SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Father (tangible flesh and bone hominid)

Where in the Bible does it say that the Father is made of "tangible flesh and bone"?

[Gregory Matthews]

When God communicates God has to communicate in the human terms that we understand.  To do otherwise would result in a total failure to understand.  Yet, the human terms that God has to use are often far removed from the spiritual realty.  This is true of the word "person" when applied to the Godhead.    In our experience "person" always has flesh skin and bones.  Yet it is foolishness for one to assume that the word "person" as applied to God has the flesh, skin and bones that we have.  Such would only apply to the incarnate Christ who took on the form of personhood that is our experience today. This distinction is evidenced in a common phrase used by SDA theologians, and people like me who use the term "personal being." instead of the single word "person."  The implication of the phrase "personal being" is taht it is a personhood that is different from our being and also beyond our understanding.

[Gregory Matthews]

In recent times, there have been several good SDA publications on this subject.  Probably the most comprehensive one is the following:

Norman R. Gulley, Volume II, Systematic Theology: God As Trinity. Andrews University Press, 2011, 676 pages.

Yes, at 676 pages, it is probably the most comprehensive publication taht we have.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

When God communicates God has to communicate in the human terms that we understand.  To do otherwise would result in a total failure to understand.  Yet, the human terms that God has to use are often far removed from the spiritual realty.  This is true of the word "person" when applied to the Godhead.    In our experience "person" always has flesh skin and bones.  Yet it is foolishness for one to assume that the word "person" as applied to God has the flesh, skin and bones that we have.  Such would only apply to the incarnate Christ who took on the form of personhood that is our experience today. This distinction is evidenced in a common phrase used by SDA theologians, and people like me who use the term "personal being." instead of the single word "person."  The implication of the phrase "personal being" is that it is a personhood that is different from our being and also beyond our understanding.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Where in the Bible does it say that the Father is made of "tangible flesh and bone"?

it's my contention that the Bible would teach the opposite. I'm saying that Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition teach that God is simple and can't consist of parts. The Mormon's say that the Father is tangible flesh and bones as did the early SDA's.  Admittedly, I'm not generally hearing / seeing this said by SDA's 10 years after Ellen White died.   

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In the past, I have mentioned some recent SDA publications on the Godhead, which I will not repeat here.  Probably the most comprehensive publication is the following:

Norman R. Gulley, Volume II, Systematic Theology: God As Trinity, Andrews University Press, 2011. 675 pages. 

Yes it is 675 pages on this one subject.  It writes on the Biblical picture of God.  It addresses the history of this doctrine, to include the Fathers of the Church and various Church Councils.  It is comprehensive. It comments on current theologians and includes Richard Rice a controversial SDA theologian. 

Beginning on page 57 it lists 15 Biblical passages that seem to suggest that God has a physical nature such as voice, face, eyes moth, lips and more. Then in a passage the ends on page 58, Gulley writes: “It is wise to understand these descriptive words as anthropomorphic, accommodating our finite intellect, keeping in mind that God is also a spirit (John 4:24) and is omnipresent (Jer. 23:24; Col. 1:17). 1:17).” 

I do not doubt that some early SDA leaders may have considered God to have a physical being such as Gustave has suggested.  This is not the present SDA view.

I will not challenge Gustave if he were to tell us that he knows of some SDA member who believes that God has such a physical being.  I will simply respond that I have found Roman Catholic members who clearly misunderstand some teachings of their Church.

I will simply say:  A Biblically informed person will not understand God to have a person in the manner that Gustave presents SDAs as teaching in our early years.

 

[Gustave]

I can agree with that Pastor Matthews -there are indeed mobs of Catholics that misunderstand Church teachings, I've met MANY of them myself - and at times have been included in that bunch. 

I'd say the difference would be that if a person started reading the archives of the Catholic Register back from 1863 onwards, they would not find repeated statements that contradicted Church Doctrine - in fact I'd be willing to bet it would be quite rare. I'm talking about something equivalent, something like Mary wasn't the Mother of God - or perhaps God ISN'T simple and consists of parts - stuff like that. 

I think the big one here is the "Substance" issue - God is numerically ONE, a simple substance that doesn't consist of parts. God is not the combination of 3 Persons each with a separate equal serving of Deity. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  This conversation is good and appreciated.  I have things to do and will probably not being on the Internet much for most of this day.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I am going to add a one comment from a very old  (1959) SDA Book:

T. H. Jemison,  Christian Beliefs: "Fundamental Biblical Teachings for Seventh-day Adventist College Classes.  Pacific Press, 1959, 481 pages.

The quote below comes from page 74.

Quote

That there is one God, and the divine nature is not and cannot be divided is an outstanding truth of the Old Testament, See: . . . The same truth is consistently taught in the New Testament, sometimes in the exact words of the Old, See: . . . Despite the distinctions in personality which the Scriptures make when speaking of the Godhead, there is only one God.  How the Father Son, and Holy Spirit can be distinguished personally and yet be completely one has not been revealed to man and is beyond his comprehension.  We have no basis for comparison with anything we know.

 

 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, I am going to add a one comment from a very old  (1959) SDA Book:

T. H. Jemison,  Christian Beliefs: "Fundamental Biblical Teachings for Seventh-day Adventist College Classes.  Pacific Press, 1959, 481 pages.

The quote below comes from page 74.

 

 

That's an incredible quote and dispositive that T.H. Jemison affirmed the historic Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I have never seen such a direct written quote and believe me I've beat the weeds hard looking for one. Jemison just confirmed he believed in Divine Simplicity!  I'm going to have to look deeper into this guy and see what else he wrote! Impressive Gregory - I would have lost money had this been a bet! 

WHY in the world are there so many SDA's on the internet (and I've heard in person)  saying the oneness is in the same manner that husband and wife / board of Directors / a Military Unit is one in purpose???

Boonstra from the it is written program spelled it out very clearly and that video has since been removed from their website. 

[Gustave]

Just now, Gustave said:

That's an incredible quote and dispositive that T.H. Jemison affirmed the historic Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I have never seen such a direct written quote and believe me I've beat the weeds hard looking for one. Jemison just confirmed he believed in Divine Simplicity! This statement is the antithesis of what Ellen White and the SDA Pioneers taught!   I'm going to have to look deeper into this guy and see what else he wrote! Impressive Gregory - I would have lost money had this been a bet! 

WHY in the world are there so many SDA's on the internet (and I've heard in person)  saying the oneness is in the same manner that husband and wife / board of Directors / a Military Unit is one in purpose???

Boonstra from the it is written program spelled it out very clearly and that video has since been removed from their website. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, you would probably like the following quote from the same book on page 76:

c. 

Immutability.  God is unchangeable.  God is perfect;  He cannot change for better or for worse.  He can never be  greater or more holy than He is, nor can He be less so. "I am the Lord, I change not."  Malachi 3:6l;  See: . . .

[Gustave]

26 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, you would probably like the following quote from the same book on page 76:

 

 

 

You're right, that's looks the Doctrine of "Impassibility" right there! Another one I was unaware of. Interesting !!!

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For those who would like more information about T. Housel Jemison, he died in 1963 at the age of 49.   I personally met his wife Hedwig in 1963 after his death.  So, I never met him.  In her time she was well known in Adventism and was of great help to me in 1965 in getting me hired as a SDA pastor.

The following link gives you very limited information about him.

https://library.llu.edu/jemison-thomas-housel-hedwig-hedy-nagele

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For more information about the book Christian Beliefs:   It was intended to be a college textbook.  While THJ was the primary author, some 100 people were involved in writing it.  The original publication was in 1959, which is the date of my copy and it was reprinted in 1983.  The Department of Education of the General Conference authorized and supervised its publication.

 

 

[Gustave]

 

I've got some confusion to work through here. Those two quotes from Jemison's book couldn't have been more Orthodox articulations on Divine Impassibility and the Holy Trinity. I mean WOW!

This morning after waking up I hit the GC Archives and immediately found:

"The last decade has seen increased anti-Trinitarian activity within the Seventhday Adventist Church. Though significant, anti-Trinitarianism has remained at the margins of the movement. Four reasons for this activity should be mentioned. 1. There is the availability of information through the internet. 2. Several other Adventist groups that emerged from the Millerite movement continue to hold to an anti-Trinitarian perspective. 3. Some Adventists think that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from Catholic theology and therefore must be false. What many have not realized is that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity differs from the Seventh-day Adventist biblical doctrine of the Trinity. This includes eternal generation of the Son and divine impassability, which are influenced by Greek philosophy." Merlin Burt  Layout 1 (adventistarchives.org)

 

In the General Conference Archives there is a metric ton of condemnation of the "Historic Trinity", specifically that part of the Doctrine that asserts, "...the divine nature is not and cannot be divided..." Divine Simplicity is part of the Trinity Doctrine - it basically says that God is SIMPLE and CAN'T CONSIST OF PARTS - exactly what T.H. Jemison said /agreed with. Whatever it is that makes each Person of the Trinity God isn't divided out so that each person has an equal "PART" of it [ the Divinity ] God is literally ONE single undivided Substance wherein the 3 distinct individuals have and will continually exist. 

 

In the above SDA Journal I quoted from Merlin Burt doesn't pull any punches - Burt says that the Adventist Trinity differs from the Catholic Trinity and every mention in the GC Archives appears to say to me that the reasons they are giving for rejecting it - are: 

One Substance without body or parts / Eternal Generation as in the Son was always the Son & Divine Impassability. 

I'm not just talking about the period of time when Ellen White was alive - contemporary time is also included in what I'm saying.

Am I safe in assuming that many SDA Pastor's are aware of Jemison quotes and agree with them? Or do the many "prophecy experts" we see on Youtube more accurately reflect the beliefs of the SDA Church in this specific area? 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will respond:

Issue # 1:  As I have clearly said, the Book, Christian Beliefs   was published with approval from the highest levels of the SDA Church.  Probably few SDA pastors today have ever seen a copy.  I suspect that those who teach in our SDA Colleges would react negatively to any suggestion that they should teach from a common textbook that had been imposed upon them from a higher level of SDA administration.  I do not believe that there would be major differences with what Jemison said about the Trinity.  I think that there would be some differences in the manner in which he presents material, both on the Trinity and on other subjects.

Issue # 2:  There is a 2nd issue here that I consider to be of major importance to this discussion.  The typical SDA pastor is NOT trained in a classic sense as a theologian.   Yes, in the present, there are individuals who might be called theologians in the classic sense.  I consider these to be the exception.   I do not   consider myself to be a theologian in the classic sense.  This lays the groundwork of misunderstandings in communication.  I will give a personal example.  For years I have had a simple description of the Trinity that I have been able to use in working with people as young as children.  In the recent times discussion in this forum, I have come to realize that my simple description did not fully reflect what I wanted to communicate as to the Trinity.  Therefore, I have effected a major change in my simple description.  The bottom line of this issue is that the typical SDA pastor may not always understand some of the terms that Gustave is using in his posts.  just as they may not fully understand how others may understand the terms that they use.

 

 Wello, Gustave, how is this for posting something that surprises you?      I often surprise people.

NOTE:  I can post comments from SDA scholars that state that the SDA understanding of the Trinity differs in some respects from the Roman Catholic understanding of the Trinity.  I am not certain as to the truth of those comments.  In part due to the fact that I question as to whether they agree on what those differences are.

Issue #3:  The Internet is full of people who claim to speak for the SDA Chruch and are in actual fact on the fringe of Adventism, or may not even be SDA.

 

[Gustave]

Those quotes definitely surprised me! In all the time I've dabbled with apologetics the closest I've seen was that Boonstra video on the Trinity Doctrine (which It Is Written removed from their site). I'd add that I don't consider myself a theologian in any way shape or form - I'm just an amateur at best. 

Catholicism has a system of religious education that's free for anyone who is interested in taking it - the terms and meanings are well covered in that education wherein an individual, depending on interest can just swim on the surface or put-on deep sea diving gear and get really deep into things. I've found helpful: 

BIBLIACLERUS    (choose Download Or Update Biblia Clerus - allows you to download the entire content of the site onto your computer. 

The above contains every council, associated documents, Catechism, Old & New Testament, Canon laws, etc. It's a significant amount of material. 

[Gustave]

On 3/12/2022 at 12:14 PM, phkrause said:

I notice this thread has been dormant for a number of years, but I came across an article by Marvin Moore the editor of Signs of the Times, from the November 2021 issue, so I thought I'd share it you all.

The Trinity Doctrine: Is It Biblical?

https://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=44188664521.739

If for any reason you can't access, I will copy and paste it, just let me know!!

Big thanks to you phkrause for bumping this thread - had you not done this I wouldn't have seen the quotes Gregory just produced. The Signs of the Times article linked above asserts the direct opposite of the quotes Gregory provided. 

Marvin Moore states in the article that the oneness of God ISN'T MATHEMATICAL BUT A ONENESS OF SPIRIT AND PURPOSE. Like I've said in other places this isn't like the Mormon understanding IT IS THE MORMON UNDERSTANDING. 

I'll go on record as saying that T.H. Jemison NAILED IT, he's right and Marvin Moore is very wrong. 

But I digress, the most important point is that without your bump I would be unaware of T.H. Jemison and this has forced me to change my view of Adventism - I've got some sorting out to do now. Thanks phkrause!

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I think that you are beginning to sense the diversity that exists within Adventism.  It probably is hard for a person to understand exactly what is official SDA teaching and what is not.

On a personal basis, I take a very narrow view as to what is the official doctrine of the SDA Chruch.  Others add teachings that I would place within a segment of Adventism.

Internally Adventism faces significant discussion and disagreement on two issues as I see them:

*  The role that women should have in ministry.

*   What does it mean to be a member of the SDA Church and therefore what should be those requirements?

Associated with those two issues are some related doctrinal issues.   I am not listing them here as I consider them to be related to the above two issues.

Certain elements of SDA leadership are concerned about the issues that they believe the SDA church is facing today and are attempting to come into a greater agreement with what they believe to be truth.  On a personal basis, I am willing for diversity to exist and over time to see how God leads and in what direction on some of these points.

[GHansen]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The typical SDA pastor is NOT trained in a classic sense as a theologian. 

What are they trained to be? Most were not trained to be soulwinners either. They can baptize the children of existing members. In informal studies, simply dividing the number of annual baptisms by the number of pastors in a church, the number of people baptized /pastor was eight. This does not consider the administrative support at the conference and union level each pastor receives. Beyond that, as one well known SDA pastor told me "The best way to grow a church is through membership transfer." 

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

What are they trained to be? Most were not trained to be soulwinners either. They can baptize the children of existing members. In informal studies, simply dividing the number of annual baptisms by the number of pastors in a church, the number of people baptized /pastor was eight. This does not consider the administrative support at the conference and union level each pastor receives. Beyond that, as one well known SDA pastor told me "The best way to grow a church is through membership transfer." 

I have to say GHansen, I have no idea what your actually saying!!

[phkrause]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

Thanks phkrause!

You are welcomed! I was wondering if you can recall the name of the video from IIW with Shawn Boonstra where he talks about the Trinity?? Thanks

[Gustave]

36 minutes ago, phkrause said:

You are welcomed! I was wondering if you can recall the name of the video from IIW with Shawn Boonstra where he talks about the Trinity?? Thanks

"The Substance of God".

[GHansen]

12 hours ago, phkrause said:

I have to say GHansen, I have no idea what your actually saying!!

ph, Sensible or not, it was certainly off topic. I may have been partly asleep when I wrote it. Chaplain Matthews is welcome to delete it.

[It was so far off topic that I decided to leave it without any response--Gregory Matthews.]