The Trinity- what's the difference? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 9 » The Trinity- what's the difference? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through September 06, 20101john2v27nlt20 9-06-10  7:13 am
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3395
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 7:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi J9,

You said:


quote:

I have always believed God is ONE - like water, ice, steam are all forms of water. We say God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - 3 in 1.




But that is not "one." Here is what Christian theologian Wayne Grudem has to say about that analogy in his Systematic Theology:


quote:

"The analogy of the three forms of water (steam, water, and ice) is also inadequate because (a) no quantity of water is ever all three of these at the same time,21 (b) they have different properties or characteristics, (c) the analogy has nothing that corresponds to the fact that there is only one God (there is no such thing as 'one water' or 'all the water in the universe'), and (d) the element of intelligent personality is lacking.

[...]

"21There is a certain atmospheric condition (called the 'triple point' by chemists) at which steam, liquid water, and ice can all exist simultaneously, but even then the quantity of water that is steam is not ice or liquid, the quantity that is liquid is not steam or ice, etc."

--M1,http://books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA240,M1




Continuing on with your post:


quote:

Whatever that is. How can we totally comprehend it? God has a form that passed before Moses. God referred to His face (Ex 33:20 'But,' he said, 'you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.'), talking with Moses face to face, but He was unseen. Then in Ex 33.23 God said 'Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.' Sooo, God has a face & a back. Is that a form that could be visibly discerned? There is also this in Ex 24:9 'Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and 70 of the elders of Israel went up. 10 And they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel, they beheld God, and ate and drank.' ESV
The NLT renders vs 11 'And though Israel's leaders saw God, he did not destroy them.'

The Bible says God has a face & a back & feet, and was seen by more than 70 whom He did not destroy.

And we are told that God is spirit & those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit & in truth. John 4:24

Hec's reference to the blind men & the camel seems somewhat apropos. We are trying to understand what we cannot hardly imagine.




The fact that God is an incorporeal (immaterial) being is not even up for debate within Christianity, but has been the accepted clear teaching of Scripture in the Christian Church for the past 2,000 years. In fact, even the Jews (pre-dating Christianity) have believed the same thing for thousands of years, based on the Old Testament alone. And Judaism still holds to it to this day. For example, jewfaq.org says, in their article "The Nature of G-d":


quote:

G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm




As for Exodus 33:23, the Hebrew can simply mean the "afterglow." And certainly we cannot take even a physical theophany (which occurred several times in the OT) as indicative of God's actual nature.

Psalm 91:4 says: "He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart." (NIV.)

Does this mean that God literally has feathers and wings?


quote:

I am not at the point yet in my transition to believe my salvation hangs on trinity vs tritheistic. (I want to let all the seminary Phds fight over that one!) As far as my family & friends go, that is far from being the biggest issue in sharing with them in my book.




"Tritheistic" means "the worship of three gods." Are you saying that it doesn't matter how many gods a person worships? As Walter Martin used to say, you cannot be a polytheist and a Christian.

Why would "the seminary Phds" fight over whether there is one God or three gods, when the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God? This has been the teaching of the Christian Church since its inception all the way to the present day. Why would there be any fight over it? The Nicene Creed is clear. The Athanasian Creed is clear. Every orthodox Christian church through the centuries has accepted them as teaching Biblical truth.

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on September 06, 2010)
1john2v27nlt
Registered user
Username: 1john2v27nlt

Post Number: 126
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 7:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I appreciate your response Jeremy.
I am not trying to be flip. I don't know quite how to express what I am getting at.
--------------------------------------------------
***I truly believed that SDAs taught God is TRINITY. And all my life as an SDA I never got that concept otherwise. ***

Using the water, steam, ice analogy was simply a way of conceptualizing, not an idea of worshiping 3 separate Gods. As an SDA I never got that concept. It was always God is ONE. Just as God covering us with wings, Or anthropomorphic as in walking around. That was the way I took this idea.
--------------------------------------------------
***"Tritheistic" means "the worship of three gods." Are you saying that it doesn't matter how many gods a person worships? As Walter Martin used to say, you cannot be a polytheist and a Christian.***

No I never believed that & I didn't mean that. That is what I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around. This is an aspect of SDAism that is foreign to me. I am NOT trying to defend SDAism. It is a cult in my book, but this is not a major evidence of that for me. Hence my comment of leaving it to PhDs to argue about - trying to say it is theological thin air for me. Not humorous - it fell flat. :-)
--------------------------------------------------
***On the other hand I also remember being taught that Jesus had to go to heaven so He could send the Holy Spirit who could be everywhere at once as Jesus no longer could because He forever was keeping His human body.***

You didn't comment here Jeremy. Is this true or is it false SDA teaching?
--------------------------------------------------
I think the effect of having a religion that is 'the TRUTH' & which spawned endless debates about what is 'right' to be, think, & do, is what I am reacting against. Having so many theological concepts to relearn - some of the discussions here seems frustratingly familiar.
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe in addition to having the correct information I also need to hear 'I hear you & understand how it feels to have your whole belief system & world turned upside down & inside out.' Some people do this change quickly & with joy. Others of us have a harder time.

J9
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3397
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

J9,

Thanks for your response. I do understand what you're saying, and the learning/unlearning/relearning is definitely a process that does take several years for us to go through. And I don't think it's "easy" for any of us--you're right that it can be difficult and painful at times.

I think what I was reacting to was that it sounded like you were saying that it's not important, or that there's nothing wrong with the SDA teaching. Now it sounds like I misunderstood your posts.

I apologize for not addressing that one part of your post. I had read your original post on the other thread last night, and I didn't notice that you had added that paragraph to it.


quote:

On the other hand I also remember being taught that Jesus had to go to heaven so He could send the Holy Spirit who could be everywhere at once as Jesus no longer could because He forever was keeping His human body. Hmmm that may be questionable.




Yes, that is SDA teaching and it definitely contradicts Scripture (meaning, the denial of Jesus' omnipresence contradicts Scripture, not the part about keeping His human body forever). Check out this short section of my website which addresses this issue specifically: http://www.cultorchristian.com/#Omnipresence If they have an omnipresent "Holy Spirit" and a non-omnipresent "Jesus," then that right there is separating them into multiple gods.

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on September 06, 2010)
Alison1
Registered user
Username: Alison1

Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2010
Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2010 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, I need to thank you very much for your explanation of the Trinity and the differences between trinitarianism and tritheism. I never fully understood this. I will have to confess that my views since my teenage years were more aligned towards tritheism than ever. After coming out of Mormonism and Adventism and coming to this realization, I also realized that both God spoke in terms that we can identify with. Such as the various body parts. When Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables he used the terminology of that day. Such as sheep, farming, toiling the soil,etc. These were the things that the writers of the Bible were familiar with.
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3515
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2010 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks so much for your kind words, Alison. I'm glad to know that it was helpful.

Jeremy
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 2169
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 11:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy has done an excellent and thorough job in exposing the tritheistic views of Seventh-day Adventism on his website. It is a serious fallacy to conclude that the Trinity doctrine does not exist simply because the word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in Scripture. The early pioneers, who formulated SDA dogma, were derailed from a biblical view of God because of their intense anti-Catholicism. They didn't want anything in common with Catholicism.

Likewise, it is a serious fallacy to conclude that God's righteous standards (revealed in the Pentateuch) no longer exist or have been somehow abrogated simply because they are not explicitly labeled as moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Indeed, not all of the 613 laws of the Torah had the same importance, purpose, and weight. The overall "context" of Scripture should always be considered before making any theological conclusion.

Dennis Fischer
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3516
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 12:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I came across this interesting admission from a Seventh-day Adventist on Yahoo! Answers in response to the question, "Do a large # of adventists still reject the Holy Trinity?":


quote:

Seventh-Day Adventist's will always believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What we don't believe is the Catholic interpretation of what that means -- specifically, the one-essence with three manifestations part. Catholics call their concept the Holy Trinity. Seventh-Day Adventists may use the same term, but they mean something different when they do so -- specifically, the Bible represents the Three Members of the Godhead as One (i.e., United) but still separate individuals.

I believe God created the concept of the Human family to help Man have a limited understanding of the Godhead. Man shall leave his mother and a Woman shall leave her home. They shall travel on to where the two shall be as one. Then, they have a child -- yet, they are to remain as one, united family. Three as one.

God bless.




Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100903061948AAbPyt4

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on December 12, 2010)
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3518
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Today I also just came across the following webpage, which quotes from an article by Robert Hare in the July 19, 1909 Australasian Union Conference Record: http://maranathamedia.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:transitional-use-of-the-word-trinity-in-adventism&catid=14:notes&Itemid=75

In the article, which was written 6 years before Ellen G. White died, Hare admits that Adventism's "Trinity" is not the orthodox Trinity that was confessed by the creeds in the 4th and 5th centuries. You can read Hare's entire article on the official adventistarchives.org site here (on page 2): http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/AAR/AAR19090719-V13-29__B.pdf

Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on December 13, 2010)
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec

Post Number: 1546
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, that is not a long article. Could you show me where are the discrepancies between the Orthodox belief and the belief as explained in the article? I'm still having some difficulty picking apart the real thing from the SDA thing when it comes to the Trinity.

Thanks,

Hec
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3520
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hec,

Well, the first couple of paragraphs of the article is mainly what I was referring to above, where Mr. Hare clearly admits that the SDA view is not the orthodox Trinity:


quote:

The Trinity.

IN the fourth and fifth centuries
many absurd views were set forth respecting
the Trinity—views that stood
at variance with reason, logic, and
Scripture. As these views were formulated
into creeds, humanity had to shut
its eyes and receive them as the dictates
of God, though they were verily
human and some of them even satanic.
Mystery was heaped upon mystery, and
the mind of man at last gave up the
effort to reason out the dogmas of what
claimed to be religion.

Satan was behind this work of mystification,
just as he has been behind
every other false idea of God. Where
Satan cannot lead into absolute unbelief,
he will endeavour to mystify so
that the belief remaining may prove
ineffectual. From the confusing idea
of "one God in three Gods," and "three
Gods in one God "—the unexplainable
dictum of theology—the enemy gladly
leads to what appears to be a more
rational, though no less erroneous idea
—that there is no trinity, and that
Christ is merely a created being.




Of course, he is misrepresenting the Trinity with his "three Gods/one God" statements, but he explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity as confessed in the creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries (such as the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Confession of Chalcedon, etc.).

Continuing on with the article:


quote:

But God's great plan is clear and
logical. There is a trinity, and in it
there are three personalities. We have
the Father described in Dan. 7 : 9,
10, a personality surely—the "Ancient
of Days" enthroned. In Rev. 1 : 13-
18, we have the Son described. He is
also a personality. The appearance
and form of the Holy Spirit is not described.
He is the agency whereby God
revealed His Word to man, and of
Him Christ declares, " He shall not
speak of Himself." John 16 : 13.
Hence the man who speaks much of
himself has not a very close acquaintance
with the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit is spoken of through the Scriptures
as a personality.




Here he is putting forth the SDA teaching of three separate physical beings (denying that God is one spirit being). This also confirms SDA scholar Dr. Jerry Moon's theory that "personality" meant a physical being, according to EGW/SDAs at that time.


quote:

These divine persons are closely associated
in the work of God. Christ
speaks of Himself and the Father as
"one." But this union is not one in
which individuality is lost. Christ
would have His people one even as He
and the Father are one. But we know
that the union of God's people is to be
one of mind not of personality (John
17: 21-23). , This is set forth in the
admonition to "be of one mind."
1 Peter 3 : 8.




Here he is describing what Adventism means by "one"--merely one in mind/purpose rather than one in being. He is also implying that these SDA teachings he's presented (physical beings who are only "one" in mind) are the ways in which the SDA view opposes the Christian creeds--which is correct.


quote:

With these scriptures agree the words
of the Spirit in these latter days :—

" There are three living persons in
the heavenly trio. In the name of
these three powers— the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost—those who
receive Christ by living faith are to be
baptized, and these powers will cooperate
with the obedient subjects of
heaven in their efforts to live the new
life in Christ."—Mrs. E. G. White, in
Bible Training School, February, 1906.

This is indeed a divine trio, but the
Christ of that Trinity was not a created
being such as His angels—He was the
" only begotten" of the Father, and
He came to earth as the one with the
Father from the " days of eternity."
Micah 5 :2 (margin). His goings forth
were of old, and He came full of " grace
and truth" to reveal God to man.
John 1 : 14, 17.




Notice that he attributes verbal inspiration to Ellen White, calling her words "the words of the Spirit"!

This EGW quote confirms the SDA teaching he has already outlined, that there is a "divine trio" as he calls it here, a group of "three powers" (or "the heavenly trio") as EGW calls it. A "trio" is not the same as the Trinity, but is instead merely a group of three ("three powers"), not three persons in one being. There is only one, infinite, divine "Power." But Adventism denies this, and thus, they do not even believe in the concept of "a Higher Power" or "a Supreme Being"!


quote:

While on earth He ceased not to be
divine, for we read of the " divine-human
suppliant." — Desire of Ages,
page 693. " From the days of eternity
the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the
Father." — Desire of Ages, page 17.
" In the eyes of the world He possessed
no beauty that they should desire Him ;
yet He was the incarnate God, the
light of heaven and earth." — Desire of
Ages, page 21 . " Christ had not ceased
to be God when He became man.
Though He had humbled Himself to
humanity, the Godhead was still His
own." — Desire of Ages, page 663.

Then let not the lips of man speak
of Christ as a created being. He is one
of the divine trio — the " only begotten
Son " of the Father ; and the doctrine
that would make Him a created being
is not of God. R. HARE.




And in this conclusion of his article, he gives several quotes from EGW to show that Christ was still divine while on earth (although EGW did teach that He gave up His divine attributes and consciousness--so what was left of His divinity?!). And once again, in his concluding paragraph, Mr. Hare states that Jesus is "one of the divine trio."

Jeremy
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec

Post Number: 1547
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 - 8:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, Jeremy.

Hec

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration