Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: GeeMail on January 15, 2015, 05:55:45 PM
-
This is arguably one of the most common and least debated doctrines in Christendom. Nowhere does the Bible talk about trinity. There are mentions of the Godhead in the Bible, but never trinity. So where did it come from?
Acts 17:29
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.
Romans 1:20
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:
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
-
Good question(s)
Replace Trinity with 'investigative judgement' and restate it again
-
Read again. Investigative judgment does not fall under the "most common, least debated" doctrines in Christendom. We can tackle that once we are done with trinity.
Do you believe in the trinity doctrine? Why or why not?
-
Trinity and Investigative Judgement....both are jargon...the Bible too
Walk me through what you mean by trinity and I will tell you whether it's junk or BS.
-
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
"According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10]"
This is the common understanding of the doctrine of trinity. Although it is not debated much, there are major controversies about it. The article pretty much sums it up, although it is heavily bias towards trinitarianism.
-
I hear you.
I subscribe to most aspects highlighted in that article, others am still formulating
-
DailyBread, I thought Adventists were Trinitarian, unlike JWs who are basically Arian. Which one are you?
-
I believe trinitarianism is blasphemy period
-
Ka-Bella thanks for reviving the trinity discussion.
What do you believe about the trinity? Please quote chapter and verse. In the Sabbath thread you equated your views to those of Rome. Is your belief your own or Rome's?
If you don't mind, please answer on that thread, I'm genuinely curious (and surprised) to hear that you don't believe in the Trinity? Personally, monotheism (One God), Trinity (Three divine persons in one divine substance/God) and Hypostatic union (Jesus is true God and true man) is how I (and the Church) distinguish Christian groups from non-Christian ones.
Which is strange because you had had a problem when I used non-magisterium sources to make a point about Rome. Are you a member of Rome's magisterium?
-
Ka-Bella thanks for reviving the trinity discussion.
What do you believe about the trinity? Please quote chapter and verse. In the Sabbath thread you equated your views to those of Rome. Is your belief your own or Rome's?
If you don't mind, please answer on that thread, I'm genuinely curious (and surprised) to hear that you don't believe in the Trinity? Personally, monotheism (One God), Trinity (Three divine persons in one divine substance/God) and Hypostatic union (Jesus is true God and true man) is how I (and the Church) distinguish Christian groups from non-Christian ones.
Which is strange because you had had a problem when I used non-magisterium sources to make a point about Rome. Are you a member of Rome's magisterium?
Daily Bread,
No, I am not a member of the magisterium. My views however on this matter are very much in line with those of the magisterium. That's all that my statement implies. I have not said that this is the position of the church because just because it is mine as well. Rather, I have said that it is both mine and the church's. I can quote for you the catechism on the church's approach to other christian groups if you like, but I just said that in summary to give context so you would understand my curiosity. That's all.
I am also genuinely uninterested in a debate on the Trinity. For me this is something you just accept or you don't. I would just like to understand this alternative view point that I did not know was Adventist. I used to think it was exclusive to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently not. I'm just curios if it is the JW position or something else. Genuine curiosity here, no more. I'm waving a peace flag...not interested in another 8 page marathon especially on Trinity.
-
Ka-Bella, thanks for the clarification on the magisterium and their limited authority. In other words, we should take Ka-Bella seriously even if she is not a magisterium member. Any Catholic's opinions should then count, perhaps as much as or more than the pope's? It gives me confidence to cite any Catholic sources and to take them seriously.
On the trinity, just like the Sabbath, you either take it or leave it. God is such a wonderful God He presents us the truth and allows us to choose it or to choose the error Satan presents.
Deuteronomy 30:14-16King James Version (KJV)
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Deuteronomy 30:18-20King James Version (KJV)
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
There are Adventists who believe in the trinity. There are also Adventists who don't. Like many doctrinal matters, there are mainstream and alternative viewpoints. However, these don't matter as much as what the scriptures say.
I'm not sure Omollo is still following this discussion but I'd be glad to know why he finds the trinity doctrine blasphemous.
-
Let me help you on comprehension
When kadame states her position and asserts that it is the Catholic position, and invites you to confirm the same from OFFICIAL Catholic sources, that's a highly intelligent debater who is at ease with her beliefs.
When Nuff Sed repeatedly AVOIDS readily available official Catholic sources on doctrines and practices and instead clings to unofficial 'Catholic' sources, and on this basis attacks kadame's position, that is a dishonest debater who would gladly tell lies to support her faith
What is the official position of SDAs on Trinity?
Ka-Bella, thanks for the clarification on the magisterium and their limited authority. In other words, we should take Ka-Bella seriously even if she is not a magisterium member. Any Catholic's opinions should then count, perhaps as much as or more than the pope's? It gives me confidence to cite any Catholic sources and to take them seriously.
There are Adventists who believe in the trinity. There are also Adventists who don't. Like many doctrinal matters, there are mainstream and alternative viewpoints. However, these don't matter as much as what the scriptures say.
-
@Daily Bread,
One can see the origins of the belief from when the Holy spirit descends on the apostles making them speak in tongues. Something that is documented in the Bible. You combine that, with Jesus the son, and God the father and you have the trinity.
-
Nuff Sed,
I know Adventism flirted with Arianism at some point as this source gladly admits
http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/answers/mischarges/arianism/
But presently, your sect's position is trinitarian
http://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/adventist.org/files/articles/official-statements/28Beliefs-English.pdf
Now that you don't subscribe to SDA, care to share what's your view of God is?
Do you like EGW believe that Jesus is archangel Michael?
-
There is a link between Sabbath observance and not believing in the unscriptural doctrine of the trinity. Not surprisingly, both the false doctrine of Sunday worship and trinity are promoted violently by Rome. As fake preachers are wont to, trumpeting Rome's doctrines without question has become the norm.
"That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century, concerning three sorts of heretics - the Cathari, the Passiginians, and the Arnoldistae. Allix says of this Romish writer that -
'He lays it down also as one of their opinions, 'that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath ... and other legal observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ, the Son of God, is not equal with the Father, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, these three ... are not one God and one substance; and as a surplus, to these errors, they judge and condemn all the doctors of the Church and universally the whole Roman Church ..." (Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168-169, cf. Dugger and Dodd, pp. 227-228).
-
There is a link between Sabbath observance and not believing in the unscriptural doctrine of the trinity. Not surprisingly, both the false doctrine of Sunday worship and trinity are promoted violently by Rome. As fake preachers are wont to, trumpeting Rome's doctrines without question has become the norm.
"That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century, concerning three sorts of heretics - the Cathari, the Passiginians, and the Arnoldistae. Allix says of this Romish writer that -
'He lays it down also as one of their opinions, 'that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath ... and other legal observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ, the Son of God, is not equal with the Father, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, these three ... are not one God and one substance; and as a surplus, to these errors, they judge and condemn all the doctors of the Church and universally the whole Roman Church ..." (Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168-169, cf. Dugger and Dodd, pp. 227-228).
So,Daily Bread, what do you believe?
1) You dont believe that Jesus is God? The Holy Spirit is God? What are they, then? What can "Son of God" "Divine word" possibly mean in reference to divinity? What can baptizing "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit" possibly mean?
2) Or you believe there are three Gods instead of just one?
Please just explain your own beliefs about who/what Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, and their relationships to God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Are they his creatures, like the angels are or even we? Why worship a creature? Is that not a rejection of the first commandment? If they are not creatures,then are they three Gods? That is too Mormon/pagan, way removed from Judaeo-christianity or indeed the whole Abrahamic paradigm that includes Islam and other monotheisms. If they are not creatures and not separate Gods, then are they simply manifestations of God the father? Then that makes Jesus a liar who spoke of both himself and the Holy Spirit as persons distnict from God the father.
All these ideas were debated in the first three centuries and they all deny some truth that God and Jesus revealed. Only The Trinity upholds them all: (1) The absolute oneness of God: the very basis of the entire Old Testament and the Jewish faith (2) The Divinity of Christ and (3) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit;
All that the Trinity says is:
-There is only one absolute being or essence or divine substance, according to God's self-introduction to Moses: I am that I am or I am he that IS. This is the divine essence=To BE. Just being, uncreated, beginningless, unlimited, without end or time.
-There is three divine persons,or subjects, or "I", in this one divinity: God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
This maintains simply that we believe everything Jesus said about himself and the Holy Spirit and what God had already taught the Jews about himself, that he is one absolutely indivisible being.
-
kadame,
When I say Sabbatarianism is error, I give sound reasons. When I say EGW was mad, I give reasons. When I say Sunday is the Lord's Day, I give reasons.
Nuff Sed on the other hand is content with mushene......sijui Rome this,Rome that. Just state what you believe and defend it. Seeing the amount of intellectual dishonesty you have pulled in misrepresenting bothy my statements and Catholicism, you would be the last person to consult on beliefs of others
So I join kadame in aksin you to state your beliefs and to defend them. Just note this is not an SDA Echo chamber where you compete at memorizing and reciting EGW garbage, you will be put to take to substantiate every word you put across.
PS: Your hesitation to share your beliefs and to instead obsess with Catholicism reeks of fear or ignorance or BOTH
So,Daily Bread, what do you believe?
-
Between reasons or ad hominem what do you actually give? What sounds to you like good reason is mere conjecture (Sunday worship supported by "apostolic practice" and suicidal meandering on the Sabbath commandment for example) foaming under tonnes of ad hominem.
I believe the trinity doctrine is not biblical. There is no evidence in the Bible that makes me believe there is a trinity.
kadame,
When I say Sabbatarianism is error, I give sound reasons. When I say EGW was mad, I give reasons. When I say Sunday is the Lord's Day, I give reasons.
Nuff Sed on the other hand is content with mushene......sijui Rome this,Rome that. Just state what you believe and defend it. Seeing the amount of intellectual dishonesty you have pulled in misrepresenting bothy my statements and Catholicism, you would be the last person to consult on beliefs of others
So I join kadame in aksin you to state your beliefs and to defend them. Just note this is not an SDA Echo chamber where you compete at memorizing and reciting EGW garbage, you will be put to take to substantiate every word you put across.
PS: Your hesitation to share your beliefs and to instead obsess with Catholicism reeks of fear or ignorance or BOTH
So,Daily Bread, what do you believe?
-
Is Jesus God?
Between reasons or ad hominem what do you actually give? What sounds to you like good reason is mere conjecture (Sunday worship supported by "apostolic practice" and suicidal meandering on the Sabbath commandment for example) foaming under tonnes of ad hominem.
I believe the trinity doctrine is not biblical. There is no evidence in the Bible that makes me believe there is a trinity.
-
Is Jesus God?
Between reasons or ad hominem what do you actually give? What sounds to you like good reason is mere conjecture (Sunday worship supported by "apostolic practice" and suicidal meandering on the Sabbath commandment for example) foaming under tonnes of ad hominem.
I believe the trinity doctrine is not biblical. There is no evidence in the Bible that makes me believe there is a trinity.
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.
-
PS: Your hesitation to share your beliefs and to instead obsess with Catholicism reeks of fear or ignorance or BOTH
When did you last share your beliefs? I have asked you over and over which sect you belong to and you have gone mum. I have clearly shared the Adventist beliefs I agree with. What are you, what do you believe and what are you reeking of?
-
I don't belong to no sect, can it be clearer than that?
Unthaw your brains Nuff Sed
Does Adventism teach trinity?
Did EGW teach/subscribe to it?
What strain of Adventism do you subscribe to?
When did you last share your beliefs? I have asked you over and over which sect you belong to and you have gone mum. I have clearly identified myself as Adventist. What are you, what do you believe and what are you reeking of?
-
So your church is not a sect? Why or why not? Why are you hesitant to share your faith? Is it out of fear of EG White, ignorance, ad hominem or all of the above?
I don't belong to no sect, can it be clearer than that?
Unthaw your brains Nuff Sed
Does Adventism teach trinity?
Did EGW teach/subscribe to it?
What strain of Adventism do you subscribe to?
When did you last share your beliefs? I have asked you over and over which sect you belong to and you have gone mum. I have clearly identified myself as Adventist. What are you, what do you believe and what are you reeking of?
-
You are digressing.
What 'faith' do you want me to share?
Answer my questions
1. Is Jesus God
2. Does Adventism teach Trinity?
3. Did EGW teach trinity?
So your church is not a sect? Why or why not? Why are you hesitant to share your faith? Is it out of fear of EG White, ignorance, ad hominem or all of the above?
-
The question is very specific. You have faithfully avoided to tell us what sect you belong to. What is your church?
You are digressing.
What 'faith' do you want me to share?
Answer my questions
1. Is Jesus God
2. Does Adventism teach Trinity?
3. Did EGW teach trinity?
So your church is not a sect? Why or why not? Why are you hesitant to share your faith? Is it out of fear of EG White, ignorance, ad hominem or all of the above?
-
I don't have a church/sect.
If you did an intelligent job of defending Adventism, I may just consider joining you. But alas, you are worse than EGW; you don't even understand your faith. This is the bne of negroes; they are shallow
The question is very specific. You have faithfully avoided to tell us what sect you belong to. What is your church?
-
I don't defend Adventism or anybody for that matter. As you can see, I share with Adventists many beliefs but also read the Bible for myself to see what is true. You would be welcome to join a church. Do not fear to tell us what sect you belong to. Some of us are not obsessed with personalities like you are with EGWhite so we will not attack you like demon-possessed obssessionists. Before you join a church, leave ad hominem at the door and be washed as white as snow.
I don't have a church/sect.
If you did an intelligent job of defending Adventism, I may just consider joining you. But alas, you are worse than EGW; you don't even understand your faith
The question is very specific. You have faithfully avoided to tell us what sect you belong to. What is your church?
-
Do you believe Ellen White and her writings so Christened 'spirit of prophecy' is INSPIRED?
I don't defend Adventism or anybody for that matter. As you can see, I share with Adventists many beliefs but also read the Bible for myself to see what is true. You would be welcome to join a church. Do not fear to tell us what sect you belong to. Some of us are not obsessed with personalities like you are with EGWhite so we will not attack you like demon-possessed obssessionists. Before you join a church, leave ad hominem at the door and be washed as white as snow.
-
The Gift of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"
The following affirmations and denials speak to the issues that have been raised about the inspiration and authority of the Ellen White writings and their relation to the Bible. These clarifications are an attempt to express the present under standing of Seventh-day Adventists. They are not to be construed as a substitute for, or a part of, the two doctrinal statements quoted above.
Affirmations
1. We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed Word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
4. We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
5. We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
6. We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
7. We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are particularly applicable and authoritative to Seventh-day Adventists.
8. We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings with prophetic urgency to the spiritual and moral life.
9. We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White, while not a requirement for continuing church membership, is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
10. We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
Denials
1. We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
2. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White serve the same purpose as does Scripture, which is the sole foundation and final authority of Christian faith.
3. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of sacred Scripture.
4. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
5. We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
6. We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
7. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
8. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
9. We do not believe that the inspired writings of Ellen White are merely the product of Christian piety.
10. We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assist ants negates the inspiration of her writings.
We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1982/08/the-inspiration-and-authority-of-the-ellen-g.-white-writings
Do you believe Ellen White and her writings so Christened 'spirit of prophecy' is INSPIRED?
-
Did EGW teach/believe in Trinity?
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/The-Trinity.pdf
The Gift of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)"
The following affirmations and denials speak to the issues that have been raised about the inspiration and authority of the Ellen White writings and their relation to the Bible. These clarifications are an attempt to express the present under standing of Seventh-day Adventists. They are not to be construed as a substitute for, or a part of, the two doctrinal statements quoted above.
Affirmations
1. We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed Word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
4. We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
5. We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
6. We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
7. We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are particularly applicable and authoritative to Seventh-day Adventists.
8. We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings with prophetic urgency to the spiritual and moral life.
9. We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White, while not a requirement for continuing church membership, is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
10. We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
Denials
1. We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
2. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White serve the same purpose as does Scripture, which is the sole foundation and final authority of Christian faith.
3. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of sacred Scripture.
4. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
5. We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
6. We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
7. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
8. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
9. We do not believe that the inspired writings of Ellen White are merely the product of Christian piety.
10. We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assist ants negates the inspiration of her writings.
We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1982/08/the-inspiration-and-authority-of-the-ellen-g.-white-writings
Do you believe Ellen White and her writings so Christened 'spirit of prophecy' is INSPIRED?
-
The trinity came to Christianity by the way of the sword and not by the word of God. I could cite Adventist sources showing the route it followed, but to satisfy the anti-Adventist crowd, I'll post a different source.
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine
“Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.
“They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict” (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).
-
Adventists can barely agree among themselves if they are trinitarian or not
-
Adventists can barely agree among themselves if they are trinitarian or not
The issue is not whether Adventists agree among themselves or not. What can be established is that the doctrine of the trinity is not supported in the Bible but came by way of the sword.
-
Adventists can barely agree among themselves if they are trinitarian or not
The issue is not whether Adventists agree among themselves or not. What can be established is that the doctrine of the trinity is not supported in the Bible but came by way of the sword.
The issue is what brand of an Adventist you are. What oother Adventist garbage don't you believe in?
-
Repent and leave ad hominem alone. I don't believe in the trinity doctrine because it is unbiblical. That has little to do with Adventist brands or seeing everywhere the ghost of a woman who died 100 years ago. Do you believe in the trinity and on what basis?
-
Repent and leave ad hominem alone. I don't believe in the trinity doctrine because it is unbiblical. That has little to do with Adventist brands or seeing everywhere the ghost of a woman who died 100 years ago. Do you believe in the trinity and on what basis?
So the official Adventist position is garbage. And you are Adventist.
What part of Trinity do you find unbiblical?
-
Hello Daily Bread,
I have quoted SDA official position on Holy Trinity and you insist they are unbiblical and the most important thing is what the bible says. What about Ellen White? Did your own prophetess believe in unbiblical stuff?
sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power
Desire of Ages p. 671,1898
Look at this letter titled To My Brethren in America (http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=SpTA10&pagenumber=25) from Australia dated 6th February 1896 if the statement is not clear enough
Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power.
Question is, who is the FIRST and SECOND Person of the Godhead?
(http://i.imgur.com/wR0fPVk.jpg?2)
Read more about your prophet's trinitarian views here (http://www.stepstolife.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=1604) before you respond. And I must confess it is a bit tiresome educating you on your sect