| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1828 Registered: 10-2002  |
A recent member's area thread devoted to another topic ended up absorbing some discussion about Adventism's "tritheism". The topic was something that Jeremy and I had let rest for the moment, but today as I was out I began to think and pray about it, and want to share some things that I pray will help deepen our understanding of the subject... and our approach to it in prayer, discourse and ministry. The first thing to understand is that Adventism's Tritheism is not a root, but a fruit. Although by nature the Trinity is something foundational, this does not automatically mean that Adventism's distortion of the Trinity is the primary foundation of its errors. Adventism's distortion of the Trinity is indeed important, very important, but it is a fruit produced by other roots, as can quickly be seen by examining its history of development. Tritheism was not the original Adventist position, but rather Arianism. Not "Three Gods", but rather the Father was alone God, while the created, angelic Son was one who ascended to God's level by His obedience to the Law. Tritheism in Adventism is rather the result of trying to hold onto the pioneers' original Arian beliefs while at the same time be seen as Christian by professing the Trinity. In other words, Adventist Tritheism is an attempted syncretization of original Adventist Arianism and Christian Trinitarianism. The "root" was Arianism; the syncretic "Tritheism" is the offshooting fruit. However, there are still other roots of Adventist Tritheism which need to be understood. Examining the resulting fruits of Adventism's Tritheism yields more understanding in this area. Firstly, it must be noted that Adventist Tritheism is generally not clear and not strictly conscious tritheism in the way that polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism) consciously believe in multiple gods. Adventists will never claim "three separate gods". Mind you, the logic of their "trinitarian" belief might indeed lead to a "three gods" conclusion by those of us in the observation gallery, but this is not something that is often consciously recognized among Adventists themselves. (When we ourselves were faithful Adventists, did any of us ever consciously declare that Adventism was "Tritheistic" instead of Trinitarian?) Rather, among most Adventists the whole subject of the Trinity is characterized by vagueness. It is something mysterious, unclear, uncertain, and for that matter almost entirely irrelevant to faith and practice. It isn't something deeply in the hearts of most Adventists because Adventism's "Trinity" is founded in vagueness, not in clarity. Adventism's Tritheism is a vague tritheism, not usually a consciously clear one. This is because of the way it was founded upon the cognitive dissonance of trying to maintain the pioneers' belief (Arianism) and harmonize it with that of Christianity (Trinitarianism). The primariy characteristic of Adventism's Tritheism therefore is ambiguity, vagueness and confusion. While the subject of the Trinity is indeed a mystery in the greatest sense of the word, for Christians it is a subject that we can yet declare very firmly and be very certain about. In Adventism, however, the "mystery" is even more mysterious. Whereas the Christian will declare that it is a mystery with great, distinct certainty about who the Trinity is, the Adventist will declare that it is a mystery in a more fuzzy, unsure way. This is because Adventism embraced vagueness and became tritheistic in order to attempt to hold onto (at least in appearance) two contradictory theologies. Adventism's understanding about the Trinity was thus birthed in confusion & vagueness, and so that ambiguous lack of certainty is passed down from generation to generation. Again, Adventist Tritheism was a sort of settlement arrived at in order to placate and unify the "diversity" of beliefs in Adventism -- a group that contained old guard Arianists and new converts who came from Trinitarian backgrounds; additionally, as Adventism itself got older through the years, it desired to look more and more "Christian" (ironic, considering its "remanant" belief about itself and the original view that other churches were "Babylon"; it seems that psychologically Adventists throughout the years have often subconsciously recognized at some level that Adventism is not completely legitimate Christianity, and so have thus been seeking affirmation from established, legitimate Christians). As I mentioned, there are other roots besides Arianism that need to be understood about Adventist Tritheism. The primary root (and spiritual principality) of Adventism's problems is pride, which goes hand in hand with an unwillingness to come to repentance. The primary source materials/refrences for Adventist "Tritheism" are in the writings of Ellen G. White. If you outside of her to the pioneers, generally you have plain Arianism. It is in the personal theology of Ellen White that Adventist Tritheism is finally born, and is most clearly stated -- however, put in terms obviously meant to be vague and evocative of the Trinity. Ellen White seems to have been juggling several motivations, and her tritheistic statements were the way in which she tried to harmonize them, encompass and placate the various motivations (and factions). Firstly, Ellen had to reverence & respect the "pioneers" of Adventism who had established the church while she was still very young -- particularly, her husband, James White, who was a strong anti-Trinitarian Arianist. She could not completely depart from Arianism because of him, and also because the Adventist foundation had been laid with it. Additionally, she could not contradict the "visions" she had received which had portrayed Christ in an Arian, "angelic" way. (However, it is not always clear if she actually, truly saw things or simply invented them from imagination. But whatever the case, as time went on she would have had to uphold a sizeable portion of her prior "angelic" revelations about Christ.) And as mentioned already, she had to also deal with new members who came from Trinitarian backgrounds. As we look at these various motivations & factions, it becomes clear from Ellen's solution that she served a spiritual stronghold of reverencing the original beliefs of Adventism. The original positions of Adventism were more important, more paramount than the truth of the Trinity. Her 'Adventist Tritheism' carries a subtle elevation of Christ up one notch from the Arian position -- instead of strictly "not being God", He now has "become God". Apparently she was clearly attempting to synthesize & syncretize the two opposing theologies (Arianism & Trinitarianism). But the fact that her solution gives unquestionable preferance to Arianism reveals the spiritual stronghold that produced such a decision: reverence for the past Adventist experiences. "What we went through" (1844, etc.) and "what we believed then" became the primary hermeneutic and standard of truth. As Ellen's syncretic tritheism shows, even the Trinity had to bow to the early Adventist experience. (Not a stretch, considering that the Scriptures had already been well-bent, twisted and re-interpreted time after time by the early Adventists; if Scripture itself was made subject to the early Adventist experiences, then it is natural that any attempt to incorporate 'the Trinity' would also suffer the same fate as the Scriptures did.) Now, let's consider the effects of Adventist Tritheism which was formulated by EGW and passed down to her 'spiritual children' from one Adventist generation to another. The effects of Adventist Tritheism are often subtle and varied, but are definitely existant. Generally the effects combine with other Adventist strongholds. As mentioned, the primary Adventist strongholds are pride and the unquestioning reverance for the early Adventist experience. The effects of Adventist Tritheism are thus rooted in these same spiritual strongholds, not in the tritheism itself. This is why those strongholds are able to endure even if an Adventist consciously attempts to absorb Trinitarianism (the roots endure, even if the fruit of those roots--Adventist Tritheism--does not). Effects include all that came with Adventism's foundational Arinaism, including: * Jesus as the 'Man-example' we follow and mimic to attain saving perfection. * Sheer confusion about the Trinity. * The unnatural polarization idea of "God the Father" being wrathful while Jesus is merciful and loving. However, it should be mentioned that this idea does exist in many (if not most) Christian churches. Yet it has a much, much stronger base to rest on in Adventism. Primarily, however, Adventist Tritheism represents pride, being unwilling to face the truth about Adventism's past. Adventist Tritheism is primarily a face-saving theology; it is an attempt to cover-up for Ellen White and for Adventism itself. Adventist Tritheism is the child born of the parents of pride & error. The stronghold is not the tritheism itself, but rather the pride in Adventism and the belief that early Adventism was right. This is why among the relative minority of Adventists who will criticize Christian Trinitarianism, they look upon the early Adventists' position as being fundamentally superior (more full of "truth") than anything else -- Scripture, exegesis, scholarship, and so on ad infinitum. In other words, simply because the early Adventists believed something, it is therefore of higher "truth" value, and/or is beyond being subject to the Scriptures for evaluation of truthfulness. The main battleground in this arena, then, is against the stronghold (spiritual principality) of Adventist pride and faith in early Adventist experience. These are the primary roots that produced EGW's weak, syncretic tritheism. Furthermore, in attempting to pray and minister to Adventists in this spiritual battleground, the matter of Adventist confusion about the Trinity needs to be recognized right off the bat; it will usually do little good to speak to Adventists as if they were consciously aware that their faith was Tritheistic and not Trinitarian. Most Adventists may likely have not even read Ellen White's alternate phrases such as "the three worthies", etc., much less paid them attention and contrasted them to Trinitarian terminology. In other words, Adventists themselves don't consciously think "tritheism", but most often rather have a cognitively dissonant idea that they are in fact Trinitarian. Even proving to them that the founders of Adventism were Arian (and eventually Tritheistic) will likely not be strong enough to do serious uprooting -- because after all, EGW's tritheism itself was not a root, but rather is the fruit of other roots. Thus the roots in the Adventists we're praying for and talking to are likely unaffected by painstaking efforts to distinguish between Ellen's Tritheism and authentic Trinitarianism. The illusion that they themselves are actually "Trinitarian" will not be easily removed by saying, "No you're not, look at what Ellen said," particularly if they themselves are unfamiliar with her writings and the Arian stance of the early Adventists. In fact, such an approach will often (but not always) serve to actually strengthen the Adventist's resolve, because it approaches with a finely-drawn argument that they themselves do not understand, and the simple conclusion that they arrive at is that you've got no real bigger thing to point out and are just attacking Adventism. Thus the stronghold of pride is strengthened ("You're attacking Adventism because it's right!") and faith in the early Adventist experience endures. What Ellen's syncretism attempt shows, in fact, is that the attempt to harmonize extremes of cognitive dissonance is a hallmark method of Adventism even from her generation onwards. Cognitive dissonance didn't begin after she died, but was being well-established in her day as well. Adventism since its established years has utilized unpolished, vague & ambiguous attempts to harmonize conflicting opposites. This is how it has survived for so long and how it continues to survive. Thus it is no difficult thing for today's Adventists to believe themselves to be Trinitarian and believe you to be completely off your rocker for trying to convince them that they're actually Tritheistic. This is why I suggest going for the root (pride & reverence for the 1844 experience) instead of the fruit (tritheism). * Firstly, because these are the strongholds and tritheism is one of fruits of those strongholds, * Secondly, because it is necessary to become familiar with EGW in order to understand, * Thirdly, because it is further necessary to understand the roots of her tritheism (Arianism) * Fourthly, because you must get the-Adventist-you're-talking-to to buy into each of these above points * And finally fifthly, because the correct ontological definition of God's being is not always equal to actually knowing Him and being in love with Him. There are countless cases of peoples around the world who have received visions from God and have loved Him, served Him and followed Him out of their native religions--even to death--but who did not yet have the correct understanding of God's ontological nature. Coming to know God personally will lead to getting to know His nature better, but the reverse is not always true. Coming to know "about" Him will not always lead to knowing Him personally, and may result in a relationship with static knowledge rather than a relationship with the living God. Ideally these things should go together, but not everyone has the "IQ" to get into debate about these things --nor does God require them to. He is the God of the educated as well as the God of the children, the mentally handicapped and the elderly alzheimer's patients. Bless you all in Jesus! In His love, Ramone P.S. I note now as I look over this post, that I've neglected to address the root of Adventist Arianism! While it would be simple to say that Arianism itself is the root problem, I believe that it, too, is largely the fruit of other roots. Pray and consider why someone would arrive at Arianism and its conclusions. Aberrant doctrines are usually the fruits of spiritual strongholds; they serve to strengthen the roots, generally not the other way around. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1553 Registered: 7-2003  |
Ramone, I thought this was a very good analysis and really enjoyed reading it. I would agree that a tritheistic slant arose from an attempt to bridge the unbridgable gap between arianism and trinitarianism without repenting of the former. I further agree that this is generally not an overly effective openning line of reasoning with current committed SDAs. They generally have no frame of reference from which they can evaluate the argument being made nor will their theological construct allow them to see the importance of the issue. However, I do think a discussion of the historical morphing and current confusion regarding the being of God is helpful when interacting with Christian apologists who see no reason to minister to SDAs or be concerned regarding the SDA system of belief. It seems that once evangelical apologists understand that there is a problem in this area they are much more open to examining how far the tentacles of abberrant teaching reach through Adventism and how its mistaken founding casts a pall over it's present. Chris | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 433 Registered: 1-2004  |
Ramone, I have a little difficulty with your concept of "pride" being a characteristic of Adventism. Part of this is because you also think it's a characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy. I am not sure how you can talk about Adventist pride and not see the possibility of Christian pride in knowing that Jesus personifies the truth. Does the possibility of a human knowing some actual truth mean that there is an occasion for pride? Or does pride only come when a person thinks error is truth? Maybe pride only comes when a person believes something that most people don't believe. I haven't run into anyone displaying pride that they believe the sun comes up every morning. It sounds convenient to say a person (or group of people) is prideful when they are sure of something that we disagree with. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9633 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ramone, I also really enjoyed your analysis above. You make excellent points about "tritheism" being a result of Adventist beliefs more than a foundational "cause"—at least for most Adventists. You further make a cogent point that it generally does no good to argue with an Adventist about his "tritheism". He will totally disagree and miss the seriousness of the point. I concur with Chris, though—understanding and being able to explain Adventist tritheism is essential when dealing with Christian apologists. If a group is seen has having an orthodox view of the Trinity, they are generally considered "less dangerous" or maybe even not dangerous at all. While I don't think explaining tritheism is a major point of reaching Adventists with the gospel, I do believe that understanding it and knowing it is a continuing reality within Adventist practice and teaching is essential in being able to address Adventists. If we don't see that they live with a false conception of God and especially of Jesus, we miss the chance to articulate the actual biblical truths they need to hear in order to have cognitive dissonance. I agree that pride is at the root of Adventism, but again, I believe that even addressing pride is not always a clear way to minister to Adventists. I know that in my own experience, I find that addressing Adventists and their beliefs is much easier and more direct since I have come to see that at the bottom line, they don't actually understand Who Jesus really is, who the Trinity really is, or that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Once I began to realize that in general all Adventists have some degree of misunderstanding in these areas, I found that I could address their arguments much more "cleanly" and directly. The Adventist verbiage actually serves as a smoke screen for a fundamental misunderstanding of who Jesus really is. You are right, however, that reverence for EGW, even as a significant founding voice, is one of the big reasons Adventists remain blind to these other issues. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1830 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks Colleen & Chris... Chris, I think you're right about the history of Adventism's Arianism being a very good 'window' for non-Adventist Christians to get a wake-up call about the truth of Adventist history, and to not merely pass over it. Again, I am not completely sure of how many "prides" there are, etc., or whatever. All I know is that I am praying and treating these things according to the symptoms and what the Holy Spirit reveals, not according to a systematic categorization of demonic spirits or seven-deadly-sins, etc. And so from examining these things, I've simply observed peculiar characterestics of each group's type of "pride", so to speak. Catholic/Orthodox/Denominational is one type, and Adventism has another. Of course there is overlap, and Adventism contains regular denominational pride, but Adventism has "distinctives" of its pride that the others do not. Jeremiah, I need to do some cleaning today and may not be able to reply just yet, but there are different manifestations of pride. This is not something I completely understand, I should add. But I've observed, for example, a parallel kind of pride that exists both in Adventism and in Japanese Shinto-nationalism. For example, both are almost violently resistant to acknowledging history, and attempt to cover things up or re-write them, so to speak. The pride in Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy is of a different sort, and is more simply defined as denominational pride. Although these two ancient churches precede modern "denominations", the fruits, attitudes and pride in our "correctness" is the same. Adventism (to a degree) has a measure of this, but it has a deeper and more cultic root. In other words, Adventism's pride is beyond mere denominationalism. I noted this in the "Kingdom Adventism" thread in the Members' Area, and after a bit of editing posted it up as an addendum at the bottom of my copied post on my blog here: http://formeradventistjapan.blogspot.com/2009/04/brief-response-to-kingdom-adventism.html As for "Christian pride" in Jesus personifying the truth, it is a subtle thing, because you said that Jesus personifies the truth. But in denominations (including Orthodoxy), this is not the only source of pride. There is additional, tangible pride in us having the truth, us being the real church, so to speak. And when inside any group, whether Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox or what have you, while being inside it is one of the hardest things to recognize. It's easier to recognize in somebody else's denomination but not in our own. Yet it is there nonetheless. Again, while this might sound the same as Adventist "remnant-ism", there is a big, tangible difference, which I believe I highlighted in the post I linked to above on my blog. Gotta run now. God bless you! Ramone | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 67 Registered: 3-2009 |
Gerald Wheeler in his book on James White indicates that James was basically an Arianist but came around in his later years when he wrote an article in the Review and Herald called: "Christ Equal with God," Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877. I can't find that original article online--but haven't searched extensively yet... Do any of you know if this is accurate? Did he change his view later? I'm merely asking for curiosity, not to be difficult.. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1841 Registered: 10-2002 |
From what you mentioned, it sounds like he may have begun to embrace a sort of Tritheism or "Christ escalated to becoming God" (a-la Mormonism?). If he went Trinitarian, it would mean that he went further than his wife, Ellen, who never went Trinitarian. Actually, you know what's interesting now that you mention it: a lot of the attempts Adventists use to show that Ellen (etc.) were Trinitarian are citations of certain articles or brief passages of her writings. This shows that what they don't have is a simple, clear and straightforward profession of the Trinity from her. They have to look for "mentions", so to speak. If it were true with James, it would be the same deal. No repentance of his former belief or admission of having changed. But a change "off the public radar". That seems to be the way that things have operated in Adventism since the beginning. Likely this is due to a desire to keep up the appearance of complete constancy, continuity and harmony of the original position with "what I believe today." I hope I'm describing that well. It's simply that in trying to justify beliefs of the founders, Adventists today are unable to produce clear, straightforward statements from the founders because the founders simply didn't do things that way. They didn't make straightforward admissions when changing positions, because they would then have to admit they'd changed. In a word, it is akin to politics, where politicians are never allowed to admit that they were wrong about something, and make great effort to convince everyone that "This is what I've always believed and what I've been saying all along." | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2672 Registered: 10-2004  |
Ramone, Like I said in the members only thread, I don't have too much time right now, but I wanted to make a few comments on your opening post in this thread. You make some very good points, but I also think you're missing some of the root problems. It is true that Tritheism was not the original Adventist position, but only because they believed the Holy Spirit to be a "force." In other words, polytheism is a foundational heresy of Adventism, but it originally started out as bitheism (two gods) and eventually morphed into tritheism (three gods), as they (including EGW) added in another god they called "the Holy Spirit" into this "Godhead," as one of "three living persons of the heavenly trio," as EGW says. Now let me explain myself. You might ask, "How could they have started off in polytheism if they believed that the Father was the one and only true God?" Well, it was disingenuous of them to claim to believe in only one God. The Jehovah's Witnesses also claim to believe in only one God, but then they call Jesus "a god." Well, if Jesus is a god and the Father is a God, then you have two gods (bitheism/polytheism). This is exactly what Adventism was founded on. They certainly did not deny that Jesus was divine (a god). They just believed that he was a lesser god, either created (Arian) or begotten (semi-Arian) at some distant time in the past by the Father. In other words, Adventism's teaching of polytheism is foundational, fundamental, and continuing--and goes deep into the roots/foundation of Adventism, which was established at the beginning by the "pioneers" (including EGW). One reason why it is important to understand this is because it is impossible to "morph" into one God by starting with two Gods. Because they were founded in polytheistic Arianism, it is impossible for them to accept monotheism/Trinitarianism, without destroying their foundation. You can't go from polytheism to monotheism without repenting of the polytheism. This is how they simply added on another god, and ended up with Tritheism. It was really no big deal, and it's easy to see why SDA theologians today say that it was a "natural progression" for the early Adventists. You can't start with polytheism (Jesus and the Father as separate divine Beings) and then simply add the teaching that Jesus was eternal and equal with the Father and get Trinitarianism/monotheism. It doesn't work that way. You would still have separate Gods. And that is why they do, to this day. (And they think they aren't separate Gods just because they're both eternal and equal and have the same attributes, which they didn't used to believe.) Additionally, one of the key points of the Nicene Creed, which was formulated specifically to refute Arianism, is that Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father"--which Arius denied. The denial of that is a key point of Arianism. Therefore, the SDA Church can still be called Arian to this day, in the sense that they still deny, as they always have ever since their founding, that Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father." That foundational teaching of theirs (that the Father and Son are two separate Beings), which was affirmed by EGW's early visions, has never changed one bit. Not one iota. (And, by the way, it's identical to Joseph Smith's "first vision" in which he said that he was visited by "two personages"--"God the Father" and "Jesus Christ"). And there is one more important aspect to this, regarding the roots and foundation of Adventism. And that is, also identical to Joseph Smith and the Mormons, the founding SDAs (including James and Ellen White) taught--as is still taught by Adventism to this day--that God the Father and Jesus Christ each had two separate physical bodies. This denial of the essential Christian teaching of the incorporeality of God is at the root of their denial of the Trinity and their belief in polytheism--two separate physical Beings (later, three). And at the root of this corporeal god teaching, is their denial of spirits. Because they didn't believe in spirits, they, naturally, did not believe that God was a Spirit (John 4:24). Everything is material, including their gods, which also necessitated the gods being trapped inside of space and time. Thus, matter, space, and time are uncreated according to Adventism, and are really their god. And one other thing related to this is their teaching that "God" has always kept the Sabbath from eternity past. This denies the concept of timelessness (the Christian definition of eternity) and traps God inside of time and an "eternal history" if you will. But it makes no sense to say that there were an infinite number of "days" in the past or, especially, that there were an infinite number of "seventh-days" (Sabbaths) in the past. It is completely non-sensical, illogical, and not mathematically possible. Not to mention unBiblical. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 07, 2009) | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 460 Registered: 2-2008 |
On a facebook discussion group, we were discussing their 2nd fundamental: "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." I have a hard time with their use of "co-eternal". To me, it seems to be a residual of their "tri-theism" belief and further separates the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Why didn't they just use the word "eternal" without the "co"? ~vivian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9640 Registered: 12-2003 |
That has bothered me, too, Vivian. Jeremy, thank you for your discussion above. I appreciate the way you expose the layers of this problem. I absolutely believe that the real bottom line heresy/problem of Adventism is the identity of Jesus--he is a "lesser god"--and the disbelief in the human spirit which essentially destroys the nature of Jesus. Even when Adventists say the "right" things about theology, they can't fully understand the reality of faith in Jesus when they don't perceive Jesus as possessing ALL the qualities of the Father and as being eternal and of the same substance as the Father. The reason Adventism is so difficult to figure out is that it tries to paste orthodox Christianity on top of a pagan heresy. The public only sees that pasted-on facade, but every Adventist knows he/she is viscerally connected to the organization's foundation, as Ramone has pointed out. Adventism is dangerous profoundly because it does not teach the biblical Jesus/Trinity. Colleen | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 68 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thanks again for all this wonderful info. Jeremy, Ramone & Chris, you three should team up to write a book for SDAs and former SDAs explaining these concepts because you all do it so well. And there are many, many people who need to hear this. Some of you may have already seen these, but here are two articles by Dr. Jerry Moon (currently in the seminary) with the current SDA response to the Whites' interpretation of the Trinity. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm These are quite long and complex, but from what I have read, Ramone, you are correct. There is this idea that the Whites "progressed" in their thinking--particularly James. And there wasn't repentance for the former teachings... | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1494 Registered: 5-2007  |
Until joining this forum, I never knew how far off SDA theology was on the true understanding of the Godhead. I guess, when learning orthodox doctrine I simply assumed they had it right on this one...silly me. Phil | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2675 Registered: 10-2004 |
Seekinglight, Thanks for posting those links, as they are very revealing. I had already seen them, but notice that they show that some SDAs do understand and admit that Adventism teaches a different "Trinity" than the Trinity doctrine of orthodox Christianity and the historical Creeds. In fact, Dr. Moon says:
Moon also states:
Dr. Moon also has a more recent version of the above study in an article that was presented at the Adventist Theological Society's 2006 "Trinity Symposium" and was published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, which contains some more declarations of the SDA "Trinity" being "not the same doctrine" as the orthodox Christian Trinity. Even the title of the article ("The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White's 'Heavenly Trio' Compared to the Traditional Doctrine") declares this. Here are some quotes from it:
Notice that he says that "they" aren't "three gods" simply because they get along really well!!! What kind of "fuzzy math" is that?? So as soon as the "three gods" of other pagan religions start getting along with each other, we can call those religions monotheistic all the sudden? It just shows the ridiculous, illogical lengths that they have to go to in order to desperately try to avoid the charge of polytheism! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 08, 2009) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2009 |
This is a topic that I don’t understand well. I read Chris article, and I got what I have always believed: One God, three persons. What I cannot understand is the relationship between the three. How are they one and still separate if it is explain ontological and not relational? Also, what is the difference between the definitions by EGW in this quote from EGW from the Moon article being discussed above, and the definition of the Trinity by evangelicals (traditional, creedal?). Moon says: “Then she defines what she understands to be the truth about the Godhead. “The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. “The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here [in Christ] is shown the personality of the Father. “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the God-head, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. [Emphasis supplied] 65E. G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 7 (Sanitarium: n.p., 1905), 63. Hec PS: At the risk of looking stupid and turning some of you off, I need to ask, How do I format quotes as some of you quote above? | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2678 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hec, Click on "Help/Instructions" at the bottom of the page, and then click on "Formatting," which will show you how to format quotes and other things.
God is one simple Being who exists as three distinct, but not separate, persons. Also, God is a spirit (John 4:24) and does not, by nature, have a body.
Well, first of all, notice that in the first sentence, EGW says that the Father has a body, which is denying that God is spirit (John 4:24). So she is saying that there are multiple physical divine beings (gods). Then she talks about a "heavenly trio." A "trio" is not the same as the Trinity. A "trio" would simply be a group of three united gods. Then she calls them "three great powers," which contradicts the Athanasian Creed which says that there is only one Almighty, and not three Almighties. There is only one Infinite Power. EGW's concept of "three infinite powers" (as she calls them elsewhere) doesn't even make sense. EGW is teaching three divine beings (tritheism), instead of one Divine Being (monotheism/Trinitarianism), and is thus contradicting the Nicene Creed which states that Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father." And by teaching separate persons/beings, she is contradicting the Athanasian Creed's statement that: "We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being." Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 08, 2009) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1555 Registered: 7-2003 |
Oh my.....those are some really condeming quotes from Moon that you posted Jeremy. I have to say I'm a little shocked that he admits so blatantly that EGW (and presumably those who believe her to be a prophet) reject an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Especially shocking is to see him codify in print the understanding that I was verbally taught growing up: the Father, Son, and Spirit are "one" only in the sense of being in agreement in purpose much like in a marriage. There is nothing biblical about this. If one looks at the totality of the biblical evidence it becomes quite apparent that God is one in essence, substance, or being. There is only one single being that is God. It is one of the most foundational teachings of scripture. "Hear, O Israel! The LORD [YHWH] is our God, the Lord [YHWH] is one!" Deuteronomy 6:4 (NASB) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9644 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hec, one word which has helped me to understand the Trinity (and also to understand a prevalent Adventist misperception) is the word "substance". I had a phone conversation one day with someone who took us to task for saying Adventists don't believe in the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity (see the article "Discovering the Adventist Jesus" on page 10 of this Proclamation http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2007_MayJun.pdf) I asked the man if he believed Jesus was of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit. He could not answer that. He kept saying they were one in purpose and intent, etc etc, but he wouldn't "go there" with "substance". Here's a metaphor that has helped me explain what I've come to understand. As an Adventist I was taught that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were "fully God". I understood that designation to mean that no part of Jesus was not God, and ditto for the Holy Spirit. Oh, yes--Jesus was also "fully human", but that was just a mystery. So, I imagined that "fully God" meant Jesus was "fully God" like a piece of fruit pie was "fully pie". If I remove a slice of pie from the whole, that slice is nonetheless "fully pie". But that piece of pie I removed might have forty slices of apple and 1/8 tsp of cinnamon in it. The rest of that pie might have 280 slices of apple in it, 7/8 tsp of cinnamon, and three apple seeds. That piece of pie was "fully pie" and fully part of the whole. But that piece of pie did NOT have the three seeds in it, and it did not have the full complement of total apple slices and cinnamon. It only had one piece' worth of apples and cinnamon--and no seeds. What I didn't understand as an Adventist was that Jesus was not "fully God" like that piece of pie is "fully pie". Jesus has within Himself ALL the characteristics of God. Without meaning any disrespect, Jesus has in Himself the characteristics of the WHOLE pie: He has the full complement of 320 apple slices, 1 tsp cinnamon, and three apple seeds—all within Himself. The Holy Spirit likewise has all the apples, all the cinnamon, and the three apple seeds--as does the Father. At the same time, each Person is distinct. They each have ALL of God in them--not merely one-third of God. You can't take one out of the Trinity and "lose" part of the attributes of God. What the Bible does teach, however, is that the Persons of the Trinity have distinct roles. Each performs His own role, which is different from the others, with all the full power and attributes of Deity. Jesus is the Lamb slain and the eternal intercessor for us—and He can do this perfectly and eternally because He has all the apple slices, cinnamon, and requisite seeds. The Holy Spirit indwells us and grows us and teaches us the truth about the gospel perfectly and eternally because He also has all the apple slices and cinnamon and the requisite seeds. Ditto for the Father. Now, this analogy is obviously limited, and there's really no way to perfectly explain the Trinity. But the big breakthrough for me was understanding (yet again!) what Adventists really mean by their words. When they say Jesus is "fully God", they only mean he's deity--not that He possesses ALL the "God characteristics" of the whole Trinity. Col 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…" Col 1:17b also says, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." These texts say that Christ is the Person assigned to be the Holder-Together of all things. That means that even in His death, all things held together in Him. If course, the whole Trinity could hold everything together, but holding together IS the job of Jesus! So, at no time did He stop holding everything together. Clearly, chaos did not result from Jesus' death! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2680 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris, Have you seen the following quote by SDA scholar Norman Gulley (also published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society)?:
Jeremy (Note: the formatting for the transliterations of the Hebrew words in the above quote didn't work on here, so I substituted the transliterations found at blueletterbible.org.) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1845 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow, those Jerry Moon quotes really show that root of pride in full action -- the desire to elevate (or canonize) what the pioneers believed as the 'ultimate position', so to speak. Instead of comparing to Scripture and acknowledging error & need to change, Moon chose to see that whatever tritheism EGW arrived at was superior to the Trinity. I think in order to search out and be clear about the roots of EGW's tritheism (and the tritheism of modern Adventist apologists who consider her views superior to all else), it is probably necessary to examine the motivations of the Adventists who came from the Christian Connexion and ask why they apostasized to Arianism. Why does a Christian leave the truth about the Trinity to embrace the heresy of Arianism? I think the answers to this go very close in parallel to a lot of the spiritual roots/baggage in the "remnant" stronghold... which has something to do with pre-deciding that everyone else got something fundamentally wrong and is going fundamentally astray. There is a sort of pride (at times) in "separation", which can open the door to embracing all sorts of new doctrines, simply to differ with what the old church had taught. I.e., having dug one hole and been proud of it, they keep digging more holes, going deeper and deeper. Anyway, Jeremy, I see these things as the fundamental roots of EGW's tritheism. I think her/their "polytheism" is basically a sort of way in which we might now categorize the final amalgamation of their beliefs. The early Adventists didn't do well at following their beliefs to their logical conclusions, you know? I think LDS and JWs were a lot more consistent about following their anti-Trinitarian beliefs to their logical conclusions. For the Adventists, it began in the Christian Connexion's Arianism which may not have been as tightly developed as LDS & JW's. The "roots" are the reasons (spiritiual motivations) that they adopted such erroneous beliefs. The beliefs themselves are not the primary roots. The beliefs may end up as roots of confusion today (EGW's tritheism is a prime example!), but those beliefs about the Trinity are the result of other motivations which they followed to a point where they rejected the Trinity. Looking at things closely, we can observe that the motivations are the primary forces even in foolishly defending something as bizarre as EGW's tritheism as if it were superior to the Trinity. The reasons that EGW morphed into tritheism include what I've shared earlier, and are the same as the other spiritual forces at work among the early Adventists, and further are parallel to what binds Adventists to Adventism today -- primarily pride & a desire to be separate. Pride, which leads to: * a firm rejection of repentance, and * the canonization of early Adventism * utter confusion about the truth * the inability to let the Bible mean what it says A smattering of spiritual experiences (EGW's visions, etc.) act as confirmation of those strongholds, and if tapped into by overt spiritual invitation, this can lead to a lot of other problems. Thankfully, I don't think most Adventists go for that kind of direct invitation, though as I've mentioned in the Member's thread, I do know some who have. In Jesus set free! Ramone | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2009 |
Hello friends, You owe me $75.00. Late last night the fire department showed up at my house looking for a big cloud of smoke they saw from their station which is very close to my house. They all laughed when they saw that the smoke was coming out of my brain which is overheating on this topic of the Trinity. Now, that the dry humor is out, I have a serious question. I read Colleen's article in Proclamation, and it was very helpful. However, I still struggle with the concept of One God and three distinct but not separate persons. There is one verse that I can't understand under that premise:
This verse seems to say that the Spirit was not there, and would not come unless Jesus left. Now, I know that this poses a problem. Each person is God, therefore omnipresent. So wherever Jesus is, the others are too. Hence, the Spirit was there with Jesus. Why did He say that unless He left, the Spirit would not come? Does this sound like separate persons? Trying to understand this, I thought of an oil that is used to lubricate mechanical parts in small machines, like a sowing machine. I remember the name is/was (I have not seen it for a while and don't know if it still is sold) Three in One. This is a lubricating oil that is one oil, but is the product of emulsifying three distinct oils. One problem with this illustration is that once they are emulsify, they lose their individual identity. (I think. If there is a chemist here, please correct me.)But they are three distinct oils, that now are not separate and are one oil. I would say that the reason why they use three oils is because each has its own job to do, just as the members of the Trinity has (notice that I say has, not have). Oh well, I'm rambling. I'll let the ones who understand this explain it. Hec |
