Who is here and where do we start?

[Pythons]

The thread starts to go into meltdown around post #85. Trinity rejection. I'm convinced the Trad SDA do not believe Jesus is God the same way God is God. There is no other way as zero Trad Adventists came to straighten out RND after he dared them to. This tells me they are not Trinitarian despite what the General Conference says.

http://christianforums.com/t6896321&page=9

 

[StormyOne]

The thread starts to go into meltdown around post #85. Trinity rejection. I'm convinced the Trad SDA do not believe Jesus is God the same way God is God. There is no other way as zero Trad Adventists came to straighten out RND after he dared them to. This tells me they are not Trinitarian despite what the General Conference says.

http://christianforums.com/t6896321&page=9

Pythons, as I said somewhere else, it is interesting that people become dogmatic with issues that cannot be definitively proven.... It is possible that there is One Super Being who has chosen to manifest himself in multiple ways. That is my personal belief... I don't get bent out of shape when others choose not to share that belief and there really isn't enough information to come to a conclusion....

 

[Telaquapacky]

The thread starts to go into meltdown around post #85. Trinity rejection. I'm convinced the Trad SDA do not believe Jesus is God the same way God is God. There is no other way as zero Trad Adventists came to straighten out RND after he dared them to. This tells me they are not Trinitarian despite what the General Conference says.

http://christianforums.com/t6896321&page=9

Pythons, it's an incorrect generalization that Trad SDA's don't believe that Jesus is God the same way the Father is God, or that they reject the Trininty. My fellow Adventists are like Jews when it comes to the Trinity- "Two Jews=three opinions."

I once heard a Roman Catholic theologian say something about the Trinity that I think is right on. He said that it is a mystery, and we human beings are too limited to fully comprehend it. I agree with Stormy. Most of us are reticent to debate the specifics where there's enough information.

The other reason nobody came to RND's defense is that some of his arguments were off base. RND's opinions shouldn't be taken as official SDA doctrine- he was on thin ice trying to prove his private point of view. I PM'd RND and told him to drop it, but he didn't listen to me.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Pythons, it's an incorrect generalization that Trad SDA's don't believe that Jesus is God the same way the Father is God, or that they reject the Trininty. My fellow Adventists are like Jews when it comes to the Trinity- "Two Jews=three opinions."

I once heard a Roman Catholic theologian say something about the Trinity that I think is right on. He said that it is a mystery, and we human beings are too limited to fully comprehend it. I agree with Stormy. Most of us are reticent to debate the specifics where there's enough information.

The other reason nobody came to RND's defense is that some of his arguments were off base. RND's opinions shouldn't be taken as official SDA doctrine- he was on thin ice trying to prove his private point of view. I PM'd RND and told him to drop it, but he didn't listen to me.

I have noticed that in the old forum also. Many TSDA's would not speak up if they disagreed with a vocal TSDA. It is therefore easy to see how someone can get the wrong idea and make generalizations. But that is not really the fault of the person who sees no one correct or counter an opinion, it was a failing of those TSDA's on the forum.

 

[DeanM]

I like to think of the trinity as the forms of water: ice, liquid water, and steam. If you have an encounter with any of these forms, you're really still talking about water.

If I have overstepped my bounds by this contribution to the conversation, just PM me and I'll gladly delete this. I don't want to step on any toes!

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, it's an incorrect generalization that Trad SDA's don't believe that Jesus is God the same way the Father is God, or that they reject the Trininty. My fellow Adventists are like Jews when it comes to the Trinity- "Two Jews=three opinions."

I once heard a Roman Catholic theologian say something about the Trinity that I think is right on. He said that it is a mystery, and we human beings are too limited to fully comprehend it. I agree with Stormy. Most of us are reticent to debate the specifics where there's enough information.

The other reason nobody came to RND's defense is that some of his arguments were off base. RND's opinions shouldn't be taken as official SDA doctrine- he was on thin ice trying to prove his private point of view. I PM'd RND and told him to drop it, but he didn't listen to me.

I can certainly see your point about two people and three different views on what the Trinity is. The way I was taught is that it is as you say, a mystery that will not be understood until the afterlife however we have been given enough to determine what the Trinity is not and that is usually where I start.

Thanks for clearing that up about RND, he had came out and dared any SDA to correct him on it but no one did so I figured it was the view held.

 

[Pythons]

I like to think of the trinity as the forms of water: ice, liquid water, and steam. If you have an encounter with any of these forms, you're really still talking about water.

If I have overstepped my bounds by this contribution to the conversation, just PM me and I'll gladly delete this. I don't want to step on any toes!

That seems a very good way to look at it. They are 100 % unified in purpose, made of the exact same substance yet as far as relationship different enough to identify the difference. I'm keeping this idea.

I think toes are safe and tough enough to not worry about here. I would seriously like to know why the folks at Amazing Discovery rejects the Trinity if they are SDA. That's the hard thing for me to understand. How can they sell DVD's, support Ellen White yet reject the Trinity when Ellen said the church was ordained by God to have authority to determine what the doctrines would be?

 

[Mankin]

It's true that the trinity is a mystery that we do not fully understand.

However, it seems to me that, the Trinity are three separate beings working together towards a similar goal. Kinda like three gears working a single machine. They're all different but they work towards the same goal.

 

[Mankin]

Just reading some of that thread now. Wow, I can't believe how clumsy RND sounds here.

 

[Pythons]

Just reading some of that thread now. Wow, I can't believe how clumsy RND sounds here.

I wish I could have viewed it this way. To me it seemed he was very certain. It was a combination of some very early heritical views in the first few hundred years of Christianity. I'm willing to bet he purchased some DVD's from the Amazing Discoveries website. Those folks there flat out say the Trinity is the wine of Babylon.

If Christ is less then the Catholic Trinity claims He is then it taints how one views sin and Salvation. I mean no offense here when I say this but after looking at it I feel the old school type SDA's built their system of belief on Prophecy instead of starting with the basics. The logic I used with RND is Catholicism 101 Scripture and logic it wasn't some type of high end theology.

A person can't wake up one day and determine they are going to be a plumber and start at the level of a professional, it's graduated steps because if there is a simple step missed it will always cause problems down the road.

 

[Mankin]

I certainly agree. Idk if all trads hold this viewpoint tho.

 

[sentipente]

I PM'd RND and told him to drop it, but he didn't listen to me.

It would have accomplished more if you had done so publicly but you did not want to take the legs out from under a fellow Trad. Again we see how the interests of the group tends to trump any effort at seeking better understanding. (Note I did not refer to truth. The less we speak of having the truth the better for all.)

 

[Telaquapacky]

It would have accomplished more if you had done so publicly but you did not want to take the legs out from under a fellow Trad. Again we see how the interests of the group tends to trump any effort at seeking better understanding. (Note I did not refer to truth. The less we speak of having the truth the better for all.)

Tell it like it is, Brother.

Except that I would have done it for a prog, but they don't make fools of themselves as often. And I wouldn't do it for certain trads who deserve to be allowed to make fools of themselves. The main reason I PM'd in that case was because I didn't want to get drawn into the debate myself.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I wish I could have viewed it this way. To me it seemed he was very certain. It was a combination of some very early heritical views in the first few hundred years of Christianity. I'm willing to bet he purchased some DVD's from the Amazing Discoveries website. Those folks there flat out say the Trinity is the wine of Babylon.

If Christ is less then the Catholic Trinity claims He is then it taints how one views sin and Salvation. I mean no offense here when I say this but after looking at it I feel the old school type SDA's built their system of belief on Prophecy instead of starting with the basics. The logic I used with RND is Catholicism 101 Scripture and logic it wasn't some type of high end theology.

A person can't wake up one day and determine they are going to be a plumber and start at the level of a professional, it's graduated steps because if there is a simple step missed it will always cause problems down the road.

do you have something from Amazing facts to back up your perception. I don't necessarily doubt it but find it hard to believe they will say anything flat out that would lead one to your impression.

The most common view in Adventism is that which Mankin gave. Three individuals working toward the same goal or united by their love for each other. I view that as Tri-theism. It is certainly against the Early churches conferences which said they were the same substance Their was a big debate about one word and a difference of one letter which in effect meant they were of like substance vs. the same substance. The Shema sort of makes it a necessity that it is the same substance and that was the conferences decision.

but then the problem of orthodoxy becomes we accept something and we don't know why so in many Christians the Trinity because they say 3 persons becomes a unity of purpose rather then a unity of their very substance.

I think understanding the Godhead will help in all other understanding of God I don't think it is at all a salvation issue or even an essential. Just recently Neal Morse who now does Christian music is not classed as a Christian music section because he is semi-arian or arian in his views. The guy is clearly Christian in my view. But because he does not fit the orthodoxy Christianity Today had to define him by their orthodoxy. Our problem is that for many Christians we don't take the time to reason out our philosophy of religion instead simply accept creeds or church traditions. In the worse cases people just say forget reason and go by faith. Faith then becomes what you already believe or someone tells you to believe.

 

[sentipente]

Telaquapacky, I can live with that.

 

[Pythons]

do you have something from Amazing facts to back up your perception. I don't necessarily doubt it but find it hard to believe they will say anything flat out that would lead one to your impression.

You can email them, ask them if they used to have a discussion board and if they remember a poster named pythons who had a lengthy discussion on Church Authority and another discussion on the Trinity. They sell a DVD about how the Trinity is the wine of Babylon and many of their arguments were visible in RND's posts.

Even faster, just email them and ask if the Trinity is Biblical. I'm sure you will get a fast answer.

The most common view in Adventism is that which Mankin gave. Three individuals working toward the same goal or united by their love for each other. I view that as Tri-theism. It is certainly against the Early churches conferences which said they were the same substance Their was a big debate about one word and a difference of one letter which in effect meant they were of like substance vs. the same substance. The Shema sort of makes it a necessity that it is the same substance and that was the conferences decision.

but then the problem of orthodoxy becomes we accept something and we don't know why so in many Christians the Trinity because they say 3 persons becomes a unity of purpose rather then a unity of their very substance.

I think I know what you mean. Ellen White claimed that Satan was next to Christ (both were arch-angels) and because Jesus was promoted Satan got really mad. Trinitarian reasoning follows that God is One therefore God is of one Substance and because arch-angels could not be of the same substance as God then they would or could not be God no matter how "like unto" God they are.

I think understanding the Godhead will help in all other understanding of God I don't think it is at all a salvation issue or even an essential. Just recently Neal Morse who now does Christian music is not classed as a Christian music section because he is semi-arian or arian in his views. The guy is clearly Christian in my view. But because he does not fit the orthodoxy Christianity Today had to define him by their orthodoxy. Our problem is that for many Christians we don't take the time to reason out our philosophy of religion instead simply accept creeds or church traditions. In the worse cases people just say forget reason and go by faith. Faith then becomes what you already believe or someone tells you to believe.

I can agree with you to a certain point, however, as Jesus is God anything that casts Him of another Substance is to devalue in some way God. Did that make sense?

 

[Sophia7]

You can email them, ask them if they used to have a discussion board and if they remember a poster named pythons who had a lengthy discussion on Church Authority and another discussion on the Trinity. They sell a DVD about how the Trinity is the wine of Babylon and many of their arguments were visible in RND's posts.

Even faster, just email them and ask if the Trinity is Biblical. I'm sure you will get a fast answer.

Pythons, I'm not sure what site you're talking about. This is the Amazing Discoveries site that I've heard of:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/BibleInsightVideo.html

There's a very short video on that page called "The Godhead" by Brian Neumann. I also found a link on the Amazing Discoveries site to this audio recording of "Bible Answers Live" by Doug Batchelor of Amazing Facts:
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/resources/Audio/BALQALib/031702_word_Trinity.asx

The way Batchelor explains the Trinity, it kind of sounds like tri-theism, which, as RC said, is the view that a lot of Adventists today hold. Here's another "Bible Answers Live" recording on the Trinity, also:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/Radio/B...3/SQT/1000/7/Explain-the-trinity/Default.aspx

 

[Pythons]

The best way is to just email them and ask about the Trinity. They used to have a discussion forum there similar to the way this one operates. They are not "Trinitarian" for sure. I'm fairly sure they will remember me Tritheism isn't the Trinity in any event. The following groups are nontrinitarian or tritheists. Traditional Seventh-day Adventism would have to pour a new meaning into Trinity or fully reject it and opt to go with the what Mormonism or the JW's describe, the Godhead.

• American Unitarian Conference
• Arian Catholicism
• Arianism
• Bible Students
• Christadelphians
• Christian Conventions a non-denominational group which publishes no dogmatic positions, but which a majority of observers classify as non-Trinitarian
• Church of Christ, Scientist
• Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
• Church of the Blessed Hope (also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, but not part of "General Conference")
• Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
• Doukhobors
• Higher Ground Online
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Living Church of God
• Living Hope International Ministries
• Molokan
• Monarchianism
• New Church
• Non-Trinitarian churches
• Oneness Pentecostals
• Polish Brethren
• Socinianism
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
• The Way International
• Unification Church
• Unitarian Christians
• Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship*

* Independent affiliates of the Unitarian Universalist Association

• Iglesia ni Cristo
• True Jesus Church
• Members of the Church of God International

Pulled that from Wiki

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Y

I think I know what you mean. Ellen White claimed that Satan was next to Christ (both were arch-angels) and because Jesus was promoted Satan got really mad. Trinitarian reasoning follows that God is One therefore God is of one Substance and because arch-angels could not be of the same substance as God then they would or could not be God no matter how "like unto" God they are.

Not quite right, EGW thought Jesus pre-incarnate was deity however the pre-incarnate Jesus appeared to be an angel, Michael the Archangel so that then it appeared that God was promoting Jesus as Michael unfairly at least to Satan. It is based upon the idea that angels needed to see God like humans needed to see God, in their own form. Kind of a continuation of the whole Michael story, with the how and why's added but the how and why's caused all the trouble and solved nothing because there is no reason to think that angels cannot experience God first hand and the status of Michael caused Satan to be jealous. So it is really a whole bunch of mythology about Michael and Satan and other angels.

 

[Pythons]

Not quite right, EGW thought Jesus pre-incarnate was deity however the pre-incarnate Jesus appeared to be an angel, Michael the Archangel so that then it appeared that God was promoting Jesus as Michael unfairly at least to Satan. It is based upon the idea that angels needed to see God like humans needed to see God, in their own form. Kind of a continuation of the whole Michael story, with the how and why's added but the how and why's caused all the trouble and solved nothing because there is no reason to think that angels cannot experience God first hand and the status of Michael caused Satan to be jealous. So it is really a whole bunch of mythology about Michael and Satan and other angels.

That went right over my head RC. Did Ellen suggest that Satan and the other angels didn’t know Jesus was God so they had to be informed about it? I was in the Army so forgive me for the analogy but that would be like standing in formation and finding out the E-5 standing next to you was actually the Commander –in-Chief.