Trinity

Date: Jan 18, 2007

RE: Trinity

Date: Jan 19, 2007

Dennis,

Please go back and read the original writings in Story of Redemption all of chapter 1. I think this will clear things up. It is a compilation of her early works that have not been changed! Please study this chapter as I believe this is truth. It changes nothing of what is said in the Bible but gives us a clearer picture of what is going on.

Date: Jan 19, 2007

Hi again,

I'd like to comment on the question asked earlier, which was "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?"

Absolutely!

The Bible and Ellen White clearly teach that there are different types of beings in existence and that each being has attributes characteristic of its own nature.

Some beings that are identified and described in the Bible are:

Divine Beings

Angelic Beings

Heavenly Beast Beings (Rev 4:6 - 6-winged beasts, 'full of eyes' around the throne in heaven)

Human Beings

Earthly Beast Beings

(Please do not confuse the term 'being' with the theological term 'person'. A being is an individual independent being, but when used in a theologicial sense, a 'person' can be, still is, and was used in Ellen White's era, to define 'character, personality, physical body, or character of office.' (see Webster’s Dictionary (1828) in the eBook "Identifying the Unknown God," section titled, "Ellen White’s Statements Regarding God" pages 485-493) pdf format available at: www.themeofthebible.com )

ANY divine being is called God.

ANY angelic being is called an angel.

ANY human being is called a human.

ANY beast being is called a beast or animal.

Different types (or natures) of beings, possess different attributes.

For example, divine beings are not created - all other beings are created.

Angelic beings cannot reproduce. Human beings can reproduce.

It appears that confusion arises over misunderstanding of the meaning of the terms 'god' and 'divine.'

"God" is a generic term for ANY divine being or a supposedly divine being (a pagan 'god'). The word 'god' does not identify a specific individual 'god' nor does it refer to the proper name of a specific being. Proper names of some 'gods' would be necessary to identify them from other 'gods.' eg the trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Isis, Artemis, Baal etc.

'Divine' and 'god' are terms that refer to the nature of the particular being. ANY god is always a divine being. ANY divine being is always a god. ANY divine being is called 'god.'

In the same way, ANY human being is a human. ANY beastly being is an animal. ANY angelic being is an angel.

In the Bible, it is clear that ANY divine being is a God being - but not every divine being is one specific and particular divine being whom Christians call the generic term of 'God.'

The Bible and Ellen White both agree that the divine being to whom Christians refer to as 'God,' is the Father. The Father is a divine being. He is divine by nature. He is therefore called God. He is the Source of All Life - the Creator (see Desire of Ages p 21; Great Controversy p 479).

The Son of God is also equally as divine as His Father, but His identifying title is the Son of God.

The Son of God is of course divine by nature, and this is a fact of which we can be certain because of the act of His coming forth from His Father. Just as a human being brings forth a baby human being, so when God brought forth His Son, the Son could be nothing other than as divine as His Father. The Son can rightly be called God, for He is God (divine) by nature. (Psa 45:6; Heb 1:8; John 20:28). The Father created all things through His Son (John 1:3).

In saying that the Son is rightly identified as 'God' - a divine being, we are not blurring the distinction that Ellen White emphasises in the two following quotes:

Review and Herald 5 April,1906 para 6-8

“...Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. ... This was no robbery of God. 'The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,' he declares, 'before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.' There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid.”

In Patriarch and Prophets p 34 and Desire of Ages p 764, Ellen White refers these concepts which she quoted above, (from Proverbs 22:8-30) to the origination of Christ from His Father; but the doctrine of the trinity denies her application of this Scripture to Christ.

Again Ellen White wrote in the Signs of the Times – 30 May, 1895

"He gave His only begotten Son— not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

Note that Ellen White makes it very clear that the Son of God was not the other divine being (who is also called 'God') i.e. the Father.

EJ Waggoner, of 1888 message fame, comments on this important distinction between the Father and His Son in his book, Christ and His Righteousness, ch 5 p 8. This book condensed the 1888 message and in it, Waggoner - a non-trinitarian Seventh-day Adventist minister, stated:

“Christ ‘is in the bosom of the Father,’ being by nature of the very substance of God and having life in Himself. He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One and is thus styled in Jeremiah 23:56, where it is said that the righteous Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the name of Jehovah-tsidekenu--THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Waggoner agreed with Moses who wrote under inspiration that the Son has the Father's authority - He speaks in the name (authority) of the Father, much as the police of a country say that they are authorised to do certain things, "in the name of the law."

Exodus 23:20, 21

"Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. (21) Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Because of the miracle of the incarnation, the divine Son of God became the unique individual Jesus Christ. According to Ellen White and EJ Waggoner, He was God, "in the highest sense" because He was begotten from a divine being - the Father. He became the 'Son of Man' - a human being - because He was begotten from a human mother. He then possessed both a divine and a human nature - that means that He was both a divine being and a human being. Jesus Christ was "God in the flesh" because He was at that stage, both a divine being and a human being.

The Jews were not confused upon this point. From what Christ said, the Jews knew that He was claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God - a divine being, but not the Father Himself. Jesus said He was a divine being - a God-being - but He never claimed to be the Supreme God - whom Jesus called 'My Father.' Christ always claimed to be the Divine Son of God.

In John 8:58, Jesus was threatened with being stoned to death by the Jewish leaders. Christ was claiming to be a divine Being, One Who had “divine life in Himself” - and not just a human being. It was this claim that upset the Jews to the point where they wanted to take the life of Christ.

Clearly the Pharisees did not believe that Christ had "life in Himself" - that He had timeless being – or that He was in existence since before the time of Abraham. The Pharisees claimed that Christ was purely a human being and not a blend of the two natures – humanity and divinity.

Compare the following texts.

John 8:58

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 10:33, 36

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

Matthew 26:63

“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”

Matthew 27:40

“And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

Ellen White, 2 Testimonies for the Church, p 208

“Close to the cross are the blind, bigoted, faithless priests and elders, taunting, mocking, and jeering: "Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save Thyself. If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now, if He will have Him: for He said, I am the Son of God.”

Clearly, Christ claimed to be the Son of the One True God – whom He identified as His Father. The Jewish leaders confirmed that this also was their understanding of Christ's claims, in their communications with Jesus. He claimed to be God's Son at His trial.

Christ was claiming to possess divinity - a divine nature. He did not claim to be the Supreme God, (His Father) - but an equally divine being - the Son of God. He claimed to be the divine Messiah sent by His Father. He did not claim to be “God the Son” though Christ was by nature divine - of the same nature as His Father. By inheritance, Christ was the divine Son of the Father. He was the divine Son of God, having the same divine nature as His Father. In this way, He was God (truly a divine being with 'life in Himself').

Christ knew that His Father was the One True God – the Supreme Being from Whom ALL life – even the life of the Son - ultimately proceeded. Ellen White expressed this concept in the Desire of Ages and Great Controversy as noted above - and Jesus declared that truth clearly in His prayer.

To whom does the Jesus refer to as the One True God? His Father.

John 17:3

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Was Jesus Christ God? Absolutely. Was Christ the same divine being whom He identified as the One True God? No. Christ was the Son of that One True God.

Another interesting study involves the differences that exist between the One True God and His Son.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss such an important topic.

Sherle

www.themeofthebible.com

Date: Jan 19, 2007

Hi Everyone,

I'm interested in the discussion about the inspiration of certain Bible verses that are being considered on this webpage and would like to make a few comments please.

Ellen White states in Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1, p 117; and Early Writings, p 220, 221,

“I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established views, governed by tradition. But I saw that the word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion of scripture explaining another….”

Take for example the verses from 1 John 5:7, 8 which have been persumed to be solid evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol 7, page 675, published the following caution in regard to 1 John 5:7,8.

“The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus (see Vol 5 p. 141.) …. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but, in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used.”

The pioneers of the SDA church were also aware that these verses were and interpoliation - an unauthorised additon to the original text. In other words, it was 'edited' to support the traditional beliefs of the trinity, probably by a devout scholar. Elder JN Loughborough likewise cautioned readers in the Review & Herald, 5 November, 1861

“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 (manuscript) 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 in A.D. 1215.”

Ellen White saw that some errors had crept into the Bible, but she encouraged believers that the true gospel can still be found in the pages of that book.

In essence, despite the errors, Jesus is the TRUE word of God.

Rev.19.13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

We can look to the life, character and testimony of Jesus Christ and be sure that His actions, His words and His life exemplify truth. He is the way, the truth and the life.

Men and women might attempt to tamper with the Scriptures, by 'adjusting' the texts to present certain traditional views to the Bible, but there is safety in looking to Christ and His law of love. (10 commandments). Christ's life's testimony is unerring truth, wherein there is no shadow of turning and no darkness at all. We can safely discard any doctrine that is not included in the teachings of Jesus.

Ellen White, Pacific Union Recorder, 31 December, 1903

“I am instructed to say to our people, Let us follow Christ. We may safely discard all ideas that are not included in His teachings.”
Did Christ teach a trinity doctrine? I don't think so.
We can look to Jesus as the Author and Finisher of our faith and trust that we will not be left in any deception, because He promises us that the truth, will set us free.

Thanks,

Sherle

Date: Jan 20, 2007

Hi Newbie

Just saw this post of yours. You wrote:

I'm just trying to understand the mindset here.....When it says comforter, HE, I can see how it applies to the heart and mind of Jesus. When it says Spirit of Truth does this refer to the Father? or the Holy Spirit? The HE that is used later in the text refers back to Spirit of Truth. So it is crucial to know this information or we might be misapplying. It says that "it -- meaning the world" seeith HIM not. Is the HIM the Father???? or the Holy spirit? The other "HE"s I can see how they can refer to the Spirit of Jesus or the Father as the comforter."

It seems that much confusion occurs because the spirit of God is misunderstood by many Christians today, but I believe the SDA pioneers understood the concept correctly - at least it makes perfect, harmonious sense to me.

Ellen White’s material gives the explanation for the phrase describing the Holy Spirit as “3rd person of the Godhead.” Ellen White repeatedly defined it as “the spirit of Christ,” 9 T p 189 (1909); “the divinity of Christ’s character;” R&H 5 April, 1906; and “the omnipresence of the spirit of Christ” MR#-1107, 1891. - It is clear from her writings that the holy spirit refers to the divine way of thinking - God's mind, character and thoughts which are offered to humanity. The spirit of God/Christ can be ministered to humanity through angels or through Christ Himself or through other human beings who themselves are converted and who possess the holy spirit or God's way of thinking and loving others.

Bible Echo, 5 August,1901 p 4; also Signs of the Times, 1 May 1901 p 7

“Yes; in giving the Holy Spirit, it was impossible for God to give more. To this gift nothing could be added. By it all needs are supplied. The Holy Spirit is the vital presence of God, and if appreciated will call forth praise and thanksgiving, and will ever be springing up unto everlasting life. The restoration of the Spirit is the covenant of grace.”

What spirit did humanity possess when God created Adam? A pure, loving, unselfish spirit - (or way of thinking.) He possessed a holy spirit which God created within his mind. He was in harmony spiritually - mentally - with God's principles of love. Then, sadly, humanity traded that pure spirit with the spirit of Satan. Satan's thoughts now dominated the minds of humanity.

What spirit does Satan possess? Satan's thinking is selfish and evil. He possesses an unholy spirit. Nevertheless, we do not suppose that because Satan has an evil spirit, that it must be that there exists another being besides Satan, called the Unholy Spirit of Satan. Why then should we suppose that the holy spirit of God is another separate being to God?

There is one unholy spirit that infects humanity - selfishness - the spirit of Satan.

There is only one holy spirit that comes from God and renews the spirit of humanity. Ephesians 4:4-6. The spirit of God's love empowers selfish humanity to think again in loving ways.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Romans 8:9,10

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

Col 3:15

"Christ in you, the hope of glory."

Christ does not bodily live in a believers body, but He prompts human choices and when these promptings are received by the person, Christ empowers the sinner to carry out the loving actions. This is the spirit of God in action - recreating a human being in the image of God.

These verses reveal that there is one spirit - one pure, holy principle of action, thought and character that identifies the One True God and His governmental principles. These same loving principles are possessed by both Father and Son and by all who permit Christ to dwell in their hearts by faith.

Christ gives us His thoughts, His power to love others. Such power is brought to sinners by holy angels - who possess the same spirit of God. The spirit of God is not the angels themselves, but the angels do minister the loving power and presence of Christ to receptive human minds. In this way, Christ is represented as being personally present with His followers as the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. This is how the early SDA pioneers understood the presence of the Holy Spirit until 1931. For an interesting discussion between an SDA conference president and Dr JH Kellogg, who converted to trinitarianism in late 1903, and Ellen White's accompanying advice, please feel free to download "Identifying the Unknown God" from www.themeofthebible.com and search for Kellogg. I think the discussion is about 5 pages long, but very interesting. In short, Kellogg confided in a letter to Conference president Elder GI Butler, that he now believed in the trinity and particularly that the Holy Ghost was a separate being to the Father and Son. He claimed that Ellen White supported his view. However Ellen White strongly disagreed with Kellogg's trinitarian theology and stated so in written testimonies. She was also given a vision -just at this same time 1903/1904 - that revealed that Dr Kellogg was being controlled and lead on by evil angels as he converted to trinitarianism.

If Ellen White had begun teaching the protestant version of the trinity in 1898, with the publication of the Desire of Ages as some believe, why didn’t the prophet congratulate Dr Kellogg on his conversion to trinitarianism?

Ellen White, October 1903,(Spalding/ Magan Collection p. 334).

“The Lord still has thoughts of mercy toward John Kellogg, but the fallen angels are close by his side, communicating with him.”

It is unlikely that fallen angels seen by Ellen White would have lead Kellogg to the truth about God and His only begotten Son – rather it is expected that they would have lead him into gross error about God’s identity.

One is left to ponder Ellen White's words written to Union Conference Presidents, and Leading Medical Missionaries on 23 June; 1904 – after Kellogg converted to trinitarianism:

“Dr. Kellogg is now in a more dangerous condition than before the meeting. Every ray of light rejected leaves him more surely fastened in Satan's coils.”

Further harmony exists between the early SDA pioneers' beliefs and the following information from Dr Jason BeDuhn, a Greek scholar who studied the linguistics of the biblical references to the spirit, especially the use of the pronoun "He" to describe the Holy Spirit.

In his book Truth in Translation, Jason David BeDuhn, (2003: p135-136), the following statement is made:

“The books of the New Testament were written by and for people who were much more accustomed to speak of 'spirits' than we are today. The vocabulary of “spirit” was used broadly, and covered just about everything that occurred beyond the realm of the physical senses. Of course, we still speak of 'spiritual' things, and still have expressions such as 'the human spirit.' But the relative rarity of such expressions in our daily speech skews our understanding of the biblical language of 'spirit.' Because we have effectively narrowed the range of 'spirit' in our thinking when compared to that of the New Testament world, we tend to run together in our mind the distinct things called 'spirit' in the New Testament. This tendency collaborates with the historical development of Christian theology, which has over the centuries elaborated the idea of the Holy Spirit, and consolidated many references to 'spirit' in the New Testament within this idea. Later Christian theology also applied the technical status of a 'person' on the Holy Spirit, which has lead modern translators and readers to think of the Holy Spirit in human terms as a “who,” even a 'he' rather than as an 'it' that transcends human measures of personhood. As a result of these conditions, many modern translators read the Holy Spirit into passages where it does not actually appear, verses where 'spirit' is used to refer to other 'spiritual' things. At the same time they confine the Holy spirit within human concepts of personhood by altering the meaning of Greek pronouns from neuter to masculine. The real danger here is that the Holy spirit as it is actually found in the New Testament will be misunderstood and distorted by adding ot it qualities it does not have and attributing to it acts that the biblical authors actually ascribe to other kinds of 'spirit.' It is essential that the New Testament texts be read with an understanding of their own manner of expression. It is the duty of translators to convey to modern readers the exact way in which the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit and other spirits, and not to distort the texts by reading into them biased interpretations rooted in our later position in history.”

Jason BeDuhn gives an example of Acts 8:15. The King James Version translates the verse as follows:

Acts 8:15

“Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:“

But Jason BeDuhn points out that the literal Greek translation reads,

“that they might receive a holy spirit (pneuma hagion).”

Acts 8:17-19

“Then they placed their hands upon them and they received a holy spirit (pnuema hagion). And when Simon saw that through the placement of the hands of the apostles the spirit (to pneuma) is given, he offered them money, saying, 'Give to me also this authority, so that on whoever I might place my hands they might receive a holy spirit (pneuma hagion).

Other examples are also given by Jason BeDuhn.

Acts 10:38

“Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with/by a holy spirit (pneumatti hagion) and power.

Luke 11:13

“The Father from heaven will give a holy spirit to those who ask him.” (ho pater ex ouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton.)

John 20:22

“And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ' Receive a holy spirit.'” (labete pneuma hagion).

Acts 19:2

“And he said to them, 'Did you receive a holy (pneuma hagion elabete) when you believed? And they (said) to him, 'We have not even heard if there is a holy spirit (pneuma hagion).'”

Luke 2:25

“And a holy spirit was upon them.”

Acts 5:32

“We are witnesses of these things and (so is) the holy spirit, which (ho) God has given to those who obey him.”

Ephesians 4:30

“And do not cause grief to the holy spirit of God, by which you are sealed for a day of redemption.:”

1 Corinthians 6:19

“Don't you know that your body is a temple of the holy spirit in you, which you have from God.”

Jason BeDuhn (ibid., 2003:140, 141) also demonstrates that according to the grammatical rules of Greek, the holy spirit of God is an 'it' not a 'he' and that the changes that different translations put on these verses “have no foundation whatsoever in the Greek words of the biblical text.” Jason BeDuhn is a trinitarian, yet in his book, Truth in Translation, where he compares 9 Bible versions, he concedes that the spirit of God is not correctly translated as neuter (an 'it') in most Bible versions.

I hope this helps in your study of the Holy Spirit of God.

Sherle

www.themeofthebible.com

Date: Jan 20, 2007

Newbie,

The centuries-old challenge by trinitarians to those who do not subscribe to their theories has been the same which you, Daniel, and the WHOLE "CHRISTIAN" WORLD level at them. That being, why cannot you say that Jesus is God if you are a professed Christian? Arguing over such should be moot because in so claiming that He was God's very Son, HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE WHO THE SCRIPTURES TESTIFIED HE WAS. HE IS WHO HE SAID HE WAS. Why should there be any more controversy? If I say He is the Son of God, and not the One True God, how is it you claim I am an heretic since He claimed the very same thing in His own words, so did Peter, so did the scribes and Pharisees, so did Paul, and Moses, and everyone else who is called faithful and true in the Bible? Trinitarians have no basis but Rome to be in controversy with those who disagree with their creed. Therefore, your hearts have donned the purple and scarlet, and you have no king but Caesar. Cease to call yourselves Seventh-day Adventists if you continue in your diatribes agianst those who make the Word of God their testimony. Do you serve one God or two, or three? The choice is yours...

D.W.

Date: Jan 20, 2007

Dennis I did not mean to claim anything about you. Are you afraid to read what I asked? Are you afraid that you will read something that you don't want to know? All I ask is that you read chapter 1 of Story of Redemption and you will know my stand on this issue. It was an eye opener for me. Read it and study it. Then you will know. I hope you will be blessed by the truth.

I think we all want to know the truth but once we do, there is always a trial attached to that truth. We must try and tell others. It may cost us big time but it will not change the truth whether we believe it or not. Many many people cannot handle the truth.

Date: Jan 20, 2007

Hi Sherle, I can see that you have spent much time on this subject and so have I. When I went back and read the original documents first written by EGW, I then knew the truth. Read how she treats this subject from material in the 1800s up to 1983. This will give you the best picture of truth. Some of these documents are here at early SDA and others are on line with the estate. What treasures are buried in these original writings!

Date: Jan 20, 2007

Newbie,

I read that chapter. I found nothing in it that definitively brings out a hint of what a person might have on this teaching. You are beating around the bush here. What is your belief on this? You want to sit on the fence it seems; you will probably have to nail it down at some point, why not now? Is the trinity a compromise to the Christian believer? Is it the means for the spirit of antichrist? Is it a compromise for SDA's to believe it, and then enforce it as a creed? Is it the omega of deadly heresies? Did Froom commit treachery by changing information in others' books? Cmon here, this must be addressed by us as honest searchers.

D.W.

Date: Jan 21, 2007

Dennis & Sherle, Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

Do you believe that?

Date: Jan 21, 2007

God the Father, yes, the rest is unbiblical.

D.W.

Date: Jan 22, 2007

Dennis,

I think it is sad that some people hang on to traditions of men no matter what proof is set before them. Just because many people "believe" something to be truth does not make it truth.

I have placed clear proofs in front of several people and they refuse to believe it because they say that for 100 years the church has taken a different position. I think this is sad to say that even our church has decided to take foot holds on tradition of men. Many of these traditions were based on the positions of U. Smith and EGW clearly rebuked him for his failures to follow the health message and hostility towards her testimonies. Somehow people have chosen to accept his view anyway in spite of her clear rebukes. What is a poor newbie to do?

Date: Jan 22, 2007

Yes, we've been here before D.W. It is so sad to see someone who used to be a Christian take his name off the rolls of "Christians", by denigrating his master to something less than Jesus declared himself to be - the I AM. He is God in the flesh. He is the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the Everlasting, and several other names we all know that show without a doubt that JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

And the Holy Spirit is God too, as two people lied to the Holy Spirit, and were killed instantly. Please don't join them any longer in their rebellion D.W. Please come back to the truth, and believe in the only true God.

Date: Jan 23, 2007

newbie wrote:
Dennis,
I think it is sad that some people hang on to traditions of men no matter what proof is set before them. Just because many people "believe" something to be truth does not make it truth.
I have placed clear proofs in front of several people and they refuse to believe it because they say that for 100 years the church has taken a different position. I think this is sad to say that even our church has decided to take foot holds on tradition of men. Many of these traditions were based on the positions of U. Smith and EGW clearly rebuked him for his failures to follow the health message and hostility towards her testimonies. Somehow people have chosen to accept his view anyway in spite of her clear rebukes. What is a poor newbie to do?

Well,

If I believed that your "proofs" were "clear", don't you think I would have changed my thinking? No, your explanations are neither "clear", nor are they "proof" of anything. Why not present something coherent so I can join my wife at Sabbath school and early church this Sabbath? I would love to see some here and now. Make it plain Newbie, you know, a clear thus saith the Lord... Where is it?

D.W.

Date: Jan 23, 2007

Christ, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created.

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son.

The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence.

His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was His Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth.

But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of heaven, His power and authority to be the same as that of God Himself.

They (angels)clearly set forth that Christ was the Son of God, existing with Him before the angels were created; and that He had ever stood at the right hand of God, and His mild, loving authority had not heretofore been questioned; and that He had given no commands but what it was joy for the heavenly host to execute.

These are excepts taken from Story of Redemption chapter 1 and I supplied the () for clarity.

It clearly shows what happened in heaven. We see that the Father and the Son are two separate beings. We also see that all power and authority that the Father had was given to the Son. We are to see the Son as we see the Father himself. Satan was jealous of the Son and would not continue to bow down to Him. Instead, satan started the rebellion and broke the Law for the first time.

Do you have any problem with this?

Date: Jan 23, 2007

Why would I? I was assuming from your previous statements of doubt that you were defending trinitarianism. I can see now that I was wrong. See, I am man enough to admit it...

D.W.

Date: Jan 24, 2007

Dennis,
This comes directly from SOP specifically Story of Redemption which is based on all EGWs early works. If you have no problem with this, and I don't either, then I think we can agree on this.

Date: Jan 25, 2007

Hi Newbie
As DW just stated, I've got no trouble with the extract you pasted here from Ellen White's Story of Redemption either. It is completely in accordance with the non-trinitarian position and the One True God (the Father) and His divine Son. So is the rest of her book (SofR) for that matter, especially the first 5 chapters. It is in complete harmony with her other statements in Patriarchs and Prophets, Desire of Ages, Great Controversy, etc also.

Would you agree that her position taken in Story of Redemption is non-trinitarian? I can't see it any other way.

Smiles,
Sherle

Date: Jan 25, 2007

Sherle, I don't know you, but wonder if the words to D.W. apply to you also? Are you a former believer in Jesus and the Holy Spirit being God, but not so now?

Date: Jan 25, 2007

Hi Webmaster,
In answer to your question: I believe the Bible and SOP teach that Jesus is a divine Being (i.e. a god-being) equal to the Father in every respect. This can only be because the Son inherited His divinity from His Father for He was begotten from His Father. (Heb 1; Prov 22; Prov 30; John 1; 1 John)

The Son of God's title is "Michael" which means, "He Who is Like God." Note the name Michael does not mean, He Who is God Himself. To say so, would mean that the Son of God was also His Father and that both Father and Son were one divine being.

Michael, prior to His incarnation was like God His Father. Jesus told Ellen White, that He was in the express image of His Father.

Early Writings, 1882 p 77

"I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, "I am in the express image of My Father's person."

Any divine being can be truthfully called a god-being. But not every divine being is the individual Being who's name is known to us as the One True God (John 17:3).

It might be helpful to remember that the word 'god' is a generic word denoting a being's divine nature. It causes confusion when Christians use the generic word 'god' to identify the Being whom they worship and whom they have also named with the same word - "God."   This is similar to me owning a cat and also naming it 'Cat.' My cat's name would be Cat. The cat has been named according to its nature. Christians have also named their god (Yahweh or Jehovah), according to His nature and end up calling Him "God."

The Son of God is also called "God" by Christians, because of His divine nature. Jesus however, when referring to His divine nature, called Himself the "Son of God." (See Biblical references in previous post).

We know that the One True god who is called "God" by Christians, has a specific name, and it is supposed that this name is Yahweh, or Jehovah.  The Son of God's specific name is Michael and other Yahashua or other derivates.

Jesus is god, by nature and in that divine nature, He is equal to His Father, but He is not the same being as His Father. (In a similar way, there are many human beings, but no human being is the same being as his/her father either. I am human, you are human, but that doesn't mean that we are both part of an individual being named "Human").

If you wish to state that "the Father is God. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God" then it appears to me that you believe that there is not one god being - who is named God - but three gods who are called God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Such a belief is defined as polytheism, specifically tritheism, which is condemned as paganism.

This statement is made by SDA Pastor Max Hatton, in his book Understanding the Trinity p 135 “An unbalanced view leads to such errors as Tritheism, Modalism and Bi-theism. Tri-theism results from an overemphasis of the threeness. It results really in there being three completely separate persons or Gods. This is really Polytheism (which, really, is paganism).” [Parentheses in original.]

SDA Pioneer JH Waggoner, (EJ Waggoner's father) also agrees with Pst Hatton's statement that tritheism is paganism. JH Waggoner in Thoughts on Baptism, 1878, cites Bingham in “Antiquities,” Book 11, chap 3 & 4 wrote: “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, co-ordinate, 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.”

The Roman Catholic Orthodox version of the trinity is defined as One Being composed of three hypostases- “…there are not three substances (or beings).” (Dr. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, vol. i. p. 365 quoted in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, Sec. 130, p 676, 677)

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity claims that there is one BEING called God who has 3 parts to Him/It. It is Roman Catholic doctrine that these divine 'parts' could not exist separately. These parts are called persons, but they are not persons in the sense of being individual, separate, independent beings who all have life in themselves - apart from the other parts/hypostases.

The SDA Tritheistic version of the trinity was officially accepted by delegates vote in 1980 at the General Conference session. They accepted the doctrine of the trinity as per Tritheism.

Historian Philip Schaff defines tritheism as “ the… tritheistic trinity of three distinct and separate beings.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, Section 130, p 677. Tritheism is the concept that God exists in three persons who are “three different individuals, or three self-conscious and separately acting beings.” Tritheism means “three gods.” Recall that SDA Pastors JH Waggoner and Max Hatton claim that the doctrine of having three gods is paganism.

The SDA church published Pst Hatton's book Understanding the Trinity, and consequently appears to have 'shot itself in the foot.' The official belief of the SDA church is based on the doctrine of the trinity - tritheism, and yet it published and is still promoting a book in which a leading SDA minister announced that tritheism is paganism.

Even more confusion on the trinity is revealed by other recent SDA publications. Modalism is also taught. This is another version of the doctrine of the trinity. SDA Adult Sabbath School Lessons 15 March, 2003 “The unity Jesus is speaking of is ‘an expression of the creative diversity within the Godhead…there is only one ‘true God’ who manifests Himself through differing functions of Father, Son and Spirit.”

The above statement appears to claim that God is one Being who manifested Himself in three different modes at three different times. According to the definition given by Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Section 152, page 582, this view is also another version of the doctrine of the trinity, but it is not tritheism, nor is it the Roman Catholic orthodox view. It is modalism - the doctrine that God changes or morphes from Father to Son to Spirit as the conditions require.

The SDA church, according to its own publications, is not exactly clear on whom God is, so how can the 'sheep' understand the Being whom they worship as their god?

It is not definitive to say that we believe "The Father is God. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God" because all trinitarians, whether they believe in the Roman Catholic orthodox version of the trinity; or tritheists who believe in a different version of the trinity; or modalists who also believe a very different version of the trinity - can all agree with that statement. The statement that "the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God" means very different things to all three trinitarian groups and the SDA church and pioneers neither believed nor accepted any of these definitions.

Please explain precisely what you mean therefore, when you made the statement "The Father is God. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God."

Or to put the question another way, if you are a believer in one of the versions of the doctrine of the trinity, would you please specify how you define 'God - the trinity?

Is God:

* three individual divine beings (three gods), as the SDA church fundamental beliefs outline?; or
* 2 beings with bodies and one without a body (but just a spirit) as some SDA's conference leaders are now advocating?; or
* 1 being with 3 parts to it; as the Roman Catholic church maintains; or
* a divine being (with one body) who morphes into or becomes Father, Son or Spirit as the occasion demands (ie. modalism, also called the Jesus only version of the trinity; or
* some other definition?

Thank you very much for your thoughts and clarification.   I very much appreciate being able to have this discussion with you.

Blessings in Jesus,
Sherle
www.themeofthebible.com

Date: Feb 15, 2007

Sherle, Could you answer my question please? Thank you.

Date: Feb 16, 2007

Sherle,

It appears the inquisition has started all over again right here among the SDA defenders of trinity. Because we defend there is only one true God and that Jesus is the divine Son of God we must be heretics according to trinitarians.

Dennis

Date: Feb 27, 2007

Allowing use of web space that i pay for to air your ideas, and then accuse one of the "Inquisition", when a simple request to answer a question is given, is this spirit of God? What about it Sherle, is Jesus God - yes or no?

Speaking of spirit of God, i read a great verse in the Bible the other nite that really jumped out at me, showing (again) that the Holy Spirit has a voice:

Rev. 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Date: Aug 1, 2007

webmaster wrote:

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
We have been there before Dennis. This anti-trinity doctrine is not from God as it always demotes Jesus Christ to something less than eternal God.

Gordon, edited your email address out.

Webmaster,

Why not let Paul, Jesus, John, and all the other Bible texts on this issue clear up the murky water?

Paul:

Ephesians
4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians
8:6   But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy
2:5   For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Jesus:

John
17:3   "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

James

2:19   Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So it would appear that either Paul is being dishonest in this text, or there is a problem with translation of the Greek. I vote for option 2.

The word translated as "God" in this verse in the Greek is 'hos'... not theos. I believe there is a problem here. I am not sure the thing Paul was trying to say except maybe that 'hos' be translated as divine one, or great one, or sinless one, or something other than God. You see, it would be altogether a lie if this verse was being true in saying that it was God manifest in the flesh because Jesus being God would have given him an unfair advantage in meeting temptation. For God cannot sin, neither can He peacefully coexist in the midst of sinners.

James
1:13   Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

It is impossible to reconcile that Jesus is God the Father since he himself submitted to that being. It is where he derives his strength, not in himself. If he is our example in all things, how then would we live thinking he were God meeting temptations that were only overcomable because he was God? We are not God, and by saying that Jesus is God we erase the fact of his flesh, which are we. And by so claiming the flesh and blood Christ, we can be overcomers through his connection to the Father God. The divinity of Jesus cannot be denied, but it was the fact of his flesh that cannot be denied by the sinner or satan and still be the possiblity of salvation. The claim of satan is that we cannot live as Christ by the law. By claiming the blood and flesh of Christ we are able to usurp the claim of satan.

This is why I believe John identifies the denial of Christ's flesh as the spirit of antichrist. If Christ's flesh is denied by saying he was God, the saying that Christ condemned sin in the flesh is a lie. This is why Christ said:

John
6:55   For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Is this making sense?

JQN

Date: Nov 24, 2008

webmaster wrote:

What about it Sherle, is Jesus God - yes or no?

Hi Webmaster,

This was my answer previously posted on this web:

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?"

Absolutely.

Sorry it's been a while since I have been able to get back on line, but I see that you have now asked me again, if Jesus is God. I wonder if you noticed that I already answered that question twice, but by asking that question again, it seems to me that perhaps it's really you who does not understand who God is, or at least we have different concepts of who or what the word 'god' refers.

I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to understand why you are confused about my prevous answers because if you understood them, I don't think you would be asking that question again.

Perhaps I can't answer the question to your satisfaction because you have defined 'God' as someone different to my understanding. To help me answer your question, please define your question to explain to me YOUR concept of who 'God' is.

Is your concept of 'God,' God the Father? or a being called 'the 1st person of the trinity? Is your idea of God the whole trinity? If so, does your concept of the trinity god consist of 3 beings who are called 'God' or is it one divine being called god who is made up of 3 parts? Or is Jesus your 'God' to the exclusion of all others? Those questions cover the most common versions of the trinity doctrine.

I think we are having difficulties because the word "god" is used in two ways:

1. as a name of a specific deity by Bible translators and 2. as a generic term to identify all divine beings (whether genuine or pagan).

Which way are you understanding 'god'?

In the Bible, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles identify only two true genuinely divine-beings/god-beings (both the Father and His Son). They all also reveal that the Only True God is the single divine being (the Father) because all life originated from Him. The Son is no less a god-being than the Father. He is as fully divine as His Father, equal in every way, except in authority, for He always voluntarily subjects Himself to the Father's authority (1 Cor 15:27,28). That makes 2 divine beings or two god-beings - but not two beings called the Only True God! (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6)

The Son of God (who became Jesus at the incarnation) is not the same divine being who is identified as the Father. The Father is most often CALLED "God" in the Bible, as an identifying name instead of YHWH, but both He and the Son are gods - god-beings/divine beings.

The Son is not 'the Only True God' - a term which Jesus used to identify specifically, His Father (John 3:17) but He is a fully divine being - a god being, as divine as is His Father.

The Father is most often CALLED 'God' or LORD (because the Jews thought His name YHWH was too holy to write down in the manuscripts). The Son of God, as authorised by the Father, is also recognised as LORD as He was acting in the name of the Father (Exodus 23:21) The Son is also called "God" by His Father, but then readers of the Scriptures are reminded that the Son has a god also, whom He worships and that 'god' or divine being is the Father (Heb 1:8,9).

There are two divine beings. They are both called gods or divine-beings in the generic sense of the word. In this sense, Jesus is a god-being and so is the Father. The Father calls the Son "God" - signifiying the Son is divine - a god-being in Heb 1:8. This statement is equivalent to the statement Jesus is a divine being. The fact that the Son is not equal in authority to the Father is shown by the Father's own words to the Son in the very next verse.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So there are two divine beings in the Bible. Two god-beings. Two divine beings. One is in authority over the other because He was the original, the first divine being. The second god-being voluntarily subjects Himself to the first god-being (1 Cor 15:27,28). Human beings are commanded by the Father (the original god-being) to worship the Son (the god-being generated from the Father's person. The Son worships His Father (Heb 1:8-10). So we are instructed to worship two divine beings (two god-beings) only - the Father who Christ identifies as the Only True God, and His divine Son. How many divine beings do you worship?

Date: Apr 28, 2012

RE: Trinity Mt.28:19

Date: Apr 28, 2012

RE: Trinity

Date: Apr 29, 2012

alan wrote: "I know many of you SDA's refuse to believe this because EW used Mt. 28:19 many times in her writing and she was wrong."

If you wish to disbelieve God's messenger, that is your choice alan, but i will obey God's prophets and in doing so, receive God's blessings on those who don't reject his words.

Your comments about anti-trinity beliefs have been covered before.

There is a God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The only way around this "godhead" is to deny the Bible and its author - the Holy Spirit. Please think about what it means to deny the Holy Spirit......

Date: Apr 29, 2012

I have to do this reply in two boxes

Your logic beingif you dont agree with or believe in EW you are denying the Holy Spirit, hence, EW is infallible? Would you not say that is what you are saying?

I am a Sabbatarian Christian who voluntarily took his name off the church books of the SDA church because of the Trinity doctrine and other unscriptural doctrines that SDAs holds. And guess what! After I gave up the testimonies and left the SDA church I did not give up the biblehow about that!!! In fact, it has driven me to read and base my doctrine truly on Sola Scriptura not on EW.

You stated:

1 If you wish to disbelieve God's messenger, that is your choice alan, but i will obey God's prophets and in doing so, receive God's blessings on those who don't reject his words.

2 There is a God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The only way around this "godhead" is to deny the Bible and its author - the Holy Spirit. Please think about what it means to deny the Holy Spirit......(emph. mine)

First, I am commanded by the Bible to judge ALL prophets by the word of God.

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

You stated: Please think about what it means to deny the Holy Spirit. What do you mean by that? I dont deny the Holy Spirit exists. This is the first thing Trinitarians accuse me of. I can only know what the Bible says and defines the Holy Spirit as!!!

It says in Is 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

Most would agree this is talking of the Holy Spirit. I give you the biblical definition of the Spirit of the lord from the man Paul that received his Gospel from Jesus Himself:

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So I believe when he defines the Spirit of the Lord as the Mind of God in 1 Co 1:8-16 and Rom 11:34. Can you give me more than that? All through his epistles he speaks of having the mind of Christ, let this mind be in you, the carnal mind and the spiritual mind, so with the mind I serve the law of God. It is the Father and Son coming to me in Spirit Jn. 15:23.If you want to worship God the Holy Spirit as a separate Deity go ahead.

As far as your Trinity doctrine goescan you prove it from the Bible?

Youre more honest scholars like Richard Rice in the Rein of God stated:

The role of the trinity in a doctrine of God always raises questions. One reason is that the word itself does not appear in the Bible, nor is there any clear statement of the idea. But the Bible does set the stage for its formulation, and the concept represents a development of biblical claims and concepts. So even though the doctrine of the trinity is not part of what the Bible itself says about God, it is part of what the church must say to safeguard the biblical view of God. The Reign of God, An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective. by Richard Rice. 1985. Andrews Uni Press. (emphasis supplied)

Here is Ministry Magazine:

Are Seventh-day Adventists Tritheists? Written by Glyn Parfitt

Sadly, there is no sure scriptural way out of this dilemma, for the Bible does not give us the words with which to express the Threeness and the Oneness of God. Seventh-day Adventists can, therefore, be thankful that where the biblical revelation leaves off, the Spirit of Prophecy, through Ellen White, comes to our aid

And the list goes on if I wanted to of SDAs that admit it is not in the bible. Can you do it?

Date: Apr 29, 2012

This is the second box

Most of you speak of the Divinity of Christ -which is true- but then you deny in writing in your doctrinal books that his Divinity died and all you have in the end is a human sacrifice. Even though the bible says:

who through the eternal spirit offered himself; His soul was an offering for sin, he hath poured out his soul unto death. And--Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. And the forty of so times in the Bible that say the Father raised Him from the dead!

Your doctrinal books teach like all other trinity that his human nature died.

At the crucifixion His human nature died, not His deity, for that would have been impossible. Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . . pg. 51 (emphasis mine)

I know where the last line of this teaching comes from and it is the pen of EW! When it is convenient the SDA church uses her to support her doctrines. She wrote his Deity did not die. This teaching of Christ not dying is unsupported in the Bible. Of what I have seen every church that teaches this doctrine eventually becomes spiritualists and yours is going down the same path too. Do you guys not now teach evolution in your schools which are the strongest roots of spiritualism?

My friend, keep going down the path youre going and base your beliefs on Catholic tradition or on extra biblical writings like Ellen White who claimed to be inspired and infallible. As a church you claim Sola Scriptura but that is only a facade.

I am commanded by God to reject any teaching that is not found in the Bible. The Bible says Jesus died:

Ellen White says Deity did not die. Go ahead and say I deny the Prophet of the Lord or the Holy Spirit. I like my chances better if I explain to my Lord that I based my faith on the Bible.

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.