An interesting read....

Please bear with me as this is my step into the waters of discussing the trinity with someone who doesn't believe in it.

I'm trying to understand from the article what exactly it is you believe- I'm getting the impression that you believe there are three seperate Gods that we worship? Or is it that Jesus nor the Spirit are God and only the Father is God?

Personally I believe the Trinity is divine fact, and yes the Son did suffer, but it is fact that is so increadibly far beyond us, and to try to understand it using our fallible human logic will surely fail. Many of the things of God are a mystery to us.

I can't copy and paste it here, but R.C. Sprouls short commentary on the Trinity in his book "100 essential truths of the Christian faith" delves very well into the doctrine.

 

I hope you dont mind me pasting an essay I wrote regarding the trinity.......I wrote this around 2 years ago and have sent it to a few friends who were interested.......

We need to be aware that the Trinity doctrine is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not to mention an extremely important and perpetually relevant doctrine. For this doctrine is continually attacked by liberals, cultists and other world faiths. Now, the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, and in some cases, this is the argument used as a defense of the doctrine of One God/no Trinity. The word Trinity is actually used to express the unity of God subsisting in 3 persons. The word is derived from the Greek *trias*, which was first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183) or from the Latin *trinitas* first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220) in order to explain this doctrine. The Trinity doctrine in general states that we have to distinguish 3 persons, that are neither 3 parts or modes of God on one side, neither are they 3 Gods on the other but the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are co-equally and co-eternally God. Now this doctrine is and will never be fully comprehended by our finite minds but nonetheless its true, and is clearly evident in the pages of scripture. We need to look at various scriptures that will help us address the subject with a solid Biblical basis. Firstly we need to determine the implication of the Hebrew word God *Elohiym* found right at the beginning of Genesis. This word is used most frequently for God throughout the Old Testament, and interestingly enough, this Hebrew word Elohiym is plural and could be more literally translated *Gods*. Now this seems to pose a slight theological problem, and if the scriptures were less insistent on the fact that there is one God, it would become very confusing to us, however, we see right here, right from the beginning, the mysterious nature of God, and it seems from this word, that there is a plurality within the Divine nature. Now let us look further in Gen 1 where God says this :Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... now some people will reason that here *us* and *our* was God referring to the angels, but this is in conflict with scripture, as scripture is very clear that God alone is the creator.Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Also here in John 1:3 in the New Testament we see a similar passage: 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Also, in the account of the dispersion of the nations, at the tower of babel God said this: Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So here again we see the plurality being used. Now lets look at Deuteronomy 6:4, which is probably the key verse in the book..... and this verse is known to the Jewish people as the *shama* which is basically the statement of faith for the nation of Israel: Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: .....
Now here we need to realize this very interesting point, the Hebrew word *one*, is a word that expresses a compound unity rather than an absolute unity, and this Hebrew word is *echad*. Now basically, a compound unity is a unity that is made up of more than one. A medieval rabbi even tried to change the Hebrew word *echad* to another Hebrew word *yachid*, which means an absolute unity, out of his fear that the Jewish people would become Christians, due to this word *echad* giving way for a plurality within the Divine nature, but his alteration of the Hebrew word was an arbitrary change and not one with any textual basis. Another place where the word *echad* is used is in Gen 1:5 where it says: And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The word *first* here is also this word *echad* and basically what its saying is that morning, and evening add up to One, and in the same sense we would say Father, Son and Holy Spirit add up to One God. This word Echad is also used in other places in the scriptures, and it always refers to more than one thing coming together to form One. Now lets take a look at the New Testament for references to the plurality within the Godhead, first lets look at Mat 3:16-17...16- And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him 17- And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Here we see a direct reference to Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father. Now, if the Spirit is descending on Jesus, then who in Heaven is speaking, if indeed there is no Trinity? Of course theres no other Biblical or even rational explanation for this except for God the Father is speaking, making up the Trinity. Now the New Testament is clearer on the Trinity doctrine than the Old Testament is, however, the OT prophets were aware of the reality of a plurality within the Divine nature as they themselves said the Messiah would be God, and we know that Jesus was the Messiah as he claimed, and I bring this up because many people in the church today deny Jesus diety saying *oh, Jesus never claimed to be God, but these liberal factions dont take into consideration Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. Again in John 1:1 we see at least 2 persons of the Godhead referred to.......1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word for *Word* being used here is *logos*
and in this instance *Word* is more literally translated as *the Divine expression ie: Christ* , and if we look at verse 14 this becomes very clear.... *Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth*
Here are more references to the Trinity.Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Again we see in these passages a clear reference to the triune nature of the Godhead.

Now all of this inevitably leads to the subject of the diety of Christ. Now we need to understand that the Trinity doctrine is continually attacked because of the implication of Christ diety, basically speaking, if God is triune, then it takes Jesus out of the realm of being just another spokesman for God and puts Him into a category all by Himself, making Him God, the Son. Even the Jewish people recognized Jesus's statement that He was the son of God, to mean that He was on par with God, therefore He was in continual danger of being stoned to death, because the Jews were opposed to Jesus being God, the Son.
Lets now look at some OT references to the diety of Christ. Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Now *thy* is the old English for *your*, so we see the address is to God.. and it seems God has a God.. but Jesus is being referred to here.. now lets look at Isaiah chapter 9 ..... 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.
Now i think the key words here are *The mighty God* as the words *everlasting father* can seem misleading to some, and tend to make them think of Jesus as the Father, but we know from the scriptures that this is not the case, but in fact its a reference of being a God of time, or of eternity/of the ages etc. Now it must be addressed, that this word *mighty* which is the from the Hebrew word *gibbor* and the word *almighty* which is from the Hebrew word *shadday* are both words which refer to God the Father throughout the scripture. Now I bring this up because some cultists have a reasoning which states that Jesus is the mighty God but God the Father is the almighty God and they use the word almighty as a superior word and in essence are stating that Jesus is inferior to God, but really these two words, when applied to God are just 2 different titles....*shadday* speaking of the power of God to provide and *gibbor* speaking of the power of God to wage war and to be victorious in battle, and as I mentioned before, certain cultists use the reasoning that one is inferior to the other, which is valid when speaking of the English language but when it comes to the Hebrew it becomes clear that this is not the case.
Now here in Zechariah, we see Jesus in the First person making reference back to God the Father. Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.
Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

Now in the new Testament we see the fulfillment of this when Jesus is indeed sent by God the Father, and we see that the Messiah is speaking which gives us a clear indication of his diety. Now lets look at another fascinating passage giving us another interesting bit of insight into Jesus diety. Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Notice here God the Father is speaking, and He clearly states that HE will be pierced and they shall mourn Him, and the Hebrew word for pierced *daquar* means more literally to be stabbed or to have something thrust through, and we know that Jesus the Son is being referred to, but again here we can see clearly that Jesus and the Father are One. Heres another passage we need to look at ....Zec 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

The interesting thing about this passage in which God speaks, is that the word *fellow* can be translated more literally from the Hebrew word *amiyth* as a comrade.. or of the same kind or as a neighbour. Now lets look at a prophecy concerning John the baptist....Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Notice here that God refers to John as preparing the way before HIM... but through further revelation we know that John the baptist prepared the way for Christ, so again we see further implication of Christ diety.

Now lets take a look at the New testament teachings on the diety of Christ, firstly we can look at Luke chapter 1......and bear in mind that this passage is referring to John the baptist in order to understand the significance of whats being said....Luk 1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Here the implication is that John the baptist will turn people to the Lord, and we see that John is going before the Lord their God to prepare the people..... now lets look at verse 76 ... And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Here, again John is being spoken of, and we see he shall be called the prophet of the highest, and to prepare his ways, now if Jesus is the highest, then we must conclude that He is God.
As I mentioned earlier, some people use reasoning that Jesus never claimed to be God so its interesting to look at this next passage......Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Now, when we go back to Exodus, God revealed Himself to Moses as *I am * as a response to Moses asking God for His name during the burning bush incident.........Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Again Jesus claimed diety when he said this....Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Now some people will argue *Oh, but Jesus isnt claiming He is God*.. but we can clearly see that the Jews understood perfectly what Jesus meant, which is the reason they accused Him of blasphemy by claiming to be God.
In the next verse, Jesus is speaking to Phillip and he says this.....Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Here Jesus tells Phillip that if he has known Him *Jesus the son* then he knows the Father also, and in turn, has seen the Father, so basically Jesus is saying, *if you have seen me you have seen God*

Now lets look at John chapter 20, and we see that Thomas wouldnt believe that Jesus has risen until he had touched Jesus wounds in His hands and side, despite the other disciples bearing witness to it, and notice even the disciples acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and also notice Jesus response to Thomas. Jesus didnt say *no Thomas, dont call me God*, he accepted it......Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Again lets look at another passage concerning Christ diety.....Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

How could God have purchased the church with His blood unless God was in Christ? Lets look at Romans chapter 9 where paul is speaking....Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Again, can we get any more clear on Christ diety, of being God the son...again in Phillipians it says this.....Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Lets also look at some more passages......Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Here we see clearly Jesus being referred to as God in the flesh...........
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: 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.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
The Greek word for *express image* is charakter*, and can be translated as *exact copy*, so we see another clear reason for Christ being God the Son just as He claimed...

Here in Revelation chapter 20 Jesus said this....Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
This brings us to another aspect of the revelation concerning the diety of Christ, and that is that the names and attributes given to God the Father in the OT are applied to Jesus in the NT.... Lets take a look at examples of these names.... *The first and the last*... this is applied to God the Father in Isaiah 44:6... in Hosea 11:9, the title *the Holy One* is applied to God the Father, in Acts 3:14 its applied to Jesus...... in Psalm 24:8, *King of glory* is applied to God the Father, in 1 Corinthians 2:8 *Lord of Glory* is applied to Jesus by the apostle Paul..... in Psalm 23, God the Father is referred to as the *shepherd* by David, in John 10:11 Jesus referred to Himself as the *good shepherd*.....in Isaiah 8:14, God the Father is referred to as *a rock of offence*, in 1 Peter 2:8 Jesus is referred to in the same way.... so we see that what is applied to God the Father in the OT is also applied to God the Son in the NT.
Now lets look at the attributes of Jesus, which can only pertain to God..... Omnipitance.... Matt 28:18 Jesus said this... And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Omniscience..... in Colossians 2:2-3, Paul says this ... Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Omnipresence......Jesus said this in Matt 18:20... For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus also said this in 28:19-20....Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

God never changes...... here in Hebrews 13:8 says this.....Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

So, here we clearly see that all the attributes, which can ONLY pertain to God, are also attributes of Jesus Christ, so the conclusion is drawn for us.

I will finish with this passage in 1 John:
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

and for those who think that the verse in 1 John is spurious, here is an interesting portion of an article on a webpage I was looking at :


It is not true that I John 5:7 is absent in all pre-16th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for I John 5:7f from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that I John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome's Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

 

Everything you have charged here about God being supreme is correct. But I don't see how that negates or degrades the fact that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity.

First, I think we can agree that things of God are above things of man, many (if not most) are totally beyond our own finite comprehension. I believe that the Trinity is one of those things. He revealed to us that that is God's nature, and some things about the Trinity, but certianly we cannot fully encompass it or explain it by mere human reason.

Here are a few things that I think are important to understand:

1. Christ was there at the creation of the world, clearly before the time of his earthly ministry.

I won't quote a lot of scriptures about this because I believe from what I have read that you agree with this already. If this assertion is not correct however, just shout out and i'll go into more depth.

2. Jesus Christ was begotten, not made when he was born of a virgin.

This is part of one of the earliest Christian confessions. If we can accept that Jesus Christ, of divine nature existed before he was begotten of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we can certianly agree that he existed before this time.

3. The gospels confess to his 2 natures.

John 1:1-5 is the most increadible and powerful profession of his divinity. No mistake about that can be made here.

However we are shown that he "became man" or became "like us". He was born, physically, of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He had many of our own limitations that he took on willingly. He did not cease to be God, but became also a man. He felt happiness, pain, sorrow, joy, and other emotions we have. If Christ did not have a human body, than he could have not shed his blood on the cross, and there would have not been an acceptable sacrifice for our sins.

4. The beliefs of early Christians show a strong belief in the Trinity.

Here is a list of the creeds of the early church:
http://www.flyfreeministries.org/creeds.htm

5. The Trinity is essential in the salvation of mankind.

I touched on this a little bit before

6. The gospels point to the Trinity.

John 14:23, John 17:3, John 14:26, John 6:44, Matthew 3:16-17. If you need clarification on any of these, just ask. It shows how each of the persons of the Trinity are part of the Trinity.

7. The Bible clearly tells us worshipping anyone but God is a grave sin, yet Christ freely accepted worship.

The 10 commandments tells us that we are to worship only God alone, yet Christ freely accepted worship. If only one God is to be worshipped, yet Christ is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, than we are left with only one option: The Holy Trinity. Christians, like the Jews have only one God who operates in three persons.

8. The Old Testament and New Testament points to only one God.
9. If Christ is divine there can be only one God.
10. If Christ is not divine he could have not accepted worship.

I also want to comment on your article:

"And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for "we have redemption through his blood."The mistake here is that the author is trying to say that only one of his natures would have died. God became man and died for us. He did not cease to be God, but had human limitations- he was a physical man. We are indebted to Jesus Christ for our forgiveness, Jesus Christ, who has two natures. Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism. The author clearly doesn't understand what Christians confess then. You cannot seperate Gods natures. It's impossible. Jesus Christ- God sacrificed himself for us. Something beyond our full understanding."

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Clearly the Father and Son have two separate minds, Consciousness, and wills."

Two wills within the Godhead? That's an old heresy. God is one substance, three persons. One substance means one being and one will.

The Father is greater than Jesus (in age and authority)

God, who is outside of time, has one part that is older than another? *Grin* Time began with creation; time is a "creature feature". To say that Christ is younger than the father and was not created is a contradiction in terms. Without creation, you have no time; you have only God.

and the Father has revealed some things to the Son over time.

God, who is outside of time, has one part of himself reveal facts to another part of himself who is obviously not omniscent? (and therefore, btw, not God, because you've placed a limit upon him)

Someone is creating some pretty serious theological & philosophical mistakes, and her name is Kelly.

Kelly, you're an Arian. Arius' greatest mistake was that he elevated reason over faith, thus committing the error of rationalism, and you're falling in his footsteps. You've essentially lost the faith. You're professing heresy with regard to the absolute most essential of the hierarchy of truths.

Bob, are you an Arian too?

 

Carson,

As Kelly has noted - the Adventist church is distinctly Trinitarian. (She has noted some of the 27 fundamental beliefs published by the church that specify that point in detail).

I would also note that the author quoted above was from the "Church of the Bretheren" prior to joining in the Advent movment of the 1800's and that the church of the bretheren was non-trinitarian.

I have worshipped in a great many SDA churches and have yet to actually meet a non-Trinitarian SDA in person. But I have heard that there are some out there. Kelly is about the 3rd one I have met on the web.

In saying that - I am sure there are more some place - I just don't know where.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I asked you a couple of weeks ago what you thought about a SDA who was not trinitarian. Are they still Christian. You see, kelly has denied the trinity. I think if you look back on her thread "a sincere question for Cathoilcs you will see from a quote I posted that she denies this essential truth. So Bob, what do you think?

 

Why bother with the labels?

I believe there is ONE GOD.

Just say that.

I bother with the label because I too believe there is ONE GOD.

You (as well as I) are unable to see with the light of your intellect how three persons can share one uncreated nature with one will, and so you elevate your reason over divine revelation, thus not accepting a mystery of faith that goes beyond the ability of our intellect to grasp. This takes a supernatural act of faith, which we are enabled to make by the gift of God Himself.

You're an Arian because you confess that there is a time when the Son of God was not, which was Arius' mantra. If you confess that there was never a time when the Son of God was not, then you must either be a Monophysite (a Patripassionist) or a Trinitarian because if there was never a time when the Son of God was not, then the Son of God is God, as John 1:1ff confesses.

 

Wait a second, how can a person believe there is only one God and deny the Trinity? The only way I can see this is if you deny Christ is God, in which case, if you believe in God, Elohim, you mine as well be Jewish right?

 

3Angelsmom,

I understand tired, there really is no rush, its just a message board after all! Get back to me when you can.

The Apostles Creed is written sometime in the first or early second century AD

The Nicene or "Creed of Costantinople" was written 60 years after the Nicene Council and the original creed (which did not include a discription of the Holy Spirit and included a pronouncement of anathema on anyone "who does not believe in the full diety of Jesus as described in the creed"

The Athanasian Creed was written early 5th century AD and gives us one of the first extremely detailed statements of the nature of the Trinity.

Source: Crosswalk.com

 

Was Helen G. White a trinitarian?

 

I was reading today for my Catechetical Methods graduate course, and I came across a very interesting article by Msgr. Eugene Kevane in Teaching the Catholic Faith Today (1982), who was a priest and university professor who instructed two of my current professors who run the catechetics program at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:

"The death of the last Apostle, sixty or seventy years after the crucifixion of Jesus, saw the Church busily carrying out its mandate. Its catechetical teaching program was already well established in the chief centers of the pagan Empire of Rome: from Jerusalem the Church went early to Antioch, and on to St. Paul's missionary foundations; to Rome itself, where St. Peter organized the Church; to Ephesus in the person of St. John. St. Mark, Peter's younger associate at Rome, built up the Church at Alexandria in Egypt. In each of these apostolic centers, this same program for teaching the deposit of faith was organized, wonderfully unified both in structure and in content. This 'Catechumentate,' as it was called, was everywhere the same, the same as it had been back to its origin in the teaching of Jesus. Wherever the Catholic Church reached and branched out from these original apostolic centers, it took root and grew by means of this same catechetical program for handing on the faith by teaching.

"By late Second Century, this same Catechumenate was flourishing in secondary centers like Lyons in southern Gaul. The works of Irenaeus bear witness to its continuing fidelity in teaching the deposit of faith. Irenaeus was the spiritual grandson of St. John the Apostle. For St. John taught Polycarp in his Catechumenate at Ephesus. Polycarp became a priest himself and then bishop of neighboring Smyrna, where he as a matter of course organized his own Catechumentate. Among his catechumens was the young Greek Irenaeus, who decided upon the priesthood and the missions in the west.

"In his book, Against the Heresies, Irenaeus gives a description of the deposit of faith, which follows the doctrinal substance of what later on will be called 'The Apostles Creed.' 'The Church,' he writes, 'though dispersed throughout the whole world..., has received this faith from the Apostles and their disciples: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and the seas with all things that are in them; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advent, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh, of the well-beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his Second Coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father to gather all things into one [Eph. 1:10], and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race [Adversus Haereses 1:10:1).

"Irenaeus is firmly convinced that this deposit of faith is being handed on unaltered in the catechetical teaching of the Catholic Church. This deposit of faith constitutes the on-going Apostolicity of this same Catholic Church and provides the catechists with their Rule of Faith and Canon of Truth, concepts which Irenaeus developed to meet Gnosticism, the first great heretical challenge in the life of the Church. Ireaneus says that Christians receive this Rule of Faith in their aptism, a clear indication that he means the interrogatory form of the Apostles' Creed [Adversus Haereses 1:9:4].

"Irenaeus continues in his famous passage on the deposit of faith. 'The Church,' he writes, 'having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it [Adversus Haereses 1:10:2].

"For St. Irenaeus the catechetical teaching which hands on the deposit of faith is what later times will call 'the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.' For him, there was as yet no other form of the Magisterium, for the actions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, taken to explain, defend and develop the Articles of Faith which constitute the deposit, belonged to the future in the great Ecumenical Councils still to come. For St. Irenaeus and the Fathers of the Early Church generally, this Magisterium of the Catechumenate, handing on the divine deposit, was Jesus Christ continuing to teach in his Body, which is the Church. It is not surprising, then, that devotion to Jesus Christ the Divine Teacher, to which Pope John Paul II alludes in the passage cited above, characterized this Early Church in a special way.

"The Catechumenate becomes fully visible in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is everywhere the same, whether in the East with St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in Northern Italy with Saint Ambrose of Milan, or in Africa with St. Augustine. It is always an organized teaching which explains the Apostles' Creed article by article and then teaches how to deepen the threefold personal response of metanoia in prayer, Gospel morality and sacramental living. Let St. Augustine, in one of his homilies to his catechumens, speak for all the Fathers..."

I wish I could continue to quote Kevane, but my fingers are getting tired, and I would be typing all night long. This material is gold!

 

3AM,

Question for you. How do you know so much about Ellen G. White? When you first came to this board your were asked about her (I believe by DHK) and you acted like you did not know who she was. Were you being deceptive or have you done a lot of research recently?

God Bless You,
Neal