BobJ - 24 May 2008 05:45 PM

Sheryl

I’ve also had questions about the trinity.  I do not understand how an orthodox view of the trinity would fit with a two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary.  Perhaps this explains the reluctance.

Bob

Hi Bob,
Can you explain why an orthodox view of the trinity wouldn’t fit with a two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary?

Can you also explain what are the differences between the Adventist view of the trinity and an orthodox view?

Gabriel:
Hi Sheryl.

Giving the confusion which such declarations bring on this subject, a clarification is needed in order to admit the orthodoxy of the SDA’s at this point. As long as the ambiguity persists, the SDA is not placing itself clearly in the Trinitarian camp, and it is the church’s responsibility to take a clear trinitarian position, removing ambiguous language and criticism of the classical trinitarian view.

For a long time I thought that the presumption of innocence functions in the SDA case, but the fact that the SDA Church started as an anti-trinitarian church does not encourage us to assume innocence by default, but rather to ask for a solid alibi. And if there is no alibi, if the suspect is constantly evasive, the chances are good that he’s guilty.

Gabriel

Here is the Adventist view of the trinity taken from the fundamental belief’s, what is the ambiguity you are suggesting?

-------------------------------------------------------------
2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

Sheryl Barker - 24 May 2008 04:21 PM

I’m wondering if that difference has to do with what “one” means. I’ve seen SDA’s stress so frequently that God is one in purpose, but I don’t recall ever seeing a clear statement from SDA’s that God is one in essence.

Hi Sheryl,

I think you’re right, and this lack of clarity about God as one in essence is the answer to Bill’s question. Regarding the official fundamental belief, it is what is missing rather than what is affirmed that is problematic. It is a correct statement of doctrine, and in a different context I think it would be sufficient to qualify the SDA as orthodox at this point. I think that because the statement is in harmony with the orthodox doctrine of Trinity, containing nothing contradictory to the orthodox formulation of the doctrine to which the evangelical churches submit, is one of the reasons why Walter Martin and other well known evangelical leaders consider the SDA Church orthodox at this point.

The context is what makes this statement insufficient to establish the orthodoxy of the SDA at this point. The context is the evolution of the SDA Church from a clearly anti-trinitarian position toward trinitarianism, and in order that a full transition to take place there three necessary steps which modify the previous position:

1. Affirm Jesus’ eternal existence and his equality with the Father in all divine attributes
2. Affirm the personality of the Holy Spirit and his distinctiveness from Father and Son
3. Affirm their unity in essence

The third point is absolutely necessary because in the anti-trinitarian views (arian and semi-arian), the Father and the Son are not seen as distinct (orthodox view), but as separate. In order to arrive at a full trinitarian statement, it is necessary to move from the position of seeing the Father and the Son as separate to seeing them as one in essence, distinct but not divided. If this step is not taken, the three persons, even if they are co-eternal, co-equal, one in their purpose, will, etc., are still separate, three gods, and not one. There is no clear statement affirming this unity in essence, and this creates the ambiguity.

It is also interesting what happens when current SDA theologians clash with anti-triniarian, arian and semi-arian leaders of the movement which is currently gaining force in Adventism. I listened to a three hour debate on the subject of trinity, and all the arguments brought by the SDA theologians were in the first and second category, affirming Jesus’ eternal existence, equality of attributes and personality of the Holy Spirit. The third point was strangely missing.

It is interesting that they had not touched point three, and it is very strange, because the first accusations brought by the anti-trinitarians against them was of polytheism. It is only natural to defend against such arguments by affirming monotheism in establishing the unity of Father, Son and Spirit in essence. This is what Christian apologists do with Muslims, but in the case of the SDA apologists, this point is strangely lacking.

Also very troubling for me is the statement of Denis Fortin, Dean and Professor of Theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, who wrote an introductory article on the Adventist Trinity debate. After mentioning the classical definition of the Trinity, one susbstance (ousia in Greek) in three persons (hypostases in Greek), Fortin makes some troubling statements. He says this formulation (one ousia in three hypostases) is a problem for us today because a large part of this vocabulary and mentality assumed the antic Greek dualism and metaphysics, which we consider today to be confusing and far away from the truth. This is another case where a professor of theology at Andrews Universitiy rejects the orthodox formulation of the Trinity.

In the light of these things, is it too much to refrain from classifying Adventism as orthodox on the Trinity when affirmations of the unity in essence are lacking and at the same time they harshly criticize the orthodox formulation of the Trinity, considering it to be the product of Greek dualism, metaphysics and a pagan mentality?

Gabriel

Gabriel:
Hi Sheryl,

I think you’re right, and this lack of clarity about God as one in essence is the answer to Bill’s question. Regarding the official fundamental belief, it is what is missing rather than what is affirmed that is problematic. It is a correct statement of doctrine, and in a different context I think it would be sufficient to qualify the SDA as orthodox at this point. I think that because the statement is in harmony with the orthodox doctrine of Trinity, containing nothing contradictory to the orthodox formulation of the doctrine to which the evangelical churches submit, is one of the reasons why Walter Martin and other well known evangelical leaders consider the SDA Church orthodox at this point.

So, you believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all have the same essence as well as purpose?  Can you please provide me the scriptural basis for this to help me understand?

Thanks,
Bill.

Bill - 24 May 2008 09:14 PM

BobJ - 24 May 2008 05:45 PM

Sheryl

I’ve also had questions about the trinity.  I do not understand how an orthodox view of the trinity would fit with a two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary.  Perhaps this explains the reluctance.

Bob

Hi Bob,
Can you explain why an orthodox view of the trinity wouldn’t fit with a two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary?

Is Bob still out there?  Can anyone here explain what a view of the trinity would have to do with a one or two apartment view of the heavenly sanctuary?

Bill - 25 May 2008 06:22 PM

Gabriel:
Hi Sheryl,

I think you’re right, and this lack of clarity about God as one in essence is the answer to Bill’s question. Regarding the official fundamental belief, it is what is missing rather than what is affirmed that is problematic. It is a correct statement of doctrine, and in a different context I think it would be sufficient to qualify the SDA as orthodox at this point. I think that because the statement is in harmony with the orthodox doctrine of Trinity, containing nothing contradictory to the orthodox formulation of the doctrine to which the evangelical churches submit, is one of the reasons why Walter Martin and other well known evangelical leaders consider the SDA Church orthodox at this point.

So, you believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all have the same essence as well as purpose?  Can you please provide me the scriptural basis for this to help me understand?

Thanks,
Bill.

Bill, Does that mean you agree that SDA’s do not believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all have the same essence as well as purpose? If so, that would be a very distinct difference between the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and the SDA doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, I think without the definition of one in essence, you don’t even have the Trinity anymore but tritheism instead.

The only Scripture references I know of are all the references that say God is One, which are usually interepreted to mean monotheism. If God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not one in essence, how can you have monotheism - wouldn’t it be polytheism instead?

Hi Bill

We’ve been in party mode with graduation.  Sorry for not responding sooner.

I have questions on several points regarding the trinity, and do not find myself well enough informed to agree with either view. I think Gabriel’s comment on the essence (his point #3) is where my questions are, but even Gabriel’s points do not fully resolve the two apartment issue in my mind.  You are correct in assuming that I think this raises problems, and what I was thinking when I commented to Sheryl begs the question of why Christ would need to travel through the first apartment to reach the Father if they are indeed one in essence. 

I ask these questions humbly because I really don’t know the answers, For example, in Genesis 15 my understanding is that the Father was represented by the smoking furnace and the Son Jesus by the burning lamp.  If this is correct, then does this mean that only the Father (not Jesus) was the lawgiver on Sinai?  I do not ask you to answer this--this is not a challenge, but I am here to learn and would certainly appreciate a boost on this from anyone here.  I do not mean to be trite in saying this, but one symbol is smoke, one is fire.  We obviously assume that where one is, there is the other.  But these are symbols only, and I do not wish th stretch or distort their meaning by assuming that where one is, there is the other.  It’s this same uncertainty that causes me to wonder about the orthodox view of the trinity, and perhaps explains the reluctance of Adventist scholars to go with it.  It seems like a problem to me and would seem to explain the caution on this point.

I know we have to be very careful with the imagery of scripture. 

I have wondered about the inaguration of the heavenly sanctuary--lots of questions here. 

I have questions about Christ ever living to make intercession for us, yet being pictured as seated at the right hand of God.  I thought the priests could not be seated during their shifts.  The imagery seems to clash here. 

There are more questions that would cause me to be reluctant to go with full trinitarian view, and other texts, dealing with creation (the Spirit is mentioned, then God created) that seem to support it.  Altogether, I can understand why either view would be reluctant to grant turf to the other position.

Bob

Sheryl Barker - 26 May 2008 06:49 AM

Bill - 25 May 2008 06:22 PM

Gabriel:
Hi Sheryl,

I think you’re right, and this lack of clarity about God as one in essence is the answer to Bill’s question. Regarding the official fundamental belief, it is what is missing rather than what is affirmed that is problematic. It is a correct statement of doctrine, and in a different context I think it would be sufficient to qualify the SDA as orthodox at this point. I think that because the statement is in harmony with the orthodox doctrine of Trinity, containing nothing contradictory to the orthodox formulation of the doctrine to which the evangelical churches submit, is one of the reasons why Walter Martin and other well known evangelical leaders consider the SDA Church orthodox at this point.

So, you believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all have the same essence as well as purpose?  Can you please provide me the scriptural basis for this to help me understand?

Thanks,
Bill.

Bill, Does that mean you agree that SDA’s do not believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all have the same essence as well as purpose? If so, that would be a very distinct difference between the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and the SDA doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, I think without the definition of one in essence, you don’t even have the Trinity anymore but tritheism instead.

The only Scripture references I know of are all the references that say God is One, which are usually interepreted to mean monotheism. If God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not one in essence, how can you have monotheism - wouldn’t it be polytheism instead?

Thank you for responding Sheryl.

What do you mean by the “definition of one in essence”.  By this do you mean that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same physical characteristics?  If this is what you are saying, I would like to know where you get support for that from the Bible.  If thats not what you mean, I would like to know what you mean by “essence”.

Thank you,
Bill.

Hi Bill, I came across a rather simplistic explanation of ‘essence’ a while back using H2O as an example:

H2O, an essential to life, can be a vapor, a liquid and a solid – at the same time!; different forms with varying purposes/benefits but which have that same essence of H2O

“"Trinity" is a term that is not found in the Bible but a word used to describe what is apparent about God in the Scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...and also clearly presents that there is only one God. Thus the term: “Tri” meaning three, and “Unity” meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three “Persons” who have the same essence of deity.”

JONVIL

JONVIL - 27 May 2008 10:44 AM

Hi Bill, I came across a rather simplistic explanation of ‘essence’ a while back using H2O as an example:

H2O, an essential to life, can be a vapor, a liquid and a solid – at the same time!; different forms with varying purposes/benefits but which have that same essence of H2O

“"Trinity" is a term that is not found in the Bible but a word used to describe what is apparent about God in the Scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...and also clearly presents that there is only one God. Thus the term: “Tri” meaning three, and “Unity” meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three “Persons” who have the same essence of deity.”

JONVIL

Thank you for that explaination Jonvil.  I guess I’m still unclear how a common essence would apply to three distinct beings.  I can see how they would be one in purpose and character (you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father, etc), but don’t see how we could determine physical characteristics (if that is what is meant by essence).  I can see that Jesus now has a physical body similar to ours, which would seem to indicate that Jesus does not have the same exact physical characteristics of the other two in the Godhead.  At least not any longer.

So far, it seems to me, purpose and character is portrayed in the Bible, but I am struggling to see where anything regarding physical characteristics would be more than speculation.

Also, why would God the Father create through God the Son if God the Son had the same essence?  On the other hand, I believe that Jesus, as represented in the OT, was all-powerful and all-knowing and omni-present, but after becoming a man, I don’t know what He gave up.  Perhaps these are things that God has chosen not to reveal…

Bill, I’m not debating whether it is correct or incorrect to believe that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same essence. The official mainstream-Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that is the case, and that “one in essence” is an integral part of the definition. So I’m trying to find out if SDA’s reject that aspect of the definition. In my mind, it seems they must because I have never seen that terminology in any SDA definition of the Trinity. If you read any standard church creed “one in essence” or “one in substance” terminology is used, and yet that appears to me to be what the SDA church is specifically leaving out, which makes me wonder if the SDA church rejects that part of the Trinity definition. I’ve seen SDA definitions go to a lot of trouble explaning the one is in regard to purpose, mind, character - but essense and substance are always strangely left out.

Here is a brief explanation of the orthodox definition of the Trinity:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/trinityshort.html

As far as what “one in essence” actually means, I don’t have a good explanation. It is a mystery, but it is also what makes a Triune God actually One (and also Three Persons at the same time) instead of “Three Beings in agreement as One” (tritheism).

Sheryl Barker - 27 May 2008 04:00 PM

Bill, I’m not debating whether it is correct or incorrect to believe that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same essence. The official mainstream-Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that is the case, and that “one in essence” is an integral part of the definition. So I’m trying to find out if SDA’s reject that aspect of the definition. In my mind, it seems they must because I have never seen that terminology in any SDA definition of the Trinity. If you read any standard church creed “one in essence” or “one in substance” terminology is used, and yet that appears to me to be what the SDA church is specifically leaving out, which makes me wonder if the SDA church rejects that part of the Trinity definition. I’ve seen SDA definitions go to a lot of trouble explaning the one is in regard to purpose, mind, character - but essense and substance are always strangely left out.

Here is a brief explanation of the orthodox definition of the Trinity:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/trinityshort.html

As far as what “one in essence” actually means, I don’t have a good explanation. It is a mystery, but it is also what makes a Triune God actually One (and also Three Persons at the same time) instead of “Three Beings in agreement as One” (tritheism).

Thanks for the post and reference Sheryl, was VERY helpful.

gospeloutreach.net:
There are three co-equal persons in the one Godhead. The word person must not, however, be understood in an anthropomorphic sense. Only the Son has a glorified, physical body. By the term person we mean that each member of the Holy Trinity possesses the attributes of personality—knowledge, will, and emotion; yet the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each exist within the essence of the one true God.

The only thing that makes sense to me regarding essence is: in essence the three persons of the Godhead have the following characteristics, personality, knowledge, will and emotion (there may be more, ie: wisdom?).  Essence, in itself, does not appear to be an actual quality possessed by any individual of the Godhead.  I agree there are three distinct persons and that they do not have the same physical qualities.  For example this statement from your reference says “only the Son has a glorified, physical body”. 

I would suggest, in essence, there is no difference between our belief’s regarding the Trinity…

Bill - 27 May 2008 06:14 PM

I would suggest, in essence, there is no difference between our belief’s regarding the Trinity…

Nice pun
I think that is exactly what the SDA official statement is trying to convey, that there is no difference between it and the standard doctrine of the Trinity. However, I find it disturbing when not only do they not have the “of one essence” part in their official statement, but in explanations of what “One” means they still leave that part out. Then those quotes I posted earlier from a Bacchiochi’s newsletter where SDA scholars were talking about the history of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA church saying they were right to reject the Creed definitions of the Trinity. It leads me to wonder what is wrong with the standard definition, how exactly does the SDA definition differ from the traditional definition. And that’s where I find the only difference to be the “one in essence.” Why won’t they say it, but instead leave it to be assumed?

As Gabriel pointed out earlier, the current SDA position has only affirmed 2 of the 3 necessary affirmations modifying their previous position, to agree with the standard doctrine of the Trinity: 1) Jesus’ eternal existence and equality, 2) personality of the Holy Spirit and distinctiveness, while 3) an affirmation of “unity in essence” is missing.

I just wonder why the SDA church is so hesitant to affirm the one in essence part, which doing so would remove any possible doubt they fully agree with the mainstream Christian definition of the Trinity.

BobJ - 26 May 2008 10:27 AM

Hi Bill

We’ve been in party mode with graduation.  Sorry for not responding sooner.

I have questions on several points regarding the trinity, and do not find myself well enough informed to agree with either view. I think Gabriel’s comment on the essence (his point #3) is where my questions are, but even Gabriel’s points do not fully resolve the two apartment issue in my mind.  You are correct in assuming that I think this raises problems, and what I was thinking when I commented to Sheryl begs the question of why Christ would need to travel through the first apartment to reach the Father if they are indeed one in essence. 

I ask these questions humbly because I really don’t know the answers, For example, in Genesis 15 my understanding is that the Father was represented by the smoking furnace and the Son Jesus by the burning lamp.  If this is correct, then does this mean that only the Father (not Jesus) was the lawgiver on Sinai?  I do not ask you to answer this--this is not a challenge, but I am here to learn and would certainly appreciate a boost on this from anyone here.  I do not mean to be trite in saying this, but one symbol is smoke, one is fire.  We obviously assume that where one is, there is the other.  But these are symbols only, and I do not wish th stretch or distort their meaning by assuming that where one is, there is the other.  It’s this same uncertainty that causes me to wonder about the orthodox view of the trinity, and perhaps explains the reluctance of Adventist scholars to go with it.  It seems like a problem to me and would seem to explain the caution on this point.

I know we have to be very careful with the imagery of scripture. 

I have wondered about the inaguration of the heavenly sanctuary--lots of questions here. 

I have questions about Christ ever living to make intercession for us, yet being pictured as seated at the right hand of God.  I thought the priests could not be seated during their shifts.  The imagery seems to clash here. 

There are more questions that would cause me to be reluctant to go with full trinitarian view, and other texts, dealing with creation (the Spirit is mentioned, then God created) that seem to support it.  Altogether, I can understand why either view would be reluctant to grant turf to the other position.

Bob

Really nice post Bob.  You have an attitude that comes across in your post that I can learn from.  Thanks.

Some excellent questions.  I don’t know the answers.  One I thought was interesting because I’d heard of the conflict of standing and sitting at the right hand of God.  For example: Acts 7:55-56, But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”.  Also read Revelation 4 & 5.  Here is pictured in front of the throne of God “stood a Lamb as though it had been slain”.  I don’t know, the Bible describes both standing and sitting.

Like you, I figure I can come here and learn what I can about opposing views, see how they line up with scripture and decide what makes the most sense.  I do get tired of having to deal with judgmental attitudes in many of the responses I receive although with this issue it hasn’t been so bad.

Thanks again.

Bill.

Sheryl Barker - 27 May 2008 06:49 PM

Bill - 27 May 2008 06:14 PM

I would suggest, in essence, there is no difference between our belief’s regarding the Trinity…

Nice pun
I think that is exactly what the SDA official statement is trying to convey, that there is no difference between it and the standard doctrine of the Trinity. However, I find it disturbing when not only do they not have the “of one essence” part in their official statement, but in explanations of what “One” means they still leave that part out. Then those quotes I posted earlier from a Bacchiochi’s newsletter where SDA scholars were talking about the history of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA church saying they were right to reject the Creed definitions of the Trinity. It leads me to wonder what is wrong with the standard definition, how exactly does the SDA definition differ from the traditional definition. And that’s where I find the only difference to be the “one in essence.” Why won’t they say it, but instead leave it to be assumed?

As Gabriel pointed out earlier, the current SDA position has only affirmed 2 of the 3 necessary affirmations modifying their previous position, to agree with the standard doctrine of the Trinity: 1) Jesus’ eternal existence and equality, 2) personality of the Holy Spirit and distinctiveness, while 3) an affirmation of “unity in essence” is missing.

I just wonder why the SDA church is so hesitant to affirm the one in essence part, which doing so would remove any possible doubt they fully agree with the mainstream Christian definition of the Trinity.

I wonder if it is because what is meant by essence is not clearly defined.  My experience in the church is that if it is not clearly supported by the Bible, the church is hesitant to make any official statement.  I would not want to see our church adopt wording just to be in line with some other “mainstream Christian” definition.  We all agree the Bible needs to be our standard.  Its hard for me to form an opinion unless I can get a clear idea of what essence really means…

I can see there are small differences between one in essence or our view of one in unity.  However, they could both be saying the same thing using different words… Don’t know.