separate non-debate areas?

 

[TrustAndObey]

The "woob obsession" is a diversion to keep you from addressing the issue you ducked over and over and over....what is the standard? Why are you positing everything else for the standard? Woob is not an obsession but an example, as I myself am.

Am I progressive by that definition?

Is Woob?


What bothers me is you care about woob but you don't care about those who were going through inquisition after inquisition before.

You were perfectly happy to draw lines in the sand until they crossed you and your friend.

It is not an obsession with Woob. It is an obsession with the rules. The standard is clear. Yet you keep deflecting.

I don't want Woob or anyone else to be put into these categories. But that is the rule,.

Now....you talk about my obsession with Woob. What is your obsession with ignoring the rule?


Is this the rule governing the sub-forum or is it not? And do you plan to ignore it?

Progressive and liberal SDA members who may question, have newer interpretations of, or do not hold to the official 28 beliefs.

I answered this already. I do not meet the standard of being a Progressive Adventist.

Woob refuses to be defined by it....which is fine by me since he doesn't DEBATE in the Traditional subfora. That rule only comes into play when someone debates in a subfora they're not supposed to.

The rule (or "label") also comes into play when an Adventist claims that part of the bible is true and part of the bible is false, or that Jesus committed suicide. Then, you betcha Tall, I'm very glad to say "THAT is not the church's view on the subject".

If you guys want my support to do away with the labels, why couldn't you have just SAID that?

The fact is I really relish the Traditional subfora and it has been a blessing to me more times than I can count. I want it to remain that way, and obviously the majority of the posters here felt the same way.

 

[tall73]

Tall, if you wanted to change this rule, why wouldn't you have brought it up BEFORE we voted on having separate Traditional and Progressive subforas?

If there isn't a guideline, then why even bother having the separate non-debate areas?

Because everyone said they wanted them.

I am asking,as is reddogs, that we reconsider that.

But the larger point is that there IS a guideline, and you are not acknowledging it. So if we don't reconsider then the guideline needs to be enforced as written, not just as you prefer.

 

[tall73]

I answered this already. I do not meet the standard of being a Progressive Adventist.

Woob refuses to be defined by it....which is fine by me since he doesn't DEBATE in the Traditional subfora. That rule only comes into play when someone debates in a subfora they're not supposed to.

You are saying he never gives his theological view or teaches? That is in the rules you know.

And can anyone "refuse" to be defined?

The rule (or "label") also comes into play when an Adventist claims that part of the bible is true and part of the bible is false, or that Jesus committed suicide. Then, you betcha Tall, I'm very glad to say "THAT is not the church's view on the subject".

Ah, now you are the stickler!

Then stick it fairly. Woob is obviously not within the guidelines so stop dancing around it.

If you guys want my support to do away with the labels, why couldn't you have just SAID that?

Because you already made it quite clear that we should split entirely etc.

The only thing that seems to motivate discussion of this is spelling out the implications inherent in the standard.

The fact is I really relish the Traditional subfora and it has been a blessing to me more times than I can count. I want it to remain that way, and obviously the majority of the posters here felt the same way.

Great. So then stick to the guidelines and stop dancing around them.

You must

A. tell folks who do not accept all 28 not to give their theological view or teach there.

B. Cheerfully accept any scrutiny that comes your way on your view of the 28. Just as you call out others on their statements. No crying foul when it happens to you.

 

[tall73]

Now, back to the subject of the thread...

Please explain this:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35668512&postcount=14

When Adventists talk about the trinity, we usually (I say USUALLY) believe in three completely separate Entities that serve ONE purpose.

My husband and I are one, but we are of course separate people that can be apart. We do share the same purpose and are "one" but we are not the same person.

It is perfectly within CF rules that Adventists post here, because although our view of the trinity is a little different than other Christians, we still do believe in the triune force of three separate entities.

Is it your view then that there are three separate entities and they are one in purpose?

Again:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35669260&postcount=16

There are THREE Supreme Rulers in Heaven. They are "one" in PURPOSE and wisdom. There is a trinity, but it's not the one I hear other denominations talk about.

This seems to be pretty clearly tri-theism.


Again, the view you state:

#1 on my baptismal certificate:

I believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three CO-eternal Persons.

It means what it says. There is a Father, a Son, AND a Holy Spirit. They are united as one in purpose as God (like a husband and wife are one).

That is not at all what the mainstream churches teach.


They teach that Jesus IS the Father, the Father IS Jesus, etc. The Father God did not die for three days, and I will not accept that belief, and DID NOT accept this when I was baptized into the Adventist church.

This thread is getting off-topic though and I gotta go study.

Now when you say the Father is the Son, etc. are you meaning that you don't see them in any way being the same being but just three that are in agreement?

It's a view most Traditional Adventists (at least the ones I've talked to) hold as well.

I got it straight from scripture.

For instance:

John 20:17 (I think) says Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus died for three days. Father God did not. In fact, Father God resurrected God the Son.

There's a lot more scriptures like that which point to my view. And in believing what I do, I am in no way contradicting the fundamental belief of the Adventist church.

I do not in any way discount Jesus' role as God. He is the only way for us to get to the Father (His God and our God).

He is our advocate, our judge, and our friend.

I also do not discount the role of the Holy Spirit, our Mediator.

But they are one like my husband and I are one. Two totally separate people that are one in purpose, but capable of doing two completely different things at the same moment in time.

They are unified into one God with one purpose.

More tri-theism.

TrustandObey, you say that your pastor told you that your view was the correct one, that the unity was just united purpose etc. But have you noticed that the language of persons, unity, and Trinity are not new terms at all, and were used with a long history to represent a fairly traditional Trinitarian view?

Notice this brief summary from Wikipedia:

[FONT=&quot]In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy. Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).[/FONT]


Here is the Athanasian creed which explains the Trinity a bit more. Note the use of many of the same terms as our statement. I have bolded some of them. I underlined part that would speak against your view and note how it is distinct from the view of Trinity.


Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.


Your pastor may have believed what he told you but the church was not endorsing tritheism in their official belief, but were endorsing the Trinity which is what they called the belief.

Trinitarianism is distinct from tritheism. If they wanted to represent tritheism they would not have used the language they did which is clearly Trinitarian and employs the very term Trinity.

Notice also the singular masculine pronoun for God in the statement:

2. 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. (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.)

This is indicative of more than just three Gods who agree with each other.

So, why did they

A. Use the term Trinity
B. Employ Trinitarian language
C. use singular pronouns?

If their goal was not to present a Trinity but three separate beings who agree on purpose, etc. they would not have used this language.

They presented the Trinity and that is what the statement is about. Your view is not what the statement is about. Your view is not Trinity but tritheism.


Also, you seem to disagree with yourself here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37682971&postcount=47

Yes, our Savior is now and forever eternal, and every bit as equal to God the Father.

And here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37034044&postcount=69

I do not believe that Jesus is equal to the Father, so I agree with you.

Both are in the present tense? So which is your true view.

 

[StormyOne]

good points... good observations..... thanks Tall for articulating the double standard that exists....

 

[TrustAndObey]

I'm not against revising the guideline Tall, but it would've been nice to be asked to help do it, instead of all this.

I typed out how I feel, people have sent me a lot of EGW on the subject (which I'm reading, and I agree wholeheartedly with), and Jon0388g has already started a thread about this subject in the Traditional area.

That is where I plan on discussing it, with them, without the finger pointing.

Nuff said.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And no, Woob doesn't try to teach anything about his view of IJ in the Tradtional section. Not that I've seen anyway.

Half of the differences that I see from Prog/Trad is the WAY a view is expressed. Woob has never once gone over the line in the Traditional section and been reported.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but he is welcome in there any time. If he ever did step over the line, he would be reported just like anyone else would.

 

[StormyOne]

And no, Woob doesn't try to teach anything about his view of IJ in the Tradtional section. Not that I've seen anyway.

Half of the differences that I see from Prog/Trad is the WAY a view is expressed. Woob has never once gone over the line in the Traditional section and been reported.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but he is welcome in there any time. If he ever did step over the line, he would be reported just like anyone else would.

This is not directed to T&O because permission has not been granted to address her..

This comment is a simple observation.... after all that Tall has posted, it seems that some still don't get what he has pointed out.... such is life....

 

[TrustAndObey]

I do "get" what he has pointed out Stormy, but if his intent is to get me to HELP change the guidelines, he could've done it in a much nicer way instead of dancing around.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Somewhat in T&O defense I will say that tri-theism is pretty common among SDA's I don't think that was the intent of the fundamental statement as it is more classically trinitarian in formulation but the reality of the anti-trinitarianism of the pioneers has made tri-theism seem appropriate.

This constant Adventist refrain we have heard that those three are one in purpose rather then one in substance is really based upon a poor understanding of the Biblical expression "the two shall become one flesh" which when you think about it is more likely a reference to procreative activity then the idea that they become one in purpose and that purpose is a very limited one where their purpose is to be together or to raise a family. In any case it requires that a specific meaning is attributed to the text and that meaning is not straight forward. So in fact it is usually used as a pretext and then applied to the Trinity concept all while ignoring the historical monotheism of the Jewish nation and Old Testament writers.

 

[StormyOne]

Somewhat in T&O defense I will say that tri-theism is pretty common among SDA's I don't think that was the intent of the fundamental statement as it is more classically trinitarian in formulation but the reality of the anti-trinitarianism of the pioneers has made tri-theism seem appropriate.

This constant Adventist refrain we have heard that those three are one in purpose rather then one in substance is really based upon a poor understanding of the Biblical expression "the two shall become one flesh" which when you think about it is more likely a reference to procreative activity then the idea that they become one in purpose and that purpose is a very limited one where their purpose is to be together or to raise a family. In any case it requires that a specific meaning is attributed to the text and that meaning is not straight forward. So in fact it is usually used as a pretext and then applied to the Trinity concept all while ignoring the historical monotheism of the Jewish nation and Old Testament writers.

perhaps, but as I have stated elsewhere, I have no problem believing that there is ONE Being, who we call God, that has chosen to reveal himself to us in 3 different ways. A super Being, a Creator of all would have no problem doing that.... but, that's just my personal belief...

 

[sentipente]

A super Being, a Creator of all would have no problem doing that.... but, that's just my personal belief...

Exactly.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

perhaps, but as I have stated elsewhere, I have no problem believing that there is ONE Being, who we call God, that has chosen to reveal himself to us in 3 different ways. A super Being, a Creator of all would have no problem doing that.... but, that's just my personal belief...

Yes and that is what the trinitarian belief is, that is also what the Modalist belief is. The trinitarian belief is a bit clunky but historically speaking it was better then the modalist belief of that time and the Arian beliefs. The modalist belief at that time restricted God to one form at a time and the Arian belief made Jesus less then God. So while I am not a trinitarian I think it was based upon the right idea, unfortunately it became tradition and then orthodox tradition and then to depart even a little became heresy

That is why when asked I use the expression that there is one God revealed in three persons. Because that is acceptable to Trinitarian as well as modalists. It does not indicate that there are three persons it says that God reveals Himself in the way of three persons. Creator God (Father) Jesus Christ (the Son) and the Holy Spirit (the presence of God that acts upon our minds), the three modes of God's revelation to man

 

[tall73]

I'm not against revising the guideline Tall, but it would've been nice to be asked to help do it, instead of all this.

I typed out how I feel, people have sent me a lot of EGW on the subject (which I'm reading, and I agree wholeheartedly with), and Jon0388g has already started a thread about this subject in the Traditional area.

That is where I plan on discussing it, with them, without the finger pointing.

Nuff said.

You can discuss it wherever you like. But this conversation was not started by me but by RC. And the purpose was to clarify your statements.

As to the "finger pointing", I am sorry but you and the traditionals have done it since you got here. Welcome to the club. The standard currently for posting in the traditional area is that you follow the 28. . You do not meet it. You are a tri-theist, and do not accept the Triniy of Three in One, not just three united in purpose.

Woob clearly does not meet it because he openly says that he rejects one belief.

Now after all that talk of "if I didn't agree with something I would just leave it" why are you encouraging a double standard?

 

[tall73]

And no, Woob doesn't try to teach anything about his view of IJ in the Tradtional section. Not that I've seen anyway.

Half of the differences that I see from Prog/Trad is the WAY a view is expressed. Woob has never once gone over the line in the Traditional section and been reported.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but he is welcome in there any time. If he ever did step over the line, he would be reported just like anyone else would.

Again you confuse the standard. Let me post it again:

Traditional SDA members who hold true to the historical interpretation of the official 28 beliefs.

Woob cannot give his view on ANY topic there other than fellowship. He cannot teach, just as anyone coming to the Adventist section cannot give their view.

It is not just that he cannot speak about the doctrine he disagrees with. It is not a TOPIC limitation but a PERSON limitation, and he does not meet the standard.

 

[tall73]

I do "get" what he has pointed out Stormy, but if his intent is to get me to HELP change the guidelines, he could've done it in a much nicer way instead of dancing around.

You don't seem to get that it is a limitation on WHO can post, not what topic they can teach about.

Yet whenever a non-Adventist comes here you get it right away.

 

[StormyOne]

You can discuss it wherever you like. But this conversation was not started by me but by RC. And the purpose was to clarify your statements.

As to the "finger pointing", I am sorry but you and the traditionals have done it since you got here. Welcome to the club. The standard currently for posting in the traditional area is that you follow the 29. . You do not meet it. You are a tri-theist, and do not accept the Triniy of Three in One, not just three united in purpose.

Woob clearly does not meet it because he openly says that he rejects one belief.

Now after all that talk of "if I didn't agree with something I would just leave it" why are you encouraging a double standard?

not to mention those who went further and suggested to those who "could not believe what the church taught" to just leave.... and that they were not true adventists anyway....