Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Wow, David Newman’s comment was one of the most tritheistic statements I’ve seen by an SDA! Did anyone else notice that he actually admitted to believing in “three gods”?! He wrote:

“The doctrine of the Tinity is called an Implicit doctrine rather than an explicit one. This is because there is NO clear statement in Scripture saying three gods are one.”

And this statement also proves that he is a polytheist:

“Language is our big problem. Words are only symbols for what is in the mind. That is why JWs emphasize the humanity of Christ by playing on the fact that he is a son, human. It is only in the New Testament that we get a fuller picture of the godhead. We use analagies such as in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve became one flesh (even though they were still two separate people).”

WOW!!!

I have seen that analogy used by other SDAs and it is proof that they are polytheist. They think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are relationally “one” (one in purpose, etc.)--just as Adam and Eve were! In other words, they don’t believe that God is one living Being, but rather they can only say they believe there is one God by redefining “God” (or “the Godhead") to mean the title of a “group"--a divine “membership club” if you will--of which there are three “members,” or “divine beings” (gods). This is no different than the Mormon Godhead doctrine (which also says that there are three divine beings who are one in purpose).

Looking at the above analogy about Adam and Eve--let’s say that instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--we were to say that Adam and Eve are God. Would we have two gods? Absolutely. And by using that analogy they are making it clear that they believe in three separate divine beings who are one in purpose, etc. (which they also state outright!).

When anyone says they don’t think that the Trinity is an important doctrine--then that is probably a good hint that they don’t really believe in the true, orthodox Trinity doctrine themselves.

That link that Greg posted above (http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/fileadmin/templates/articles/ADVENTIST_HISTORY_AND_THE_TRINITY.pdf) to Amazing Discoveries is a great resource. I had seen that site before and an article that is similar to--but I believe shorter and a bit different, than that link. That site is an SDA site and they believe in the Trinity doctrine as taught officially by the mainstream SDA church. That article examines and quotes the Arian SDAs and defends the SDA Trinity doctrine. But they make some amazing admissions on there. They show that just because the SDA church now uses the term “Trinity,” they do not teach the same doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church (and also Prostestantism).

In fact, that SDA “pro-Trinity” site does a better job than I ever could of proving that the SDA church does NOT teach the traditional/orthodox/Catholic/Protestant doctrine of the Trinity! They show that Adventism does not believe that God is one Being, as the Catholic Church (and all Christians and all monotheists!) believe. They even admit outright such things as the following at the above link:

“Perhaps, when they began using the term ‘Trinity,’ it might have been helpful to have clearly explained that by using the word we were not automatically accepting the Catholic definition of it.

[...]

This flawed supposition is that the SDA Church has, in fact, adopted the Catholic Trinity.

[...]

To speak of a union of three persons in the Godhead (as the
dictionary does), does not describe what the Catholics mean in their concept of unity of Father, Son and Spirit. Is it emblematic, is it literal in a genetic /
biological sense of the word? This does make a whole lot of difference. The allegation against the SDA Church is that we are teaching the ‘Catholic Trinity.’

[...]

It is hardly of value arguing about a term, such as Trinity, when the extrapolation of that term may vary significantly from one person to another. Coming to grips with this will help us to discover the essential truth about the whole matter.

[...]

[Describing the Catholic doctrine...] In other words, there is a bizarre, continuous genetic / biological amalgamation between the members of the Godhead, which does not make them separate beings in the typical sense of the term. The concept of three separate, individual persons in the Godhead does not exist in the Catholic doctrine. No wonder Ellen White made it clear that Christ’s life is ‘original, unborrowed and underived.’ She wanted to make it clear that what we taught was in no way similar to the Catholic stance.

[...]

The bottom line is this:
1. The ASDAT accuse the SDA Church of teaching a Catholic Trinity. The truth is, the SDA Church does not teach such a thing, although some have used this term to describe what we believe.

[...]

All these statements that have been used to vilify SDA’s and lay on them the guilt of following a Catholic dogma, all this means nothing, since we do not teach a Catholic Trinity. We may not be teaching what the ASDAT think we should, but a Catholic Trinity is certainly not what we espouse.”

Remember, these quotes are coming from a “pro-Trinity” SDA site!!!!!

SavedForever

SavedForever,

Interesting observations--I assumed Brian Neumann’s viewpoint was written from the perspective of a non-trinitarian Adventist, but it’s actually the opposite.  Neumann seems to be trying to make peace between the non-trinitarian and trinitarian Adventists in order to maintain unity against the Catholics.

Perhaps J. David Newman will come here and answer your concerns.  I agree that his “three gods” statement is worded in a way that sounds tritheistic.  If asked directly, I highly doubt he would deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but his comments do leave me wondering whether he believes in the consubstantiality of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

Perhaps Newman’s comments were hastily written, so we should at least give him a chance to answer the challenge that he is a polytheist before writing him off.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Greg, well, it is also important to keep in mind (and I should have put this in my first post) that many Adventists will use terms such as “substance” and “essence” (just as they use the term “Trinity"), but they do not mean the same thing that Christians mean, as explained in the link you posted.

SavedForever

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

To clarify what I just said above, when I say they don’t mean the same thing Christians mean--I meant that when SDAs use the words “substance” or “essence” they don’t actually mean that God is one living Being. Instead, they believe there are three divine beings who are one in purpose, nature, character, etc.

SavedForever

Thanks SavedForever for taking the time to do that analysis.

Stan

[quote author="SavedForever"]To clarify what I just said above, when I say they don’t mean the same thing Christians mean--I meant that when SDAs use the words “substance” or “essence” they don’t actually mean that God is one living Being. Instead, they believe there are three divine beings who are one in purpose, nature, character, etc.

SavedForever

I believe in the Trinity. However, you cannot say ‘One Divine Being’ when Christ prayed to the Father in the garden, and saying ‘I pray that they will be one as you and I are one’ and says ‘If you have seen me, you have seen the Father’ and ‘When I go I will send the comforter to you.”

So what you are saying is that Christ was praying to Himself in a split personality mode?

The nature of the Godhead is as such that I don’t believe we will ever truly understand it, Savedforever. Perhaps it is not wise to judge others like it is all crystal clear in your mind.

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Guibox,

I don’t know what to say, other than I am saddened that you reject the Trinity--although, I wouldn’t expect a different response from those who are still within Adventism.

The most foundational doctrine of Scripture is that there is one and only one living God. It is not something that is up for speculation or disagreement when God’s Word is clear throughout--in both Old and New Testaments, from beginning to end.

Are you saying that you reject the Nicene Creed, which says of Jesus, that He is “of one Being with the Father”? And you disagree with the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as outlined here? Here is the beginning of that link:

“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 ‘one God in three persons,’ all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being.”

In order to believe in the Trinity, you must believe in monotheism. That is the most basic aspect of the Bible’s teaching about God--and it boggles my mind how certain religions try to get around it.

SavedForever

Saved Forever,

I don’t think that Guibox really rejects the Trinity, but I will let him speak for himself.

I think it is possible to someimes be too technical with the language. All who believe that there is one God who exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Hymn “Holy Holy Holy” really sums it up. “God in three persons, blessed Trinity”. The SDA hymnal did leave this stanza out until 1985.

Stan

SavedForever,

I fully believe in ‘God in three persons’. But there still are ‘three persons’ and any SDA church I have been in sings ‘Holy Holy Holy’ with gusto.

Again, I reiterate that understanding the Trinity is really beyond our human comprehention.

If you are so saddened by my comments (of which I simply reason from the word of God itself), then I await your explanation of:

Mark 14:36
Mark 15:34
Luke 24:49
John 18:11

To show me exactly what I have said that ‘saddens’ you. Explain to me in clear language that what I am pointing out in the scriptures is a denial of the Trinity and I will recant.

Please answer this question: Did Jesus have a split personality while here on this earth and was praying and talking about himself in the direct third person?

I just want to sound a note of caution here, because like Stan said, language surrounding the Trinity doctrine can become very technical.  We should not be quick to seize on people’s probably hastily-written words as “proof” they are polytheists until we have a chance to hear them out.

That said, I think the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally important to the Christian faith.  Someone on progressiveadventism.com posted this quote from an Adventist pastor named Max Hatton (converted from Jehovah’s Witnesses): “If you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you could lose your soul, but if you strive too hard to understand it, you could lose your wits.” I think this is basically correct--there are just some things about the Trinity that we will need to wait until heaven to understand, but we should not abandon efforts to understand it because the very nature of who we believe God to be is at stake.  As A.W. Tozer said, the most important thing about us is what comes into our minds when we think about God.  It’s worth the effort, therefore, to be as precise as we can be regarding the Trinity within the limitations of our language.

I found a very helpful blog post by Reformed Presbyterian pastor John Sampson, where he articulates the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity.  He says there are basically two major problems we can fall into, declaring that God is “one” and can only take the form of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit at one time, which is known as Sabellianism, or the other side of the spectrum where we believe the three Persons are distinct gods, which is a tritheist or polytheist belief.  I would add that there’s at least a third problem--we can deny that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence as God the Father, but I’ll get back to that later.

This passage from Sampson’s article is particularly helpful:

[quote author="John Sampson"]
It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person.” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. There is no contradiction though because that is not what is being said at all. There is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what and three who’s.

All the major cults today (Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Latter Day Saints or Mormons, etc.) contend that Christians have simply made up the concept of the Trinity, saying that the term is not even found in the Bible. Though it is true that the actual term cannot be found in Scripture, I would have to say, “so what?” for even the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible! The term “Bible” comes from the word biblos meaning “book,” and therefore means “the Book.” The Bible is not just “a” book but “the” book, because it is the very Word of Almighty God, and therefore the most important book anyone can ever read, for it is the only one that is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16).

Sampson then offered three main points derived from Scripture that will safeguard against falling into anti-trinitarian beliefs:

1. There is only one God, who is eternal and immutable (unchanging). (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; Mal. 3:6; Mark 12:29; John 17:3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jam. 2:19)

2. There are three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Spirit, and nor is the Holy Spirit the Father. (Matt. 3:13-17; Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:22; John 1:1-2; John 3:16-17; John 15:26; John 16:7; John 17:1-26; 2 Cor. 13:14)

3. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being full Deity - that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of the Father, the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. (Isa. 9:6; John 17:3; John 1:1-18; John 8:58; John 20:28; Phillipians 2:5-11; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18)

For the present discussion, I think we probably all agree on point number 1, but the words we use can be very sloppy and when taken at face value, may sound like we are articulating a polytheist position.  I need to research this more, but as I recall, the early Adventists minimized or even denied the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (point 3) and therefore denied they were eternal (point 2), in favor of maintaining point 1 and remaining opposed to the Roman Catholics.  I need to check this, because Julius Nam on progressiveadventism.com stated the early Adventists actually believed Jesus was the first created God, again denying point number 1.  At any rate, we’ve seen examples of historic Adventists who want to return to the early Adventist denial of the Trinity, but they do so at the peril of denying essential qualities of God and in my mind, at least, risk putting their faith in a different Jesus.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Guibox,

I believe I already answered your question by posting the Christian definition of the Trinity. To put it simply, God is three persons in one Being. To expand further, God is a perichoresis of three persons. This means that the three persons reciprocally contain one another. God is a simple (not an aggregate) being--meaning, He is indivisible and is not made up of parts. So Jesus is not just 1/3 of God, or part of God, but is truly fully (or all of) God. A couple other aspects of the Trinity doctrine are that Jesus is omnipresent (which Adventism denies) and also that God is incorporeal--which means that He is Spirit (John 4:24) and does not by nature have a body (see Luke 24:39), which Adventism also denies.

What you have said that is a denial of the Trinity is when you said: “you cannot say ‘One Divine Being’"--and also when you implied that the Father and the Son are only as “one” as the followers of Christ are “one.” That text cannot be used to say that the only “oneness” that God has is a “oneness” of purpose, etc., when the rest of Scripture is so clear that there is only one Being who is God.

SavedForever

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Greg,

You wrote: “...or the other side of the spectrum where we believe the three Persons are distinct gods, which is a tritheist or polytheist belief. I would add that there’s at least a third problem--we can deny that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence as God the Father, but I’ll get back to that later.”

How is denying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence as the Father NOT believing in three gods? That is basically the definition of Tritheism. You can’t deny that and be a monotheist, any more than the Mormon Godhead is monotheist.

Regarding the early Adventists, they certainly believed that Jesus was “the Son of God” and divine--a lesser god if you will. They started out as bitheists (two gods), and then eventually added in the Holy Spirit as a third god--or as EGW says “the eternal heavenly dignitaries” and “three living persons of the heavenly trio...three great powers.” They also eventually recognized Jesus as being eternal--but they never got rid of their polytheistic beliefs, to this day.

SavedForever

Posted anonymously by: SavedForever

Stan,

This is not about “technical language” or semantics. It is clearly an issue of two totally opposite and different concepts. Is there one God or three? One Being or three?

“I think it is possible to someimes be too technical with the language. All who believe that there is one God who exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.”

So do Mormons believe in the doctrine of the Trinity then? They say they believe in one God and that there are three persons in the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You may have objections to other parts of Mormonism’s teaching, but do you believe that it is unfair of the cult experts to claim that Mormons have a Tritheistic Godhead?

(I will point out that yes, a person can have a simple belief in the Trinity, but not when they have been taught and believe things which contradict and prevent them from believing in the Trinity.)

SavedForever

[quote author="SavedForever"]How is denying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence as the Father NOT believing in three gods? That is basically the definition of Tritheism. You can’t deny that and be a monotheist, any more than the Mormon Godhead is monotheist.

Just a quick reply to this...what I meant was that I think some early Adventists did not believe either Jesus or the Holy Spirit were in fact God, so by the strict technical definition we are adhering to, they would still be considered monotheists, albeit at the expense of denying essential qualities of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, I need to research this more, but my recollection is that some early Adventists believed this.

Greg

[quote author="SavedForever"]Guibox,

To put it simply, God is three persons in one Being. To expand further, God is a perichoresis of three persons. This means that the three persons reciprocally contain one another. God is a simple (not an aggregate) being--meaning, He is indivisible and is not made up of parts. So Jesus is not just 1/3 of God, or part of God, but is truly fully (or all of) God.

Which is nothing my church doesn’t believe. The simple fact that you can say that Christ IS God and yet we see that Christ was praying to a separate entity, which is a contradiction in terms, shows that the understanding of the Trinity is quite deep and beyond our total comprehension. I fail to see how you can accuse the present day SDA church of not preaching Trinitarianism. Nothing you have said contradicts what my church believes.

[quote author="SavedForever"]A couple other aspects of the Trinity doctrine are that Jesus is omnipresent (which Adventism denies) and also that God is incorporeal--which means that He is Spirit (John 4:24) and does not by nature have a body (see Luke 24:39), which Adventism also denies.

SavedForever, the purpose of this forum is to share the gospel first instead of incorrectly pointing out in an accusatory manner what you believe to be the false teachings of the SDA church. I’m also sure that Greg would like this to be a forum for civil conversation and to be as non-confrontational as possible, instead of another former-SDA site where bashing SDAs is the norm. So in reigning in my feelings at the moment, I must respectfully say that I am beginning to take a bit of offense in your accusations towards the church in this matter,saying that we deny the Godhead of Christ or that he doesn’t have a body or is not omnipresent.

Where in the world are you getting your facts because in all my 23 years as an SDA, I’ve never heard my churches, schools, conference or colleges preach this.