Posted on 11/17/2025 2:49:38 AM PST by Cronos
my wife and I had just arrived at our new parish. Something I’d not anticipated, however, were the serious theological challenges that were awaiting me in my new church, which was embroiled in debate regarding the nature of the Godhead, particularly the nature of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
As so often happens, the church was divided into two camps: the majority supported official Adventist teachings, while the minority, consisting of sincere church members, believed that the Adventist Church had erred in embracing the doctrine of the Trinity. This group agitated for a return to the teachings of early Adventist pioneers, many of whom were not comfortable with the doctrine of the Trinity. Within a few days of our arrival in town, an envelope containing tracts compiled by the latter group arrived in my letterbox. With my head still spinning from our recent move, ..the main thrust of which was that Christ owed His existence and thus was subordinate to the Father throughout eternity past, present and future; that the early Church’s adoption of the trinitarian doctrine was a departure from the teaching of the Scriptures; that by adopting trinitarianism, the Adventist was vulnerable to other ”heretical” doctrines, such as Sunday worship and ecumenism; and that the only hope for Adventism was a return to the anti-trinitarianism of early Adventist pioneers.
...While very few contemporary Adventist anti-trinitarians agree with Uriah Smith and those early Adventist pioneers who claimed that Christ was created, neither are they willing to accept the trinitarian theology of Christ’s co-equal and co-eternal divinity. Thus, the only option left is the Alexandrian concept of “generation”, which, they believe, occurred so far in the past that, for all practical purposes, Christ could be considered co-eternal.
(Excerpt) Read more at record.adventistchurch.com ...
Supposedly, the Adventist church in a church in continual revolution as it fine tunes its doctrines to be more Biblically compatible. That is supposed to be its reason for being.
The Trinity is not incompatible with the Torah. God portrays Himself has plural at several points in the OT. I do allow for some error on this with Christianity, simply because our himan words can only approximate the divine reality and we cannot get it right until we have it experienced it for real.
Interesting philosophical distinction. Seems like nonsense to me, however.
“We do not earn salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith. But obedience is the fruit of faith”
Clever use of the word ‘earn’. We do not ‘earn’ salvation thru obedience, but we do ‘obtain’ it
If you’re stuck in a hole, and someone throws you a rope to get out, the person who throws you the rope, gets credit for saving you. The rope was obtained, given to you as a free gift - not earned - if you choose to use it. - my 2 cents
This hurt my head. I wonder if any Adventist thought to open the Bible and read? Not that hard.
This hurt my head. I wonder if any Adventist thought to open the Bible and read? Not that hard.
I think I’d look for a true Bible believing independent Church if I were you.
To be fair, they do open the Bible, but their interpretation is their own.
Just like the Oneness Pentecostals who open the Bible and conclude a different kind of non-Trinitarianism
They read the book of Daniel and don’t read that Michael is ONE of the princes (i.e. one of the Archangels) and instead they conclude that Jesus is Michael.
Their “Jesus entered the holy of holies in Heaven in 1844” is pure Millerite
The interpretation of Michael is significantly harder than the doctrine of the Trinity. Adventists may open their Bibles, but that is about it.
Spurgeon, Matthew Henry held that Michael is indeed, Jesus Christ. I’m not sure if all Reformers held that view but Henry’s commentary makes the most sense.
If they’re non-trinitarians, that pretty much makes them Unitarians.
None of the reformers held that the angel Michael is in any way Jesus Christ.
This is a non-sequitor, considering that
- “angel” means messenger
- there are a number of spiritual beings in God’s retinue referred to in the Bible - besides the angels (messengers), we have seraphim and cherubim — in English we put these as “types of angels”, but the correct term is more “types of spiritual beings in God’s retinue”
- In the book of Daniel, Michael is clearly shown as ONE OF the archangels. and Jesus is clearly not “One of many”
There are lots of kinds of non-Trinitarians:
1. the strict unitarians - well, Jews, Muslims - they don’t even consider Jesus, the Father as distinct in any way
2. the modalists - like Oneness Pentecostals who say God operates in “modes”
3. the 3 gods of Mormonism
4. Adoptionism - that Jesus get’s adopted into being God
5. Possession
etc. etc. - and each of these provide proof from their interpretations of scripture
Dude, we are kind of off topic,
As a former Seventh-Day Adventist I am surprised to learn that Adventists are not strictly trinitarians in their doctrine. I remember that when I was baptized as an Adventist back in my high school days (the 70s) I had to sign a paper that said I wouldn't eat pork or smoke, etc., and that I believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which I took to be the classic Trinity.
Being with some angels does not mean that Michael isn’t Jeses.
When Christ came to Abraham to bring judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, He was also walking with angels.
Hebrews 1:13-14 (ESV)
13 ¶And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
14 ¶Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Those are two separate questions - let me take them one by one if I may
Trinitariasm is the Christian doctrine that God exists as one essence (or being) in three distinct, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
it is pretty explicitly described in the Athanasius Creed so leaving no real wiggle room for differentiation.
Now the SDA says that it believes in “one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons,” as stated in their 28 Fundamental Beliefs (Belief #2). This language appears similar to the orthodox Christian Trinity—one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons sharing the same divine essence (consubstantiality, or “homoousios” from the Nicene Creed). However, if you delve into the details, you can see that it is not Trinitarianism but leans toward tritheism (three separate gods united relationally).
The main difference is Unity in purpose vs. unity in substance: Orthodox Christianity emphasizes ontological unity—the three Persons are one Being or essence, distinct yet indivisibly sharing the same divine nature.
In contrast, SDA theology, influenced by Ellen G. White’s writings (e.g., describing a “heavenly trio” or “three persons... one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person”), focuses on relational or functional unity, like a divine family or team working in harmony, without explicitly affirming consubstantiality. This can imply three independent beings rather than one indivisible God.
But it isn’t about “Michael being with some angels” - it is that the book of Daniel says explicitly:
, 13 but the prince of the kingdom of Persia[e] stood in my way for twenty-one days, until finally Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me. I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia,
“Michael, one of the chief princes”.
So clearly stating that there are other chief princes, right?
Biblically, Michael is an archangel, a created being called “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13), who disputes with Satan by invoking “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 9), whereas Jesus, as God, rebukes Satan directly (Mt 4:10) and is superior to all angels (Heb 1:4-14), with God commanding angels to worship Him (Heb 1:6). No angel is ever called God’s Son or shares His divine essence (Heb 1:5,13; Jn 1:1,14). Thus, Michael cannot be Jesus, the eternal Creator (Col 1:15-17), not a created messenger.
you then said “Christ came to Abraham to bring judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah,”
In Genesis 18, the Lord appears to Abraham in human form (a theophany) accompanied by two angels (Gen 19:1), but Scripture does not identify the Lord as an angel—He is distinct, receiving worship from Abraham (Gen 18:2-3) while angels refuse it (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9).
Why did you leave?
“ the 3 gods of Mormonism”. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first article of faith states : “ We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” 3 separate beings making up the God head, not 3 gods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.