| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12567 Registered: 12-2003  |
I'm going to share a link to a video below. I saw this a couple or so years ago, and Richard found it again this week. It's especially interesting to me now after doing so much research to help produce the 10 Questions & Answers on Seventh-day Adventism published by Rose Publishing just a year ago. This video is produced by an Adventist "off-shoot", but it reflects what has been a growing movement within certain sectors of Adventism. As George Knight acknowledged in his annotations in the republished Questions on Doctrine that came out in 2003, non-trinitarianism is growing among Adventists. The reason? It is the position of the Adventist pioneers; it is the True Adventism, according to some. The SDA organization adopted a "trinitarian" statement of belief in 1931 and today is considered "trinitarian", but as Jerry Moon from Andrews University has shown in his paper comparing EGW's "godhead" with the classic Christian Trinity, her "Three Worthies of Heaven" are not the same as the Trinity in some important ways. Adventism, as Jeremy Graham has demonstrated so well on his website CultorChristian.com, is not truly trinitarian. In fact, they are more "tritheistic", the "Three Worthies" being separate beings united in purpose rather than being one being—one God—expressed in three persons (a mystery we cannot understand but which we can accept based on what the Bible says). Anyway, this video, which is actually really interesting and looks back at the specific reasons EGW had Kellogg disfellowshiped, shows from non-trintarian Adventist viewpoint the quotations and facts that prove the early Adventists did not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit nor did they believe in the eternal existence of Jesus as God. Ellen White said that John Harvey Kellogg's view of the Holy Spirit (that was much closer to orthodoxy—although still "off"— than the pioneers' was) and his view of the godhead was the "alpha of apostasy". She stated that in later years the "omega of apostasy" would arise within Adventism and appear to be convincing and "normative", but that it would be apostasy and would break apart the Adventist movement. This video theorizes that the Adventist statement of trinitarianism is the "omega of apostasy" that EGW predicted. It's very interesting because it shows and quotes many things from the early Adventists that we didn't generally learn. Again, it's from a reactionary Adventist perspective, but it's really quite revealing. I'd love to hear your reactions! Colleen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJUSFuRL_ik&feature=channel_video_title | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12572 Registered: 12-2003 |
OK--I know that the video is a bit of a chore to watch since one has to sit for a bit and get through it. Let me ask this: in your opinion, what is the Trinity? Does your understanding of it differ now from the way you understood it as an Adventist? If so, how? Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9184 Registered: 3-2004  |
As an sda I learned that the Trinity was like a family, Father, Mother and Son, three separate beings. On reading the NT back in 2004, I learned they are one and of the same essence. Diana L | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 452 Registered: 5-2009  |
I'm totally fuzzy on what is and what isn't "the Trinity." I've asked on the forum before, read through Jeremy's website and it's still so obscure that I can't articulate what is and what isn't. It's on my todo list to explore this doctrine further. | ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 82 Registered: 1-2011 |
I have watched the video. This off-shoot group, if that's what it is, did a great job of showing why SDAism's roots are deeply stuck in error. I had heard of the concept of Alpha/Omega apostasy, and the Adventist spin on it was "the other churches are bringing their spiritualism into the SDA church". Regarding the Trinity--I never thought of it much as an Adventist. To me--at the time it was a simple concept, as I never thought it much. I just accepted, God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and Holy Spirit is God. Now, that I've come out though--I have begun to feel very 'itchy' with what I used to believe. And I know can see that I don't understand at all. What I used to believe can very easily beg the question--don't you have three God's? I really don't understand now, and it's been bothering me for quite some time. Everything I read on the subject just hurts my head. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3670 Registered: 10-2004  |
Here is an overview of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which some may find helpful, written by Christian apologist Robert Bowman of the Institute for Religious Research: http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12576 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thanks for the link, Jeremy. I don't think we can really fully explain the Trinity in a way that makes sense fully to us as physical beings. If we could, I think we'd have a graven image of sorts. I do like one example Robert Bowman used in his paper in the link above, though. He said Jesus is God, and the Father is God, yet the two are not completely separate from one another nor are they the same. The example he used was this:
Jesus and the Father are different persons, but they are the same essence. There is only One God. For me, the important thing distilled out of this is that the Trinity is not separate beings, like a husband, wife, and child, that simply agree on everything. Rather, God the Trinity is One Being—one substance—expressed in three persons who have different roles. Can I explain this? No. But the Bible describes their relationship and interactions, and the reality of it begins to make "sense" in a way. In Jesus' Upper Room discourse and prayer in John 16-17 He says some amazing things about the Trintiy and also about our relationship to the triune God as believers. What I take home from all this is that when I am in Christ, that is real, not metaphorical, and it is spiritually real in a way similar to the way Christ is in the Father. Jesus said we are in Him, and the Spirit is in us, and Col 3:3 says our lives are hidden with Christ in God. I think we vastly underestimate the reality that is ours when we are born again. Now, as born again believers in still-mortal bodies, the power and peace and riches of Christ are ours. We just "Forget" to believe it's true and keep grabbing back our "control" instead of submitting to the sovereign, miraculous reality that we are hidden with Christ in God, adopted eternally into His family! Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1580 Registered: 7-2003  |
My understanding as an Adventist: "The Father, Son, and Spirit are so unified in relationship and purpose that they can almost be considered 'one' in purpose even though they are three different beings. So there is a sense is which we can say there is 'one' God because these three beings are like a family that is closely united". My understanding after much Bible study: "There is only one single Being that is God. That one Being is one in essence or substance. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one in being, essence, and substance. That one being is eternally defined by relationships within Himself. God has never lacked for love, communication, or relationship. God has always existed in relationship with Himself. The Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally personally distinct and have been in eternal relationships of love and communication with one another and yet they are one single Being of one single essence or substance." At first blush one may ask what the difference is. It's pretty major actually. In my understanding as an Adventist (if I had stopped to really think about it) there were actually three gods because I believed there were three separate beings who were only united in purpose and relationship. As a result, I had a tendency to think about Jesus as being "something a little less" and didn't think about the Spirit much at all. A more biblical view is that there is only one being that is God. PERIOD. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not just united in purpose, relationship, and thought, they are in fact the same Being, the one and only God. The fact that the one Being that is God is defined by eternal, personal, relational, subject object distinctions, does not not change the fact that He is one single Being of one essence or substance. There are not three different beings in Heaven. Once you get that, the biblical person of Jesus is a mind-blowing revelation as compared to the Adventist Jesus. Consider this for a moment: Jesus is Yahweh, the Lord God Almighty of the Old Testament. If that statement strikes you in anyway as odd, surprising, or questionable, you may have been infected by the cultic teaching of Adventism (I know I have been). | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12581 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes! Great explanation, Chris. Colleen | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 857 Registered: 5-2009 |
Thanks, Chris...I remember how shocked I was to read Isaiah 9:6, where the child that is born is also called "Wonderful Counselor" & "Everlasting Father"...I don't pretend to understand the depth of this. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9188 Registered: 3-2004 |
Thanks Chris, I am going to read that again and again before I can digest it all the way. WOW!!! Diana L | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3672 Registered: 10-2004 |
That's an excellent, concise summary of the differences, Chris. Thanks for posting it. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 13, 2011) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1767 Registered: 3-2009 |
Doesn't that take us back to Modalism? One being represented by three distinct relationships or whatever? Hec | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2825 Registered: 8-2004  |
Hmm, I thought Modalism is the idea that only one of the three is present at any one time, first "Father," then "Son," and now "Holy Spirit," as if God switched from one 'mode' to another. Hence Modalism. (Message edited by helovesme2 on May 14, 2011) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1199 Registered: 7-2005  |
Adventist thinking enables a person to believe that Jesus had to wait 1844 years after his death to enter the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary. Biblical thinking enables a person to believe that Jesus entered the most holy place immediately upon his ascention. Actually, if the Three are one in essence, Jesus never left the holy place at all. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1200 Registered: 7-2005 |
Oops! That last part should say, "...never left the MOST holy place at all." | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1581 Registered: 7-2003 |
No Hec, modalism is a heresy that says the Father, Son, and Spirit are not distinct persons but just three different modes that God operates in at different times. Modern modalism, oneness pentacostalism, usually says that God was the Father before the incarnation, the son during the incarnation, and the Spirit after the ascension. However, biblicaly we see that the one being that is God is always the Father, Son, and Spirit and has always been in relationship with Himself. One being, three persons. One what, three whos. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12583 Registered: 12-2003 |
That is a great "shorthand" summary: "One what, three whos." Thanks, Chris! Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 822 Registered: 8-2008 |
It is telling that Alpha and Omega, a Biblical reference to Jesus, is used by Ellen White to denote apostasy: To Ellen White and her followers, believing in Jesus causes one to be an apostate from Adventism. Based on my experience, I would actually have to agree. (Message edited by bskillet on May 18, 2011) | ||
| Alison1 Registered user Username: Alison1 Post Number: 83 Registered: 10-2010 |
Chris, thanks for the explanation for the trinity. I have always had a hard time in understanding this. It is a lot to soak in. So I accept a lot in faith and just accept the explanations of those who have a better grasp of this concept. I basically accept God for who He is, Jesus for who he is and the Holy Spirit for who he is. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1064 Registered: 7-2004  |
I didn't realize how warped the SDA theology of the Trinity was while I was an SDA. Since I was an adult (barely) convert to SDAism, I had a very different understanding and experience. I knew what the Trinity was, at least in the basic terms of One Being and One Substance. And since SDAism said that they believed in the Trinity, I just assumed that they meant the same thing I had learned growing up. SDAs don't talk that much about the Trinity doctrine, so I never really picked up on the differences until leaving SDAism. In fact, when I first read Jeremy's comments 6 years or so ago on the subject, I thought that he was over-reacting and nitpicking. Then I started discussing the doctrine with SDAs on several discussion boards and grew to agree fully with what I had only months before thought was over-the-top (there is a good lesson in not being too quick to jump to conclusions about a new idea someone is presenting here). Over the next several years Jeremy pulled together an amazing amount of documentation on this subject. If Christian cult watchers understood how SDAism mis-represents their belief in the Trinity and spent the time to see what their leaders and scholars are saying "Trinity" really means to them, I am certain that SDAs would be labelled a cult by every Christian group. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12669 Registered: 12-2003 |
I completely agree, Rick. Colleen |
