A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:30 pm Post subject: New book on the Trinity
A recent publication from the Review and Herald Publishing Assoc. has sought to clear up the issue of the Trinity by showing the Biblical evidence and the historical development of this doctrine. The book is entitled The Trinity, by Whidden, Moon, and Reeve, 2002.
Has anyone read this book? If so, what do you think about it? To me the book gives a lot of information in support of anti-Trinitarianism.
I'm new to this forum and I'm a new Seventh-day Adventist also and I have some questions on the trinity that bother me. No I have not read the book you asked about, but the question I have, if you can help me with is did the early SDA church believe in the doctrine of the trinity. The reason I ask this is I came across a web page the other day that stated that the early SDA church did not believe in the trinity as it is taught today in the church. Is this true ? Also is the SDA church going through some kind division over this and other teachings ? I'm concerned that if I go to one SDA church and then another they will be teaching two different things, which to me would be wrong. Hope you can shead some light on this for me.
Naturally, the controversies that are the most prominent are the least important. Satan has been exercising his control.
Ellen G. White wrote:
It is Satan’s object to divert the attention from the third angel’s message to side issues, that minds and hearts that should be growing in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, may be dwarfed and enfeebled, so that God may not be glorified by them. Selected Messages Book 2, page 320.
Welcome to the forum Ben. May I suggest that you ignore Satan’s controversies and just study and put first what God has revealed about Himself, the Son and the Spirit? See www.everythingimportant.org/Godhead for a good introduction.
Thanks for the advice & thanks for the article, you are right we should not get caught up in Satan's tricks. Let me ask you this--do you feel we should not be involved with the SDA church if it seems to be headed in the wrong direction ? Should I seek another church ? I have been going to the SDA church for about a year and feel that it's message is a good one, am I wrong ? I know that no one church has the monopoly on truth but I want to find the closest one out there. Thank again for your advice.
We should stay with the SDA church. Even though it may at times seem to be shaken we should realize that God's church will go through.
In the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus says that they will grow together until the end. At that time God will effect the separation. I say without reservation that the SDA church is God's remnant church. The church that keeps the commandments of God and has the faith of Jesus. Now it is true that God is going to have to clean up the mess that some have caused (parable of wheat and tares) and He will seal His true followers (Ezekiel 9). But, God's church will go through. So, don't step out of the plane even though the ride is a bit rough.
This Adventist book had some very interesting things to say.
The first thing I noticed even before opening the book was the symbol on the front cover. This symbol is the triquetra. Where does this symbol come from and what does it mean? According to one pagan website, “Symbology of the Triquetra has been for many years a way of connecting to the ancient yet blending with the presently accepted. Those of us who are drawn to the ancient path of the Triple Goddess will be drawn to this work of ART. This is just one of the many Symbols that Wiccans and Pagans alike deem as being very special and sacred.” Portals In Time (at portalsintime.com). It is also the symbol used on a popular TV show “Charmed” which features three witches.
This is the symbol that is now used by the Christian world to represent God. Can it represent both God and the Triple Goddess? Both good and evil? “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) Would God choose a pagan symbol to represent Himself?
Do we leave the church because these things have crept in? No! We find "the old paths... and walk therein" (Jeremiah 6:16)
"Cry aloud spare not, lift up thy woice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." Isaiah 58:1
"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:12
Because I believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White I’d say that the Seventh-day Adventist church should be given first priority. In general, the church is headed in a wrong direction. That’s no excuse to leave. I think you should stay and believe in The Manifesto Of Reform-Minded Seventh-Day Adventists.
The next thing that caught my attention in the book (The Trinity) was in the introduction. Reference was made to Jehovah’s Witnesses as if Seventh-Day Adventist who don’t believe in the Trinity should be classed with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the full Deity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church viewed anyone that did not believe in the Trinity as being Arian, which came to mean one who believes that Jesus was a created being. They then persecuted such “heretics” to the extent that they began what is now called the “Dark Ages”. The alternate view to the Trinity doctrine is not that Jesus was a created being. The alternate view is what God says about Himself and His Son in the Bible. In a letter it was stated “He (J. H. Waggoner), James White, John Loughborough and others held a view apart from both Unitarians and Trinitarians.” Letter to Elder H. C. Lacy from Elder A. W. Spalding June 2, 1947. E. J. Waggoner in his book Christ and His Righteousness very articulately demonstrated the full deity of Christ in a view that was neither Trinitarian nor Arian.
Several things come up as we study the history of this issue in the church (as noted in the book The Trinity).
Quote:
“By the time of his death in 373, Athanasius had convinced most Christian theologians of the necessity of using the new terminology rather than restricting themselves to terms appearing in the Bible.” (The Trinity, p144)
Here we see a creeping compromise that starts with the use of terms not in the Bible. So, what’s problem with the Bible? The authors also point out that,
Quote:
“it took decades for everyone to understand the new meanings of these terms.” (Ibid.)
The next quote with regard to the Council of Constantinople of 381 is also interesting.
Quote:
“All three Cappadocians wrote treatises and letters exploring and solidifying the Trinitarian theology and creating a standard terminology. They spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as simultaneously three in regard to hypostasis—personhood—but as one in regard to ousia—nature. The Cappadocians extended the shared nature of the Father and the Son to include the Holy Spirit, clarifying the vagueness of the Nicene Creed. In his work On the Holy Spirit Basil argued for a recognition of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as of one substance and of equal rank, and therefore as worthy of worship.” (Ibid. p 148)
Here we see the finite trying to define the infinite, the creature trying to explain his creator and in the process “creating” terms not found in the Bible. God is well capable of explaining what He wants us to know and He has done so in the Scripture. But now the Holy Scripture is deemed inadequate and “restricting”.
Next we see that Trinitarianism began to develop in new directions and that Augustine, the bishop of Hippo…was the focal point of this shift in the development of Trinitarian theology after Constantinople. Augustine’s book On the Trinity “eventually became part of the Trinitarian dogma of the medieval Catholic Church.” (Ibid. p 154)
Quote:
“The Roman Catholic Church had come during the Middle Ages to the conviction that the Trinity was its most ‘central’ and ‘fundamental teaching’ (Pelikan, vol. 3, p.279). The philosophical formulation of the Trinity was both central and fundamental, because more than any other doctrine it directly depended on Greek philosophical presuppositions.” (Ibid. p167)
And here we have it the truth of the matter is that this doctrine is of pagan origin. No wonder a pagan symbol can be used to represent it.
Quote:
“Augustine’s God, though trinitarian, is made captive to the Greek philosophical theology of divine simplicity, immutability, and impassability, and turns out to be more like a great cosmic emperor than a loving, compassionate heavenly Father.” (Ibid. p168)
In the chapter on “Biblical Objections to the Trinity” it is continually stated that if Christ was begotten of God that would make Him semidivine. This is in keeping with the thought of the Greek philosophers.
Quote:
(The Greek) “philosophers ‘knew’ that for deity to enter history was an absurdity, a contradiction in terms that obviously could not be taken as a statement of ultimate truth.” (Ibid. p 170) “Whatever agreed with philosophy they accepted as true, and whatever did not, they considered as figurative or as a moralizing story for the simple masses.” (Ibid. p 171)
So Greek philosophy and Trinitarianism say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. But, the Scripture says, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” 1John 4:15.
Actually the Nicene creed and the philosophical renditions of Tertelliun and Origen are much more in line with the "modern anti-trinitarians" than with what we as SDA's believe.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
