Danny,

Dennis-san.

Ed,

You can still read the posts right?  You just can't actively post.

newbie

I posted on signif. last day events  Dan 12:1-7 and Dan 12 8-end.

Dennis,  Some one recently brought up trinity on the forum and I put in my 2cents and was warned that this is a hot topic and it had been discussed before.  Now, I know the rest of the story. 

Several years ago, a very strong SDA and well read in SOP pointed out the difference to me.  I was embarrassed in the way he presented the material but in the end I learned from the experience.  He will not use trinity at all... only Godhead.  He clearly pointed out the difference and the origins as well.  I guess my ego had been bruised.

I shared what I had learned and basically people froze on the site....oh, well.  But, I still pointed out the view anyway.  Maybe it helped to have them read it again.         newbie

webmaster wrote:

---

 What is it that i should know about the trinity doctrine?  What is it i need to give up, or to obtain?  Don't brush me off yet, as i'm open to truth.  

---

Well,

For starters you of all people should know that Leroy Froom wrote in his book Movement of Destiny that certain standard work*S* were altered in order to reflect this supposed newly adopted doctrine of the trinity.  He admits to altering Uriah Smith's Daniel and Revelation and stops right there to make sure he leaves the committed SDA wondering if he ever got his soiled mitts on the SOP.  Well I can tell you that EW would never have approved of his gathering together all the quotes he did where she mentions the words triune, trio, persons and the rest in order to make the doctrine of the trinity more easy for the unawares to accept.  Please study for yourself and make sure you remember that she gave her utmost testimony to assure the reader to understand that the first fifty years of the work had the Lord's blessing and not a pin of those things were to be stirred nor a doubt to be raised about the sureness of the foundation already layed.  This spurious movement initiated by Froom is just the tip of the iceberg.

If one studies the Omega quotes by Ellen White, one should come to the prayerful conclusion that the Alpha was about the pantheistic teachings of John Harvey Kellogg.  She said that Satan and his evil demons were in control of Kellogg's mind at one point and never mentions that he recovered from his delusion.   Right about the time she identified the Alpha of "these theories" which concerned how the holy spirit functions in all living things (which coincidentally strikes at the personality and presence of God), she goes on to say the Omega would follow "in a little while."  This Omega would be a heresy that surrounds the "personality and the presence of God." 

Please read up on this and make sure noone, like Eugene Shubert or Ron Beaulieu, convince you of anything else about what the Omega is.  They are both very close to identifying this trinity as being the Omega heresy, but they deviate in my findings.    Some have insisted that this be dubbed the Omega of apostasy, but in the SOP it is termed the Omega of deadly HERESIES.  There is an obvious difference.  The one leads, or precedes the other.  People are wondering why the holy spirit has not been manifest as in the latter rain within our church.  If we are wanting a true reason for the Laoidicean condition, it is because our foundational teachings have become corrupt and/or have been misrepresented or de-emphasiszed.  This has been done for good reason.  It is because SDA's are not remembering the faith that was delivered from the beginning of our movement.  All the people I have tried to have an open conversation with about this have all said the "pioneers were wrong ( regarding the trinity)." 

Here are some quotes from the pioneers regarding this doctrine:

JOSEPH BATES: Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, "If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son, and also that I am my father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity."… In a few days I was immersed and joined the Christian Church.---Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868).

URIAH SMITH: Mr. Smith was strongly anti-trinity. The 1899 edition "Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation" by Uriah Smith states: "Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word to mean "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called "the only begotten" of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of the term."

JAMES WHITE: James White, prior to becoming an Adventist, was an ordained minister of the Christian Connection, which held an anti-trinitarian doctrine. He clearly shows here that he held to the semi-arian belief by denying both the Trinity and the Unitarian doctrines. "The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, ‘let us make man in our image?’ " - James White, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877

J.H.WAGGONER: Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing this sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of socinianism." J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1884), p. 174.

" ....the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the preexistence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity."- J. H. Waggoner, Review and Herald, November 10, 1863

JAMES WHITE
"The way spiritualizers this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed" The Day Star, Jan. 24, 1846.

J.H. WAGGONER
"The great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be this: They make no distinction between a denial of a Trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a Trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a Trinity." The Atonement, 1872 ed, chapter 4, "Doctrine Of A Trinity Subversive Of The Atonement" p. 165.

A.J. DENNIS
"What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of a Trinitarian creed: 'In unity of this Godhead are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' There are many things that are mysterious, written in the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities. But creeds often do." Signs of the Times, May 22, 1879.

R.F. COTTRELL
"My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural the Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would make it no clearer to my friends..." Review and Herald, June 1, 1869.

J.N. LOUGHBOROUGH
"The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. The principal text supposed to teach it is 1 John 5:7, which is an interpolation. Clarke says, 'Out of one hundred and thirteen manuscripts, the text is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It occurs in no MS. before the tenth century. And the first place the text occurs in Greek, is in the Greek translation of the acts of the Council of Latern, held A.D. 1215.'-Com. on John 1, and remarks at close of chap." Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861. | back |

J.B. FRISBIE
"We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between the God of the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in the dark through Sunday-keeping. Catholic Catechism Abridged by the Rt. Rev. John Dubois, Bishop of New York. Page 5. 'Q. Where is God? Ans. God is everywhere. Q. Does God see and know all things? A. Yes, he does know and see all things...Q. Are there more Gods than one? A. No; there is but one God. Q. Are there more persons than one in God? A Yes; in God there are three persons. Q. Which are they? A. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Q. Are there not three Gods? A. No; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are all but one and the same God'...These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers...We should rather mistrust that the Sunday God [the Trinity] came from the same source that Sunday-keeping did." Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1854, The Sunday God, p.50. [emphasis supplied].

J.N. LOUGHBOROUGH
"Questions for Bro. Loughborough. Bro. White: The following questions I would like to have you give, or send, to Bro. Loughborough for explanation. W. W. Giles, Toledo, Ohio Question 1. What serious objections is there to the doctrine of the Trinity? ANSWER. There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous... Instead of pointing us to scripture for proof of the Trinity, we are pointed to the trident of the Persians...This doctrine of the Trinity was brought into the church about the same time with image worship, and keeping the day of the sun, and is but Persian doctrine remodeled. It occupied about three hundred years from its introduction to bring the doctrine to what it is now. It was commenced about 325 A.D., and was not completed till 681. See Milman's Gibbon's Rome, vol. iv, p. 422. It was adopted in Spain in 589, in England in 596, in Africa in 534.-Gib. vol. iv, pp. 114, 345; Milner, vol. i, p. 519." RH-Nov. 5, 1861. | back |

J.H. WAGGONER
"The 'Athanasian creed'...was formulated and the faith defined by Athanasius. Previous to that time there was no settled method of expression, if, indeed, there was anywhere any uniformity of belief. Most of the early writers had been pagan philosophers, who to reach the minds of that class, often made strong efforts to prove that there was a blending of the two systems, Christianity and philosophy. There is abundance of material in their writings to sustain this view. Bingham speaks of the vague views held by some in the following significant terms: "'There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, coordinate, and self- originated beings, making them three absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism.'-Antiquities, book 11, chap. 3, &4. "Who can distinguish between this form of expression and that put forth by the council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, wherein the true faith is declared to be that of 'an uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity?' The truth is that we find the same idea which is here described by Bingham running through much of the orthodox literature of the second and third centuries. There is no proper 'relation of Father and Son' to be found in the words of the council, above quoted...Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three coordinate and self-originated and independent beings arose in the church very early; and so we find it in the earliest authors after the days of the apostles." Thoughts on Baptism, 1878.

R.F.COTTRELL
"That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them": But the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has himself implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creation. But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it. This our friend thinks objectionable... "But to hold the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I would now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought... "Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could 'make justice of injustice,' nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference between the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it." Review and Herald, July 6, 1869.

A.T. JONES
"Another, and most notable opponent, was Servetus who had opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism." Review and Herald, June 17, 1884.

D.W. HULL
"The inconsistent positions held by many in regard to the Trinity, as it is termed, has, no doubt, been the prime cause of many other errors. Erroneous views of the divinity of Christ are apt to lead us into error in regard to the nature of the atonement... "The doctrine which we propose to examine, was established by the council of Nice, A.D., 325, and ever since that period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for a disbelief in this doctrine. that the Arians were anathematized in A.D., 513... "As we can trace this doctrine no further back than the origin of the 'Man of Sin,' and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scripture on this subject." Review and Herald, Nov.10, 1859.

Now, after reading all these things do you still think the holy spirit mislead all the pioneers including Ellen and James White in this regard?  I do not.

Dennis

webmaster wrote:

---

The Godhead is made up of three beings - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The old Trinity doctrine of 3 beings somehow morphing into one is untrue, and that has rightly been rejected by most "Christians" today, yes, even those in Babylon.  It is true that was the accepted idea of "Trinity" in the 1900s, but very few believe that way today, altho the RC leaders may still be promoting that idea.

---

this is an issue which has rear up in my church as well. My question is I believe that the father, son and holy spirit are 3 co eternal persons with one thought and purpose, but with 3 varied responsibilities to that purpose. The father and son are equal to be worshipped and reveared. One God in 3 persons. Is this correct or not?

I agree the spirit is not being poured out as promised but to say it is solely do to the issue over the trinity is an understatement.  WE have SDA churches keeping Holy Sunday, we have SDA homesexual churches, we have "progressive creationism", our schools teach poor academics and no bible truths, our hospitals have thrown away the health message,the Sanctuary message barly exists and Gods remenant church is knee deep in babylon.

God help us to return to the calling you have given us and forgive us for our unbelief.

"The father and son are equal to be worshipped and reveared. One God in 3 persons. Is this correct or not? "

In my studies, it seems like there are 3 beings, all are called "God", and they all have life in themselves.  But they have different positions to play, as it were, in keeping all the rest of us alive :)

Jesus himself said that the Father is above him, so i would have to say that "No, the Father is the greatest".

You are so correct about the sad things going on in the SDA church now.  May we repent, and heed the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans.

To all,

If you are intent upon calling the holy spirit "God", then I would be more than willing to see your reasons from the scripture for doing so.  I have heard many a presentation on this point and none have been convincing.  Please help me understand why I am a castaway for disbelieving in this spurious explanation of the Biblical GODHEAD.  Also, in calling Jesus God, we have confused the headship of revealed deity in the scriptures.  Are you teaching these things to your children, the young in the church, and believing these things as you pray to the FATHER?  This is why God has not blessed the efforts of our church.  Because we have accepted the spirit of antichrist as our teaching about God, we have effectively become the stronghold for the Laodicean condition and caused untold apostasy and unbelief.  Please help a believer in the One True God, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent.

Dennis

Daniel,

Please provide a clear scriptural reference that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God the Father.  And better still would be bible texts that spell out the trinity in unsullied and clear terms.  John 1:1 is a highly disputed proof for trinity (and does not address the holy spirit and the claims that trinity makes anyway).  You see, you will not find it because it does not exist.  You will have no problem finding texts that say Jesus is divine, like I AM, and the others, but He does, in fact, get this divinity from His Father.  Matthew says that we are to baptize in these three names but did you know this text was not found in the original manuscripts until after the third century?  Wonder why?  

You are doing as the rest and claim that because anti-trinitarians do not identify Jesus and the holy spirit as the father God, that we are denying Jesus' divinity and are therefore Arian.  Why do you suppose this is happening in the SDA denomination Daniel?  It was not this way in the beginning.  Why is it happening now?  It is because our belief was not this way then.  Why do you follow the trinitarians Daniel? 

Dennis

Dennis,

The angels cry out Holy Holy Holy because there are three in the Godhead.

There is no doubt that each of the Godhead has different roles but all the same will.

SOP

Daniel,

If the spirit is God, why did Jesus say we should ask for the Holy Spirit of the Father in His name?  Why did He not say we should pray to the Spirit and ask for the Father in His name.  The claim of trinitarians is that God the Spirit is co-equal and co-eternal.  This is not right and you have not followed truth but error if you believe this.  It is not altogether correct to call Jesus almighty God either, for this is, in a great degree, making the father son relationship within the godhead a non-entity.  The SDA Church has done this to try and erase the sectarian label that evangelicals and Catholics have leveled at her and JW's.  We do not want to be confused with them (JW's), so this was the best way Froom and Roy Allan Anderson could figure out to distance our denomination from that mischaracterization.  The only problem is that it was absolutely, unequivocally, WRONG AND a MISREPRESENTATION of the personhood of God.

Jesus is the Son of God.  This is the clear revelation of scripture, not God the Son.  You cannot have a Godhead without a head.  The Father is this head.  Jesus could talk to you and tell you this if you have your ears tuned in.

Dennis

webmaster wrote:

---

The term "Trinity" has changed from what it meant in the early 1800s, and now basically means just like what God's inspired writer meant when she was instructed by the Holy Spirit to use the term "Godhead" to describe God.  There are 3 beings, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and they are all God. 

---

If this is what you believe, then I am deeply concerned for you Daniel.  Ellen White got the term Godhead from the KJV Bible, and this term is obviously VERY different from the baggage that the term "trinity" carries along with it.  Godhead is both biblical, and it reflects a divine order in the manifestation of deity to man.  Trinity is a human-contrived term injected with men's philosophical presuppositions and misapplication of disputed bible texts.  There are such great differences that men have died, been excommunicated, persecuted, maligned, slandered, ridiculed for pointing this out.  Trust me that calling the godhead trinity or confusing one word with the other is like calling Sunday the Lord's day.

Dennis