Forums118
Topics9,245
Posts196,371
Members1,327
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?
[Re: Charity]
#138368
12/24/11 10:02 PM
12/24/11 10:02 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
First, it's Ellen White who said that Christ's divinity didn't die because divinity can't die. If you can find it without too much trouble, I'd like to see that quote. The quote's there : what of it? Well, who or what died on the cross for our sins & for us, as divinity cannot die? The Person whose identity is the Son of God, Creator, died as a man. Sister White says the Author of life suffered on the cross: for God to die he had to become a man in the person of his Son. That's why it is so, so crucial - as I titled this thread, that God the Father has an only begotten Son since "the days of eternity", else God could not die for sin since he would not be "God himself in the person of his Son", able to become a man, possibly sin, and be the Lamb of God; for, divinity cannot die. Regarding the trinity doctrine, it may have been better to call our view of the deity something else, to make it clear we don't subscribe to all the particulars of what other denominations call the trinity, but I can see the rationale for adopting the label. Ellen White who is very precise in her selection of words never used the term herself. With the SDA trinity doctrine Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God since eternity: that's further from the Nicene Creed than we used to be (we opposed its mysticism, among other things), and jeopardises quite possibly salvation itself. How can the Author of life die if he is not actually the eternal Son of God, able to die for sin without threatening the existence of the Godhead? - for, the trinity, were it heavenly reality, would suddenly be two for the first time between eternity and eternity. I'm not being facetious: that's the trinity doctrine's principle.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?
[Re: Bobryan]
#138382
12/26/11 05:50 PM
12/26/11 05:50 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Oh, here is an example of that EGW statement. “I am the resurrection, and the life” (John 11:25). He who had said, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again” (John 10:17), came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Humanity died; divinity did not die. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. {1SM 301.1} Just a quick thought, here: we are saved to eternal life with the divine life of the Son of God. Obvious perhaps, but worth noting, as we may have to think about it a bit to notice this truth. All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God. However able and talented, however large their capacities, they are replenished with life from the Source of all life. He is the spring, the fountain, of life. Only He who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light and life, could say, “I have power to lay it [my life] down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). {1SM 301.2} Now, the other side of the coin to the first quote above: the "death of the Son of God" (below). Sister White clearly and easily, in the same passage here - and again & again - states our old, non-trinitarian belief in the Godhead: divinity can not die, but the individual whose eternal identity is the actual, personal Son of God - hence, equal with the law, died. D'you see the difference? Jesus is the Son of God his Father, and so divine with his Father; is he also "God the Son", of the doctrine of the trinity? Could he, as "God the Son", die at all while keeping the trinity of three co-eternal persons co-existing together? The SS lesson a few years ago, speaking of the Christ's death of the cross, within John's Gospel, emphasised the sundering of the Godhead/trinity in God's death: is that Biblically true, actually? Sundering, separating, the Powers of heaven, maybe, but not splitting the Godhead in half!! Listen to the preacher next time he says that humanity died but divinity did not die, leaving open the possibility of an unworthy sacrifice when not mentioning the death of the eternal Son of God. To preserve the death of the Son of God as Gospel teaching, can we confess that "God the Son" (fundamental beliefs #2 & #4) is not the actual Son of God from eternity? The law of God’s government was to be magnified by the death of God’s only-begotten Son. Christ bore the guilt of the sins of the world. Our sufficiency is found only in the incarnation and death of the Son of God. He could suffer, because sustained by divinity. He could endure, because He was without one taint of disloyalty or sin. Christ triumphed in man’s behalf in thus bearing the justice of punishment. He secured eternal life to men, while He exalted the law, and made it honorable. {1SM 302.1} Christ was invested with the right to give immortality. The life which He had laid down in humanity, He again took up and gave to humanity. “I am come,” He says, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14). {1SM 302.2} Lastly, that "only he who alone hath immortality", a Biblical statement reserved most likely for the Father, personally, shows that the Son of God defers to his Father in all things, selflessly not claiming that which is his which he has from his Father and which his Father has, too: it is written that God the Father personally alone has immortality, and, while Jesus, God's only begotten Son (see, she openly says that of Jesus, too), has it too, the Bible shows Jesus doesn't claim it but meekly and humbly shows us the Father. God doesn't trumpet it, either.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?
[Re: Bobryan]
#138386
12/27/11 12:21 AM
12/27/11 12:21 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe? This is the definition of the Trinity from Wikipedia: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being.[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[3]
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4] I can't say for sure because I haven't studied our fundamental beliefs on this but I'm optimistic that we don't subscribe to the non-scriptural aspects. The Godhead is a mystery. The trinity doctrine articulated above goes beyond what scripture reveals and muddies the waters.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?
[Re: Charity]
#138403
12/27/11 05:12 PM
12/27/11 05:12 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
What is the "other" Trinity doctrine from other denominations that we do not believe? This is the definition of the Trinity from Wikipedia: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being.[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[3]
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4] I can't say for sure because I haven't studied our fundamental beliefs on this but I'm optimistic that we don't subscribe to the non-scriptural aspects. The Godhead is a mystery. The trinity doctrine articulated above goes beyond what scripture reveals and muddies the waters. What's not Scriptural? Briefly: God is not three persons, but one: the Father. The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed. The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation, and filling the universe with creative power - but not presence! Thus, they are not exactly the same in every way in possessing the Godhead personally. The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery. That's what their literature says: I don't care why they say that, as it's not Biblical. It is not in our doctrine, btw, while God as a three-in-one and one-in-three certainly is. The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity as two persons, instead of the Son of God being the Word of God from the beginning (Jn 1:1). The Word of God is also the begotten Son of God, a being next to God and who created the universe alongside the Father, since he is the begotten Son of God from eternity. What the Nicene Creed has which our doctrine doesn't have is the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, so from their nature and persons - the Spirit in the fulness of the Godhead. Our non-trinitarian beliefs, as Adventists, held to this Nicene teaching, as it is rooted in Scripture. That should do it for now. Our fundamentals are as bad as the generally held trinity doctrine, and a bit worse in places, too, as you can see. Do we need to pull out all the details, or just as proof, then? In a bit.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Why did our church reject the doctrine of the trinity?
[Re: Colin]
#138464
12/29/11 06:44 PM
12/29/11 06:44 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
God is not three persons, but one: the Father. The Son is God, so this statement can only be false. The Godhead of the Father is bodily in his one, begotten Son, too, so more than one person in the fulness of the Godhead is thus revealed. Godhead = the essencial nature and condition of being God. The Spirit is the infinite omnipresence of the Father and his Son, proceeding from their persons to dwell in their intelligent creation The Spirit is a person. The biggest red flag is "consubstantial": this means without form or body, and all three subsisting in a formless substance - mystic mystery. Consubstantial means "of the same substance." “I and My Father are One.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as He put forth the claim that He and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.—The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893, p. 54. {7ABC 437.3} The smaller red flag - it is now in our beliefs but it didn't used to be - is "co-existent": that means that Christ is not the only begotten Son of God, since God and Christ would co-exist for all eternity as two persons, instead of the Son of God being the Word of God from the beginning (Jn 1:1). In the beginning the Word already was. It did not come to existence in the beginning.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|