The doctrine of Trinity is no more and no less than a human attempt at explaining God. As such, it is tied to a particular time and place. It is only an interpretation, so if we find a better one, we are obliged to discard the old one. The fact that this particular interpretation survived for so long proves how intellectually and spiritually impotent most of Christianity has become.

I would certainly not kill anyone for the idea of Trinity. And I would not give up my life for it either.

Jim,
As I hinted in my article (and it was a rather feeble hint, I admit) the Trinity Doctrine has implications for how we understand God's Authority. God shares his authority with Christ, but they are not identical persons, as it were. Jesus is God and yet He is not the Father. This conception (which I believe is Biblical) might be a suitable model for understanding the relationship between the pre-lapsarian Adam and Eve. Adam is first in terms of 'order', but his authority is not exclusive in the sense that Eve is subordinate to him as a kind of sub-human creature. The shared divinity between Father, Son and Spirit might offer a powerful model for gender relations in the church (shared humanity vs. subordination).
The Trinity doctrine, as Calvin expresses it, forces us to think in new ways about what it means to have authority and to exercise it. It seems clear to me that the first thing God does with authority is that he shares it! God does not relinquish authority, but neither does he hoard it. Lucifer, by contrast, cannot share authority-- he must have all of it. According to this logic, any grab for power that attempts to monopolize denies the Trinity-- and, indeed, denies the very core reality of the God-Head.
This could, of course, apply to Feminism just as easily as it applies to Male chauvinism (a salient point that this journal seems loath to acknowledge!).

Karl Wilcox, Ph.D.

We have nothing in our experience that is analagous to a "trinity" and all speculation must keep a host of Bible texts in tension if we want to honor that text.

"Sonship" in our human language suggests life that is derived. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, I do not believe that Jesus' life is derived at all, and that is why "Son" as a term may be problematic.

The solution, I believe, is to discover another way of undertanding what is meant by Sonship. I believe that the Person who was born on earth as Jesus of Nazareth did so in His capacity as Covenant Partner. Sonship defines Him as Covenant Partner. Sonship was what He assumed.

Adam was a son of God. (Luke 3:38) in that he came directly from God. Adam's life and ours is derived. Jesus Christ, standing in the place where Adam stood, is the Son of God in his capacity as Covenant Partner. Jesus turned away from equality with the "Father" by virtue of the covenant. The Second Person of the "trinity" became a "Son" by becoming a covenant partner with God. He stands for every other child of God.

Philippians 2: 5 - 11
5. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus laid down His life because it was His to give. As "Son", humanity fulfilled every requirement needed that humanity could inherit eternal life.

Andrew Dykstra

Andrew,
Do you detect a kind of 'priority' in the text you quoted-- 'Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, etc". Note that God 'exalted' Christ. I think the covenant concept you offer helps us understand the Incarnation, but the lesson study seems to argue that before the Incarnation, Jesus was co-equal with the Father without any shade of priority or 'order'. The 'host of Bible texts' defies, I think, such an easy and relatively crude formulation. I guess that I am with Milton here-- that is, I am suspicious of so-called 'egalitarian trinitarianism' where a blanket equality tends to erase all possibility of an eternal hierarchy in the God-Head. How much do our doctrines bend and flex to accomodate our politics? The 'mystery' of the Trinity is best preserved when it resists both 'sides' of the political spectrum. Can we have hierarchy without subordination? That is what we all dream of after all (or do we?).

My take from this piece with its lack of resolution is that it may well be asserting an utter impossibility for us finite beings to conclusively define the infinite God. From before converting to Adventism, I have been grappling with the Trinity question.
First, there's the matter of God using the first person plural, as in Genesis 1:26; 11:7 and perhaps elsewhere, while he is never referred to in the third person plural. Then there's the conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20), which would make the Holy Ghost the Father. And when Psalm 2:7 says, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," if that's the Father affirming the Son, precisely which day is "this day"? And yes, I cannot easily shrug off Christ's declaration, "My Father is greater than I."

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

I forgot to point out the obvious, that those few instances where God uses the first person plural are by far the exception. Let's not forget the big mystery of the incarnation according to 1 Timothy 3:16. "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." A mystery it is.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

Karl, an additional question. You write: "How much do our doctrines bend and flex to accommodate our politics? The 'mystery' of the Trinity is best preserved when it resists both 'sides' of the political spectrum." It is not clear to me, though, why the position you are trying to stake out is not itself a "side" reflecting its own particular kind of politics (or theopolitics). In addition, it seems to me, your statement can be asked in reverse: How would our politics (as well as our social practices) be different if instead of the classically orthodox doctrine of the Trinity our doctrinal beliefs for the past 2,000 years had included the concept of a hierarchically ordered Godhead based not on the idea of divine co-equality but on what you have referred to as "order and priority"? Would we perhaps have a politics of "order" over human equality? Instead of viewing political equality as a distorting lens through which we have come to read Scripture, could we not tell a genealogical story of how we came to view equality as a prime political value in part under the pressure of a very particular conception of the Godhead?

If their is not a trinity, than why do we find Satan counterfeiting it in Rev 13 ?

Dear All,
Here's the 'take home': the Trinity doctrine, because of its very esoteric nature, protects us from an equality that would deny authority and at the same time, it shields us from an authority that tries to banish equality. This escape from post-lapsarian binary entraptment in not just another 'synthesis', it represents a reality that I think characterizes God's very Nature-- it is power that shares, a power that gives, and yet always it is a power that is truly 'all-powerful'. Who can fathom it? I can only worship it.

What I meant is that the words "Son" and "Father" and "Spirit" give us an idea of what the relationship within the godhead is like.
In the Bible we get many instances to see how their relationship works in practice (as opposed to theory); and of course we must not forget to appreciate what they are trying to do for us (rather than studying them in abstract).

abe, the harlot denies the divinity of the Son. That is what YOU do. By denying the Holy Trinity you are the one who embraces error.

An interesting perspective on the Trinity and Nicea:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/triumph-of-truth-over-power....

Fr. Jim,
The Catholic blogspot is an excellent read-- thanks. But I must object to one thing: although history certainly shows us that the Arians were in the majority and firmly in power, it does not follow that the Catholic system (and here I speak of the union of temporal and sacral authority) did not find its seminal moment in the age of Constantine. To be sure, Adventists have over-simplified in ways that are grossly unfair (who can read Chaucer, Dante or Aquinas without learning of the deep things of God?). But it was a cheap shot on the part of the Author to put Ellen White in the category of unthinking sectarians. The pseudo 'Donation of Constantine' demonstrates, conclusively, I think, that even though the shift to a power-engrossed papacy did not happen all at once, it did, indeed, take place, and the results made necesssary the Reformation. Indeed, one could make the argument that the Protestant identification of Constantine as the 'bad guy' had its very impetus in a papal endorsed forgery... whew, that certainly injects of big of poetic justice into a rather flagrant bit of poetic license!

Curiously, Luther and Calvin escape the author's critique (not to mention Joachim of Flores, who first identified the Papacy as the 'anti-Christ' in the 13th century). As a medievalist, I am fully aware of how much Protestants owe to the Catholic church, but I am also keenly aware of its lamentable record of extra biblical doctrinal innovation. On just that very note, I found it interesting that the author referred to the Trinity in the same breath as the 'family of God'-- and I just found myself wondering if Mary has managed to sneak into the Trinity yet. Cheers, Karl

To Karl:
I would also like your comments on my above questions to Bill.

Ole

Ole,
I agree with the points you are raising--you may have missed my earlier follow-up comments, but I think the 'practicality' of the Trinity doctrine lies in its amazing revelation of the nature of Divine Authority. I think this should guide us in our understanding of how we wield authority within the church, in the home, and between 'bosses and employees', etc. To be sure, this divine model is not completely transparent to us (it is higher than we can reach), but enough of the Trinity is revealed in Scripture to guide us clear of the Scylla and Charbydis of either becoming anti-authority or, conversely, authoritarian. That's my thesis. I am repeating myself here (pardon) but here's the beauty of the doctrine-- God shares power with Christ, he gives power to Christ, he 'shares his throne with Christ' (Ellen White's phrase) but yet he remains fully God and all-powerful. In other words, Divine power is not expressed by engrossing power, but by sharing it and giving it away (although God the Father never abandons power-- that is a typical post-modern ploy for trying to appear egalitarian by becoming irresponsible-- lots of pastors and parents adopt this and call it 'love'). That is practical stuff in my book. As some Adventists push for the ordination of women (just as others refuse it) they might both reflect upon their own motives regarding power-- is it ok to engross power just because I have been victimized? Is it my 'role' to impose my authority just because I have priority in the Genesis birth-order? These seem like fairly practical applications to me. Karl

I find that my own thinking on this is governed by two things. First, my understanding of the issues in the Great Controversy which required resolution necessitate that the one against whom Satan pressed his charges had to be the one to provide the answer. Thus Jesus had to be able to fully represent God. How any finite being could do that is beyond my understanding.

The second thing is that it would appear that God does not operate on the basis of a hierarchical power structure like we do. Consequently all questions of "position", "power" and "authority", "priority", "eminence"... what have you... are simply irrelevant when talking about the relationship among the members of the Godhead.

OK, three things! :-) I know that I am at my core a monotheist. However one slices it, at the heart of everything is One God. Within those parameters I'm willing to accept a wide range of models how how to make sense of that. But the bottom line for me is that all of them, including the best model I can come up with, are just sock puppets when compared with the reality. So I'm not so interested in analyzing the color of the fuzz on one person's sock puppet vs the hole in the toe of someone else's. If you're trying to describe a galaxy using an old sock who cares what color it is compared with the difference between the model and the reality??? How much more difference will there be between our understanding of how the Godhead works and the underlying reality??? An infinite amount!

I think it is interesting and instructive to create these models to stretch our understanding of God. I think he invites us to do that. But we shouldn't be surprised if what we come up with has more to do with our own understanding than some universal construct of how the Godhead works. I doubt very much that even in the hereafter we're ever going to say "Oh, well, of course." Infinity and finiteness can simply never match up. Infinity will always have an infinite amount left over that finiteness cannot fathom.

Would we want it any other way????

Mark

I should also have asked how Christ's divinity figures in his being "the last Adam" according to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:45). Apart from the fall, there clearly is an infinite distinction between the two Adams. What exactly does the apostle mean there?

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

@Karl G. Wilcox, while an interesting "thesis" on the doctrine of the Trinity, as fallen creatures alienated [by sin] from their Creator, we are completely dependent on God's revelations about Himself. Our attempt (inherently feeble) to "understand" or even "discuss" God falls short particularly since the window through which we peer at Him is one of our own creation, framed by distorting glass and morphing mirrors.

I believe it is deeply humbling to approach this subject reverently and not with the cold callousness of a common place academic topic (one among many). The cacophony of opinions is deafening. Muslims accuse Christians and Jews of not being monotheists, Jehovah's Witnesses insist Jesus was "created" hence disqualifying Him from equal partnership in the Godly Triune. Then there are those who reduce the Holy Spirit to an "it" or at best a "God force" but not an autonomous, self-existing God.

It's also humbling to acknowledge that as energizing a discussion on the Trinity can be, complete knowledge is simply beyond our grasp. That would be like the creature having perfect access to the mind of the Creator....impossible. There are things we simply have to accept by faith. Human reasoning by its very nature is extremely limited. If Jesus' statement of "I AM" and is referencing the Holy Spirit as another "Comforter" is not sufficient to settle the "controversy" then we may need to rethink the theological basis for our faith.

Ellen is far from a victim; maybe she didn't seek infallibility, but to anyone suggesting that she was wrong, it was guaranteed that they would swiftly get a thorough dusting of ' you have a devilish spirit , get back into line while you have a chance, or God will getcha'. She promoted studying, but she marked very clear parameters of where the studying was not to take us, and that was beyond the realm that she, with help of her angel, had hammered out. She spoke out of both sides of her mouth, which is super convenient for those who love to proof text her, as well as the Bible. When one carves out these win/win escape hatches for oneself, it makes it way less possible to be wrong. She seldom responded to clear, contradicting studies, with clear scripture of her own; her pattern was to change the subject and IMPLY, that for her to be wrong, God would have to be wrong, end of subject

John Mark and Karl
'Prophetic infallibility' seems to me to be a read herring. EGW engaged in very little 'prophetic' prediction, unless you're including the Great Controversy (and hence saying that it's based on a vision by EGW and not Biblical data). My point is that EGW has until recently held the same position in the SDA church that the Pope holds in the Catholic church with respect to the interpretation of the Bible. Both are seen as authoritative (i.e. infallible) when speaking on the issue of doctrine. And Karl, you're much too charitable when it comes to EGW, and Fay is much more correct. She clearly saw herself as the inspired interpreter of Scripture, and she did not hesitate to put her own authority on the line when it came to rejecting ideas she didn't like. I'm sure you've seen statements from her declaring that there isn't anything uninspired or wrong in anything she ever wrote. When she encountered Albion Ballenger's challenge to the Sanctuary doctrine, she used her authority and not the Bible to stop him. EGW does not seem to have ever to have lowered herself to the level of exegesis. She declared, just like the Pope, what the Scriptures said, and woe betide anybody who dared to disagree.

Aage Rendalen

'Prophetic infallibility' seems to me to be a read herring. EGW engaged in very little 'prophetic' prediction,"

That misses the point I made in regards to the difference between papal infallibility and prophetic infallibility. I never said prophecy has more value than papal teaching, because of it's predictive value. To define prophecy as prediction is an incredibly narrow theological definition. I would be interested to hear your response to the actual points I made.

Ole: "What is the relevance and value of the concept for people today?"

First, we are baptized into the Trinity.

Second, we enter into the divine life of the Trinity, as by the Spirit we join in the Son's prayer to the Father.

Third, we participate in the Trinitarian missions, as the Father sent the Son and the Spirit so he sends us, who proclaim the Son in the power of the Spirit.

Fourth, as the Son, though equal to the Father, emptied himself, so we are to do so in our relations with one another.

In other words, this goes into who we are as Christians, how we worship God, how we evangelize, and how we relate to one another. I think that covers just about every area of Christian life.

Bill Newell: "The stories of Jesus' birth do not say it was God becoming human." "You shall call his name 'Emmanuel,' which means, 'God with us.'"

Karl Wilcox said: Do you detect a kind of 'priority' in the text you quoted-- 'Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, etc".

Karl, in answer to your question, yes I do, but the Scriptural statement is still within the context of covenant. God exalted Him to the highest place and in so doing has exalted Us to the highest place in Him. This was God's response to what Christ, the faithful covenant partner did and we in turn are accepted in the beloved. The fact that God exalted does not imply superiority/inferiority.

It is amazing that a "lesser" may also exalt God.
In Luke 1:46-48 Mary says:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

It is only in the context of God the Father's covenant with God the Son, that the text makes sense:
For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

Matthew 22:44 hints at full equality:
"'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'

Any "priority" is purely within the context of covenant.

Andrew Dykstra

Aage,

You're still not addressing the essential points regarding why the two different: the issues of divine sovereignty, free will, and overbearing ecclesiastical authority. Yes I understand that Catholics sincerely believe the Pope is led by the Holy Spirit in maintaining purity of truth, just like protestants believe regarding Biblical prophets, and Adventists believe regarding Ellen White. However, a similarity doesn't mean our doctrines are identical, there is a definite theological difference between believing in the inspiration of certain individuals by various means at certain points of time and inspiration of a particular church office for all times. We can debate which is more valuable than the other, or if they are of equal value, but it confuses dialogue to say they are the same principle. If we taught that Ellen White anointed a successor who had infallibility and that successor could appoint a successor with infallibility... then you could argue that it's the same principle. If you want to see a domination with a comparable ecclesiology to the Catholic Church you might do better looking toward the Mormons and their succession of prophets.

No one seems willing to reference the diversity of thought already existing in the NT on this topic. If John's Gospel wants a divine Word, then Mark wants an adopted Son, and St Paul wants to place Christ at the center of every cosmology he encounters, and the Apocalypse wants to make Christ worthy of worship despite being human. And we cannot forget that the persistence of the idea of the Trinity among English-speaking readers is to some extent due to the inclusion of a spurious Trinitarian proof-text (1 John 5:7) in the KJV for hundreds of years. The issue is a problem of historic, philosophical and theological proportions that cannot be resolved intellectually, even if consensii emerge at different times and places.

By analogy, I think we should allow diversity of thinking on this topic. A pure monotheism runs the danger of exclusivism and ideologism (which one would win--Yahweh, Elohim, or Abba?) and a tripartite deity might be intellectually wooden. Let's stick with the language of paradox such as "unity in diversity," or some such, and admit that all these are models and analogies beyond which we can never proceed.

As a human being, I find it far easier to consider the conundrum of the Trinity through the lens of a human, because the Christ shares my humanity. So, what does it mean to be a human being, not only an "a" but one who is promised eternal one-ness as myself, as one of the redeemed many?
The conflict, as alluded in the article, between belief in "immortality of the soul" and "soul sleep", surely opens a wide defect in understanding. That's a defect that is easily seen when we ask what happens at death. It's not something we ought to be arguing about, it's so simple.
We agree, I guess, that at the cessation of life the organic body undergoes decomposition. So, there are at least two components of a living human being - the body and Life.
Soul-sleepers recognise, as do Immortalists, that at some time after death the redeemed ones live on as (reconstructed) individuals who recognise their own continuity with an earthly existence.
Logic dictates that a memory, or template, of the renewed individual exists somewhere, somehow. This is, then, a third and essential part to the human being. We possess an organic body, Life and individuality. Too easy.

Goethia, I don't see the point you're making. Where is the false trinity in Revelation 13? Rev 13 speaks of 2 beasts.

"The only Scripture we have to support a triune God are the words of Jesus." Those are good enough for me.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is "inspired." Infallibility is a negative protection. It simply means that under certain defined extraordinary circumstances the Pope won't be wrong. It is part of the larger understanding of Church infallibility. Adventists view White as inspired which is far more then mere infallibility.

Fr. Jim

is there a definitive translation into English of the statements all popes have made in the "infallible" category.

Last time I looked into this, there was no solid agreement amongst Catholics about when the Pope was infallible, although in the last century or so they have been trying to nail down the circumstances.

The current definition, assuming the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Conditions_for_teaching...) has it right, basically says the Pope is not infallible on any point that is subject to scientific test. There is the possibility of two or more "infallible" statements being mutually contradictory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Theological_history

Still, there does not seem to be a definitive list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_declaratio...

Furthermore it seems to be clear that the concept is an invention circa 1000AD-1300AD

/Bevin

Bevin, the conditions are pretty clear. The Pope has to be speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals and it must be clear that he is speaking infallibly. It is a bit more involved, but that will do for now. However, there are other ways that the Church exercises infallibility. For example in an ecumenical council or if all the bishops in the world unite to teach something infallibly. There is also the ordinary infallibility of the Church that is exercised definitely, but not in an extraordinary way. As with some many things it is not as simple as it appears at first glance. There are also other levels of doctrine where certain teachings are not considered infallible, but nonetheless authoritative. While the concept of papal infallibility as now understood developed dogmatically it did not just appear out of thin air. The authority of the Pope is attested to in ancient sources and there was no appeal from the first See. "Peter has spoken through Leo."

For a list of doctrines and their respective level of authority you might try Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a rather weighty tome. The catechism is of course a good source and if you are familiar with our terminology you can tell the authority of various teachings in it. The Church has attempted to avoid using extraordinary forms of infallibility. Contrary to current wisdom the Church leaves much open to debate and further investigation and development.

Bill Newell,
I never noticed the Emanuel issue before. Here's how I've been considering Christ's son-ship. Like the first Adam who came expressly from the hand of God, the "last Adam" was conceived by God's Holy Ghost. While both are sons of God, the latter was the only begotten by virtue of being the one who came through birth. It seems to be in regard to that event that both Luke and the writer of Hebrews cite Psalm 2:7, "Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee." (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). Isaiah's often cited prophecy declares that among his names would be "The mighty God, The everlasting Father."
Is it possible that Christ was just just a fully man as was the first Adam, and differed from him in his total submission to the Father's will? As a result of which, Paul tells us, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Precisely what is meant by "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" I'm not sure.
But if Christ was both the Son and "the everlasting Father, is it possible that the Son was in fact the Father inhabiting the man Christ Jesus to the extent that he would let him? Let's not forget, the incarnation is one of our theology's two great mysteries.

@David Read: Come on. After all these decades I still love Abba, and Bony M just as much.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

"By the SDA Manual, the SDA leave everything open to debate, but in practise that debate is not welcomed or even tolerated by members, congregational leaders, or anyone else in the hierachy."

To be sure, debate and dissent are not welcomed or encouraged. But I wouldn't go as far as to say they are forbidden.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

Elaine...

I was recently wondering about you. It's good to see you back after a respite. Hope all is well.

Frank

Bevin, the explanation is rather technical canonically and theologically. It isn't really connected to the Trinity. I am trying to avoid having this thread become another one about Catholicism. That happens too often as it is. Canons 747-754 in the Code of Canon Law cover these issues. Another document, Ad Tuendem Fidem, explains further.

An example would be the impossibility of women's ordination to the priesthood. The Pope did not exercise extraordinary infallibility. Instead he declared definitively that it was part of the deposit of faith and therefore that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church rendered the doctrine infallible. This interpretation was confirmed by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in a Responsum ad Dubium. This is to be held "definitively" by the faithful. Therefore, although it is not a "dogma" it is irreformable doctrine. It was done in a manner to show that the Pope does not arbitrarily exercise extraordinary infallibility. This is just the quick and easy version, it is very complex. But you get the idea.

Bevin, it means that it cannot ever happen period. Roma locuta est...

Don Tucie,
I find it interesting that Peter, as reported in his sermon in Acts 2, and again talking to Cornelius, does not take the opportunity to declare Jesus as God, but describes him as a man exalted by God and who received the Holy Spirit. That does not sound like the conventional idea of the trinity.
What Jew reading the OT would understand that God was going to become man to pay for man's sins?

The stories and descriptions are not necessarily the truth... they are about the truth.
we all need to read a little more, think a little more deeply, and putting aside preconceived ideas, discover more... about God.

jj, I don't think I have ever been called that here before lol. I have been called many other things though lol.

Fr. Jim wrote:
"jj, I don't think I have ever been called that here before lol."

Our favorite priest has never been called a scholar and a gentleman here, maybe for a good reason...

Classy A7, classy. That's exactly what Jesus would have said.

Fr. Jim, thanks for taking the time to share your views with us here. Very much appreciated. Sorry for the hating you get by those who hold themselves to be closest to the truth. The God they serve and in whose name they act is unknown to me.

Edgar,

If you haven't, sstudy Panentheism and Hermetics.

Reread the teachings of Jesus in light of these concepts.

For me it became very clear.

I understand, as you know, there are plenty out there who think they have the corner on Christianity, and if you don't believe as they do, you can't call yourself one.

For the public in general, "Christian" has certain meanings, and if you mean something different, then you may confuse people and have to spend time explaining.

I believe that anyone who is following the teachings of Jesus can call themselves a Christian. They don't have to agree with others about how to interpret those teachings. I see the teachings in a completely different light than the orthodox, have a great affinity with Panentheism, and consider myself a Christian--a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Edgar,

My answer is no. The Golden Rule does not distinguish Christianity from Judaism; in fact, Jesus was quoting Rabbi Hillel, who taught it before Him. Jesus' morals were the Ten Commandments (Luke 18:18-20), and not only Judaism but most other religions have moral codes similar to the Ten Commandments.

What makes a Christian is not a distinct moral code---virtually all religions and faith traditions believe in a generally similar morality---but the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, through whom God made all things, and that Jesus became flesh, lived a perfect life, was crucified, died, buried and resurrected from the dead, and will come again at the end of the age, and that we are saved by grace through faith, because God has punished our sin in Christ on the cross, and made Jesus' perfect life imputable to us.

So I don't think someone can dispense with all the supernatural, religious parts of Christianity, and just embrace Golden Rule moralism, and still call himself a Christian.

Score. 1 : 1
---------------
Game - Can Edgar call himself a Christian (He desperately wants to but he does not want to be charged with false advertising)

Godisttoo : says Yes
David Read : says No

WHAT DOES EDGAR DO?

For David Read's sake, I do not believe in a golden rule.

I believe what Jesus told the rich young ruler. Jesus said that was basically it. I believe I was 'born again' after reading John 3 : 17 outside an ancient church overlooking the harbor of Stockholm, Sweden in September 2009.

So can I call myself a Christian?

Puzzled but desperate to find answer

Edgar

Edgar,

Edgar does.

All David Read can do is tell you is, whether, in his judging of your beliefs, he considers you a Christian. You get to decide what you want to call yourself.

David Read's post well exemplifies what all kinds of "orthodoxies" have been doing for centuries: hijack the term "Christianity" for themselves only. This lead to anathemas, excommunications, and auto da fe's. My definition is simple: a Christian is a follower of Jesus and his teaching. Of course, we interpret and understand the teaching of Jesus differently. Bart Ehrman has written extensively about how there was never a Christian "golden age" of doctrinal unity, but always many different Christianities based on different interpretations, especially at the very beginning.

Let's go back to the teaching of Jesus and the famous Good Samaritan parable. In it, Jesus condemns those who practised all the right doctrines and glorifies a heretic (Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, worshipped "incorrectly and in the wrong place, and there was a lot of hostility between the Jews and them). In other words, the teaching of Jesus seems to me: how you live is FAR more important what how you believe (and what you believe).

David is reducing Christianity to the absurd by insisting on literal interpretation of what was clearly intended to be read as symbolic. In this sense I think he is going directly against the teaching contained in the Good Samaritan parable. But I won't say that David should not call himself a Christian - I'm far too liberal to do this, and will not try hijack the term - because I oppose all those who do.

Jag

Thank you

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

"Perhaps you could explain to me why it is okay to trash me and my faith in a bigoted fashion?"

Maybe if you were paying attention to what you write and how you answer (or avoid to answer to what is being said) you will notice it is you who is trashing yourself and the church you represent. You call bigot everyone who disagree with you even when they give sensible answers. You don't take into consideration what other people say. You second-guess people and invent things that they never said. Talking with you is in fact not conversing at all since you don't really answer to what is said but keep on repeating the same charades.

In fact, you are our worse enemy.

"BUT not an Old Testament God, but the type of God that Jesus preached of."

But the Father the Son prayed to and proclaimed in the power of the Spirit was the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Jesus saw no discontinuity.

Bill,

While Jesus may have seen no discontinuity, he had certainly reinterpreted the image of God tha ancient Hebrews knew from their scriptures. In fact, he was even bold enough to oppose it, as in the famous "you were told that... and I tell you...". He opposed the stoning of women, clearly prescribed in the Torah - and that's just for starters.

The God of Jesus was in fact so removed from the image of God presented in some Hebrew scriptures, that Marcion decided that all OT described an evil God and rejected it. Marcion was not entirely wrong - but luckily today we know a lot more about how the Hebrew Scriptures came to be written and collected and we simply do not have to reject them all.

@ Fr. Jim, Bevin, et al,

I've found the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia quite helpful as a resource for Catholic teachings and history. I've pasted in a couple of links specifically relating to the infallibility question:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04675b.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Yes, Edgar, and please do not miss the fact that Isaiah 53 was not originally written about Jesus (as it is clear from the context, and conveniently never mentioned by apologists), but the text was reinterpreted (in a midrashic manner) after the fact to "fit" what happened to Jesus.

Jag, Philip told the Ethiopian that Isaiah 53 was about Jesus:

"So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him."

Edgar seemed to conceding that what Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch is normative Christian doctrine, and I was merely pointing out what Philip actually told the Ethiopian eunuch.

Edgar, your public declaration is not finally the point. The point is what you actually believe. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you don't believe in Christian doctrine you are not a Christian. Not in my opinion, anyway, but then why are you concerned about my opinion?

David Read's Opinion
------------------------
David:

Why am I concerned about your opinion?

Because you say you are a Christian and Christians fellowship with each other. I want to know if I can fellowship with you as a Christian.

My public confession of being a Christian apparently is not enough. Why would I not believe what I publically confess

So does David Read put newly met Christians under suspicion? I believe you are a lawyer and can understand your need to be rigorous. Hence possibly the need for a 'normative' definition.

What if I revert to my original label go 'Godist', or label myself as proto-Christian, would that be enough to worship with you as Christians'

In hope

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Why the big doubt about Isa 53 when Jesus in His first sermon following the tempations in the wilderness went to His home synagogoue and took up the scroll and began reading Isa. 61 and having put the scroll down said:"This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

The theme of the entire Old Testament is "He is Expected!" Tom Z

Why is it that it is proper to question God but touch Ellen White and your toast?

Tom Z

Ron,
Yes-- terms matter. Do you remember Lewis's final Narnia book, 'The Last Battle'? In this apocalyptic tale, the dwarfs turn against both sides-- "the dwarfs are for the dwarfs!" they cry, and they proceed to launch their arrows at either side with devastating results. Note, as well, that in his story, Lewis identifies the real battle as a conflict not between the Saracens and the Christians, but between the merely political and the 'true believers' on both sides. My mother read the Narnia stories to me when I was about 8 years old, and I still find consolation in that scene where the Saracen prince unexpectedly finds himself in the Narnian Paradise. To my mind, the dwarfs represent the very worst outcome: total unbelief in everything but the self and its immediate needs. As Francis Schaeffer predicted in his own version of the apocalypse, ultimately, the West will be reduced to nothing but a dwarfed desire for "personal peace and affluence."
As Jesus said, we are 'like a city set on a hill'. But we must be loyal to the text here. Tropes function because they link two unlike things. The 'Kingdom of Heaven' is both 'like' a 'city on a hill' and it is utterly different from it too. I would preserve that difference. What 'shape' does that take? Well, to answer that question, I can only tell another story. I teach stories exclusively. My students always want me to give them the 'interpretation' so that they can repeat it in their final exam essays. I resist this and prefer to tell them another story by way of interpretation. I teach them to argue a thesis, and then I teach them to laugh at their own efforts. 'We see through a glass darkly...'. It's not that we can live in no-mans land, or that we should ever avoid taking sides, but rather that we can choose to always live in expectation of a better land and a city 'not made by human hands'.
I so enjoy Chaucer's ending to 'Troilus and Criseyde'. After a long and troubled life embroiled in brutal war, lost love, and philosophical wandering, Troilus finds himself dead. As his soul travels to the lunar region of the 8th sphere, Chaucer narrates a moment when Troilus looks down on the 'little earth' and has a little chuckle-- he just plain laughs at the 'former things'. That transcendent perspective must be cultivated within Mutability. It is that little chuckle that makes possible the true martyrs, the saintly decision to stand up against the majority, and gives courage to the single mother to believe that her 'labors will not be lost'. What would our polemics be like in this church if when we pounded home our most salient points, we indulged in a little, saintly smile? The comedic vision allows us that luxury, and it protects us from that deadly kind of earnestness that would kill rather than 'commit a known sin'! Cheers, Karl

Would someone clarify where, in the Biblical narrative, the concept of the Father/Son God is first unambiguously introduced without being associated with a Messianic prediction? Although still hotly debated, God's self-description as the plural God (Gen. 1:26) appears to be consistently followed throughout the OT by numerous instances where only a single Being is in actual dialogue with the protagonist(s). The only time I find the Father/Son imagery is in a Messianic prophetic context: Is. 9:6, Ps. 2: 7,12, Dan 7:13-14.

Forgive me Bill I guess this might be down to my fundamentalist upbringing of bible quoting but a text that I cannot place off the top of my head but is probably somewhere in Matthew 16 or thereabouts records a conversation between Jesus and the disciples as to what the Jews and indeed the disciples though might be Jesus' identity:
'And He said to them and who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Onalenna

Anon7, so you don't see a problem with calling us the antichrist or beast etc. You see such things as perfectly reasonable and that any response on our part is unreasonable. That is your problem.

Jirka,
Interesting name, given your post -

Don't you get it, - only SDAs pay any attention to the GC. Even at that, how can this church claim to be "Bible only" and then elaborate stuff by claiming better understanding from anywhere else?

"Fr. Jim:
Jirka, I consider the Great Controversy to be false. Asking me that is like asking a Jewish person if they have read Mein Kampf. Those who claim the Catholic Church is the Beast are themselves the real Beast."

I understand your reaction. I am sure that Israel reacted the same way when God called them "harlot". But was God wrong? No. He used a strong language to convey a message to His sinning people.

No one likes to be criticized but the issue is to know if the critic is right or wrong. Feeling insulted (or not) is not a criterion to judge if a criticism is appropriate or not. This is your problem. You choose to judge issues according to your feelings and not your reason. If you keep on doing this, you will stay in darkness.

So Ellen White is God. I judge by the criteria of objective truth not mere feelings. GC is often factually wrong and is propaganda rather then history. It is as insulting to us as Mein Kampf is to Jews.

Ron,
Well told and well applied (I do not classify applying a narrative to life the same as interpreting it in that particular way that the colleges insist upon).

I will read that story for myself now. I will read it over and over until it gets worked into my fibrous soul. I think I might even teach it (well, 'teach' as in read it aloud in class and then ask the students to take 20 minutes to think about it-- or a lifetime!)

Your points about different kinds of laughter are well made. I don't recall any laughter in Dante's Hell.
There is nothing funny about sin. The true laughter only comes in when we see the 'glory' that eclipses the pain of trying to be important all the time. There is alot of this in Lewis's 'The Great Divorce'-- (especially in the encounter between the murderer and his victim!).

One day Karl Popper was walking down a street in Vienna with Adler. Popper, as I recall, mentions some data that he thinks might challenge Adler's theory. Of course, Adler instantly affirms that this data only further confirms his theory-- not because he had done a study or even because he had already thought the issue through, but because his theory had become the 'grand' narrative that could explain everything. Popper then has an epiphany of his own-- namely, that Adler's theory was 'pseudo-science', because it was not falsifiable. I have never met an argument, a theology, a thesis, or even a story that could explain everything. But I have, at times, behaved as if I had. God have mercy!

I see that the drive to ordain women in the SDA church has some merit. But it is not a perfect agenda with a perfect argument. The same can be said of the other side too! Both sides behave rather too much like Adler and Freud-- they pretend more than they can really deliver. But that is what we like-- we want to 'have the Truth' in a consumable package so that we can get on with the business of living happily (Schaeffer's 'personal peace and affluence'). To this extent, I now believe that we have become 'secular Christians'. We really worship the premise of all the secular utopias-- namely, that everything depends upon us. And once I have a powerful enough theory (or methodology or theology), I can enjoy the fruits of being able to always be right (and get a 'following' to boot!). This, in turn, substitutes for an actual relationship with God and the Bible. But it is a poor substitute-- and most of us know it too.

I now feel that God only distributes Truth through the collective imagination, as it were. Each of us contributing a story, a witness, an insight, or even a vision. Some bring more to the picture than others, and some paint scenes that only God sees (remember Lewis's 'char woman' in the Great Divorce... she is the 'Queen of Heaven'!). The problems all begin when individuals insist that their particular offering is all that anybody really needs to hear. My story, my theory, my theology, my experience, my voice, my book--- " My Precious". When my particular emphasis becomes all that matters, well then we end up fighting alot. I don't mind conflict, but I get tired of the posturing.

A practical suggestion: often the Church has what they term a 'Year of Evangelism'. I think we ought consider proclaiming a 'Year of Repentance'. This would involve a complete moratorium on all public evangelism, a complete moratorium on the discussion of all 'issues', and a total commitment on all levels to individual 'self-examination'. All Sermons would be limited to reading the Bible (yes, just public readings without commentary). No Adventist scholars would publish a thing. I don't know what to do with the Seminary-- maybe they could all take up gardening and meditation for a year (Ellen White would concur, I think). What would happen then? Cheers, Karl

I've always wondered if a discovery in 1890 by Bro. J. E. Robinson played any part in moving the Adventist Church into accepting the Trinity Doctrine? Robinson lived in Battle Creek where the Adventists were headquartered and was assigned to go to Washington D. C. in December 1889 to learn more about proposed legislation in Congress that would not allow anyone to perform secular labor or business on Sunday. Adventists at the time felt this was the final sign that Christ was coming soon. During his visit to the capitol, he discovered some recent decisions rendered by the District Supreme Court that could have a bearing on his concerns about Sunday prohibitions. The Court decided that existing Sunday laws were no longer operative and recommended that legislation be introduced to correct the situation.

For our purposes here, while talking to a lawyer about this Sunday legislation decision, Robinson learned that the existing Sunday law was strict and required an offender to pay a fine of 200 lbs of tobacco (since a good Sabbath-keeper opposed tobacco useage... how could an Adventist violator meet the fine). Also, to his surprise in talking to the lawyer in Washington he discovered there was a law on the books that anyone who publicly denied the Trinity as commonly held, “Shall on the first offense, have his tongue bored through, and for the third offense, suffer death without the benefit of the clergy.” (Advent Review & Sabbath Herald. January 21, 1890.) The Adventists at this time were Unitarians. Might this have been enough pressure to sway the Battle Creek Adventists to begin thinking about adopting the Trinity viewpoint (which of course occurred a few years later .... quietly without much fanfare).

Cheers
tjoe

Karl, your statement about "secular Christians" made me think of Bonhoeffer's allusive statements about "religionless Christianity". He was trying to come to terms, as I understand him, with the fact that the whole superstructure of German Christianity proceeded uninterrupted by Naziism. He includes in his indictment even those who really ARE religious in a certain sense. He seems to be grasping for a form of Christianity that retains its Christian witness by being, ironically, more rather than less "secular" in age in which the forms of religion have become essentially hollow vessels (or in which the very language of traditional religiosity has become degraded and contaminated by its proximity to political evil). I read him to be saying that authentic discipleship has something to do with radical solidarity, which in a "secular" age now means entering quite radically and fearlessly into secular life (although with Charles Taylor and other thinkers we should probably be talking about a post-secular life). Here is a letter worth pondering that Bonhoeffer wrote to Eberhard Bethage while in prison:

_____

"...You would be surprised, and perhaps even worried, by my theological thoughts and the conclusions that they lead to; and this is where I miss you most of all, because I don't know anyone else with whom I could so well discuss them to have my thinking clarified. What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience — and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious any more. Even those who honestly describe themselves as "religious" do not in the least act up to it, and so they presumably mean something quite different by "religious."

Our whole nineteen-hundred-year-old Christian preaching and theology rest on the "religious a priori" of mankind. "Christianity" has always been a form — perhaps the true form — of "religion." But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was historically conditioned and transient form of human self-expression, and if therefore man becomes radically religionless — and I think that that is already more or less the case (else how is it, for example, that this war, in contrast to all previous ones, is not calling forth any "religious" reaction?) — what does that mean for "Christianity?" It means that the foundation is taken away from the whole of what has up to now been our "Christianity," and that there remain only a few "last survivors of the age of chivalry," or a few intellectually dishonest people, on whom we can descend as "religious." Are they to be the chosen few? Is it on this dubious group of people that we are to pounce in fervor, pique, or indignation, in order to sell them our goods? Are we to fall upon a few unfortunate people in their hour of need and exercise a sort of religious compulsion on them? If we don't want to do all that, if our final judgment must be that the western form of Christianity, too, was only a preliminary stage to a complete absence of religion, what kind of situation emerges for us, for the church? How can Christ become the Lord of the religionless as well? Are there religionless Christians? If religion is only a garment of Christianity — and even this garment has looked very different at different times — then what is a religionless Christianity?

Barth, who is the only one to have started along this line of thought, did not carry it to completion, but arrived at a positivism of revelation, which in the last analysis is essentially a restoration. For the religionless working man (or any other man) nothing decisive is gained here. The questions to be answered would surely be: What do a church, a community, a sermon, a liturgy, a Christian life mean in a religionless world? How do we speak of God — without religion, i.e. without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness, and so on? How do we speak (or perhaps we cannot now even "speak" as we used to) in a "secular" way about "God?" In what way are we "religionless-secular" Christians, in what way are we the εκ-κλησια, those who are called forth, not regarding ourselves from a religious point of view as specially favored, but rather as belonging wholly to the world? In that case Christ is no longer an object of religion, but something quite different, really the Lord of the world. But what does that mean? What is the place of worship and prayer ina religionless situation? Does the secret discipline, or alternatively the difference (which I have suggested to you before) between the penultimate and ultimate, take on a new importance here?"

_____

I sometimes think of this line of Bonhoeffer's when I hear about the latest this or that evangelism effort since it strikes me as a pretty apt description of what we do: "...a few intellectually dishonest people, on whom we can descend as "religious." Are they to be the chosen few? Is it on this dubious group of people that we are to pounce in fervor, pique, or indignation, in order to sell them our goods?"

If you decide to lead a march on Silver Spring to call for a one year moratorium on all evangelism, I shall march with you.

@A7...To continue to define "the beast" in the same terms as the vigilantes of VIctorian New England, revivalist anti-Romish and Puritan America is extremely naive. Surely the beast is best defined as "anti-Christ", denying humanity and destroying what is God's and what is man. (or woman)
@others... How can we best define "the best" in 2012 - it it within all of us, or, in our devotion and relationship have we escaped it?

YES, Edgar can call himself a Christian. Even David R can call himself a Christian, even though he wants to exclude others who, like himself, wish to call themselves Christians,... Certainly no formula or definition of the Godhead is necessary. We are all here to humbly learn from Jesus.

If you identify with at least some of the teachings of Jesus and are attracted by the values he shared about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatitudes, if you are attracted to the kind of person Jesus was (n the Gospels), if you would sit at the feet of Jesus if he were here today....

There is no single thing one has to believe about Jesus; each will come to believe in her or his own way.
Nobody follows or even understands everything Jesus said or did. There are no social or psychological or economic or racial requirements to being a Christian. it is open to whoever wants. There are no restrictions to participation in the Kingdom, just follow the yearnings of love, curiosity, compassion, justice, and hope.

Hi Karl
You posted...

Karl Wilcox - Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:21
"Ron,
Do you remember when Jesus told the Jews that when they convert the gentiles, they make them, "twice the sons of Hell as themselves?". That text haunts me. Jesus also voiced this dark interrogative: "Will there be faith upon the earth when I return?". I've never heard sermons on either of these texts. But both denote a people for whom the blessing has become a curse."

Right on!!

I have mentioned in a large SS class ,both as a teacher and as an attender, that the SDA denomination can be the most DANGEROUS organization to belong to...yet can be the most beneficial depending on if one is IN or OUT of Christ. As far as I am concerned..most appear to be OUT of Christ...and IN the WORLD.

I recommend a book..."Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" for all clergy.
The 2nd half of the book is an exposition of MATT 23 in which the verse you posted is discussed.

The SDA denominational approach actually produces this type of pew warmer. The same thing happened to the Jews.
They became fanatic , insubordinate, gainsayers. (Rom 10:2 & 21). The teaching approach of SDA turns many SDA into proud, paranoid and passive religious freaks.
I posted early on in this thread asking how the SS lesson can be relevant to love, life, people and relationships..yet notice how this thread is just the typical garbage of polemics.

Most should not be surprised at NOT hearing a sermon on much of MATT 23 because most clergy do not teach bible books, they preach topical sermons. It is known by competent bible expositors that an expository sermon takes twice as long as a topical sermon.

If I was Ted Wilson, I would advise that all seminary leadership AND Ministerial secretaries from Jerry Page to all lower conference level secretaries PUSH for all SDA clergy to start teaching New Testament books and stop preaching their CHEAPO non fat dry milk typical topical sermons. I would monitor the results and FIRE those who are inept and perpetuate the dumbing down/danergous status quo. Agitate, agitate, agitate, then terminate, terminate, terminate.

Notice that the CLERGY are the target in this fairly well know OT verse..

Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because THOU hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no....PRIEST... to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

"If I was Ted Wilson, I would advise that all seminary leadership AND Ministerial secretaries from Jerry Page to all lower conference level secretaries PUSH for all SDA clergy to start teaching New Testament books and stop preaching their CHEAPO non fat dry milk typical topical sermons. I would monitor the results and FIRE those who are inept and perpetuate the dumbing down/danergous status quo. Agitate, agitate, agitate, then terminate, terminate, terminate." - Jim Roberts

But, since you are not Ted Wilson, the emphasis will continue to be on the POST-NEW TESTAMENT red books!!!!! And those who refuse to do that will be the ones fired!!! And those "clergy" who agitate, will be terminated... So simple, isn't it???

Hi Elaine, great you are back...everything okay?

Aage

Unfoirtunately it is only the RC church that fits being "the whore of Revelation". That is plain from even a casual reading of the relevant texts.

When that interpetation is reinforced by the words of the prophet one is not bigoted to speak the truth.

Fr Jim is stubbormly closing his eyes and mind to the most obvious truth but that is understandable. What is not understandable is why the SDA church the fountain of "present truth" left their orginal pure Arian doctrine to drink from the cup of error proffered by Rome.

Jesus said that a spring cannot offer polluted and pure water at the same time.It must follow then that if the Council of Nicea was wrong to adopt Sunday worship it was also wrong in adopting Trinitarianism.

There may be some hope for the RCs because they do not have present truth but there is no way of escape for SDAs who adopt such grevious error.

abe,
When does "present truth" become past truth?

Shane,
The Trinity, as my article tries to show, seems to express a 'priority' of persons in the sense that God the Father has priority over God the Son, but the Son is not subordinate to the Father. Yes, this does not fit too well into a post-lapsarian consciousness, since we tend to only think in terms of binary opposition or the either/or of Hierarchy vs. Equality. The Cross re-introduces the idea of 'priority' without subordination, but this does not mean, as I read the Bible, that we should embrace the secular notion of equality as total sameness, nor should we erase the concept of 'priority' in the Church. Ellen White states in Patriarchs and Prophets that before the 'Fall', Adam and Eve were 'equals' but that Eve was not to dominate or 'control' Adam, and Adam was not to 'trample Eve under His Feet'. At the same time, EGW says that Adam was supposed to 'protect' Eve. As I literary scholar, I can tell you that Ellen White is using some very sophisticated rhetoric here-- I think her description fits remarkably well with Augustine's, Tertullian's, and Calvin's attempts to explain the paradox of 'Equality in Hierarchy'-- to coin a phrase. I would be happy to look at the actual Latin terms if anyone is interested, But Calvin offers a very nice analysis of the key Church Father's views in his 'Institutes'.

How do we implement this concept of the Trinity? Well, for one thing, we might back up a bit and ask ourselves how the Trinity doctrine might speak to the current debate over women's ordination. Are we seeking a model for incorporating women in ministry that stays true to the relational dynamics in the God-Head as revealed to us in Scripture, or are we just aping a secular model? I fear that we are. I would add that conservative Adventists can be 'secular' too, its just that their secular models have more history on their side. Those who disagree with me might ask how I propose to implement a 'paradox'-- well, I don't know, but I think that God does. As I see it, secular solutions to human problems always err on the side of crude simplicity. When implemented they fail, but with time and added complexity they grow into cultural edifices that nobody really trusts, but which everybody needs. The Bible offers counter-intuitive solutions that seem doomed from the start-- therefore we avoid them. But Faith must ultimately take these risks. Thank-you for your response, Karl

Ontology versus Postmodernism
---------------------------------------------
Karl

1. Would you agree at least that the historical  Nicene debate and creed was ontological/metaphysical?

2. Would you agree that your essay is to try and make sense of this doctrinal statement in the 21st  Century? Generally for Christians, more specifically for Adventists.

3. Would you agree that your essay does not approach the doctrine from a philosophical/metaphysical point of view (maybe lack of expertise, disinterest, no point as it is a dead end?) but from a literary theory, postmodern hermeneutic? ( I understand you are a Professor of English)

4. Do you honestly think, if the above is correct and that I understand you correctly, that your method will work?

5. Are you interested in reality/ontology or just 'meaning'? (whatever that means)

6. Do you think that our professional backgrounds affect how we look at things. I am a medical doctor and maybe considered concrete (although I am supposed to believe in quarks and nitwitions) while you are a literary type?

7. You mention that EGW was using a 'sophisticated piece of rhetoric'. Was she? Or is that how you massage the evidence?

Karl, if I have understood you correctly, will you get away with your method? (please forgive me if I have misunderstood you)

Why not just say, the Nicene view is metaphysics, and just like David Hume burn the creed? Why the literary postmodern acrobats?

By the way, would you walk with me on the Road to Emmaus?

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Referred by a Spectrumite as having a 'dumbed down, hippy dippy, New Age version' Christian view

Adventism is more than Bible Belt fundamentalism,
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Andreas

So what is it?

To call myself an Adventist, what do I need to believe, be, do...?

What is the bottom line for you to accept me as an Adventist?

This is a real, serious, life significant issue for me. If you read my previous posts here you will know what my concern was

I have been a self proclaimed 'Godist'. I want to be a Christian. I stated my position. I asked for help. One person told me that my position was 'dumbed down, hippy dippy, New Age' Christian. They were of the opinion that I could not call myself a Christian.

Three people have said that they would recognize me as a Christian

WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT TO ME?

Because I do now want to walk to Emmaus all alone. Only by walking with someone, dare I go, and perchance meet a stranger?

I am coming from the outside, trying to get in. I am not trying to decide whether to leave.

So is Adventism: Bible fundamentalism + more? What is that more?

How on earth can anyone become a Christian or an Adventist, when no one can agree on what it is? 

I knock at the door and everyone gives me a different key

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Andreas, I may be presumptuous but I have a feeling you would walk with me to Emmaus. You are most welcome.

Why was the very name “Adam”, as given to Man by God Himself, literally a collective noun, with no plural number, and this name can mean both an individual of the kind, as well as the whole group in collective? And why was this particular name given to the very specie that was made “in the image of God” to pattern his nature? Why did Eve take the very name of her husband, the head (Gen. 5:2), despite there was one true Adam, or the male at the beginning? Why did God see them, Adam and Eve, as “one flesh” or “of one substance”, as if they are one being, and the wife today is to be loved as if a man is loving himself, his own body (Eph. 5:22-30)? Despite Eve was already also called Adam, why did Adam call “Eve” the “mother of all living” in Gen. 3:20, and then her name just happen to literally mean “the giver of life”? Why did God commission Man to multiply and “fill” (“replenish”) the earth, and it just so happened that all of Man’s manifold descendants all over the planet, as separate beings, can be expressed in the singular of being his personal “seed” (e.g. Gen. 12:7;Gal. 3:16, 29)? And why is the “seed” of Man (the medium of his life) always pictured as proceeding from the father figure, and yet that seed cannot be the manifold descendants of the male or head figure alone without the union of both male and female? Why does God focus on the head of a human group as being representative of the whole group? For instance, why was Adam and Eve together called “the man” or “him” and “he” in Gen. 3:22-24, and yet more than one individual was driven out of the Garden of Eden? Why are women, who originally came directly from the being and substance of the man/male, called “the glory of the man” (1 Cor. 11:7), just as Jesus was/is also called God’s “glory” and the “exact copy of his person” (Heb. 1:3)? Why are wives, sons, and daughters alike, given the same name the father has? Why are families and genealogy in the Bible traced through the father alone, as head of the family, despite a male alone cannot procreate? Why does Jesus, like in a marriage union, see the Church so much a part of himself, his body, that when Paul (out of ignorance) initially persecuted the Church, he was charged with persecuting Christ himself? Why has death passed on all men because of the failings of Adam, the head of the race? Why does the story of Israel (Jacob) mean that salvation, blessings and curses in the Old Testament were passed down to his whole family (in all generations) through the head ancestor? Why do prophecies of kingdoms and powers (in 2 Thess. 2, Daniel 2, 7, 8, and Revelation 13, for instance) focus on the head of those kingdoms or powers as representative of the whole nation, kingdom or power? Why is eternal life and future glory of humanity assured through one person (e.g. Ps. 8:4-6; Heb. 2:6-11), i.e. through Jesus, the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29) the human forerunner, the human ‘first fruits’, the second Adam, the head or “father” (Heb. 2:10-14) of the “children” he was given, or the head of the Church body he is one with? And why does the Bible say all Christians are the same personal Seed (Gal. 3:29), and that they are the many members of Christ, and yet there is still one true Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-14), the head, and he is the one true Seed of Abraham? Could it be that COMPOSITE UNITY of a closely related group (of like nature) or a unit of humans is best represented by, and is centered in THE HEAD of that group?

God the Father is called the one true God, the Head of Christ, and is a separate individual being from Christ, and yet, despite a separate being himself (said to be “sent” by the Father to us), Jesus is depicted as God’s divine right arm (Is. 53:1, 2), his Wisdom and Power (1 Cor. 1:14), his Reason, or Logos (John 1:1), etc. Likewise the Holy Spirit, despite having his own mind and will (Rom. 8:27;1 Cor.12:11), despite being distinct enough to be “sent” by both Father and Son (John 14:26; 15:26), despite distinct enough to intercede to the Father on behalf of praying Christians (Rom. 8:26), despite manifested at times even in human form (Ez. 8:1-4) and despite exhibiting his own distinct personal characteristics (e.g. Eph. 4:30), yet is depicted as “the hand of the Lord God” (Ez. 8:1-4) or “the finger of God” (Luke 11:20;Matt. 12:28), while at other times depicted as the inseparable mind of God (1 Cor. 2:11), and still at other times depicted as his “omnipresence” (Ps. 139:7-10). Why is God using all of this imagery, regarding all three (i.e. Father, Son, and Spirit who shares the same name; Matt. 28:19), to picture them as if they are a single divine being in operation; a single being who has one head, one body, one spirit, and one name? And remember no part of a being can be LOGICALLY considered as inferior to him, or not be considered equally a member of that being himself. And why is it that the sum total of an individual human being, made in the “image of God”, just happens to be biblically presented as a threefold union of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23)? And why did God not just use the imagery of one individual being in operation to illustrate his operational unity with His Son and Spirit, but, more importantly, ALSO used the family union at the very beginning to image how God exists and operates?
All of the foregoing relates to a deep spiritual principle found all over the Bible that many people have either missed, or ignored, and hence why the nature of the Godhead, as faintly “imaged” in the family and in man himself from the very beginning, is not properly understood.

I ask, was it simply Adam’s leadership in the first family, or he being the first human creation, or being the one true Adam (“the Man of the house”) at the beginning, and the only biologically un-begotten human male that sets him apart as Man in the truest sense? Was it only Adam, the male, that bore or had rights to the family name “Adam” (see Gen. 5:1, 2), or was he the only one to be considered Man/human in the highest or truest sense of the word, simply because he (or his substance) was the source of Eve, the female, or because he was the “head” (‘lord’) of his wife? Certainly not!! Yet, those who focus on headship, leadership, and ultimate group authority as the measure of true God-hood would certainly like to think so about the Father in the divinity sense, and would want to create ‘distances’ between the members of the divine specie in terms of their TRUE nature, and the highest honor they deserve.

WHY I AM NOT THE USUAL TRINITARIAN

This leads me now to make it clear that despite this writer accepts, for the convenience of communication, the application of the word trio/trinity/triad when considering the Godhead, yet I am not a traditional or orthodox Trinitarian, since I do not believe that Father, Son and Spirit are literally one Being united indivisibly as one substance literally. I believe simply what the Bible teaches; that the Father and Son (and Spirit) are “one” as the members of the Church and Christ himself are “one”. They’re SEPARATE BEINGS, OR “THE THREE HOLIEST BEINGS IN HEAVEN”, but one as the Church is. Anything else is futile speculation. I also don’t believe that the Godhead (as seen in Catholic pictorials) is best represented with three heads or faces of Jesus on one neck, because the biblical imagery God uses nowhere supports that principle. Only the Father is the Head of the divinity of the Three; not Jesus!! This principle too is seen “imaged” in the threefold family union, where the members of the human family are all equally human, and all have the same family name of the head of thefamily, but only the father is the head of the family in status (remember though that his headship does not imply that his wife or his “seed”/children are inferior in nature to him).
The spiritual unity of the Godhead, pictured IN IMAGERY as operating like a human body is very apt indeed, but only as it applies as a metaphor; *not in literal terms as Roman Catholics believe God to be, i.e. in terms of *1 literal numeric indivisible substance, and depicted with three heads fused around one brain (as seen in Roman Catholic pictorials)!
No human body has more than one head. Period!! And that's why only the Father is the "head" of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3), with Christ pictured in biblical imagery as the "arm of the Lord" (Isaiah 53:1), and the Holy Spirit pictured as the "hand of the Lord" or "the finger of God" (Ez. 8:1-5 with Luke 11:20/Matt.12:28). All of this biblical imagery indicates the spiritual unity of the Godhead in the same terms as Christ and the Church is!! These Scriptures clearly indicate that it is OK to picture the Godhead operating *LIKE a human body with united members acting in perfect unison!! And while all members of that union are equal in nature, all exist together, and all members are just as important as the other, despite they function in different roles, yet the equality of nature does not mean that all members are the Head!! That's how the Godhead has chosen to be seen in imagery when God simply said from the beginning, *"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE!! Thus we need look no further, or strive to use man-made illustrations. God has already given us the illustrative pattern he himself invented, i.e. Man as an individual, and Man as a family--- all made in God's image!! [*IF YOU WISH TO READ MORE FROM THIS WRITER ON THE SUBJECT SEE MY FREE BOOK ONLINE :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64083102/Identifying-Errors-About-God-Made-Eas...

Edgar, my comments by no means were geared towards you, but - if "at" anybody, then at Fr. Jim whom I greatly appreciate and respect - and therefore would like to feel welcome. This includes an awareness that there is no need to be overly defensive in view of the occasional "attack".

As to your Emmaus road experience - thanks for trusting me enough to believe we might join. The Emmaus experience is a very intimate one, almost "mystic" experience. So maybe not one to be done on a public forum (though the fruit of the experience did become very public). It may be coincidence or providence or insight or.... that this imagery/analogy comes to you as the "trinity" is being discussed. Some writers already pointed out that the "doctrine of the trinity" is a feeble human attempt to describe the mystery of God (my words - I know). It also is an attempt to create an apology for some deep issues not in the gospels, but arising from the gospels. And yet, it is indeed the Emmaus experience we need, where we recognize God in the one who breaks bread with us. (Isn't it ironic, they didn't recognize Jesus in the rational explanations - but in the breaking of bread and afterwards understood much better....)

The main reason for the Jehovah’s Witnesses not understanding Jesus TRUE nature, as God’s “Only Begotten Son”, is in them not accepting Gen. 1:26, 27 literally. Their blunder is two-fold:

a) Over and over the Father Himself declares that Jesus is his “ONLY BEGOTTEN Son”, or His very special Son, His “unique” Son who is “the exact copy of his very person/being” (Heb. 1:1-3), who has “the fullness of the Godhead” or divine nature in Him (Col. 2:9), and so is unlike everyone else called “sons” of God. Now, their thesis, because of its failure to sufficiently/properly research, properly define words, and properly apply exegesis, it has reduced Jesus to being just like all other “sons” of God: a CREATURE!! If all other “sons” of God are CREATED beings (angels included), and if humans, as sons of God, are spiritually said to be “begotten again” by God, then in what sense could Jesus be said to be the “ONLY Begotten Son” God? Only in the sense no other son of God is. He was (past tense) literally “BEGOTTEN” of the very SUBSTANCE of God the Father Himself, by divine procreation or reproduction from the PERIOD the Bible calls “from everlasting”, or from eternity itself, since time is part of creation and was created by Jesus Himself (John 1:1-3). The known universe consists of (i) time and space (two invisible and intangible realities), as well as (ii) tangible matter making up all living and non-living things (as proper research would have indicated), and all three were the direct creation of Jesus Himself (Col. 1:16,17)…unless JWs wish to defeat John 1:2,3 or Col. 1:16,17, which I am sure they can’t, despite their futile attempts to (by even adding words to the Scriptures in John 1:1-3, and Col. 1:16, 17). How sad!
The Greek word “monogenes” for “only begotten”, as seen in John 3:16, means first, an only child literally born from a parent’s own substance within a specie, as well as a unique member of a group, and it is precisely the word God uses to describe Jesus, IN TOTAL DISTINCTION FROM ALL OTHERS CALLED “SONS” OF HIS. JWs, however, deny all of what Jesus Himself said, what His apostles taught, what almost all Christian apologists of the first three centuries proved they inherited from apostles by way of their preserved writings, and instead makes Jesus a CREATURE like you and me, like the angels, and like the known created universe. Heresy I say!! JESUS IS NOT A CREATURE, but by God’s own admission, over and over, he is his TRUE Son, and by right of coming from His substance (like Eve came directly from Adam’s substance, as part of the demonstration of God’s image in man at the very beginning), Jesus therefore, like no other ‘son’ of God ever can, has rights, by NATURAL INHERITANCE, to own ALL of what God Himself owns, including his name (as wives and literal sons do), his angels, his temple, his church, his children, his throne, his kingdom, et al). John 16:15. He even owns, in a spiritual way totally unknown to man, the very Spirit of God by natural right. Why? This is because he is a TRUE Son; NOT a creature.

I can excuse, as weak argumentation, someone saying that Jesus being God’s “only begotten Son” is an expression which means that Jesus is God in fullest nature, is “unique” as God’s divine Son, but not that he was literally “begotten” or “derived” at the beginning, since that would mean he is not eternal. Weak argumentation, but excusable as it exists among some today (e.g. among certain mainstream SD Adventist leaders, writers, and teachers)! Why? Because it is critical (salvific) to accept that Jesus, as the Son of God, is God in fullest nature, even if you blunder on the how He is PROPERLY deemed to be so! But I cannot excuse someone saying that Jesus being God’s only begotten Son means he is a creature and is not divine. That is heresy, the spirit of anti-Christ, and by it the very teaching of God’s image in man is being obliterated. Any definition of “God” is erroneous if it only focuses on the Father, just like any definition of “Man” is erroneous if it focuses only on the male, or father or head figure. What is true is that like Adam, the one true Man (the prototype of humanity) at the beginning, the Father is the one true God, the prototype of divinity, from all eternity. Yet if Eve, just like Jesus in relation to the Father, was not the person of Adam, in the role of headship, did that mean she was not human, but a false human, or a lesser human? You, the reader, already know, or by now SHOULD know the answer I am sure. Same with Jesus in principle, and even more, since he is not ‘a false God’, or ‘a lesser God’, but is “the exact copy of the Father’s person” (Heb. 1:3), and can even legitimately represent Him as “the Everlasting Father” (Is. 9:6)!

Ron,
I suppose the climbing analogy does seem a bit too 'heroic', but perhaps that is not all bad, given our societal tendency to valorize the 'humane' virtues to the near exclusion of 'courage'. What is 'kindness' without 'courage? Well, it seems to me that it amounts to nothing but talk (and it ends up as plain old cruelty-- "I'll just give all my students A's and B's and then we can all feel good and they will never be good at anything..."). I did not mean to imply that 'courage' can operate only in isolation from other persons. Did I imply that? Climbers work in tandem-- the relationship is key to all successful ascents. Soloists are the only Nietzschean climbers--

Beowulf begins a transformation of the pagan hero from gangster to Christian knight-- the Christian 'hero' defends the church (the commune), while the Greek hero dies to secure an undying personal reputation (I'm thinking of Hector's final moments). I do think that Christian courage often requires specific kinds of lonely vigils (and missions)-- but the true Christian knight has an eye constant to the welfare of group (as opposed to, say, Hector's useless and 'unkynde' choice to die). Blessings, Karl

Whoa there Derrick. Easy on the monologues and barrage of exclamation marks!!!! and CAPITAL LETTERS.

Karl, do you think Hector's death is really a useless and unkind choice? I think I'm more convinced by Rachel Bespaloff's reading, which I have written about here if it is of interest to you:

http://usc.academia.edu/rosborn/Papers/984382/Geometries_of_Force_in_Hom...

John Mark, GC calls us Satanic. We find that bigoted and insulting. You jumped the shark back in the 19th century.

abe, frankly those who believe we are the whore of babylon...they are the real whore of babylon. You are being led into hating the Bride of Christ by the Father of Lies. Christians worshiped on the Lord's Day long before Nicea. And St. Athanasius was the first to postulate the NT canon of the Bible in its current form, so if he was wrong about the Trinity maybe the Bible isn't the real Bible.

And someone who constantly repeats the refrain "We're better then them" when talking about Muslims is hardly in a position to cast stones at religious bigots.

Here's an analogy that I find helpful...

Since the 17th century, scientists from Newton onwards have grappled with the 'problem' that light appears under some circumstances to behave as a wave and under others to behave as a particle. In the early 20th century Bohr, De Broglie, Einstein, Heisenberg and others eventually settled on an explanation now called 'wave-particle duality', which is deeply embedded into modern quantum mechanics.

So, just as electromagnetic radiation appears to be sometimes a 'wave' and sometimes a 'particle' so God appears to be sometimes a 'father', sometimes a 'son' and sometimes a 'spirit'.

Just as light is light (however it might apparently behave in an experiment) so God is God (however that representation appears to us). We're the ones with the perception problem!

HTH

sal

What a waste of time to read through such B.S. When it's all said and done, it's all said and nothing is done. Theologians have argued over this one subject since it was first invented and will continue to do so without any benefit to anyone. Like slogging through swamps forever, this is one of the swampiest journeys without ever ending.

If Christ's ethical teachings are insufficient, this subject is surely a minefield and there is never an answer, only endless questions.

Strange, that Christ's ethical teachings are seldom debated but the Trinity becomes an endless debate without ever reaching a conclusion. Wach out for crocodiles in swamps.

Sirje, that's such a good question. And it's addressed sensibly and eloquently in Fritz Guy's book, Thinking Theologically. I highly recommend it.

My own conviction is that truth is progressive, or at least our understanding of it is. That might sometimes mean revising previously held beliefs to current culture in light of new knowledge (scientific, psychological, linguistic, social, etc.).

Aage Rendalen,

Of course, I agree with you that spreading falsehoods is wrong. However, issues like whether a certain religion is evil is in the realm of subjective religious thought and should not be classed the same as bigotry or lying. It is quite possible a person is wrong about the judgments on these issues, but that doesn't mean they're lying anymore then if someone's lying because they disagree with me on whether the soul is immortal. And the word "bigotry" should be saved for when there's hatred for a person not when it's hatred for their religious ideas. I hate the doctrine of eternal hell-fire with a passion and, in fact, believe the doctrine is satanic, but I have no ill-feeling toward those who believe that doctrine.

As to the issue of whether traditional Adventists interpret prophecy correctly I am not sure what this has to do with whether it is bigotry; I am sure if you thought a doctrine was bigotry it's appearance in the Bible would not change your mind - it would just mean the Bible taught bigotry. So the issue here is not whether our theology regarding Catholicism is Biblical, but whether value judgments on a religious ideology are bigotry. You agree that it is okay to have a negative opinion regarding a religious ideology, but only to a limited extent; one must not think the ideology evil or satanic, or the apocalyptic whore. Of course, Friar Jim as demonstrated by his comments on Islam has absolutely no qualms with essentially calling a religious ideology evil or satanic; the only bigotry in his mind seems to be when one comes to a different value judgment then he does.

FTR, I do not view the entirety of Catholicism to be a candidate for the beast, but only certain corruptions. It is hard to deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the mother of Protestantism, and that they handed down the Bible to us. For those reasons I would have a difficult time calling the entire system false. I also have pondered the need to broaden our eschatology to something that doesn't make a 19th century New England the center of the world. All that said I do the believe the ecclesiology of the church which placed man over the Word of God, and in between salvation was a serious errors which seem to fit the Anti-Christ. The fact that these doctrines arose out of the Christian church is what made them so damaging, it damaged Christian truth more then could have been done from the outside. Therefore, I think a case can be made that God's church was largely found within the Catholic Church, while certain errors exist as the anti-Christ.

As a final note, I fully condemn the Walter Veith genre of attacks against Catholicism. His attacks should not be confused with traditional Adventist approach on these issues. Whether one disagrees with the Theology or not, Adventist evangelists I have heard are careful to distinguish between a system of ideas and a group of people. They also make their case on doctrines the Catholic Church itself claims; namely that the church viewed tradition as granting sanctity to Sunday, and that the Church saw itself as speaking for God. I fully condemn the sketchy use of sources to supposedly bolster one's case and the conspiracy theories. However, even the Walter Veith crowd do not deserve to be called liars. They are mentally unbalanced and have been led astray; however, they are probably sincere. I am not sure what the best way is to bring these poor souls back into the fold of sanity. I'm pretty sure it's not to start a Catholic-Adventist mud-fight though, which seems to be Fr. Jim's preferred method.

Fr. Jim
I have always wanted to ask an educated RC a question, if I may.
I am curious about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I understand that it refers to Mary's conception, i.e. that she was born without original sin. Am I correct? And if this is so, does this not mean that Jesus came with a different flesh than mine or yours? Just curious.

Buffet or Potluck
------------------------
Maybe I have been unnecessarily agonizing

Is the Adventist church a buffet or a Potluck?

Is the food provided or brought along by each person, each according to one's preference.

The Trinity

The more I read 'well it is all a mystery', 'what can one say really about God', 'truth is progressive' ....... the more I realize I may have this all wrong.

Adventism is a potluck, not a buffet. You bring your views to the table and share. Being an Adventist is pretty much believing what you like and sharing it.

So Adventism has Arians, Trinitarians, 'none of the above', story tellers .....

So if it is a Potluck, WHY THE FOOD FIGHT?

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Frank Sheed-
Thus the doctrine of the Trinity, at first seen only as a sheer challenge to Faith grows steadily more luminous to the mind which accepts it and comes humbly to the study of what the Church has seen in it. This truth that the Godhead is absolutely one essence, one single concrete Something: yet that there are three Persons owning the one Nature--the one self-same identical Nature: this truth not only grows more luminous as the ideas of Person and Nature are studied, as the relation of Father and Son and the Spirit proceeding from both is meditated on; but throws a flood of light on the whole of our understanding of life.

The doctrine that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons truly distinct is the Supreme mystery revealed by Christ. Beyond it is no further mystery, for it deals with the innermost life of God. In a sense, man need never have been taught it apart from the Incarnation: for it is God in His unity who acts in relation to created beings, the threefold Personality being a fact of His own inner life, of His own internal activity, of that activity which remains within His own nature and does not directly affect the beings He has created. But it is a property of love that it wants not only to know but also to be known by the person loved. God loving us, wants us to know Him in His deepest and most secret life, and so gives us here upon earth a glimpse of that truth which it is man's proper destiny to spend eternity in contemplating. And, apart from that desire of God's to be known by man, the distinction of Persons has in fact a direct bearing on man's life since it was the Second Person, and not God in His threefold Personality, who became man for our salvation.

It is the supreme mystery in a double sense: it deals with the highest truth: and it is most inaccessible to the created mind. Yet certain elements of it can be grasped by us. ...

The Three Persons--the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost--each possess the one Divine nature: they do not share it: they each possess it in its totality. It is important to grasp exactly what this means. Men, we say, have one nature, in the sense that they all are human and human nature is one thing. But though Brown and I are of one nature, I cannot think with Brown's mind nor love with Brown's will. I must think with my own mind and love with my own will. So that, although in a general sense human nature is one, in the concrete each man has his own nature and acts in it. With the Three Persons of the Trinity this is not so. There is but one Divine nature, one Divine mind, one Divine will. The three Persons each use the one mind to know with, the one will to love with. For there is but the one absolute Divine nature. Thus there are not three Gods, but one God. The Christian revelation cannot allow the faintest derogation from pure monotheism. The three Persons, then, are not separate. But they are distinct. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. But the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, nor the Holy Ghost the Father.

Like I mentioned, I have pondered whether there needs to be a broadening of Adventist eschatology. I admit that it is difficult to apply such specificity to such vague and seemingly ambiguous prophetic imagery. It did make sense to me when I studied "God Cares" by Mervyn Maxwell in depth, but that was a while ago. Even if Revelation does not spell out Papal error in bold letters through some secret code, I think it is possible that the broad ideas of Daniel and Revelation could still apply to those errors and condemn them. One thing I would note is that John did not have to see Catholicism or the Adventist church... for his words to apply to them or even to be prophesying regarding them. Prophecy is in the mind of God, and we assume God gives a message to the prophet that applies to all time. Whatever, the truth regarding prophecy though, I still do not consider traditional Adventists bigots. Even if the conservative evangelist is wrong about how he interpreted the Bible, he is still only condemning the Catholicism for it's theology not its people. To be wrong about eschatology is not to be a bigot.

The doctrine of the Trinity is to Seventh Day Adventists what circumcision was to the Galatian Christians. Embrace the doctrine and flee the wrath of those who call Adventists a cult.

THANKS FOR THE 'HEADS UP' WEB MASTER. I AM NEW TO YOUR SITE.

PRO-TRINITARIAN EXPRESSIONS FROM E.G. WHITE

After 1892 Mrs. White borrowed and used several (not all) historic Trinitarian expressions like, for example, “of one substance” (regarding Father and Son), “three great powers” and “three great agencies” (regarding all three Godhead persons), “third person of the Godhead” (regarding the Holy Spirit), etc., but the following borrowed expression deserves some attention.

“Three living personalities (or “persons”) of the heavenly Trio”

This borrowed expression is the most interesting because, not only does it show that the Trinitarian writer she „borrowed‟ it from had interchangeably used both the expressions “three living personalities” and “three living persons” to mean the same thing, but he used them in the Trinitarian sense, and only Trinitarians at the time used these expressions regarding the Godhead. The source of this quotation is undoubtedly taken from a book entitled The Higher Christian Life (1858) by a Trinitarian writer, William Boardman. This book was found in Mrs.White‟s personal library, and the paragraph she quoted from Boardman on the “three living persons” of the Godhead speaks of them as existing in an interactive “society” in the Godhead. Mrs. White later spoke of these as “three holiest BEINGS in heaven”, and not just as “three living persons” or “personalities” (N.B. she herself also used both expressions she borrowed from Boardman), and this proves how much she was even more pointed on how they should be seen as interactive “beings” (rather than united as one organism or being of traditional Trinitarian thought). Adventism‟s post-1892 assent to a trinity was in the sense of these “three living personalities” being three beings (not one being with three personalities joined in one substance); a matter Mrs. White was to later confirm as well.

Adventists were at first (starting in 1892) hesitant to speak directly of three beings of the Trinity (despite first hinting at no objection to the Spirit being seen as a being), and seen in the following quotes in the 1890s:

“We [Adventists] understand the Trinity, as applied to the Godhead, to consist of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The two former to be personal, spiritual beings, eternal and infinite in all their ways and attributes… The Holy Spirit is the representative of the Deity in all parts of the universe. These supreme Beings we cannot comprehend or measure…There is certainly nothing incongruous in the idea of the Spirit being a personal representative, hence saying that the Spirit' is the representative of the Father and Son does not deny his personality... He [the Spirit] occupies in our minds an exalted place with Deity …as a supreme Being"
- Bible Echo & Signs of the Times (Australia), Vol. 7, April 1, 1892, pg.112

“We cannot describe the Spirit…From the figures which are brought out in Revelation, Ezekiel, and other Scriptures, and from the language which is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, we are led to believe he is something more than an emanation from the mind of God. He is spoken of as a personality, and treated as such. He is included in the apostolic benedictions, and is spoken of by our Lord as acting in an independent and personal capacity, as teacher, guide, and comforter. He is an object of veneration, and is a heavenly intelligence, everywhere present, and always present. But as limited beings, we cannot understand the problems which the contemplation of the Deity presents to our minds. … He does not come to us through the agency of angels; he is sent direct from the Father by the Son. And for reasons noted above, he is spoken of with the personal pronoun as an intelligent, independent existence.
--G.C. Tenny- “To Correspondents”, Review& Herald, June 9, *1896, pg. 362

Of course this in and of itself was a remarkable advancement in thought (considering earlier Adventist objection to there even being a Trinity and or a personal Holy Spirit in the first place), and more importantly, 1892 was the first time Adventists were officially endorsing that there is a “Biblical Trinity” of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by way of endorsing Spear‟s Trinitarian thesis.

This advancement in thought would be further developed by other pioneers before 1915 (as seen below), and later confirmed by E.G. White who wrote the clearest regarding “three holiest beings in heaven”; “beings” that she directed prayer to as the “three Great Worthies”. Ever keep in mind that you do not direct prayer to a non-existent individual, and only Trinitarians directed prayer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit either as “three living persons” or “three holiest beings” during Mrs. White‟s lifetime. That is unbeatable.

First, take note of how A.T. Jones first candidly recognized in 1891what took place in Church history, and then note his own subsequent doctrinal admission about the threefold Godhead of separate persons some eight years later in 1899:

“[At the Council of Nicea] …There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity, it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father… it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons..."
– A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pgs. 332-333, 335

“God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [the third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.” -A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, pg.24

Keeping in mind that the above expression “among them” always indicates three or more beings involved (not just two), then it is plain evidence that pioneer A.T. Jones had already come to believe that there is not just a Godhead ‘duo’ of beings, as anti-Trinitarians in Adventism today desperately struggle to uphold, but rather that there is a Godhead oneness of three (not two) beings. This must be so, otherwise A.T. Jones could never have spoken about “there is no dissent or division among them”; he would have instead said no division “between” them. And notice that this A.T. Jones admission came after he already admitted in 1891 that, historically, Christians generally never disputed whether three Godhead persons existed (that was a given), but the dispute was over how they are one. This was indeed a rather remarkable development of pioneering viewpoint on the Godhead in Adventism in the 1890s.

Notice carefully now the years of the following quotes, showing the clear progression of post-1892 thought in Adventism, and indicating clearly before 1915 (when Mrs. White died) that the Adventist version of the Trinity was gradually being accepted as consisting of three beings united as “our triune God”:

1900
“To receive the message of the Spirit is to receive the message of the Father and the Son. There is something charmingly beautiful about their union. With exquisite delicacy of utterance does Jesus declare the divine authority of his message, “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me;" and again, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself." He is ever in union with the Father, and came, really, that men might see the Father, and know his love. So the Holy Spirit cherishes the same delicacy of spirit and expression. He is the administrator, revealer, and guide of this age. And as such he must make himself known and understood; but withal he does not speak from himself alone. He does not manifest himself as apart from the Father and the Son; but as one with and sent by the Father and the Son.
He [the Spirit] is here that he may make us know the things of Christ, and any nominal honor given to the Spirit that does not really make known the character and things of Christ is a great grief to his unassuming, dovelike nature. He would make us know his personality, but ever in living connection with Christ. He abides in our hearts down here, while Christ Jesus is our Advocate with the Father above; but he abides in us as Christ, making the very life that speaks and works in Christ to also speak and work in us. “Christ in you."
Let us not grow overbold concerning the Spirit alone; but remember that he is ever with the Father and the Son, and that whatever he speaks to us he speaks as from them; for it is written, "Whatsoever he hall hear, that shall he speak." Let him make you know, beloved, how surpassingly beautiful are the blended personalities of our triune God, manifested by the personal presence of the Holy Ghost.”
- The Kings Messenger, *“Blended Personalities”, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 14, April 3, *1900, pg. 210

1901
"God says, [notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." [Now notice carefully] This is the pledge of [not one person, but] the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to receive and be a Father to you]; made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean thing… In order to deal righteously with the world, as members of the royal family, children of the heavenly King, Christians must feel their need of a power, which comes only from the [three] heavenly agencies that have pledged themselves to work in man's behalf. After we have formed a union with the great THREEFOLD POWER [singular; collective], we shall regard our duty toward the members of God's family with a sacred awe.”
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

1906
“You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just *CALL UPON THE THREE GREAT WORTHIES, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . .”
-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12, 14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)

1909
“There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalities…We have the Father described in Dan. 7:9, 10…a personality surely…In Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a personality… The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These divine persons are associated in the work of God…But this union is not one in which individuality is lost…There is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the angels- He was the “only begotten” of the Father…”
- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

1913
“Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY. This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father… the Lord Jesus Christ… [and] the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead” - F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

We [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose, so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James 2:19. This divine unity is similar to the unity existing between Christ and the believer, and between the different believers in their fellowship in Christ Jesus…” - F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

“…after Christ should leave His disciples, the Spirit was to become
His official representative, His vicegerent, in a new and larger sense than ever before. We may remark in passing that Christ has only one Vicegerent. He gives no recognition to any prelate of any church or religious faith who may lay claim to this position… The sinner who accepts Christ as his Savior expresses his faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of his Lord in the rite of baptism by immersion. This baptism is “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19. This text clearly reveals that the Holy Spirit is one of the holy Trinity…In our study of the work of the Holy Spirit we may profitably consider further what this heavenly agency is. We are not to think of the Spirit as a mere influence emanating from a divine source. Distinctive characteristics are ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Word of God. We enumerate a few of these. The Bible represents the Spirit as possessing wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:10), having feelings of love (Romans 15:30), being able to instruct (Nehemiah 9:20), feeling grief over sins of professed Christians (Ephesians 4:30), making intercession for the saints (Romans 8:27), forbidding the apostle Paul to preach at a particular time in Asia (Acts 16:6, 7). These and other Scriptures reveal that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, the third person of the Godhead…Many of us, as we have read the story of how Jesus walked and talked with His disciples, have wished that we might have been there; but today we have a Person just as divine as Jesus, just as worthy of our confidence and our trust, right by our side to supply every need of our life…No matter how dark the night and how many foes we may fear are lurking on every hand, there is a divine One who walks by our side and who can and will protect us from every danger. He can make the darkest night bright by the glory of His presence.”
– F.M. Wilcox, Heart to Heart Talks, pgs. 51, 52

Nothing beats evidence I think, and it is absolutely amazing to see how anti-Trinitarians today in Adventism deny and twist, or try to hide from the truth of the facts as here laid out. It demonstrates that no one is immune from brainwashing and self-deception; not even SDA anti-Trinitarians.

Fr Jim

Is it not possible for the "Bride of Christ " to become the "Whore of Babylon" In Ot writings several writers described Israel after it apostasied as a whore.

Conversely is it not possible for "the whore of Babylon " to become the "Bride of Christ" given conversion.It is quite obvious from NT writings that the one who loved Jesus best and was first at the tomb had been a whore to the sventh degree having had seven devils not just the usual one or two like most of us.

The imagery of Revelation with the whore sitting on the beast with seven heads is too graphic to not apply to the RC church. Sorry but that is the way it is.

However what doctrine binds the mother of harlots to her daughters if not that of the Trinity and so the modern SDA church stands naked and depraved before the world along with the others that have departed from the faith of the apostles.

John Mark
I had to laugh when you wrote: " The same evangelists that call Catholics the Beast, teach that the Baptists and other apostate Protestantism equal Babylon or the Daughters of Babylon. So will you stop calling it bigotry now?"

I had forgotten that there are actually people who still truck in such bigoted language. Bigotry is tarring and feathering those you don't like on basis of subjective value judgments. I don't mind criticism based on facts, even when the criticism is unwarranted (sincerity doesn't guarantee that we see things right). What I object to is creating your own facts, the way Rush does, and then using those private facts as basis for judgment.

Let's take a look at the old SDA view that all Protestant churches, with the fortunate exception of the Adventist church, have sold out to Satan's church (the RCC), thus having acquired the not-so-prestigious title of 'daughters of Babylon,' the whore of Revelation. On what is this based? Historically, it was based on the idea that Protestants agree with Catholics on a number of doctrinal issues, such as the Trinity, Sunday keeping and the doctrine of everlasting punishment--and, of course, the most important reason--they rejected the Harold Camping of the 19th century, William Miller. That was what confirmed the charge to the pioneers of the SDA church. Lutherans and Calvinists had to be in league with Satan for having had the temerity to oppose a theological moonshiner who preached that the world would go under in the spring of 1843, the spring of 1844 and then October 22, 1844.

When you create your own facts, and use those putative facts to tar and feather others, I have no compunction about using the word 'bigotry.'

The amount of energy expended upon discrediting Rome should rather be spent upon
purifying one’s own theology. John Stott in his book: “Christ the Controversialist” page 23 make the rather obvious observation: “Obviously if an utterance is infallible it is also irreformable.”

The number of books published to discredit Rome is almost equal to the books published to defend Ellen White.

All that energy should be spent upon forming a clearer and more definitive definition of the Gospel and its consequences.

A huge debt has been paid in full. What does that mean now and into eternity?

Eschatology has relevance only if one’s soteriology is congruent with the Christ Event—from inception to resurrection. (From the gitgo, Adventism has a false start. They confuse that man’s lineage is from the loins of Adam while Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost.)

Thus Adventism’s soteriology is no different that that of the Council of Trent.

They differ only in a ritualistic fashion. Tom Z

Judy, Thanks for the reply. It presented several ideas...

Jim, it's one thing to get an "A" on a pop quiz in SS on the doctrine of the Trinity, but the concern for true believers should be...do "I/you/we" personally **know** the Trinity?

****** That is a standard denominational comment

One can master the art of understanding the doctrines of God, but often deny the power that lie within the personal implementation of these doctrines in our daily lives.

*****And why does this happen or matter?

The Godhead are actively aware of our thoughts and opinions about who "They" are, and God is a spirit John 4:24, present in every SS lesson/class that is studied **around the world**, and "They" are taking notes.

***** Why are they taking notes and so what?

This weeks lesson is absolutely beautiful!! I would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important doctrine in the Bible.

And Jesus shedding His blood on the cross is #2 or lower??

Just think of all the prayers offered around the **entire world** at any given time to a god(s) they “know not” John 4:22, and as the ONE and ONLY GOD, how sad this must make "Them" feel! Until the end of time, at all times, the Trinity doctrine will be relevant and will justify to millions around the world, (not just the cynical pew warmers on the mainland) who deal with different cultural beliefs/theology that oppose the fact that Jesus is not only the son of God, but He is God.

*****Relevant....How so??

As we "witness to others", this lesson will help spread the great news to those that know not the God they serve. This is a serious warfare! All doctrines of God are relevant and need to be taught consistently, until we get it right by living it!

***** How do we live the doctrine of the trinity??

As for “those flooding out the SDA back door”....Self-examination: Confession and repentance, does the body and soul good. Don't be scared to do a mach trial on "self", now (daily). This is where God meets us, where we are doers of the word Rom 2:13.

2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

*****Is it because of what is mentioned in 2 Chron 7:14 the reason most go out the back door???

Isa 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

It is the Holy Spirit that will lovingly(1John3:18-20), reverently (Ps 111:9) and fearfully(Rev14:7) lead us to the 2nd Member of the Godhead, Jesus, Savior of the World who is thee one and only router to the 1st member of the Godhead, His (our) Heavenly Father! A revival will happen once the Trinity, can see that "we" are "one" with "Them" (John 17:22,Matt 5:48, Eph 5:27).

*******Which means what? What does being one with Them mean??

There's no guarantee people will stay, but to those that endure, in obedience, to the end, they will be satisfied.

*****Doesn't that upset the OSAS crowd and smack of legalism and mock God's holding power and omnipotence???

Also, don't get caught up in numbers, like many of the “popular” mega churches do....Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and **few** there be that find it. Matt 7:14. We can't just keep talking "of them", making a science out of who They are. It's time to make Them a reality of who we are.

*******Who are we????? How does this reality happen???

I don't expect a reply , or answers...I am just asking questions to go further than shallow, hollow, typical surface cliches that are spread around so often in pulpits and SS classes.

Taking the "who " and "what" to the "how " and "why"...........

Fr Jim
It is not I but the Trinitarians who deny that the Son came in the flesh when they insist that Jesus and God the Father are of the same essence. They are not .Jesus is flesh and blood and God is spirit

Jesus said that himself according to the Scripture that the apostate church approved. It is a good thing that those early church fathers were to ignorant to understand what they were approving or the truth might well have been hidden forever.

And for your information EGW is not the whore of Revelation. She was simply a severely damaged New England teenager in need of something to fulfil her narrow twisted world.. There were a lot like her in New England over the years It was after all the site of the witch trials and other superstitious nonsense.

One can not really condemn EGW she is more to be pitied than anything else.

But the RC church is guilty of the blood of Christian Jew and Muslim over the years and still would be where it not for Napoleon who broke its power.

Individual RCs are not guilty except when they defend the artrocities committed in the name of Jesus.

abe
"But the RC church is guilty of the blood of Christian Jew and Muslim over the years and still would be where it not for Napoleon who broke its power."

Who else but William Miller's heirs would view 1798 as a pivotal year in Roman Catholic history?

As for the rest of your bigoted broth, no trained historian would be willing to swallow it, even with Kool-Aid added. What you accuse the Catholic church of can just as easily be imputed to Christendom in general. Until the Enlightenment broke the back of medieval Christianity, it was homicidal in both its Protestant and Catholic incarnation.

Abe,
The Gospels are permeated with Jesus taking the prerogatives of, and names of God. Jesus forgives sins, calls himself the Good Shepherd, shares God's glory etc., etc. It's not just John. But the whole NT.
As far as the RC church being the beast, this did not originate with SDA's. Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Wesley and bunch of others made that identity long before SDA's arrived on the scene. It was a basic Protestant doctrine, associated with the historicist school of prophetic interpretation. So a little slack might be indicated. They might not say much about that, but it is there.
One more thing, Fr. Jim is very convinced of his position as are the conservatives here and the liberals as well. It's sort of a shared characteristic. Hmm

"John Mark, I find the Adventist idea that souls are burned in hell until they are destroyed completely leaving the individual in perpetual non-existence to be Babylonian."

That is a self-contradictory sentence. Non-existence isn't a state that an individual is in, it is the lack of a state. You're talking as if nothingness is a substance rather then simply nothing. Anyway, if it is Babylon to not believe in God inflicting unspeakable suffering on people for an entire lifetime times infinity with no hope of any reprieve. Then I will gladly call myself Babylonian. It baffle people can care about other people and cope with such a horrific idea, without the strain causing a mental breakdown. It baffles me that they corner that belief with "God is Love" which seems as illogical to me as saying 2+2=5.

, "but do you see Catholics protesting at your conventions or having seminars in your town saying you are the antichrist?"

Well, I just saw a Catholic Priest call our doctrines Babylonian and Reprehensible; which is the same point some Adventists make concerning Catholicism (it's only the fringe that attacks Catholics it is the ism that is traditionally attacked,) on an Adventist site so I guess the answer would essentially be yes.

"Allen, I am indeed convinced that the old bigoted polemics need to end."

Yes and that is an admirable trait; of course if you have new bigoted polemics that you pick up from talk radio regarding liberals or Muslims then you are all over it.

Andy:
I support your point of view on "son" as applied and used by Jesus Christ. Its original usage was way beyond our post-modern usage and meaning. In Christian theology, Sonship when used in reference to Christ means equality with the Father and not in any way inferior to Him. It is my understanding that in the context of ancient Hebrew life, when a father was approaching life's end, the eldest son was culturally vested with authority as great as that which the father carried. Thus, the son was able to conduct the business of the father prior to and after death. When the ancients thought of Christ as the Son of God, it would have been understood that there is no break in authority between the will of the Father and the will of the Son. That is why the Pharisees were so adamantly opposed to Christ claiming to forgive sins, they said it was blasphemous that He would imply equality with Jehovah-God as His Son. This of course is not a perfect analogy but it gives reason for us to no longer use "son" as a reference to Christ in post-modern times because of the nuance of a human son being lesser in authority, wisdom etc. than his father. I suggest, to be true to Trnitarian doctrine, we should say, "In the name of the Father, Christ Jesus and Holy Spirit" in place of, "In the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit." We also take note that it is not "names of" but "Name of."

"Upon being asked what God is, it is natural for some to answer: "I don't know—no one knows. And that's as it should be. For most of us God is totally beyond the comprehension of mere finite beings such as ourselves, there may be exceptions. We should not go about pretending that we can know what God is."

Ivan Campos, I couldn't agree with you more. At the same, I see nothing wrong with trying to know.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

"Bit like some pro life people. They love fetuses but hate children. The mother cannot win. She is blessed while pregnant and then in motherhood called a welfare leech. It takes money to care for unwanted children. So instead of suffering in the womb some will suffer all their life, unto the third and fourth generations."

Amen. Amen. Amen. James Dobson and all the rest of his sociopathic ilk are just foul.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

Flee out of the midst of Babylon… (Jeremiah 51:6)
To obey God in these last days we must: Reject the Trinity doctrine

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37352907/Flee-Out-of-the-Midst-of-Babylon-5th-...

“The deceptive errors that are widespread, and that are leading the world captive, are to be unveiled.” {9T 242.3}

Having stated the purpose of this particular study, before going into the principles, it is important to state why in, God’s order, this is necessary. Many, who have any knowledge of the subject of the Trinity, know this issue as a VERY divisive issue and most having that knowledge may feel inclined to stay away from discussion concerning this. We pray that you would tarry and consider what we say; for this is an issue which must be addressed.

We will now state the reasons why, in God’s order, we must seriously address the Trinity doctrine before the end come: “The Lord's time to set things in order has fully come.” {21MR 448.5}

1.) The Trinity is error… which the church has now placed upon the platform of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal foundation. Rejecting light from heaven and accepting in its place error causes us to lose spiritual perception from degree to degree until the light we once had becomes midnight darkness…
2.) In doing so the church has “set up false standards” (or given false witness); the church has allowed “the banner (to)be lowered” because its doctrinal committees have “abandon(ed) their position and join(ed) the ranks of the opposition, By uniting with the world”. How has the SDA church, as a Corporate denomination, come to see vital doctrines such as the Godhead (# 2 of 28 fundamental doctrines), in the same “light” as the churches who do not accept the sanctuary doctrine and are “left in perfect darkness”?
3.) “It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” {Signs of the Times, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
4.) Most importantly to the closing work of the Day of Atonement : accepting this error of the Trinity has darkened the church’s understanding of our own sanctuary doctrine, where she should have been receiving advanced light upon this subject to give to the world.

“He (Satan) has blinded the spiritual eyesight, and deceptive, delusive imaginings are taking the place of the word of life and truth. Some in exalted positions of responsibility are sustaining error in the place of truth. Satan makes his delusions most attractive, clothing error in the garments of truth, so that it seems the most desirable thing to possess. The minds of many whom we would naturally suppose would see things clearly, are blinded as with a bewitching sophistry of error… There is no safety in their present experience. They need to be convicted and converted by eating the word of God, believing it just as it reads, interpreting it correctly, not weaving the messages sent by God to save His people, into their own sophistries, making them speak in favor of fables that undermine the foundation established by the Lord for His commandment-keeping people.
Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of any one to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God… One thing will follow another in spiritual sophistry, to deceive if possible the very elect.” {SpTB07 5.2,6.1}

We know that the SDA doctrinal committees have taught us that it was following increased “light”, and the writings of EGW which brought the SDA church out of a clearly non-Trinitarian position to, now, what is an “officially” Trinitarian position. While we do not endorse all the reasons most of our SDA pioneers were non-Trinitarians (reasons such as denying the eternal, “uncreated” Deity of Christ and saying that believing in the Trinity meant believing in three Gods), we do believe that they were correct in being suspicious of the Trinity doctrine. Our SDA pioneers knew that Catholic Church openly proclaims that the doctrine of the Trinity is their root and primary doctrine; it is the fountain from which all of their other erroneous doctrines spring. The pioneers thought it would be very dangerous to conceive the Godhead in the same light (or “in nearly the same light” – The Great Controversy page 608 par. 2) as the Catholic Church.

We believe the time as arrived for us to whole-heartedly reject the supposition that the writings of EGW are supportive of the denomination accepting and now promulgating the Trinity doctrine. We are now endeavoring to show that in the Spirit of Prophecy there was always given heavenly Truth necessary to correct the errors of our SDA pioneers concerning their Christology and their understanding of the Holy Spirit (all of which impacted their conception of the Godhead), while at the same time keep us in the Way of advancing light, without bringing us fully into the camp of professing Trinitarians.
_____________________________________________________________________________
In this study we will address this topic in three aspects:
- The purpose of the SDA church as God’s standard of witness in the world
- The Trinity error we still hold, even if we don’t accept the Trinity doctrine exactly the same as the Catholic Church.
- How this has eclipsed light we should have been advancing concerning the atonement and our sanctuary doctrine.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37352907/Flee-Out-of-the-Midst-of-Babylon-5th-...

Abe, we Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. That he has both human and divine natures in one Person. You really don't understand the Trinity or Incarnation. But as for whores, how about your church? You teach error, so you fit the bill.

John Mark, so being burned into nothingness is an act of a loving God? Talk about your view of "self-contradictory." Then you admit that we don't do to you what you do to us. Yet you agree that it is not good for me to say you are Babylon. How about you treat us at least as well as you treat Islam? You seem very pc when it comes to them. How about you just agree that we won't refer to you as the antichrist, whore, or beast and you won't refer to us that way either?

Brent, watch out for that Jesuit hiding in the bushes.

Brent, you have written a virtual sermon upbraiding the church for embracing the Trinity doctrine. Yet you have not offered a single word, Biblical or otherwise, specifying what's wrong with the doctrine, apart from the claim that it's Catholic. I have had my questions about the Trinity claim too. But I believe any useful objection to it ought to involve direct deconstruction rather than just wild reproof. Or is it just the word 'Trinity' that you object to?

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

Ricky, I like your zeal, but when somebody says he has solved the mystery of the Trinity with a website, the alarm bells in my head go wild...

Or, to put it another way....

give ONE USEFUL QUESTION where the exact nature of the bond and interactions between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit makes a difference.

Abe,

So trinitarians and antitrinitarians bashing each other over their heads with cricket bats is a manifestation of some "spiritual perceptions? Looks more like personal prejudices to me.

Bevin's question, on the other hand, shows a deeply spiritual insight: trinity or no trinity, what practical difference does it make? I won't kill for either idea, and won't give my life either.

A website is not the source of truth, but the Bible is. But God uses technology today to communicate Bible truths to His children. I have been on many websites that I have learned many new Bible truths. I'm so glad that God's Word is living and that He uses different minds to reflect different rays of His glory, and that the Bible is deep and full of treasure for those who mine deeper and deeper in the shafts. God is beautiful and He changes lives! How wonderful it is to learn of Him and be like Him. There is no greater joy. Different false doctrines Satan has casted out, but we can know the truth if we study the Bible for ourselves as He leads different people in our paths to share us different reflections of His Living Word.

It is important to solve the "Trinity Mistery" because:

1)
2)
3)

Don Tucie, So now you can understand why this matter is so vital to our salvation., right?.... :):):)
------
Actually, I was hoping some people would fill out the blanks, and even add more reasons to it. I am curious about what would people say are the main reasons why this issue is actually important... (For me, I rather leave them blank).

One thing is clear, though: How difficult it is to for some people to stick with what is written in the Bible only. They can't function without inserting ideas from other sources of "religious authority", aka SOP. The Bible is never enough for them.

ddggli
I am a Christian in that I believe Jesus was a Son of God. But like most professed Christians I do not let that belief interfere with my day to day relations with others.

Professing Christians have no problem with killing innocent people in pursuit of personal or political objectives nor do they allow their Christianity to interfere with being rude and hurtful to others so yes in that sense that I am Christian .

Do I try to model my life after Jesus. Well no because He set impossible high standards for mankind.

If even only a small fraction of humankind really modeled their lives after Jesus this would be a much different world.

"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fundamental to Christianity. It is what unites us despite other differences. This is why the Catholic Church recognizes Adventism as Christian, but not Mormonism. An excellent explanation of the Trinity in relatively simple terms can be found in Frank Sheed's classic Theology and Sanity or the shorter Theology for Beginners."

Got to commend the Mormons for their braveness. Why should SDAs care what the Catholics think of them?

Thanks, Nic. That's exactly how I've understood the Holy Spirit - the Father and his Spirit are one and the same. And the Son, whom Paul calls "the last Adam," a man expressly brought into the world by the Father, completely committed to the divine as the first Adam ought to have been. John describes him as the Word made flesh. On the cross when he cried out, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" his humanity was abandoned by divinity that had possessed him all his life and he was left as a man to die the condemned sinner's death. It is inconceivable that man can kill God who is immortal. Yes, he made divine utterances throughout his ministry, like "Before Abraham was, I am," and "Thy sins be forgiven thee." He could do that because of his total oneness with the Father and, as Paul explained, "In him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily. After his sacrifice, as a result of his perfect obedience, "God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow... And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
He told the woman at the well, "God is a spirit..." not three spirits or three persons. This is a theme that is amply repeated throughout the Bible. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Now that I've confused myself and everyone else. I'll stop there.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

The best we can come up with for describing God are metaphors and illustrations. But they are not the reality. Use a metaphor and see what you can learn and benefit from it, but that metaphor is not the reality. The Trinity is not the truth but a concept that can give interesting insights. Some aspects of Hinduisms seeing multiple manifestations of God give me meaningful insights into the Transcendent!

Interesting response Abe. A rather revealing commentary on yourself and your belief system...in more ways than one, and on so many levels. Hmmm. Reveals/explains much.

Don Tucie,
You wrote this: "Brent, you have written a virtual sermon upbraiding the church for embracing the Trinity doctrine. Yet you have not offered a single word, Biblical or otherwise, specifying what's wrong with the doctrine"... " But I believe any useful objection to it ought to involve direct deconstruction rather than just wild reproof. Or is it just the word 'Trinity' that you object to?"

What I posted in the comments section was not meant to bring out the Biblical correction of the Trinity doctrine embraced by our Corporate church, but to direct minds who would study and consider to the studies both posted on this website: www.infinitesacrifice.net
and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37352907/Flee-Out-of-the-Midst-of-Babylon-5th-...

At the heart of the issue in understanding both the error of the Trinity doctrine and the light it effectively eclipses in one who embraces it lies in the revealed truths in the incarnation of Christ... see important study here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37352893/The-Incarnation-of-Messiah-The-Death-...

So while it may be that we may not agree concerning this topic, but certainly I have endeavored to detail both the reasons the Trinity doctrine must be rejected as foreign to the Bible and also sought to order the important truths for this time so to rightly divide those things which revealed concerning the Godhead... to wit: A True Knowledge of God -
"In order to be co-workers with God, in order to become like Him and to reveal His character, we must know Him aright. We must know Him as He reveals Himself. {MH 409.1}
A knowledge of God is the foundation of all true education and of all true service. It is the only real safeguard against temptation. It is this alone that can make us like God in character. {MH 409.2}
This is the knowledge needed by all who are working for the uplifting of their fellow men. Transformation of character, purity of life, efficiency in service, adherence to correct principles, all depend upon a right knowledge of God. This knowledge is the essential preparation both for this life and for the life to come." {The Ministry of Healing 409.3}

Brent Oliver Chrishon

What you say, Graeme, makes a whole lot of sense to me.

It is all about Jesus.

Tom

"...one day the Sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh..." Job 2:1

I wonder if you have ever read about the Urantia Fellowship? It is the issue of several followers of Ellen White, former SDAs, who lived on the outskirts of Chicago during most of the last century, centered around a physician and his equally physician wife, William and Lena Sadler. They were no intellectual slouchers. Their revelation, known as The Urantia Book, details the place of Christ as one of many divine avatars in the galaxy, how Satan usurped Christ's rule and Christ won it back through his mission to Earth.
See http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book
The Urantia group also have interesting views of the Trinity.

" I would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important doctrine in the Bible."

Certainly neither the most important nor most explicit. If it took more than 300 years to "pronounce" this doctrine, what about the hundreds, even thousands of Chistians who lived and died without ever knowing this doctrine?

"The doctrine of Trinity is no more and no less than a human attempt at explaining God."

I agree with the second part of Jag's sentiment but it is possible that it does more than just give us a better handle on how Jesus could also be God and there still be just one God. There's a good chance it might also be making the concept of a creator God, be making theism let alone Christianity, beyond the pale for many unbelievers.

Web resources like Wikipedia and Yahoo!Answers make it possible for anyone to be an amateur cosmologist these days, and to have an opinion on what it might have been that preceded the arrival of our fantastic universe. The claim that the Cause to this phenomenal Effect, theism's card to trump atheism's Singularity, was a trio of "persons" eternally existing in a spaceless timeless realm, thrashing out between them a creation plan that one of them came up with the idea for, seems to get a big thumbs down in many of the blogs and chat-rooms where such questions are discussed.

This doesn't mean that the trinity doctrine is wrong, nor the co-eternal two persons Godhead theory either. It simply means there's more at stake than just our idle curiosity, which plenty of us would be happy to put off satisfying til the other side of Jesus' return.

If the anti-trinitarians are right and Satan was behind it, it couldn't have worked out better for him as far as making the truth of our beliefs about the reality of God and creation seem hugely improbable to skeptics with ready access to the latest science. Atheist social commentators like Richard Dawkins and until a few weeks ago Christopher Hitchens (God bless him wherever he’s ended up) have (still) a big following and are quick to pick up on any ammunition they can find to vilify us. Speculating on the nature of our God and coming up with imaginative possibilities to attempt to explain the biblical evidence is one thing. But regarding a view as flimsy as this one, the trinity model, as being set in concrete and rejecting any further ideas is a totally different look.

Personally I will be very happy to find that against incredible odds the trinity model is exactly, or even essentially, correct. It’ll be wonderful seeing all my friends at church rejoicing to have their fervently held views vindicated. And I don’t have a problem eating crow (not much).
But could we just keep this view to ourselves for now? I have a lot of secular humorless friends from my old life in the world, not to mention family members, whom I would dearly love to spend eternity with in our beloved Father’s singular [☺] presence.
As ammunition goes, to Richard Dawkins the trinity doctrine I expect would be the theological equivalent of a container load of expanding bullets.

Just as we'd like evolutionists to remember that Darwin's theory is just that, we might remember that as Jag said above, the trinity model is just a human attempt to eff the ineffable. I was watching a program on 3ABN tonight, an interview with Ranko Stefanovic talking about this subject, and was feeling some discomfort at the level of confidence in their shared belief being exuded by the three participants. Then out of the blue an email arrived from my friend Greg, directing me to this blog. (This is a blog isn’t it? I hope so, this social networking technology is beyond me - even the vocabulary.)
How could that be mere coincidence I thought? Hence - my slightly wordy two cents worth.

In love and God’s blessing to you all.

A

Trinity docrine is not in the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ.
it hide the truth that Jesus is the real Son of God,begotten of God in eternity past(Micah 5:2)
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.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
“Rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom He has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted”. YI July 7 1898 para 2