JeremyG - 03 August 2009 04:30 PM

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 03:47 PM

This is odd. What you are describing is a nontrinitarian position which is actually very Unitarian.

That is false. And Unitarians don’t even believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.

Unitarians believe in God as a single (uni) entity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

“Unitarians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and hold him up as an exemplar. Adhering to strict monotheism, they maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself.”

Yes, of course I’m a monotheist! Are you admitting to being a polytheist?

A monotheist in believing there is but “one” god? A singular god, not made of three distinct and separate entities, without the plurality of the divine nature?

There are many forms of “monotheism” in the world and not all adhere to the Abrahamic understanding that you or I might. So, when you say you are a “monotheist” be prepared to discuss what type of monotheism you subscribe to. For example Panentheism is a form of monistic monotheism which is found in Hinduism. Pantheism is also monotheistic. You could get into a conversation with a Wiccan and say you are a monotheist and they would likely agree. Are you a strict monotheist like a unitarian?

I would suggest you study up on what the historical, orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches. God is one indivisible spirit Being, without body or parts, who exists as three distinct, but not separate, persons.

And I would suggest you examine the obvious. Jesus never relied on His own divinity while on earth but relied solely on the strength of His Father.

Even your own SDA scholars admit that Adventism has a different “Trinity” doctrine than the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

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.)

See Gabriel’s post above. Neither I nor Gabriel are teaching paganism or nontrinitarianism.

If you believe and teach that God was punishing sin by punishing His Son then you are in fact teaching a doctrine born in paganism. This is a gnostic/Catholic belief. Penal substitution. Christ laid down His life willingly and never once suggested He was being sacrificed to satisfy a blood thirsty god.

Jhn 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

The SDA teaching is Tritheism, and does indeed deny the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The SDA teaching of “the Godhead” is what is “paganism,” as it is simply polytheism.

Then Paul and Luke are guilty of this as well.

Adventism cannot just come along and use the term “Trinity” while redefining it from how it has been defined in the historic Christian creeds, and expect to be recognized as Trinitarian.

Well, there are many “trinities” that are believed by a wide variety of faiths. The Catholic “trinity” is God, Mary and Jesus so in my mind it pays to be precise.

The word “Trinity” is a uniquely Christian word,

Not really. Many pagan belief systems had there own brand of “the trinity.” The Egyptians has Isis, Horus and Osiris. Babylon had Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. The Hindu’s have Brahma, Vishnu and Sheva.

created by the early Church,

No doubt to entice the pagans.

and it is deceptive for any group to use the term without holding to the Christian definition.

Well, that’s just it. What “Christian” definition would you consider to be correct? Anglican? Catholic? Protestant? EO? This is why I use the Bible term of “Godhead” to avoid any confusion.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

Unitarians believe in God as a single (uni) entity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

“Unitarians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and hold him up as an exemplar. Adhering to strict monotheism, they maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself.”

And you’ll also notice that your quote says they deny that Jesus is God, just as I said.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

A monotheist in believing there is but “one” god? A singular god, not made of three distinct and separate entities, without the plurality of the divine nature?

There are many forms of “monotheism” in the world and not all adhere to the Abrahamic understanding that you or I might. So, when you say you are a “monotheist” be prepared to discuss what type of monotheism you subscribe to. For example Panentheism is a form of monistic monotheism which is found in Hinduism. Pantheism is also monotheistic. You could get into a conversation with a Wiccan and say you are a monotheist and they would likely agree. Are you a strict monotheist like a unitarian?

I described the “type” of monotheism I believe in--orthodox Trinitarianism. I even gave you a description of it.

Yes, of course I believe in “a singular God"--that is the definition of monotheism. Believing in a “Godhead” that is “made of three distinct and separate entities” is not monotheism. It is polytheism by definition. You are trying to make this much more complicated than it actually is.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

And I would suggest you examine the obvious. Jesus never relied on His own divinity while on earth but relied solely on the strength of His Father.

That idea comes from the writings of Ellen White, and is not Biblical. The New Testament teaches that Jesus used His own divinity while on earth. If He “never relied on His own divinity” but instead relied on someone else’s divinity ("His Father") then you have “two divinities"--two gods. Again, this is simply polytheism.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

Even your own SDA scholars admit that Adventism has a different “Trinity” doctrine than the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

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.)

Here are some examples of your own SDA scholars admitting that Adventism has a different “Trinity” doctrine than the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity:

“In her [SDA prophetess Ellen G. White’s] earliest writings she differed from some aspects of traditional trinitarianism and in her latest writings she still strongly opposed some aspects of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. (4) It appears, therefore, that the trinitarian teaching of Ellen White’s later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected.11 Rather, her writings describe two contrasting forms of trinitarian belief, one of which she always opposed, and another that she eventually endorsed.” (From an article by SDA Seminary professor Dr. Jerry Moon entitled “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine,” published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society and available online at http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=241&journal=1&type=pdf)

“What James [SDA co-founder James White, husband of Ellen White] and the other men were opposed to, we are just as opposed to as they were. Now, their solution to that, at that time, they didn’t see any solution by retaining the Trinity concept, and getting rid of its distortions. But, in reality, we have been faithful to their commitment, and I know of nothing that they were objecting to, in objecting to Trinitarianism, that we have not also objected to.” (From the Q&A;session after Dr. Merlin Burt’s presentation at the Adventist Theological Society’s 2006 “Trinity Symposium"--the speaker is not identified on the audio but I think it is SDA scholar A. LeRoy Moore. The audio file from which the quote is transcribed can be found at http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Burt_Historical_Adventist_Views.mp3)

“Secondly, as several of the gentlemen have pointed out, the doctrine of the Trinity that we teach is not identical to the doctrine of the Trinity as developed by the Roman Catholic Church.” (A panel participant at the Q&A;Session at the end of the Adventist Theological Society’s 2006 “Trinity Symposium,” http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Participants_Panel_Discussion.mp3)

“I just wanted to comment, in line with what has already been said, but that there were several tribes that were identified by the Papacy as Arian. Ellen White warns us, however, about the fact that the Papal historical process has actually confused many issues. But I would like to say, I think there were seven non-orthodox, which means those who did not hold their brand of Trinitarianism, which we reject today, along with them. So, we probably would have been branded as Arian by the orthodox.” (SDA scholar and author A. LeRoy Moore, at the panel Q&A;Session at the ATS 2006 “Trinity Symposium,” http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Participants_Panel_Discussion.mp3)

You can find even more of these admissions quoted at my website. And the Fundamental Belief statement you quoted is actually not teaching orthodox Trinitarianism, as I show on my site.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

The SDA teaching is Tritheism, and does indeed deny the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The SDA teaching of “the Godhead” is what is “paganism,” as it is simply polytheism.

Then Paul and Luke are guilty of this as well.

Show me where Paul or Luke teach three separate divine beings.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

Adventism cannot just come along and use the term “Trinity” while redefining it from how it has been defined in the historic Christian creeds, and expect to be recognized as Trinitarian.

Well, there are many “trinities” that are believed by a wide variety of faiths. The Catholic “trinity” is God, Mary and Jesus so in my mind it pays to be precise.

Actually, the Catholic doctrine of the Trintiy is defined in the ancient creeds, such as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

The word “Trinity” is a uniquely Christian word,

Not really. Many pagan belief systems had there own brand of “the trinity.” The Egyptians has Isis, Horus and Osiris. Babylon had Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. The Hindu’s have Brahma, Vishnu and Sheva.

They did not use the word “Trinity.” It is a uniquely Christian word, coined in the early centuries of Christianity.

And those supposed “trinities” you mention were merely triads--groups of three gods. In other words, Tritheism, just like Adventism teaches.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

created by the early Church,

No doubt to entice the pagans.

So you don’t even like the word, but you expect me to believe that you adhere to the concept?

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 09:02 PM

Well, that’s just it. What “Christian” definition would you consider to be correct? Anglican? Catholic? Protestant? EO? This is why I use the Bible term of “Godhead” to avoid any confusion.

They all adhere to the same definition, as set forth in the early Christian creeds. That’s my point--there is an actual, historical definition of the term, and it is deceptive for a group to come along and start using the term when they have their own, private definition for it.

Jeremy

JeremyG - 03 August 2009 09:56 PM

And you’ll also notice that your quote says they deny that Jesus is God, just as I said.

Included for clarity.

I described the “type” of monotheism I believe in--orthodox Trinitarianism. I even gave you a description of it.

Who’s orthodoxy?

Yes, of course I believe in “a singular God"--that is the definition of monotheism. Believing in a “Godhead” that is “made of three distinct and separate entities” is not monotheism. It is polytheism by definition. You are trying to make this much more complicated than it actually is.

Who did Jesus pray to and why? Was Jesus praying to Himself? Why was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit after Baptism? Who said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

That idea comes from the writings of Ellen White, and is not Biblical. The New Testament teaches that Jesus used His own divinity while on earth.

When?

If He “never relied on His own divinity” but instead relied on someone else’s divinity ("His Father") then you have “two divinities"--two gods. Again, this is simply polytheism.

No, I’m afraid you have a rather myopic understanding of the Godhead. You would have to first establish who Jesus was praying to and why did He called His Father “Our Father.”

You can find even more of these admissions quoted at my website. And the Fundamental Belief statement you quoted is actually not teaching orthodox Trinitarianism, as I show on my site.

No thanks. I’m comfortable enough with my belief and understanding as to the divine nature of Jesus Christ, His Father and the Holy Spirit.

Show me where Paul or Luke teach three separate divine beings.

Both used the word Godhead and never used the word “trinity.”

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This is very simple to understand. In Jesus He possessed all the attributes of the “Godhead” in His own body.

Actually, the Catholic doctrine of the Trintiy is defined in the ancient creeds, such as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

The Catholic Trinity denies the Bible doctrine of the subordination of Christ to the Father. The Catholic Trinity speaks where the Bible was silent in explaining how God is three in one. The Catholic Trinity goes beyond the simple Bible truths of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Is this your orthodoxy?

They did not use the word “Trinity.” It is a uniquely Christian word, coined in the early centuries of Christianity.

And those supposed “trinities” you mention were merely triads--groups of three gods. In other words, Tritheism, just like Adventism teaches.

Mere semantics and hair splitting. Suffice to say that many pagan beliefs believe in a “trinity.”

So you don’t even like the word, but you expect me to believe that you adhere to the concept?

Adhere to a concept? Is the nature of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit just a mere concept? I don’t think I can make it any more plain. I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - i.e. the Godhead. One God three distinct and separate aspects of the one God.

They all adhere to the same definition, as set forth in the early Christian creeds.

No, all do not. The Catholic view of the “trinity” is much different than you might imagine. Same with the Anglicans.

That’s my point--there is an actual, historical definition of the term, and it is deceptive for a group to come along and start using the term when they have their own, private definition for it.

Well, if it comes down to using the term that Paul used and that Luke wrote of and understood then I’ll stay with the scriptures. This way I don’t get tradition and sola scriptura confused.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

I described the “type” of monotheism I believe in--orthodox Trinitarianism. I even gave you a description of it.

Who’s orthodoxy?

The orthodoxy of the historic Christian faith, which was delivered once and for all to the saints in the first century and is recorded for us in God’s inerrant word, and was defended against heresy by the early Christian creeds.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

Yes, of course I believe in “a singular God"--that is the definition of monotheism. Believing in a “Godhead” that is “made of three distinct and separate entities” is not monotheism. It is polytheism by definition. You are trying to make this much more complicated than it actually is.

Who did Jesus pray to and why? Was Jesus praying to Himself? Why was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit after Baptism? Who said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Jesus prayed to His Father. The Bible does not say or teach that He was only filled with the Holy Spirit after His baptism.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

That idea comes from the writings of Ellen White, and is not Biblical. The New Testament teaches that Jesus used His own divinity while on earth.

When?

Well, for one by teaching that Jesus is God and there is only one God. And how can “God” not “use” His divinity? His divine attributes are constant, eternal, immutable. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change.

But the NT also teaches explitly that Jesus used His own divinity while on earth. Just for a few examples, see John 1:48-50; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:32-34, 41; Luke 10:17; John 16:30; John 18:4; Matthew 18:20; John 8:59; Luk 4:28-30.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

If He “never relied on His own divinity” but instead relied on someone else’s divinity ("His Father") then you have “two divinities"--two gods. Again, this is simply polytheism.

No, I’m afraid you have a rather myopic understanding of the Godhead. You would have to first establish who Jesus was praying to and why did He called His Father “Our Father.”

Jesus never taught that God is our Father in the same way that He is His Father. He always made the difference clear and never said “our Father” (except in the Lord’s Prayer where He was giving the disciples an example of how they should pray). He even went out of His way to not say the words “our Father” in John 20:17 when He told Mary, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” (John 20:17b NASB.)

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

No thanks. I’m comfortable enough with my belief and understanding as to the divine nature of Jesus Christ, His Father and the Holy Spirit.

What do you have to say in response to the admissions I quoted by your own SDA scholars, admitting that they have a different doctrine than the traditional, orthodox Trinity?

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

Show me where Paul or Luke teach three separate divine beings.

Both used the word Godhead and never used the word “trinity.”

What does that mean? You’re admitting that you don’t believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity?

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This is very simple to understand. In Jesus He possessed all the attributes of the “Godhead” in His own body.

Oh my! I can’t believe you could twist and misuse that verse so badly.

1. Just because the KJV uses the words “the Godhead” does not mean it is talking about the SDA idea of “the Godhead”!

2. The original Greek word simply means “Deity"--which is how it is translated in modern translations. And when the KJV was translated, “Godhead” simply meant “Godhood” (or “Deity"), as English words ending in “-hood” used to be “-head” instead--it did not refer to the SDA concept of “the Godhead.”

3. The Greek word translated “Godhead” (KJV) or “Deity” cannot just mean divine attributes. As the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary explains: ”of the Godhead--The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (Greek, ’theiotes‘). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the fullest sense, God.” (Emphasis in original. LINK[.) Also, as Christian scholar Dr. James R. White shows in his article “Theotetos: Meaning at Colossians 2:9”: “One cannot translate theotes as a simple quality or attribute - it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes.” (LINK.)

4. So far from teaching the SDA concept of “the Godhead,” Colossians 2:9 is actually saying that Jesus is “the whole fullness of deity” (ESV)--that He is fully (all of), and not part of, GOD.

5. This verse is certainly not teaching three separate divine beings. Got any other verses which do teach that?

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

Actually, the Catholic doctrine of the Trintiy is defined in the ancient creeds, such as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

The Catholic Trinity denies the Bible doctrine of the subordination of Christ to the Father.

So you believe that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father?

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

The Catholic Trinity speaks where the Bible was silent in explaining how God is three in one. The Catholic Trinity goes beyond the simple Bible truths of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

What you are calling the “Catholic Trinity” actually comes from the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea, which was actually only attended by a handful of representatives from the Western/Roman Church (out of over 300 representatives in total). It is the “Christian Trinity” not just the “Catholic Trinity.”

The purpose of the creeds was to oppose the heresies that were creeping into the Church, and to simply state in more detail what Christianity had always believed, from what the Bible itself taught. The only reason the Councils were necessary, and the only reason doctrine needed more “formal” formulations, was because of the heresies that kept creeping into the Church. The creeds were more of a rejection of heresy, and a statement of what the Church does not believe, than they were of actually “formulating” doctrine. They may use wording not found in the Bible, but the teachings they describe are found in the Bible.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

Is this your orthodoxy?

Absolutely. It’s what the Bible teaches.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

They all adhere to the same definition, as set forth in the early Christian creeds.

No, all do not. The Catholic view of the “trinity” is much different than you might imagine. Same with the Anglicans.

They all adhere to the Nicene Creed and they all adhere to the Athanasian Creed also (except for maybe some of the EO).

What is “much different”? Give me some examples.

Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 10:33 PM

That’s my point--there is an actual, historical definition of the term, and it is deceptive for a group to come along and start using the term when they have their own, private definition for it.

Well, if it comes down to using the term that Paul used and that Luke wrote of and understood then I’ll stay with the scriptures. This way I don’t get tradition and sola scriptura confused.

That sounds much better than using the term “Trinity” while redefining it. If only the SDA Church wouldn’t use the word “Trinity,” there wouldn’t be so much confusion on what they believe.

Jeremy

P.S. Your arguments sound very similar to the arguments used by the following Mormon apologist, regarding the Trinity: http://zerinus.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-mormons-believe-in-trinity.html

Jeremy, thanks for participation in the discussion. What’s peculiarly depressing for me is the thought that Trinity is another word used by adventists but with a different meaning. Supposed to be a common ground between Adventism and the Christian churches in general, it remains only at the level of words. When you’re looking for it, the common ground evaporates.

Gabriel

Interesting is that the assumed adventist belief in the Trinity is one of the primary reasons why the Christian community thinks that Adventism is a Christian Church. The question remains how closely to Christianity is a faith that construes its own version of Trinity and confuses the Christian Trinity with the triads of the pagan world. A system of belief that manifests an attitude of rejection of anything that is taught by Roman Catholicsm, including eternal punishment, existence of the soul, penal substitution, God’s wrath, Trinity, etc. These are essential doctrines confessed by Christians everywhere, not peculiarl to Roman Catholicism. Somehow the attitude of rejection of anything Roman Catholic goes to the point of rejecting anything Christian. I like to think that the problem is ignorance, the isolation between Adventism and the other churches, the influences of the victorian anti-catholicism and so on, but when almost any essential Christian doctrine is questioned on the basis that Catholicism believes in it, that makes it impossible to think that ignorance is the problem and a good dose of information will cure it, rather it’s a cultic attitude of superiority and contempt for the Church of all ages, an attitude no much different, if ever, than the attitude of Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, toward Christianity. It’s the attitude which is the product of a system of religion which, while presenting itself as Christianity, takes liberty to show contempt for its basic beliefs.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 04 August 2009 10:56 PM

Interesting is that the assumed adventist belief in the Trinity is one of the primary reasons why the Christian community thinks that Adventism is a Christian Church. The question remains how closely to Christianity is a faith that construes its own version of Trinity and confuses the Christian Trinity with the triads of the pagan world. A system of belief that manifests an attitude of rejection of anything that is taught by Roman Catholicsm, including eternal punishment, existence of the soul, penal substitution, God’s wrath, Trinity, etc. These are essential doctrines confessed by Christians everywhere, not peculiarl to Roman Catholicism. Somehow the attitude of rejection of anything Roman Catholic goes to the point of rejecting anything Christian. I like to think that the problem is ignorance, the isolation between Adventism and the other churches, the influences of the victorian anti-catholicism and so on, but when almost any essential Christian doctrine is questioned on the basis that Catholicism believes in it, that makes it impossible to think that ignorance is the problem and a good dose of information will cure it, rather it’s a cultic attitude of superiority and contempt for the Church of all ages, an attitude no much different, if ever, than the attitude of Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, toward Christianity. It’s the attitude which is the product of a system of religion which, while presenting itself as Christianity, takes liberty to show contempt for its basic beliefs.

Gabriel

Very good insights, Gabriel. I agree with your conclusions.

I found this sentence to be especially insightful: “Somehow the attitude of rejection of anything Roman Catholic goes to the point of rejecting anything Christian.”

Jeremy