Trinity 14: Trinity in SDA History: A Journey in Biblical Understanding - Merlin D. Burt, Dr.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- Produced by: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University
In association with Seminary Distance Learning Center
Director, Seminary Distance Learning Center: Helena Gregor, Ph. D.
Producer: Denis Fortin, Ph. D.
Editor: Delmar Reis
Camera: Delmar Reis, Joel Almeida, Kelber Mazur, and Miroslav Danihel
Copyright @ SDA Theological Seminary
Andrews University
Just like every other actions to introduce the new theology, this is clearly an attempt to reinterpret our history to suit a trinitarian perspective. I am so happy I got the truth about Adventist non-trinitarian history from way back in the 90s. It has helped me so well in discerning the underhanded attempts to hide the truth about our past.
As an SDA I’m shocked how many are now claiming that Jesus is not God. How can we be forgiven by God if He (God) Himself didn’t die for us to pay the penalty of His creations sin
"There are differences between the SDA view of the Godhead and the Roman Catholic view of the Godhead." Amen.
Trinity is just trinity no difference
I like Dr. Burt and his simple way of teaching. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with some of his statements. There is no such thing as a "Biblical Trinitarian." The Trinity Doctrine was developed philosophically by the Roman Catholic Church (Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople). All denominations who claim a biblical view of the trinity are simply denying history in order to deceive their followers into accepting the Trinity through the Scriptures they put together. Some have altered the doctrine here and there, such as the Seventh-day. It is still the foundation of the Catholic Church. It is true, the Adventists reject the "Whore of Babylon" for switching the Sabbath to Sunday, yet they willingly accept the Trinity that also comes from her. This is deception at its best!
wrong we did not take the trinity from the rcc our view is different from the rcc
Actually you are a deceiver. There IS a Biblical concept of the Trinity, even if the systematic explanation of this doctrine is theological, not necessarilz in the Bible. It is the same as monotheism. The term is also not in the Bible, but a Biblical concept of monotheism cannot be denied, even if it is not systematically presented and explained in the Bible. Actually the Bible does not explain a lot of things.
Biblical Trinity and Biblical monotheism might be different from some official statements of the churches, but they must be understood complementary, not contradictory, or ignoring the texts you don’t like.
I sign with my own name, submitting my words with my name to the public judgment. You sign with a false name, because you have no responsability for your words. You hide in order to attack from the shaddow. Who of us is the ”jesuit” ?
The Trinity teaching is to be found first in the Bible, though in a non-systematic presentation (as all other doctrines), then it is present in Christian writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, before the Nicene Council (325 AD). When did the Catholic Church began to exist, in order to create the Trinitarian concept. Did you hear of the Eastern Orthodox Church? She is the institutional heir of the Church of the first centuries of the East. She says that the Roman Church separated from the true Catholic Ortodox church in 1054, while the Roman Church says that the Easter Orthodox separated from the true Catholic Church who must be Roman (Latin), not Eastern (Greek).
The traditional Church should not be demonized, be it in the East or in the West. She did a lot of mistakes and wrongs, and she is guilty in many respects. But it is unjust to accuse her for anything, since the Church was a mixture of good and evil persons, and not all her doctrines are false. The doctrine of the Trinity is just one of the good doctrines that she preserved. More important, she preserved the New Testament. You would not have the NT today, if the apostate churches of East and West had not preserved and multiplied its manuscripts.
this guy is misquoting oyr pioneers who were arians,all of them were against trinity for they had faith in father and his begotten son .and the holy spirit was spirit of the father and his son.this guy is a jesuit.
A quick update.
We have received some responses from our short survey.
The question was, “Is the One God who is a unity of three persons also a person himself? That is, will we see the one in three god in heaven when we get there? Does this triune god have the throne of his own besides that of the Father and of the Son?”
The responses are very conflicting and confusing. Please consider them for yourself.
1. A pastor said yes, the three persons make up one person. Asked to clarify how, the pastor has not come back to us yet.
2. A theologian said, they do not make one person, it is impossible to make one person from three persons. The Father is the unity of the trinity, and He is the One God. That raises many questions. If the Father is the One God, where is the triune God? How can the Father be a unity of himself and two others, to make one, if he is already the one?
3. Another person whose title is unknown said that the three persons of the trinity do not form one person. They are One God only in terms of having one purpose.
4. From our previous experiences, we have heard some say the One God of the Bible is the Godhead, i.e. just a divinity or deity, without further clarity on what that is?
5. Another theologian said that the One God who is a unity of three persons is not material or physical. That means the One God is an abstraction. In other words, he is a theory, or a concept in the minds of those who believe in him. We question. The Bible refers to the One God as “He” and he speaks. How can an abstraction, a theory or a concept in the mind be referred to as He? Does a concept speak?
6. Another person said the One God is a mystery, thus leaving the One God undefined. Sounds like a quick way for human wisdom to escape accountability for the confusion that human wisdom has created (akin to pleading insanity in court). We raise an issue with this unexplained mystery of human wisdom. The trinity doctrine, that is put together by human minds gives us the triune God. Thus, those who made the trinity doctrine must be able to explain it. In other words, we are not questioning the Bible, but the trinity doctrine, because the trinity doctrine is a product of human wisdom.
I don’t know about you, but this sounds like a lot of confusion. It seems there is no one with a clear understanding of what this human creation called the triune god is? To those who say it is a mystery we question. Why should human wisdom create a doctrine which it cannot explain and cannot understand? Is that not a reason to discard the doctrine and return to that only which the Bible says, that the is One God, the Father, who has Only One begotten Son. The One God, the Father has and is also a Spirit? No three equal persons making up confusion?
Regards,
The Rock Fortress Ministries.
I’m 74. I don’t know when I first became aware that some of the pioneers of the advent movement denied certain aspects of what I believe but, even when I learned that, it didn’t “bother” me much for two reasons. I had been told that a) adventists aren’t creedal and b) truth is progressive.
One of the reasons I didn’t use the word, “trinity”, in explaining my personal beliefs was that I think that word emphasizes the threeness of God without a corresponding emphasis on his oneness. The word I have preferred since the 1970s is “triune”. I speak (and write) about the triune nature of God. I think and speak of myself as triunitarian because my God is triune (three persons) of one “essence” and I think the oneness of God is at least as important as his threeness. If there are differences between the teaching of the Roman Church and the teaching of Seventh-day Adventists about “the trinity”, that seems to me to be a reason to avoid using the word, “trinity”, except in an academic context where adequate definition of the word can at least be attempted.
Before my wife, Sally, and I moved to Utah in 1982, I had read a number of books by both adventist and non-adventist authors. I don’t remember seeing even one example of any of those authors using the word, “they”, when referring to Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or any two divine persons). I assumed that the reason is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit comprise one (and only one) God. The singular pronoun that was preferred by all those writers seemed to be “he”--again, emphasizing the oneness of God.
Among Lds (Mormons) in Utah, however, we found ubiquitous use of the word, “they”, to refer to Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
To their credit, most of the adventists in Utah (at least those with whom we became acquainted) didn’t try to mimic LdS usage in order to make themselves sound more like LdS when speaking with LdS.
I think it was about 2007 or 2008 that I first noticed the use of the word, “they”, on an SdA website in reference to the Father and the Son. As soon as I could, I questioned the use of that word in that context because it seemed to me to give the impression that the advent movement was just another version of Mormonism.
In response to my expressions of concern, I got mostly just blank stares. My adventist brethren didn’t seem to care whether the essential oneness of God was being adequately expressed. Nor did they seem to be concerned about whether that language made the adventist movement look like just a repainted version of Mormonism--a horse of a slightly different color.
That was about a decade ago. More recently I have heard several adventists (or persons pretending to be adventists) decrying the use of the word, “trinity”, in twenty-first century adventist publications but their “reason” seems to be entirely because they have been told that “the pioneers” were anti-trinitarian or they have read statements by James White or Joseph Bates or Uriah Smith to that effect.
Perhaps it is (unintentionally, I hope) misleading to refer to “the” adventist doctrine about the nature of God. H.M.S. Richards Sr. sidestepped the issue by saying that trying to define the doctrine of the trinity was like trying to nail Jello to the wall. Maybe we should admit that not all adventists understand the nature of God in exactly the same way--which shouldn’t be too surprising given that we are talking about finite beings trying to describe an infinite being.
Roger Metzger
Orrington, Maine
Friend, there is no "essential oneness" in the Trinity doctrine. If three beings are to be called God you have three gods, not one - whatever you do to rationalize otherwise.
But if you believe in the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy through EGW, then you should be willing to be corrected by her own words of instruction on WHO the God of the universe actually is:
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” {8T 268.3}
“Our heavenly Father is the God of the universe, and Christ is the divine Son, the One equal with the Father.” {Ms 49-1906.26}
“God is a person and Christ is a person. Christ is spoken of in the Word as "the brightness of His Father's glory, and the express image of His person." {1SAT 343.3}
If the foregoing is True, then the Trinity cannot be - for it is completely contradictory to the terms in that definition. The truth is that none of our founding Pioneers believed in the Ecumenical Trinity - instead they renounced it. It didn't end up becoming part of our Fundamental Beliefs until it was voted in in 1980. This was an Apostasy from the "Fundamental Principles" we held before.
“Let Pioneers Identify Truth.--When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time." -- Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905.) {E. G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 31, 32}
Perhaps you should study this subject out fully for yourself Brother.
@@mdmorell A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. For that reason, this question is not so much for you as for those other people who might be tempted to subscribe to your thesis that “If three beings are to be called God you have three gods, not one - ...” (I don’t teach that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three “beings”, by the way.)
In the treble register of a piano, each note is composed of three strings. When the strings are properly tuned, each string vibrates at the same frequency as the other stings of that note.
If we were to apply your “logic” in describing that note on the piano, would it follow that the note is really three notes (because it is comprised of three strings)? Or would it follow that the three strings are really one string (because the vibration of each is in unison with the other two, thus producing one note)?
I consider James White, Joseph Bates and Uriah Smith to have been sincere Christians, even if their understanding of the nature of God was a bit different from mine. At the same time, I think the message about the nature of the Kingdom of Jesus might have been even more effective if such men had not created unnecessary controversy on this subject.
If you think this subject is “essential” to the advent movement and message, you are entitled to your opinion. But until you can answer the question I have posed above, don’t be surprised if you are not chosen to act as a spokesman for the advent movement.
@@rogermetzger7335 As to questions, you've not answered the mysterious question of your own view. Nor given your opinion of Ellen White's definition of God. You've simply made it plain that you disagree with mine and the Pioneer's.
For the sake of expediting a clear understanding in this discussion why don't you clearly spell out your own doctrinal belief instead of going off on a philosophical tangent like the proverbial egg?
The Pioneers placed the nature of God in first place within the Fundamental Principles, so I believe that answers whether or not this subject is essential to our movement today.
@@mdmorell 1: I doubt that I can explain my understanding of this subject any better than I already have.
2: My parents were voting members of the Seventh--day Adventist organization before I was born (1844) and remained so until their death in the 1980s. I considered them to be leaders in that organization, albeit only in various local congregations of which they were members. I never considered them to be followers of the organization or its officers. I’ve been a voting member since 1959 and I don’t consider me to be any more a follower of the organization or its officer than they were.
Ellen Harmon was raised in the Methodist Episcopal Church. If you understand some of her statements about God as antithetical to methodist doctrine, please understand that I have read the ones you quoted and don’t find anything in them that seems to me to deny what she was taught as a child. Because her husband had been a minister in the Christian Connexion before he became an adventist, her statements about the nature of God were more guarded before he died in 1881. It seems to me that she honored him as the spiritual head of the household and wanted her children to do likewise.
Her book, Desire of Ages, was published in 1898. In it, she made statements with which her husband might have taken some issue if he had still been living. At least one of those statements is quoted in the video so I’ll not take the time to repeat it here.
3: To what are you referring when you write that “The Pioneers placed the nature of God in first place within the Fundamental Principles”? Is there a document you consider to be “the” creed of Seventh-day Adventists? If so, that seems strange indeed, considering how definite many of them were that adventist should have no creed but the Bible.
@@rogermetzger7335 @Michael morell...
Don't you two have better things to spend your time on instead of trying to convince each other of something that neither of you will ever change your mind on.....not to mention there's probably a 99.9% chance that you will not change the other's mind?? Really.......you both need to start acting like Christian's and go do the work of the Father, instead of the adversary! The clock is a'ticking......you are both accountable to God for what and how you spend your time.
Thanks for this wonderful presentation!
Iam an Adventist member but I have researched from bible and spirit of prophesy and found out that trinity is a false doctrine.2corinthians 3:17john 4:24proves that God is spirit.
this is what James White believed regarding the equality of the Father and the Son
“The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that he had received all things from the Father” (James White, The Review & Herald, January 4, 1881).
And this is a fair statement.
Nevin Holland If one quote could establish a person's beliefs, we wouldn't need books and scholars and research. But then our understanding of history would be woefully two dimensional.
It is simply non-Biblical. Where in the Bible is said that the Father was first? This is simply a human logic base on the analogy of the human father-son relationships. But if you want a fair analogy, one must have a literal Mother, in order to have a literal Father. All other speech (e. g. ”born of God”) is explicitly poetic use in the Bible, as anyone can read:
”Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is BORN OF GOD: and every one that loveth HIM THAT BEGAT loveth HIM ALSO THAT IS BEGOTTEN OF HIM”. (1 Jn. 5:1 KJV)
Ben Nichols Isaiah 43:10-13. There is no other God but the Lord. Jesus inherited everything from his Father: His name, righteousness, nature, life, etc. thus the Father is One, and Jesus is the Only Begotten One of the Father. Jesus is my savior and yours. He’s given me their life and I commune with them daily :)
@@florinlaiu John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater (Greek: OLDER) than I.
Thus:
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
“Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.” - (Desire of Ages, p. 530) - Evangelism p. 616.2
Trinitarians assume this means Christ has always existed, but in a later writing she reveals that is not what she was saying.
“He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can POSSESS IT ONLY THROUGH CHRIST. He cannot earn it; IT IS GIVEN HIM as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour.” - (E.G. White, ST, April 8, 1897)
Note that this original, unborrowed, underived life can also be GIVEN to man. The life of Christ was original, unborrowed, underived, as it was given to Him by His Father.
“For as the Father has life in Himself; so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself;” John 5 : 26
If Jesus had always existed alongside the Father as the Trinity doctrine claims, then God could not have given life to His Son as He would have always had life. But Scripture has not revealed this and all that it has ever said was that Christ is the literal Son of God.
Furthermore, White also wrote, “ALL THINGS CHRIST RECEIVED FROM GOD, but He took to give.” - (E.G. White, DA, p. 21)
What is ALL, if it is not ALL?
Does this not also include His original, unborrowed, underived life, the life of His Father?
And since the life of the Father has been given to His Son, then that means Christ is also self-existent. So the Father gave this life to His Son, and through Christ, it can be given to everyone who believes in Him.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3 : 16
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17 : 3
Today our denomination’s leaders have adopted the position that the Father is not really a father and the Son is not really a son:
“…the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” (Adventist Biblical Research Institute, “A Question of Sonship”, adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/godgodhead-jesus-christ/question-sonship)
But is that biblical? What does the Bible say about the Father and Son?
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” 1 John 2 : 22-25
What does the Spirit of Prophecy say about the Father and Son?
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” {E. G. White, Testimonies Volume 8, p. 268}
"The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father."
- {Ms21-1906.10} - EGW
Through Solomon Christ declared: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.... When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment; when He appointed the foundations of the earth; then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” {ST August 29, 1900, par. 14}
you sir are a Biblical uneducated pious blowhard
Daniel Miladinov The life Jesus has is "underived" meaning He didn't get it from elsewhere. If He gives that life to man, it would be "derived." That's how that works.
What are you doing? You repeated your comment.
+Daniel Miladinov
You said: [ Furthermore, White also wrote, “ALL THINGS CHRIST RECEIVED FROM GOD, but He took to give.” - (E.G. White, DA, p. 21) ]
Here is an interesting description of the Savior. It is worth reading:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
And here is more about the nature of the Savior:
Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, *the Almighty* .
I am not overly concerned with what EGW may have said. The Bible is replete with definitions and ideas about God's nature. Isaiah conveys that the Savior is *The Mighty God* . So, now we have two Gods. And when we add the Holy Spirit, then we have three Gods. What most people miss about God is that the title implies God to be a family in whose image man and woman were made.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So, if there is only one God, then it could not have been said "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; *male and female created he them* . "
But neither the Savior nor the Father are female. And Eve, therefore could not have been made in the image of God.... unless God is really the superlative example of a family and the title "God" implies the family circle. Therefore, All three are separate beings and each of them is God or a member of that family. The Savior, therefore, is the Mighty God or the Almighty; in every sense of the title.
@@bradsexson9211 this is not Christ speaking sir... Let our words be seasoned with salt
thank for your presentation!
This is so fake. I don't buy it for a second.
The biblical doctrine of the trinity. Like we thought that knowledge would not increase - "the knowledge" so now it is increasing people are realizing that the "Head of Man is Christ and the Head of Christ is God". Much of the errors we all decide to accept is coming to light.
There is no such biblical doctrine. If you believe that show me the definition of the Trinity in the Bible please.
@@mdmorell my comments are not expected to be very clear.... however, the essential parts of the comments are based on the last statement "Much of the errors we all decide to accept is coming to light" - Think about it.
@@simplelife7378 Why would you knowingly make unclear comments? Are you the Riddler from Batman?
@@mdmorell Whoso ever readeth.. Let Him Understand. I am certain that those words are for the one who are - not glossing over lightly on these important facts.
@@simplelife7378 You apparently don't care that the Trinity is indeed unbiblical. Then why would you begin your statement by saying "The biblical doctrine of the trinity?" Making such a statement begs for justification.
you talk about development in understanding in adventism as if they were inventing new things that did not exist in scriptures while actually they grew in understanding by going back to the Bible...for instance you cite that they grew in knowledge by knowing when to start the Sabbath... but you fail to see the fact that they moved from their trinitarian background into non trinitarian position and that is biblical...they went back to the Bible.... God is not a trinity find other fools to mislead.
Saganga Kapaya James White and Joseph Bates were in the Christian Connexion, which was anti-trinitarian. Their religious background made them resist the biblical doctrine of the three-in-one Godhead. Their sincere bible study and guidance of the Holy Spirit led them to accept this doctrine later.
Yes, ”they grew in understanding by going BACK to the Bible”. Sometimes they went forth, as with the anti-Trinity noise, and later they had to go BACK. The same was true about the meaning of 1844. First they believed it must be the cleansing of the earth by fire. Then they went BACK to the Bible (and still have to do it in this case). Your obsession is that pioneers must have marched always ahead, and did no theological mistake, while the latter generations must have marched backwards. Therefore we always need some fringe prophets to call us back to the Pioneers’ way of Bible reading.
@@florinlaiu
"Let Pioneers Identify Truth.--When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions,
contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. {CW 31.2}
"A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time. {CW 32.1}
"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."-- Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905.) {CW 32.2}
Can you take a rebuke from the Prophet?
Why go around in circles about the trinity in Adventism? Why not proclaim substance or essence on the belief on the trinity ? Those key words aren’t on there
We do in our Doctrines.
Samuel Williams no you dont . Not substance /essence homoousius
@@alonsomiguellozanoaumne5668 Actually we never use the Greek term used by the RCC which the Orthodox object too. But Yes the are homoousis. On what basis do you make the charge we don't? We just use English.
Samuel Williams so then you would agree Jesus was conscious in spirit when his body was in the tomb ?
You believe that
@@alonsomiguellozanoaumne5668 The Bible never states that directly. So I can only give you what I think. I believe that the Spirit of Jesus was conscious. Why because Jesus is GOD and man. But that is not true of normal human beings.
Hello
One might refer to me as a Unitarian Adventist
God is always a single HE
The God of Abraham
The God of Jesus
Nobody refers to God as “they”?
Doesn't matter how you paint it.....a non biblical principle will always be a non biblical principle!
It is Biblical, but you are blind!
@@florinlaiu it not only non biblical..... Its nonsense
@@vaughnmadsen1218nonsense exactly it makes absolutely no sense at all.
My church is sleepy cling pagan doctrine.
Almighty God raise you are messengers to call people out babel and pagan teachings.
No way you can justify trinity is pagan completely
Eternity is not endless time. It is no time. Outside of time.
There is no biblical doctrine of the trinity. The catholic doctrine is a single devine being with a multiple personality mental disorder. The sda socalled trinity is three coequal coeternal unrelated devine beings and each being a separate person who at some point in time drew straws to see who would play the roll of the son. The saying that two wrongs don't make a right is true and it is also true that two rights who appose each other don't make a right either. E.G. White said that divinity and humanity were mysteriously blended yet distinctly separate in the person of jesus christ. The ones who say jesus christ is fully god are right and the ones who say jesus christ is fully a man are right but when both sides say the other side is wrong then they are both wrong. God has a divided mind but not in the sence of being in opposition one part to the other but in the sence that god divided himself into two unequal parts. The larger part being the father and the smaller part being the son but both in unity and harmony. Jesus christ is not just god in a human body although god was in a human body (god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself) he god, both parts, was manifested in the flesh (in him dwelth all the fullness of the godhead bodily). God is a holy spirit, an omnipresent spirit which god himself divided and is able to disperse. The divinity of christ was without beginning of days or end of life. God or even a part of god can not die, can not be tempted with evil, can not become a man, can not become the son of man or can not lie. At Bethlehem enters the son of man, the 100% fully human being who was in the father and the father was in him. He, the son of man, who is the christ, the son of the living god and who had a human mother called mary was tempted in all points like we are yet was without sin and he died and his god and father raised him from the dead. God the father and his preincarnated devine son have always existed but not as seperate beings and not as having the titles father and son. The man christ jesus was begotten at Bethlehem by god's holy spirit and god is a spirit and by Mary a human woman. Someone who thought that one god by himself can't be a god of love and two gods would be a selfish and self cented love but with three gods he thought it would be a shared and compete or completed love asked me if I thought this topic was a salvation issue. What do you think I said? And what do you say? P.S. the human being is not the creator god. The human being did not write the ten suggestion on tables of stone with his finger. The human being did not say, I formed you in the womb, I spread out the heavens alone, I made the earth by myself and since he didn't, who did? This is life eternal they they might know thee, the only true god and jesus christ whom thou hast sent!!!
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, (He) who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. {FLB 52.3}
"The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead. He is the great teacher sent from heaven to guide us into all truth.""Manuscript 20," 1906
Jedus is equal to God (AKA the Father). Doesn't matter if you call them a trinity or not. There are three persons who are each God. Keep that in mind and you'll be better off.
Who is "Jedus?" Show me in the Bible where 3 persons are called the one God.
And all of us thinks the earth is a spinning Ball, even when the bible says it is immovable.
flat earther give it a rest
DId you ever go to school? What grades you did you receive at science?
Amen. Biblical indeed.
Thank you Doug Bachelor for living the legacy of Dr John Kellogg and Leroy Froom. There are really 3 Gods! Pls beware of your Prophet EGW for saying that the 3rd person of the heavenly trio!
Which is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ!
The Spirit of truth is the Spirit of Christ!
The third great power is the Spirit of Christ!
The Holy Spirit given at Pentecost was the Spirit of Christ!
The Holy Spirit Jesus breathed on His disciples was His own Spirit!
The Heavenly trio is the Father, Son and the their Spirit! And reveals over and over again that there are only 2 beings in Godhead!
She's the only prophet in all religion that says that the 3rd person is not a Separate Entity and not a BEING! Pls beware of her SDA'S! Dont accept her we all need to UNITE! There are really 3 Gods and they're co-equal and co-eternal! TRINITY is the foundation of ALL! SDA Pls support your current trinitarian Leaders now!
Your dear loving Catholic Christian.
you are confusing in your explanation
How can you say biblical it doesnt exist in the bible trinity .your talking too much show from the bible what your saying
Watch the whole series. Everything is biblical.
The trinity is a false doctrine
This is a very broad statement.
Could you please explain, what you mean by trinity?
And could you please explain how you harmonize the clear statements in Isaiah that there is no God and no saviour besides the Lord (cf. Isa 43:10-11) and the clear statement that the Word was God (Joh 1,1-3) and that Jesus is the saviour (2.Tim 1:10)?
Thank you.
@@follower4219 From the SDA website:
Trinity: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.
That is a false doctrine, because it is utterly unbiblical - not found in the Bible. AND it represents an Apostasy against what we once taught.
@@mdmorell Thank you for answering one of my questions. Because I realized there are many misrepresentations among people about what trinity is about.
But how do you harmonize those texts that I stated.
If you could answer this question first, before I take a stand towards the "Apostasy against what we once tought"-claim.
@@follower4219 Let's look at Isaiah 43:10, 11 and John 1:
Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Who is speaking? It is Jehovah. And who is His "Servant?" It is of course Jesus Christ. Why does He say "beside me there is no Saviour?" Because God the Father saves us through Jesus Christ. God does all things through His Son:
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In the beginning of time was Jesus, He was with God (the Father) and He was God (in Divine nature, MORPHE, the form of God; Philippians 2:6). John 1:14 tells us that the glory (divinity) Jesus had was because He is the only begotten Son of the Father. Hebrews 1:3, 4 tells us that because He as the Son bears the express image of the person of God He also carries the family name of God "by inheritance," as the Son of God. But even He has a God (vs. 9) which cannot all be true of a coeternal member of a Trinity God. And again, God created all things through Christ, His begotten Son - Eph. 3:9.
@@mdmorell first of all, thank you for taking up the thread of the conversation.
Please don't take me as unkind, but as factual, when I answer.
Unfortunately I have to say, in Jesus' words, "you err".
Mainly because you don't read all the Scriptures but only portions. And because you do so, you come to the wrong conclusions.
Isa. 43:10.11 isn't one of the Servant-songs. It is the Lord JHWH talking to Israel (cf. "You are my witnesses" [plural]).
Regarding Joh 1 you practice eisegesis again. It doesn't say in the beginning of TIME. It simply says "en arche" in the beginning.
And you miss the point of Joh 1: The Word was God!
How can Jesus be God, if he is no God?
How can Jesus be God if there is only the Father who is God?
How can Jesus be in the morphe of God if he isn't God?
Even so He was isos with God. Isos means "same", like isometric exercises have the same forces in action. With man Jesus was homoioma, "similar".
Did you even read Hebrews 1 in context?
If Jesus isn't God, why does the Bible say so?
If Jesus is some sort of lower god, why does the Bible say, there is no god before or after the Lord?
The problem with the pagan gods is not, that they are rivaling gods, but that they are no gods at all.
You didn't solve a problem, you deepened it. By your argument you create an adiditional god besides the Lord. But probably you aren't aware of it.
Please study again.