Sabbath: The Triune God
Read for This Week’s Study: Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6; Matt. 28:19; Gen. 1:26, 27; John 14–16.
Memory Text:
“But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 20, 21, NKJV).
Key Thought: Scripture contains references and hints to the deity and unity of the divine Godhead.
Though the word Trinity itself doesn’t appear in the Bible, the teaching definitely does. The doctrine of the Trinity, that God is One and composed of three “Persons,” is crucial because it is dealing with who God is, what He is like, how He works, and how He relates to the world. Most important, the deity of Christ is essential to the plan of salvation.In Scripture, there are three separate but interrelated types of evidence for the Trinity, or tri-unity of God: (1) evidence for the unity of God, that God is one; (2) evidence that there are three Persons who are God; (3) subtle textual hints of God’s three-in-oneness.
The distinctions among God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit found in the Bible must be understood as being the way God is in Himself, however difficult for our fallen minds to grasp. The “eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit,” as Ellen G. White calls them (Evangelism, p. 616), are equal but not identical or interchangeable.
Though some early Adventists struggled with the doctrine, our church today has taken a firm and unrelenting stand on this teaching. As Fundamental Belief number 2 says, “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.”
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, January 7.
(2)
As an Adventist, I fail to reconcile with this concept of Trinity because personally I do not find biblical verses that support this. All we hear are inferences. But there are some verses that somehow clearly reject the Trinity. For example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 states "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (KJV) - one God, the FATHER and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Sometimes, I think that our adventist pioneers had correctly rejected this doctrine which was 'created' in 325AD in the Nicene Council. How do we reconcile these facts with the trinity?
Bennet, I figure that with our finite minds, we should not expect to be able to understand all the mysteries of the infinite Creator God, but I think you can find some help on our page about the Trinity – Fundamental Belief 2
I recommend checking out all the Bible references provided in the Fundamental Belief statement and reading all the comments that follow.
Personally I have a problem with the term "Trinity." Knowing its origins and the controversy surrounding it in the early church. I also have some concerns about how we define the "Godhead/Trinity." It sounds TO ROMAN Catholic for me. When one really looks at what the RCC teaches re the "trinity" it should make us all nervous. "My Catholic Faith" by Most Reverend Louis Laravoire Morrow explanation of the RC "Trinity" doctrine basically says the Father has to KNOW Himself for the Son to exist and continue to exist. The Holy Spirit's existence depends upon the Father and the Son KNOWING each other.
When we look at what Mrs. White said, Christ is SELF-existing! Same with all three members of the Godhead! (Isaiah 6:8; Philippians 2:6-8; see EGW on Mark 16:6).
Daniel, in my opinion it really doesn’t matter what another church teaches. Our faith must be based on what scripture says.
Dr. Davidson pointed out in Thursday’s lesson, “The doctrine of the Trinity, far from being a piece of abstract speculation, is the inevitable conclusion that comes from a systematic survey of Scripture." That is the reason why the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in the concept of the trinity.
I believe there is one more thing that needs to be said here. We cannot expect to arrive at truth by selecting out only those texts that agree with what we want the Bible to say. The only way we can be certain of a doctrine is to consider all that the Bible has to say on the subject. In the case of the trinity the Bible speaks of God being one and yet the writers of the Bible talk about the Father and Jesus the son and of a Spirit that is closely related to them. We need, therefore, to draw a conclusion based on all of these things.
I agree, Bennett. The text you quote is adequate to show divine persons who are linked in the rest of the Bible as Father and Son since eternity, the Father being God and Jesus being the Son of God and so divine.
Disapproving of the trinity doctrine and "trinity" label doesn't deny Jesus' deity. We simply accept what the Bible says about Jesus' divine Sonship. A full Bible study establishes this. Heb 1:1-3 is pretty clear that God's Son truly existed as his Son from eternity. Doing away with Jesus' eternal Sonship, within our SDA trinity doctrine, cancels all the Sonship proofs, especially in John's Gospel, for Jesus' full deity. We want the Biblical truth, and it says Jesus is the begotten Son of the infinite God since the days of eternity.
Colin, you seem to charge that our "Fundamental Belief 3: The Godhead or Trinity" is "doing away with Jesus’ eternal Sonship." I consider such a charge unjustified. The statement is brief and reads thus:
Thus, the statement is wholly compatible with Christ's "eternal Sonship." Having said that, we must realize that God is not like us, but He used human language to teach us divine things. The problem is that there is no exact human analogy. A human father always exists for a length of time before he can become a father.
Thus we must recognize that God was trying to communicate something of the nature of sonship, other than the obvious human counterpart of a child of the father. The original language regarding Christ being the "only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14) stressess the uniqueness of the Son of God.
Believers in the Creator God are also called "sons of God" (Gen. 6:2) and the representatives from created worlds are called sons of God (Job 1:6).
But Christ is unique. He is so exactly like the Father that He could say, "Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9 NKJV)
Thus the Trinity doctrine, as stated in our Fundamental Belief 3 is a good statement to represent the relationship without confusion. It does not deny sonship, but neither does it limit the relationship to something like that between a human son and father.
Thank you for reiterating our current theology.
Perhaps one of her most famous statements - below, it shows her consistent reference to Christ as the only begotten of the Father in a literal sense, since the days of eternity, as stated in PP 34, too.
This, also, speaks of a literal family relationship: the plain reading is evident in PP 34.1, too, so should we not acknowledge what the Bible says?
Grammatical arguments over "monogenes" against "only begotten" fail to recall that native Greek speakers agreed on "begotten not made". Almost all Christians, today, still agree with that, including Strong's. Let's think about the Sister White comments on Christ's Sonship, too.
Hello Colin,
I would like to ask what point Ellen White was making in her article and why she specifically says that Jesus was, "not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner?" If He wasn't created and wasn't adopted then what is He?
Maybe a few other quotes from Ellen White might clarify some things.
Please notice her use of the words eternal, everlasting, and eternity. Those words denote infinity to the point that there was no beginning, He always existed along side the Father with a life that was unborrowed and underived.
Eternal Sonship -- what does it mean?
Father and Son since eternity.
There never was a time when both were not in existance.
It's eternity going forever into the past that is the mystery we as humans can't understand, but we can believe. Humans seem to want a "beginning" where there is no beginning only eternity.
When known history began God the Father and the Word (Christ) were already there. (Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1)
They have always been there -- eternally.
And I agree with Inge, that God is trying to communicate something other than the obvious human counterpart of a child born of the father and mother. In the same way that the church being refered to as Christ's bride -- it's communicating something other than the human counterpart. YET, it brings home a deep and tender love relationship within the Godhead with the closest thing we as humans can understand.
Nor does "sonship" negate the fact that Christ is truly God as the Father is truly God. Rather it establishes it.
The Jews understood this!
See John 10:29-33
When Jesus claimed God as His Father, they took up stones to stone Him because they thought he was a mere man making Himself God.
He is co-regent with the Father --
King of kings and Lord of lords. (Rev. 19:16)
Worthy of the worship of all creatures. (Philippians 2:10)
And only the true God is worthy of worship of all creatures, no one else. (Luke 4:8)
Scripture, as far as I"m concerned gives an OVERWHELMING support to a Godhead that is comprised of three persons.
Since no one else addressed the anti-trinitarian stance of some of our pioneers, I shall give it a try ...
The history of the Seventh-day Adventist church goes back to a group of fairly young people who had heeded the call of William Miller to prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus in October 1844. These had been members of various churches, with James White and Joseph Bates, the foremost leaders, having come out of the "Christian Connection" which had a strongly anti-trinitarian stance. (This included a belief in the sub-ordinate position of Jesus, with some initially believing Him to be a created being, then moving towards Jesus not "created" but "begotten" some time before this world began.)
When they met together to study further they concentrated on the meaning of the prophecies that had been the focus of Miller's message. Examining their beliefs on the nature of God was not high on their agenda. So naturally, their writings reflected this anti-trinitarian stance.
But gradually, their understanding grew. And this resulted in a move towards accepting the concept of one God in three Persons. But it took time. It is beyond the scope of this comment to trace all the history. However, if you are interested, you can read a brief overview of "The Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist History." You can find a little more detail in a couple articles by Jerry A. Moon, in "The Adventist Trinity Debate,"beginning with "Part 1: Historical Overview."
It is misleading to say that the trinity doctrine was "created" in 325 AD. We believe it was inherent in the teachings of Paul, though he did not use the term "trinity." The Latin form of "Trinitas" was apparently used first by Theophilus, a Patriarch of Antioch, who died in 181 A.D. The oldest known exposition of trinitarian doctrine using the term "Trinity" is by Tertullian (160-c.220 AD)
Note that this means that the doctrine of the Trinity, using essentially the same word, was stated by the early 200's at the latest, and probably earlier.
When the Council of Nicea met in 325 A.D. this was codified as part of the Nicene Creed, which reads thus:
Note that "catholic" in this confession does not refer to the Catholic Church, but means "universal" or "world-wide."
The wording of the Adventist Fundamental Belief on the Trinity does not use the term "of one substance" but uses "a unity of three Persons":
There is nothing inherently suspect in the term "Trinity" which refers to a unity of three persons. Those who believe in one God in three Persons are known as Trinitarians.
Unitarians are those who believe that God is only one Person, as does Islam.
Binitarians are those who believe that both the Father and the Son are divine Persons, but that the Holy Spirit is not a person. (Several who comment on this blog write like binitarians.)
Tri-theism describes a belief in three distinct Gods with different minds and different personalities. For instance, the Father may be seen as a hard Judge, while the Son is seen as the loving Savior.
By contrast, the Adventist concept of the Trinity is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit represent a total unity of mind, character and purpose. In Jesus we see the mind and character of God. That's why Jesus could say "He that has seen Me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9) And, just as Jesus said He did not speak of Himself (John 12:49), so He said that the Holy Spirit would not speak of Himself. (John 16:13) Since the Holy Spirit is totally united to the Father and the Son in mind, character and purpose, Christ can be "present" to the believer in the person of the Holy Spirit, seeing that Christ has limited Himself to a human body through the incarnation.
For Christ's own clarification of His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit, I highly recommend a prayerful reading of these chapters: John 14, John 15, John 16 and John 17, preferably in several versions of the Bible.
I just have a question for Inge . When Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus, he told him in John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." The last part of the sentence allow us to see that Jesus has and still having the omnipresence attribute. Also this is categorical to say that Jesus is fully God, so he can be present everywhere. Also Matt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. So when two are reunited in the name of Jesus there he is, he himself nor the Holy Spirit, so I don't agree that Jesus lost his omnipresence.
Hi Lisa,
As a tardy reply to your question, I'd like to suggest that we cannot hang such an important teaching on one variant reading of a single text. Most other versions read like the NASB (generally recognized as the most word-for-word accurate English translation):
I believe we need to read Matt 18:20 in the context of Christ's teaching about the Holy Spirit. He said,
Notice that Christ says "I will be with you" in the context of the promise of the Holy Spirit who will speak not of Himself, but of Christ. (See John 16:13 KJV: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, dhe will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and ehe will shew you things to come.")
I believe that Christ can no longer be omnipresent, except by the Holy Spirit, because He is forever incarnate in humanity, and human bodies can only be in one place at a time. It is significant that Christ appeared to His disciples after the resurrection in a real human body that they could touch, and to convince them of His real body, He even ate some food with them. And He appeared to various ones sequentially, never at more than one place at a time.
It seems to me that claiming omnipresence for Christ now would deny his eternal union with humanity in His incarnation. It would make Him seem more like an angel (a "ministering spirit") who can take on the appearance of humanity without actually actually becoming incarnate in a human body.
By contrast, His giving up His omnipresence to become one with us, Immanuel, allows us to see that His sacrifice was genuine and eternal.
PS [Edit] I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the divine-human Christ did not exist before the incarnation. Before that there was only the divine second Person of the Godhead. If He should now give up His humanity (which necessitates a human body) He would no longer be the same Person who walked this planet and ascended bodily to heaven in the sight of the disciples.
1 John 5:7 says it:
1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." kjv
Brethren, dont misquote 1 Cor 8:6, it says BUT THERE IS ONE GOD (Deut 6:4, 1 Jn 5:7), and these are THE FATHER, of whom all things were Created, and we in him; and one LORD, JESUS CHRIST whom are all things, and we by him”
Paul (a monotheistic Jew and Pharisee) equates Christ to the Father Phil 2:6 and Christ himself said it in John 10:30. and he bids us to teach all nations and baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit. Matt 28:19.
No wonder John, the beloved of Jesus wrote more on his deity in John 14-16 and again makes the Trinity bold in 1 John 5:7
LET'S NOT QUESTION THE DEITY OF CHRIST, BRETHREN HE IS OUR GOD... Exodus 20 presents GOD's Commandments and Christ calls them His! If you love me keep my commandments John 14:15
I will let scripture answer:
John 1:1-4 and John 1:14,18
If you jump to John 3:16, the Son of God being referred to here, is of course, the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is clear as day, that Jesus is also God, co-equal with the Father and the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
Above verses are also good arguments for Jehovah's Witnesses who deny His divine nature.
How can the Lord Jesus Christ be his own Father.
Brother Kelly, I am not aware of any passage in the Bible that claims that Jesus is His own Father. But perhaps you can enlighten me if such a text exists and I have somehow missed it.
When it comes to understanding the concept of the Trinity, I like how John Wesley sought to explain it in his diaries. He wrote that it was like three candles that all have distinct flames yet only produce one, inseparable light.
We may also ask, how is it possible for Christ to be "in the Father" and the Father to be "in Christ." Yet this is precisely what Jesus claimed in two separate instances: John 10:38, John 14:10,11.
(When Jesus walked this planet, He addressed God in heaven as "Father." Yet the prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 NASB says that "He will be called Wonderful, Counselor [same as the Holy Spirit], Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.")
When it comes to understanding God's nature, we are on holy ground, and we had best take off our shoes and be still.
Jesus' deity isn't in question, his eternal Sonship is. Is Jesus truly the only begotten Son of God since the days of eternity?
Sister White is clear in attributing Prov 8:22-30 to Christ in his pre-existence, not just Jn 1:1. What do you think?
Colin, when EGW uses Prov. 8, she isn't trying to prove that Christ had a beginning. Rather she is proving His pre-existance.
Here is a paragraph preceding her use of Prov. 8. Notice as well, that she (as well as the Bible) says Christ is God.
To me much of what we understand is found by piecing together a collage of statements many of which may not be very clear. Besides, sometimes there are statements that seem to be contradictory that we have to make sense of.
In the case of the trinity concept there is no direct statements about it but we can derive a good sound understanding of by bringing together numerous statements. The following text in this case is good advise, "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little" (Isa 28:9-10 NKJV).
Dear Brother Chindebvu, I'm not sure I understand your point. You quote the verse regarding "our" image which is plural. But it seems like maybe you are saying that you don't believe God is plural. Maybe I don't understand you.
The concept of the Triune God teaches that there are THREE distinct persons together in ONE unified Godhead, One in substance, character, purpose, co-eternal, and equal, in absolute unity and closeness, yet three persons, working in total harmony together. The NAME of the GODHEAD is "JEHOVAH".
Biblical? Yes!
Deut 6:4
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord.
Have you ever wondered why it says, "the Lord our God is ONE Lord" and that "There is no other God but One. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords) yet for us there is ONE GOD; the Father of whom are all things and we for Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him exist.1 Corinthians 8:4-6
ONE LORD, ONE GOD, "the Lord our God is ONE Lord" yet here we see TWO, and in other places we see three? It's because GOD is ONE in three persons.
"In the beginning God...." Before there was time-- there was God
"In the beginning was the Word..." Before there was time---there was the Word.
John 1:1-4,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
John 10:30
I and My Father are One
John 14:7-11
If you have known me, (Christ) you should have known my Father also: and from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.
Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have thou not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how is it that you say, Show us the Father?
Don't you believe 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 dwells in me, he does the works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me:
God the Father bears witness to Christ’s deity when He addresses Him as God.
Heb. 1:8-10
“Unto the Son, he say, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…and thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands.”
Phil. 2.5-7
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form (very nature) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation,
And Jesus says through the prophet Isaiah
Isaiah 48:17
From the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent ME. Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer.
Deut 6:4
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord.
Dear Sister Ulrike, your use of capital letters in the sentence, "The NAME of the GODHEAD is “JEHOVAH,”" could be taken to mean that you are promoting this as an absolute truth. I published an article about this on SSNET last summer. You can read it at https://ssnet.org/blog/2011/06/gods-name/
I would be interested in any feedback you wish to share.
My emphases was not on pronunciation or spelling of the name.
My emphases is that both God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same name.
This a very good discussion. The way I looked at it is just like when a man and a woman get married. The Bible says they become one, but we all know that they can never be in one body. In order for the marriage to go a long way they have to come to an understanding or an agreement to work things out.
To me the idea of Jesus being an actual son of God in a physical sense is a theological problem. Finite human beings come into the world by way of a physical birth and have trouble with the idea that Jesus is equal to the Father in every way. To them when the Bible says “son” it means exactly the same as a human son because we have no physical evidence of anything else happening.
But the Bible is spiritual (John 6:63) and conveys things that are beyond what we know physically like eternity and immortality. When dealing with the idea of the Father – Son relationship, the Bible establishes the relationship through the words it uses. For instance, in the Gospel of John the KJV and the NKJV unfortunately use the word “begotten” which is translated from the Greek word, “monogenes.” The word literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" and really has nothing to do with actual birth as Heb 11:17 shows, because Isaac wasn’t the only child born to Abraham nor the first but was pre-eminent as a first-born in a theological sense.
Begotten is also used in other parts of the New Testament writings. Paul for instance said, “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains” (Philemon 1:10 NKJV) and again of the Corinthian church, “for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15 NKJV). In these two verses the Greek word “gennao” is used which in these verses obviously has nothing to do with birth but as a source or beginning. So the word begotten doesn’t have to suggest that Christ was born or somehow came into existence by the hand of the Father. That would make him created and Scripture states that, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made (John 1:3 NKJV).
An apparent problem happens in verses such as, “So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’” (Heb 5:5 NKJV). But the writer of Hebrews is talking about Christ becoming High Priest which according to Hebrews happened after the cross. Furthermore the other two New Testament references to Ps 2 (Acts 13:13 and Heb 1:5) are also interpreted as referring to Jesus of the New Testament especially the resurrection (Acts 13:13).
In conclusion, Jesus cannot be said to have come into existence after the Father. He was equal in every way and had all the attributes of the Father including eternal existence, without beginning or end.
Question: When Scripture declares Christ to be the ONLY Begotten Son of God is it referring to His divinity OR His Humanity? IF Divinity it implies a beginning - IF His humanity then it fits. What say ye?
There is a tiny split in Christendom on this one, especially among Protestants, but it's a tiny minority which favours the incarnation as when Christ is begotten of the Father while becoming a man. We're formally - we've voted on it - in that minority, now.
Given all the Scriptures on this, and SOP as well, the majority viewpoint - withOUT voting - holds up: Christ's Sonship, of eternal pre-existence, is real in our literature of the past, and the reasons listed by Tyler for how we think now - it appears very much that he's explaining our current theology, don't fit with all of Ellen White's statements or the sweep of Bible statements.
Was there a beginning for Christ? His deity is infinite, begotten of the Father, who is personally the infinite God - that's how Sister White wrote it. His Sonship is real, even challenged - yes, challenged - by Lucifer...unsuccessfully, so his Sonship has a beginning, but his deity as God's Word does not. That's how I've personally pieced together the threads of our pioneers, including Ellen White: it may be better than that, too, though. We can't say, but the record stands.
Colin, may I suggest Ellen White's statement in the Desire of Ages, p 530, "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 'He that hath the Son hath life.' 1 John 5:12." To me Christ's existence stands alone apart from the Father. That doesn't mean that they aren't one. What it does mean is that they are equal in every way, that one is not subordinate to the other.
When Christ condescended to also become man according to Philippians 2 some things changed but not his standing as an equal with the Father. His authority is as that of the Father because the Father was in Him and He in the Father (Jn 14:10).
Tyler, I appreciate your comments, but I must question your evident assumption that subordination necessarily means inequality.
"For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself..." John 5:26 (NKJV)
While I do believe that the Son has always been the Self-existent One, this Scripture tells me that even the self-existence of Christ is by the will of the Father. For me, this alone is sufficient evidence to prove Colin's assertion regarding the eternal Sonship of Christ. Where I must differ with Colin is in what I perceive as an attempt to fully explain the Godhead, and especially in his use of arguments from silence (as purported evidence against the Holy Spirit's personhood), with reference to the Bible verses that mention only the Father and Son.
It seems to me that the only time subordination does not mean inequality is when/if the subordination is voluntary. It is possible for totally equal persons to voluntary subordinate themselves to one another.
However, anyone who is subordinate by nature is, by definition, not "equal" to the one to whom he is subordinate -- unless we create our own definitions.
The usual definition of subordinate is as follows:
In fact, the word is derived from the prefix "sub-" which means inferior or lower and the root "order." So someone who is "subordinate" is literally of a "lower order." Synonyms include "inferior,ay" among other things.
Thus, any interpretation of Scripture that sees Christ as subordinate to the Father by nature denies the equality of the Son.
Scripture teaches that Christ voluntarily left His position of equality with the Father to lower Himself to the position of a created being, going so far as to lower Himself to experience the most ignominious form of death known to man at the time He lived on this planet. (See Phil 2:6,7 CEV)
It is interesting to note that in quoting Ps 2:7 in both Heb 1:5 NIV and Heb 5:5 NIV, an accurate translation reads: " “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” Note that existence is implied before the second Person of the Godhead became "my Son" or, as the KJV reads, before He was "begotten." We can only know as much as Scripture tells us, and that is that Christ condescended voluntarily to the position of Son.
I believe that Scripture teaches that by nature, Christ is God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, ever present and fully equal with the Father. He voluntarily gave up that equality when He became incarnate as a human being. He went back to heaven to reclaim His position "in the heavenly places," but He took with Him the human body in which He lived on this planet. Thus He gave up forever the quality of omnipresence which He had before the incarnation.
This voluntary subordination of Jesus Christ is an expression of the law of life for earth and heaven -- the law of self-sacrificing love. The Apostle Paul understood this to be the foundation of the exaltation of Christ by which He gained "the name which is above every other name that at the name of Jesus 'every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9,10 NASB)
On the Holy Spirit, we can and do know very little! 🙂 I'm keeping it as a Spirit, the infinite Spirit of God and of Christ: I'm not after knowing everything about the Holy Spirit or God the Father himself, just keeping the lid on too much detail and extrapolation.
Seeing the activity of the Spirit is not seeing someone other than Christ - it is Christ's Spirit, as the Bible says, that is, Christ by his omnipresent, his divine Spirit. I'll stop there. 🙂
Colin, I do disagree with you on your ideas concerning the Holy Spirit. It is true that Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (Mat 18:20 NKJV) but that is the same as saying, “I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:11 NKJV) only with the Holy Spirit instead.
When Jesus said, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7 NKJV). Why didn’t Jesus simply say “My spirit” rather than “Helper” or “Him.” In fact Jesus uses “He” or “Him” some nine times in the six verses following Jn 14:11. These references to 'Him" imply personhood. Never does He use “My.” While Jesus does that in these verses He uses “My” at the cross, “He said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit'" (Luke 23:46 NKJV). Jesus is not confused about what spirit He is talking about.
This doctrine on trinity has been classified as a great mystery or riddle by some SDA teachers. However we are not asked anywhere in the Bible to believe riddles or mysteries. We have been asked to believe in, have relationship with and to know One God Yahweh and one Son of God Yahshua Messiah: 1 John 1:3; John 17:3; John 14:1; I Cor. 8:6.[Deleted]
Proper wording of Deuteronomy 6:4 is not "Hear o Israel "trinity" our gods are one god" but:
"Hear o Israel YAHWEH our God YAHWEH is One".
Just the same as The Son of God repeated in Mark 12:29
Lisa, I wonder what you would say to the Apostle Paul who frequently writes of "mystery" in connection with the truths of God. (Just a few examples: I Tim. 3:16 KJV; I Tim. 3:9 KJV; Col. 4:3 KJV; Col. 2:2 KJV; Col. 1:27 KJV; Eph. 6:19 KJV, etc.)
When we approach a discussion of the nature of the Godhead, we had best tread very softly, realizing that it is beyond our comprehension. For, if you could comprehend all there is of God, He would no longer be God, but be less than we are. Thus the nature of God is a true mystery -- how He can be one God, yet three persons, as the Bible indicates in a number of ways already referenced.
Ellen White also reminds us that "'The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.' Deuteronomy 29:29. The revelation of Himself that God has given in His word is for our study. This we may seek to understand. But beyond this we are not to penetrate. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding the nature of God, but the effort will be fruitless. This problem has not been given us to solve. No human mind can comprehend God. None are to indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence. The Omniscient One is above discussion." Ministry of Healing, p. 429.
The current statement of our Fundamental Belief of the Trinity is carefully worded to avoid going beyond what the Bible says while including all we may know of the relationship of the members of the Godhead. Beyond that, silence is advised.
there is only two mysteries. The mystery of iniquity, and the mystery of the incarnation; the Godhead is not a mystery. The others mysteries Paul talked about are explained.Catholics say that Trinity is a mystery, but I would like to ask is there really a mystery on knowing that there are three persons on the heavenly trio, they are equal, eternal and the three are but one God, also that all three are interesting in the salvation of all us. The Catholic church says the trinity is a mystery, but where on the Bible we find that the Godhead is a mystery? I personally think that all about Godhead pertain to us and that we are able to understand who God is.
Iisa, you said, “there is only two mysteries. The mystery of iniquity, and the mystery of the incarnation.” It seems to me that the Bible speaks of more than just those two mysteries:
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32 NKJV).
that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ (Col 2:2 NKJV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness (1 Tim 3:16 NKJV).
You speak of the Godhead not being a mystery. I don't think you really mean that you know all about God, I don't think any of us do, I know I don’t. God is infinite in every way and by definition infinity is beyond our understanding. There certainly are things we can and should know about God but to know everything about God would make us God and I don’t think we have come to that point yet, in fact I don’t think we will ever come to that point. That is why even the Catholics recognize that God is beyond our understanding except for the little bit He has chosen to reveal of Himself.
Hi, Lisa
I don't think anyone has any problems with what Deuteronomy 6:4 says but rather with what it means. For instance, it could have a similar meaning to "one stop shopping." Come to God for all your needs. Whereas other cultures at the time Deuteronomy was written had one god for weather, another for fertility, another for war, etc. Instead of many different gods for many different purposes, all purposes could be addressed by God. The current pantheon had just been replaced. There is contextual support for that interpretation.
Anyone who has ever counted off for intramural sports also knows that "one" can represent the team you are on as opposed to the "twos" or "threes." In that case one could mean God's team as opposed to the other teams out there. A case could be made for this contextually as well. This interpretation could have room for different persons all part of team One.
I hope you can understand my point that what seems obvious on the surface can have a far richer and deeper spirituality to it than might first be noticed.
Lisa yes Deuteronomy 6:4 does indeed say "Hear of Israel YAHWEH our God YAHWEH is One" but what you seem to have overlooked is literally it says "Hear of Israel YAHWEH our Elohiym (plural - Gods) YAHWEH is One (united - Strongs #H0259)."
To believe what Jesus says is the work of God (John 6:29). Jesus says His doctrines are not His but of the Father that sent Him (John 6:32-64, John 7:16-17). Jesus further says that as He is taught by God His Father, thus He speaks what He has heard(John 8:26, 28). He affirms this further by saying He has not spoken of His own but was commanded by the Father what to say and what He should speak (John 12:49). Jesus even says that His very words are of the Father (John 14:10, 24). Therefore, when Jesus declared "the Lord our God is one Lord" and then commends the scribe for saying Jesus spoke the truth "for there is one God and there is none other but He and to love Him..." (Pls. note the singular pronouns used)(Mark 12:28-34) and then again say to the Jews that the God of the Jews was His Father (John 8:54) after they declare to Him that they have one Father, God (John 8:41), invalidates 'scripture-based presumptions' that the God of Israel is a Trinity, especially in the light of Jesus' John 17:1-3 prayer declaration that His Father is the only true God to His own exclusion of being part of that true God His Father by using the word "only". If these words uttered by Jesus are the Father's words like Jesus said, then it is God the Father actually revealing to us who He is through His Son! When we do not believe what the Father says, we make Him a liar (1John 5:10).
Atong, yes God is singular, but remember the U.S. congress is singular but has over 500 members. The word "crowd" is singular but there can be over 100,000 people in ONE crowd at a sports stadium. When Jesus says a man and woman in marriage become one, He does not mean they are only one person but one in Spirit. There is one God with three members. In John 1:1-3 it says the Word was God. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. Jesus was the Word, God who became flesh. In John 10:30-31 the Jews tried to stone Jesus because He said He was equal to God meaning He was God. In John 19:5 when Jesus said "I am He" the original translation is "I am that I am" the same words God used in Exodus 3. I appreciate you sharing that Jesus in His humanity gave us an example of totally relying upon the Father, but He was in fact God. While no one accepts the testimony of just one witness, John tells us in 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Meaning that the singular Godhead has three persons, just like the one and only Congress the U.S. has has over 500 members. Just like one crowd at a stadium can have over 100,000 people.
First, in my understanding, 1 John 5:7 as presented in KJV was tampered with as it is not in line with original manuscripts and as such versions such as NIV clearly warn of this deception. How can a whole doctrine then hinge on a verse which was tampered with? If in doubt, check how other Bible versions have put 1 John 5:7. Second, as per your Congress analogy, it follows that a single member of Congress, is Congress itself - something obviously not correct. The Bible teaches of a singular God, the Father, referred as the ONLY true God by Christ himself on John 17:3. Jesus is the begotten Son of that singular God, the Father. Christ is the express image of the Father. In my understanding, therefore, the pioneers were correct.
The charge that a text was "tampered with" is a serious one. However, when there are a number of variants in the manuscripts, we can't always be sure which is the closest to the original. In this case, I believe that the reading William quoted is most likely the best one because it is in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
However, the teaching of the triune God is not dependent on this text. The NIV reading, "7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (1 John 5:7-8 NIV) Notice that the NIV leaves out part of 1 John 5:7 and goes right on to 1 John 5:8. But I tend to believe the scholars that say that verse 8 is likely a scribal interpolation because I have no idea what that verse is supposed to mean. Interpreting that verse necessitates ascribing some kind of mystical meaning to the water and the blood and seeing the latter as equal to the Spirit.
But getting back to the teaching of the triune God, the first hint we get of God being more than one person is in Genesis 1:1 where the "God" who "created" is Elohim in the Hebrew. And that is plural. In English this becomes more evident in Genesis 1:26 "and God said, let us make man in our image..."
And the "great commandment" given in Deut 6:5 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength" used Elohim(always plural) thus:
"You shall love Yahweh (or Jehovah in English) your Elohim with all your heart .... "
When God met Moses at the burning bush, it was Yahweh Himself that met Moses there, but He was also called Elohim (plural), like this: "And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him ... " (Ex 3:4 KJV)
In Ex 3:14 KJV "And Yahweh said unto Moses, A AM THAT I AM; and he said, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses ..."
Thus, when Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," (John 8:58 KJV) the Jews recognized Christ's claim to be Jahweh/Jehovah Himself, and the Elohim of their Scriptures. And they attempted to stone Him for blasphemy, according to he laws of Moses.
And when Christ said He would send a Parakletos/Comforter in His stead who would teach them (John 14:26, John 15:26), He clarified the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity is simply a way of harmonizing all the teachings of Scripture about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If you will read this post (above) and the following comments, you will gain more clarity. And you will find even more at "The Godhead or Trinity – Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief 2."
Please study these resources before replying again, to avoid unnecessary repetition.
I am not a Hebrew scholar but I will quote what Rabbi Tovia Singer has written on claims that the word Elohim denotes plurality in the Godhead. {Begin quote} "The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. In Hebrew, the suffix ים (im), mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the God of Israel, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).
This is self-evident from the fact that the verb “created” בָּרָה (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is in the singular. This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish Scriptures. For example, I am certain that many readers are familiar with the Hebrew word חַיִים (chayim), meaning “life.” Notice that this word contains the identical plural suffix “im,” as in Elohim, yet it repeatedly means “life”, in the singular, throughout the Bible. Examples are:
And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these who are the daughters of the land, what good will my life חַיִים (chayim) be to me?”
(Genesis 27:46)
The fact that the name of God, Elohim, does not in any way imply a plurality in the godhead is well known and widely recognized even among Trinitarian Christians. For example, in the New International Version Study Bible (NIV), which is a Christian commentary that can not be construed as friendly to the Jewish faith, the Christian author writes in his commentary on Genesis 1:1:
God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.
(New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.).{End quote}
I would therefore stick to what Christ himself clearly said on John 17:3 that the Father is the only true God and Christ himself is the Son of the true God. I have also never encountered scripture denoting God the Son and neither God the Holy Spirit. Thank you!
Thank you for your reply, Bennet. 🙂
I think you have demonstrated quite well that the use of Elohim does not prove that God is more than one Person. That is all well and good since the doctrine of the tri-une God does not depend on this reasoning. But I do find it interesting that the word is both singular and plural in its usage - rather like God being *one* God (singular) in three persons (plural). [Just an observation not meant to prove anything.]
But you failed to address the second part of my comment:
Thanks a lot for the reply. I will answer your recent questions as follows: My understanding is that Yahweh and Jesus (the Son of God) are two different Beings and the Son of God existed even before taking human form. Consider Hebrews 1:1-2 , Paul writes "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe." Clearly, in these verses, God (Yahweh) and the Son are different beings. And the verses also clearly state that Yahweh in the past (old testament) spoke through prophets but in the new testament, Yahweh speaks through the Son . The verses also clearly indicate that the Son existed before his incarnation and actually it is through the Son that Yahweh created the worlds and indeed Yahweh also made the Son to be heir or lord over all creation. The lordship of Christ over all creation clearly is also what confers him to be the alpha and omega as applied in Rev 22:13. This brings me to my second point, that the title alpha and omega does not necessarily mean Yahweh as you are presupposing. Yahweh means "self-existing" while alpha and omega means the beginning and end of SOMETHING. Clearly, Yahweh does not have a beginning neither does He have an ending as He is not bounded by time as He is the one who also created time. As Clarke's Commentary on the Bible writes regarding alpha and omega and I quote
“This mode of speech is borrowed from the Jews, who express the whole compass of things by א aleph and ת tau, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet; but as John was writing in Greek, he accommodates the whole to the Greek alphabet, of which Α alpha and Ω omega are the first and last letters. Thus the words מא ועד ת meeleph vead tau, “from aleph to tau,” expressed the whole of a matter, from the beginning to the end". It is therefore important to contextualize the alpha and omega in each verse in which it appears. In Rev 22:13; clearly the beginning and the end referred to in this passage is the beginning of this created world, while the end is the second coming of Christ and the end of this world, when a New Heaven and Earth are created. Christ brought about the beginning of this world and He also brings about its end AND we know that this is possible because Yahweh has made Christ to be Lord over all creation. THEREFORE in my understanding, just because a verse mentions alpha and omega does not necessarily mean that the speaker is the same. Thus to conclude that the speaker in Isaiah 44:6 and Rev 22:13 is the same person is not correct. Yahweh and Jesus are two different identities. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 that: For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Thank you!
Thanks for the reply. I will answer the second part as follows: Your question can essentially be paraphrased as follows - do the words “I AM” mean Jesus is Jehovah or Yahweh?
This is based on John 8:58. But note that the words “I am” also mean “I exist.” Some claim that Christ was declaring Himself to be God in John 8:58 because He used the words “I am.” This is erroneously based on the words “I am” being a reference to Exodus 3:14. From this they draw the conclusion that Christ was alluding to the divine name and thereby telling the Jews that He was Jehovah. Some further try and support their claim by saying this is why the Jews picked up stones to kill Him. But this was due to many things Jesus said to them throughout John chapter 8 that slowly brought them to anger. The final straw being Jesus claiming seniority over Abraham who they said was their father. So Jesus claimed greater authority than the patriarch and hence was also claiming to be greater than them.
The phrase “I am” in John 8:58 comes from two Greek words “egō” and “eimi.” The Strong's Definitions are:
“egō : “I” (only expressed when emphatic): - I, me.”
“eimi: I exist (used only when emphatic): - am, have been, X it is I, was.”
How would you expect Jesus to respond to this comment? “Then said the Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” John 8:57
Not knowing Jesus existed before Abraham, the Pharisees are saying how could you have seen Abraham because you are not yet 50 years old. Since the Greek words for “I am” also mean I exist or existed, what is the obvious translation and response from Christ who existed before Abraham?
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
Or
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I existed.” John 8:58
Both are valid translations and the majority of Bible translations agree with the last one in fact with good reason!
So “I exist”, “I have been” and “I was” are other possible translations which have all been used by various Bible translators for John 8:58 as well as elsewhere in the KJV. For example: ego eimi has been translated to “I was” in Luke 19:22 “You knewest that I WAS (ego eimi) an austere man,”
These words formed a phrase that was in very common use by Jews and Christians and in New Testament Scriptures in the first century. It was not the name of any deity, be it the God of the Bible or any other god. It was never understood by Jews or Christians as declaring one to be Yahweh. If it were understood that way, you can be certain that the Jews would have never applied it to themselves as they did so frequently! In the following examples Peter, Paul, Gabriel and Zacharias all said, “I am” (ego eimi). But none of them were claiming to be Yahweh/Jehovah.
Luke 1:18 “And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I AM (ego eimi) an old man,” Luke 1:19 “And the angel answering said unto him, I AM (ego eimi) Gabriel,” John 1:27 “He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I AM (ego eimi) not worthy to unloose.” Acts 10:21 “Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I AM (ego eimi) he whom you seek:” Acts 21:39 “Paul said, I AM (ego eimi) a man which am a Jew of Tarsus,” And the blind man also identifies himself by saying, I am. John 9:9 “Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I AM (ego eimi) he.” None of the Jews saw this man as declaring himself to be Yahweh or Jehovah either.
In short it clear that Jesus never claimed to be Jehovah or Yahweh. Jesus is the begotten Son of Jehovah the only true God. After all, if Jesus is Yahweh are we saying that he was praying to himself in John 17? After all, Christ himself in John 5:26 says " As the Father has life in Himself, He has GRANTED the Son to have life in himself." Thank you!
In a previous comment, you already established that John 8:58 by itself cannot be used to prove that Christ is, indeed, the Yahweh of the Old Testament incarnate in humanity.
I believe that Christ did refer to Himself as the I AM of the Old Testament. But there are many lines of evidence that point to Christ being Yahweh incarnate in humanity, the LORD of the Old Testament lowering Himself to become one with us, Immanuel.
Here's one:
Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Here Christ refers to Himself in precisely the same way as did Yahweh Himself. Thus, if Christ spoke truth, then He must be the same Person. It seems to me that there is no room for another interpretation, because there can be only One who is "the Beginning and the End," aka "the First and the Last."
As to your second point:
In this suggesting you are missing the fact that Christ did not exist before the incarnation. Christ was a new individual - both God (Yahweh) and human (Adam). [Paul calls Him the "second Adam." 1 Cor 15:7]
When Yahweh walked this earth as Christ (Immanuel - God With Us) He lived as every child of Adam must live, in total dependence on the Father in heaven. Christ did not use His divinity for His own purposes. Even His miracles Jesus performed through His connection to the Father. Thus, while He lived here, Jesus, the man, was very much dependent on His constant contact with the Father. This gave Him strength and power to withstand the attacks of the evil one.
Thank you, William, for your comment on the singularity of God which to you could be understood also in a plural sense.
One question worded two ways that I cannot find reasonable answers for and which you can help me out with, are these: 1] Was Jesus teaching us that His Father is a singular plurality in the very same sense I understand your comment seems to espouse when He said that His Father is the only true God?
2] If the only true God is a plurality in the sense “congress is singular but has over 500 members”, does that mean that the Father who Jesus was addressing His prayers to, is a plurality? Please help me understand in the light of the Trinity doctrine what Jesus meant for us to know when He said His Father is the only true God.
Hi Atong, knowing that John 1:1-3,14 among other places tell us that Jesus the son is also God, I believe when Jesus told the Father you are the only true God, He was contrasting the Father from all the false gods and not Himself.
Atong, might I also comment briefly on the "oneness" of God? (I have a thought, in essence the same as William's, but coming at it from a slightly different angle.)
I suggest that when Jesus prayed to the Father (concerning His people), "that they may be one, even as We are one" (John 17:22), that Jesus was effectively saying that we (plural) are to be "one" in the same way, and in the same sense, that the Father and Son are "one".
__________
"...that they may be one, even as [i.e. in the same way that] we are one." Here the original word, rendered "one", is Strong's #1520.
And when Jesus quoted the words, "the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29)... again, the original word, translated "one", is Strong's #1520.
So it seems clear to me that Jesus has defined the kind of eternal "oneness" that He is talking about. We (collectively) are to be one, in the same way/sense that the Lord our God is "one".
Thank you, Stewart, for sharing your understanding on the “oneness” of God. Perhaps you can help me understand how your concept of “oneness” is brought up by the word “only” that Jesus used in reference to His Father being the “only” true God. By using the exclusive term “only”, did Jesus mean to use it in the terms of how we perceive “one” or “oneness” is defined?
The text that you've referred to (John 17:3) : "and this is life eternal, that they might know thee the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Atong, I think I would have to answer "yes" to your closing question. Because in another place we have the Father speaking to the Son, saying, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Heb 1:8)
Yes, the Son refers to the Father as the "only true God", but the Father refers to the Son as "God" as well. (And I don't think we can make the God of Heb 1:8 a 'lower-case' god, because the word used there is "theos", the same word Jesus uses in John 17:3, referred to above.)
I cannot see that we need to make Jesus a lesser (or inferior) God in the truest sense. (I do believe however, that Jesus has a lesser physical glory in comparison the Father, but again, in terms of their Divine nature I would still have to say that they are equals. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.)
The Father speaks of the Son as "God", and the Father is "in" the Son, and the Son is "in" the Father.
Atong, I am on the tail end of the discussion but in Matthew 23:8,9 says it plainly. There is only one called Father. He who is in Heaven. Rabbi, teacher is the Christ. Jesus on this earth.
Matt 23:8-9 was spoken by Jesus as the divine-human Son of God while on this planet as a human being. He pointed His disciples to His Father in heaven, declaring that they should only consider the heavenly Father as their spiritual Father, not another human spiritual leader.
However, recall that Jesus, the Messiah, was also prophetically called "The mighty God, The everlasting Father." (See Isa 9:6) And Christ rose to His heavenly home after the resurrection, where He is now fully "the mighty God, the everlasting Father," just as prophesied and just as the second Person of the Godhead was before the incarnation.
(To be clear, Christ was/is a unique divine-human person who did not exist before the incarnation. The second Person of the Godhead became incarnate in humanity and thus Christ was both God and human. His human name was Jesus. "Christ" actually means "Messiah," or the Anointed One.)
I have been reading what Colin has to say about what he calls the "eternal Sonship" of Jesus. I feel that he has shared solid support for the concept, and I personally have no problem with it. However, if one were to use this concept as an argument against the concept of the Trinity, I should find that problematic. The human logic behind any such attempt would, in my view, require a complete knowledge of things which have not been revealed to us, and which (as I perceive) are far beyond our understanding. I suggest that we had better let God be God, and not try to bring Him down to our human level of understanding.
A R., I'm not against three persons possessed of deity, but the SDA doctrine of the trinity - the Nicene Creed is different, again - cuts out the "only begotten" Sonship as having any real sense in eternity. Logical objections about eternity and deity may fail to notice the natural link between Father & Son which is the basis for a monotheistic Godhead in both Father and Son, as that is all the Bible says: as Son of God, the Son is equal to God. Thus, there are three persons in whom is the fulness of the Godhead, separately - same substance but personally separate. Holding to Jesus' real, infinite, eternal Sonship, after reading about definitions of doctrinal teaching held by us, is a point of difference I've noticed with that doctrine. Yet, holding to Jesus' deity in verity without endorsing "the trinity" DOCTRINE is Biblical, where his deity is based on his Sonship of- and equality with God his Father.
Thank you brothers and sisters for the spirited discussion. Very enlightening. I do remember one of the blind persons that Jesus had he healed was asked by the pharisees, "by what power had Jesus healed him, that of God or belzeebub?" The man's answer was very simplistic. "whether by God or belzeebub, i do not care. What i know is that I was blind but now I see".
I can be equally simplistic and say, " I was a sinner and the Spirit of God searched me, found me and brought me to Jesus. Jesus shed His blood for the remission of my sins and I have peace with the Father. The Father will send Jesus Christ to redeem me in that glorious appearing and i shall be with Him forever. The throne of God shall be in the New Earth. And i shall understand better by and by". Praise the Lord!!
There is no question about the divinity of Jesus Christ or more being the 2nd person of the Godhead. I will only qoute few scriptures (KJV) which clearly tell us that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are clearly one.
Isaiah 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.
Matthew 1:23, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I also don't have a problem with the Holy Spirit being the 3rd person of the Godhead. The problem I have is the word or label "Trinity". Where did this word originate and what does it mean? What informed its choice to be used in referring to the 3 persons of the Godhead? I do have a serious problem when we start referring to the Godhead as "Trinity", as in the title. This word doesn't exist in the bible and God has given us enough words/names/titles referring to the Godhead. And I see the lesson from the part of Tuesday talking of "Three Persons of the Godhead..." and "...all three Persons of the Trinity...".
Lastly, the word "deity" is another one which I need clarity on the choice and the use of this word, I learn of Deism referring to acknowledgement of God who has no influence in people lives. If Deity refer to God, and deity to god or goddess, so to me Deity/deity is connected to Deism. How does one justify referring to God as Deity but not the one of Deism?
Boykie, thank you for your comment and affirmation of the unity of the Godhead.
There are many words we use today that are not in the Bible. "Seventh-day Adventist" is one of those terms, but we use it because it identifies who we are and what we believer.
In the same manner, "trinity" identifies a particular belief. It is a combination of the prefix "tri" meaning "three" and "unity." This forms "tri-unity" which is shortened to "Trinity," a very meaningful term to describe a God who reveals Himself as three Persons and is yet one God because of the total unity of nature, attributes, purpose, activity, character and more. For instance, Jesus could say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9) Though some have used marriage as an equivalent -- because God said the two shall be "one" or a "unity" -- there is no true human equivalent. So a new word was formed to describe this truth.
If you prefer to avoid the word "trinity" and use "Godhead" instead, that is your privilege. There's no real difference, except that Trinity affirms that there are three members of the Godhead, not just two, as some seem to believe.
"Deity" is a general word referring to God or gods. There may be heathen "deities," just like heathen "gods." But when we Christians refer to "God" or the "Deity," we mean the Creator God.
Deism refers to a belief in the existence of a God who made this world and then left it to function on auto-pilot, never interfering with life on this planet. Deists thus believe in a very impersonal God or godlike first cause. By definition, deists to not believe in miracles or prophecy, for instance.They do not believe that God became incarnate in Christ, and they certainly do not believe in the Trinity.
I have the same problem that Boykie has, Trinity and Godhead are no the same, in fact when one bring the term trinity to a conversation we can think that we are referring to the Catholic teaching on the trinity which is against the biblical concept on the Godhead. We need to clarify this concept and talk about the Godhead nor the trinity, and there is no any validity to say that the term trinity does no exist or similar because one thing is the trinity and another the Godhead.
Iisa, both you and Boykie seem to say that the term trinity came from the Roman Catholic church. They certainly use the term as we all know but according to Wikipedia the term was used quite a bit before the Roman Catholic church was organized which we consider to be in the sixth century:
“The first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three weeks of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early third century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the ‘Praxean’ heresy.” (Wikipedia article on “Trinity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#cite_note-67).
There are various differences in understanding when using this term which is more descriptive than theological. You can see even on this blog there is a wide range of understanding within the Adventist church. Here is the Catholic definition of the term:
“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent” (from “Catholic Online”, article on “The Blessed Trinity” http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11699)
Notice here that the only difference between the official Adventist understanding of the Godhead and theirs is in the origin. Everything else is the same. A very good theological explanation of the official position of the Adventist church is given in “The Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology”:
As you can see from this blog, Adventists are split over this issue. Even some Adventists that use the term “Godhead” exclusively tend to lean toward the Catholic understanding rather than the official Adventist position. It therefore, is my belief that the use of the term “trinity” is a very minor issue and that we would be far better off to concentrate on what the Godhead means with respect to our salvation.
I believe that both the Catholic understanding of the term godhead and the SDA understanding are both incorrect.
This word is only used 3 times in the Bible and it never refers to a committee or a group.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man\'s device. Acts 17:29
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Coll.2:9
none of these text indicate a committee
Just a comment on the KJV use of "Godhead" which is not necessarily the same as we mean as Seventh-day Adventists when we refer to "Godhead."
Acts 17:29 translates the word from "theîos, thi'-os; from G2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity):—divine, godhead."
The same word theîos is simply translated as "divine in 2 Peter 1:3,4
Romans 1:20 translates "Godhead" from "theiótēs, thi-ot'-ace; [feminine noun] from G2304; divinity (abstractly):—godhead." This is the only time this word occurs in the Greek manuscripts of the Bible.
Col 2:9 translates "Godhead" from "theótēs, theh-ot'-ace; from G2316; divinity (abstractly):—godhead" which occurs only once in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
So it seems to me that in these texts the word "Godhead" refer to the nature of Christ as His divinity -- asserting in each case that Christ is, indeed, divine.
As Seventh-day Adventists, we often tend to use "Godhead" to refer to the three-personed One God instead of the word "Trinity" because our understanding of the three-personed nature of God is not quite the same as that of the Roman Catholic church.
The efficacy of trinity to us is in the role they play in our Salvation. All three of them play significant roles in the salvation program (John 15:1 --“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.) The role of Holy Sprit is not defined here but He is very significant (John 14:16,17 --And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. ) This marked roles that transform a selfish rebel to agape love filled and reincarnated (2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!) being is created who's predisposition is to live by spirit and suffer to kill the power of the flesh.
This is the only context in which we are given some light of how the triune Gods exist. Individually, Job was given a discourse of what God the Father does, Paul explained to us what Jesus accomplished (Romans 5,6 ; Hebrews 1,2), and the host of those who are being saved are witnesses of the work of Holy Spirit. What remains obscure to morden Christian are the roles of God the Father and Holy Sprit, in the salvation of a person? What Jesus Christ accomplished was for the humanity (Romans 5:18,19 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous), Until the roles of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, are manifested in a persons life, the full value of the trinity is not delivered to us. The discussions here are objective enough to present the concept of three entities united in a single status, capacites and relationsips. I believe that apart from an objective revision of the Trinity, their existance is palpable only by the conversion of a Human from the state of a Rebel to the state of producing Agape Love person.
Could someone please explain the difference between what the Catholic church believes and SDAs believe concerning the Trinity? To me they seem the same, but I've been told they differ. Thanks.
It seems to be that the Roman Catholic description of the Trinity is very complicated and somewhat mystical.
By contrast, the Seventh-day Adventist understanding is quite straightforward.
We refuse to speculate about the origin of any member of the Godhead, because we believe that God has existed from eternity as three Persons. The fact that "God is love" actually necessitates more than one person because love needs another person to love.
I cannot find the concept of the trinity in the Bible. The expression god the son and god the holy spirit are foreign to the bible. There is but One God and the apostle Paul explains it to timothy.
Texts using the word "only" in reference to God create a real problem for those who deny that our "One God" includes both the Father and Christ.
For example in the above text submitted by Norman --
If God the Father ONLY has immortality, that would mean Christ does not have immortality. Yet Christ's divinity did not die, His humanity died. Scripture tells us Christ had to condesend from His natural position and be made " a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death... that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb.2:9)
EGW used this very text concerning "He alone has immortality" in reference to Christ:
Then there's the texts in which we ask: Who is the "FIRST AND THE LAST?"
Yet in the New Testament Christ claims the same titles:
And it was to the church of Smyrna in Rev. 2:8 that Christ again announced the name:
And the Revelation given to us of Jesus ends with the WORDS:
Christ claims all these titles that refer to the only ONE God!
BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD.
That has to include BOTH God the Father and Christ.
Tyler you said that the only difference between the official Adventist understanding of the Godhead and the Catholic church is in the origin everything else is the same. I don't think so, in the Catechism Of The Catholic Church, pag 74 entrance 251 they say that in order to articulate the dogma of the trinity the have to created their own terminology. The explanation that they give over God the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit in pag 75 is that the real distinction in the three persons resides only in their relationship, they call this "Hypostasis", and say they are one in nature or substance. In other words they don't think of the three of them as a three persons separated one from another; so I really cannot grasp this concept. So Trinity as Catholics teach is that Jesus proceed from the Father, The Holy Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son. In the Bible we have a clear understanding of the three of them, they are eternal, they have no origin, they act separated one from another, each of them have their own role in our salvation, but they are united, they are but one God. So if Jesus has an origin, also the Holy Spirit, if I cannot see The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit as three separated persons, I don't want to have anything to do with the Trinity. I would like to be identified as protestant, who only agree with the teaching of the Bible. Finally a question remains for me, why E.G.W and her husband never used the term Trinity and made statements against the Trinity?
Iisa, I don't think you read far enough in the catechism. Further on it says:
From what I see the catechism agrees with their encyclopedia. It is very easy to get caught up in technical terminology but these entries seem to make their teaching rather clear.
At this point I am going to stand on what I said before concerning the difference between what they believe and what we believe unless something better comes along.
As for the rest of what you say I generally agree. When it comes to why Ellen White didn't use the term trinity I suppose we will have to ask her in Heaven when we get there.
There appears very little difference between RC and our doctrines, aside from "origins", but, whatever they might say for themselves the RC have a hidden problem. We have our differences with them and with our own, historical teaching, on this topic, too.
Their "eternally begotten" is complex: it's rather hard to find the references for this online, but basically it's not what you'd think it is. The divine persons are without form in a substance of unknown shape, etc: really mystical and mystery - almost their own imagination. I leave them with it...! The begetting part of their confession involves an eternally ongoing connection within that "consubstantial" union, so it's not a 'happened and now it's over' begetting at all: it's happening all the way, from eternity-to-eternity, so an eternal Sonship. Of course, that's not really a begotten Sonship...
Some Evangelicals have differed with that notion by preferring the incarnational Sonship idea, instead, as have we in our doctrine. So, too, did Walter Martin, incidentally; however, his study institute - whatever it is called - held that view with him, but changed back to the eternal Sonship belief as soon as he passed away.
The incarnational Sonship idea has problems, not least making God operate from eternity on future identities used solely for salvation rather than personal identities true from the beginning: is God truly personal - and not just numbers 1, 2 & 3, or something later that he isn't now? Biblical texts support, rather, the Father as God personally from the start, and his Son with him. We used to teach this as a church, but not at all like RCism does.
Our historical teaching is pretty clear, that, while the pre-existing Son of God was literally God's only Son "since the days of eternity" and made all things that do exist, and is himself begotten not created, he is very God but not his Father's person, being himself Son of the infinite God. Biblical hints at inheritance and Sonship may and were applied by us as a church to eternity; today we reject that while some of us find it a credible belief - not least because it's what the Bible appears to say and what Ellen White and those of her time and others since have spoken of, too.
A classic, Evangelical who switched back to eternal Sonship is John McArthur. His interpretation is simple: Jesus surely is God by inheritance also in eternity past, not just since the incarnation. This is also what the Bible looks like it's saying, though it isn't trying to be, nor should we try to be, altogether human in saying so. We are simply a finite, created image of God's infinite family. Let's not limit the infinite God just because the Father's awesomeness threatens to stretch our imagination. God's love is so big, that the Father let his Son endanger his own - the Son's - personal deity and eternal self-existence and holiness by becoming a man. Let's praise him for that rather than worry too much about whether Jesus actually is God.