Women's Ordination Sidetrack Topic on Trinity, EGW, etc...

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

Are you suggesting that ministering to the sick and the poor represents a lower type of ministry than preaching?

Jesus spent most of his time in this type of service? Doesn’t this tell you something about which type of service is more important? Why would a less important type of service—preaching—be prohibited for women?

No, not at all. It's neither a lower type of ministry nor less important. That would be the wrong way to see it, although I realize that many people see it that way and teach women to see it that way, too. I think that's plainly wrong. Paul talks about this very thing in 1 Cor. 12.

Compare it to the role and responsibilities of the father and the mother. They each have different reponsibilities. The father is head of the home and is "lawmaker." But that doesn't mean that the mother's work is any less important than the father's. In fact, in some ways it is more important than the father's position. See AH 211-247.

The three persons of the Godhead each has a different work or responsibility, but that doesn't make any of them inferior to the others or less important.

John,

I agree! Does this mean that it is wrong for a dad to change a diaper, or cook, or wash the dishes, or do the laundry? If not, then why imposing restrictions only on women? I don’t get it!

Now, regarding the “three persons of the Godhead”: Is this in the Bible? Is the doctrine of the Trinity in the bible? As far as I know, the original Adventist pioneers recognized only God the Father and God the son as the members of the Deity. Wasn’t this strange doctrine a late comer into the Christian church, and modeled after the triad pagan gods?

Whoops! I am sorry. I guess I opened another Pandora box. Can you hold the lid real tight before it’s too late?

[Dr. Rich]

Trinity? John 15:26. God is a family, the Father is "God Almighty", the Mother is "Holy Spirit" and the Child/Son is "Jesus Christ".

The 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of those found in verse 17. Mary and the Church were NEVER in heaven so therefore they can't be this 'Woman'. What this tends to show is that WO is not out of the line and if fact, something out church should be doing.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

Now, regarding the “three persons of the Godhead”: Is this in the Bible? Is the doctrine of the Trinity in the bible? As far as I know, the original Adventist pioneers recognized only God the Father and God the son as the members of the Deity. Wasn’t this strange doctrine a late comer into the Christian church, and modeled after the triad pagan gods?

Yes, the Trinity doctrine as SDAs understand that doctrine and express it in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, is certainly in the Bible, as well as in the SOP. This has been discussed at length on the Adventist Forum.

It's true that Joseph Bates and James White as well as many others of the Adventist pioneers did not believe in the Trinity, nor did they believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Some believed that Christ had been created. Our pioneers did not agree on the nature of the Godhead, and it was only following James White's death that Ellen White wrote most of her important and clearest statements about the Godhead. See Ev. 613-617.

I would only point out that our pioneers were not error-free and they were changing. James White was in the process of changing his view of the Godhead at the time of his death in 1881. Our pioneers would not want us to base our doctrines on their viewpoints. They would be the first to urge us to study the Bible in order to find the truth. They wouldn't advise a return to the way they believed if their views weren't founded solidly on Scripture. I've found that their views of the Godhead and the Trinity were in error.

The pre-incarnate Word was in close relationship with God from eternity, and what God was the Word was. The Holy Spirit was not an impersonal power but is the third person of the Godhead, just as Ellen White says. (Ev. 617).

In the first volume of Sermons and Talks, Ellen White spoke of "the Three holiest Beings of Heaven," and "the three Great Worthies in heaven."

If you'd like discuss this subject more, please begin a discussion of it on another thread.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich] Trinity? John 15:26. the Mother is "Holy Spirit" and the Child/Son is "Jesus Christ".

The 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of those found in verse 17. Mary and the Church were NEVER in heaven so therefore they can't be this 'Woman'. What this tends to show is that WO is not out of the line and if fact, something out church should be doing.

Your view, I believe, is a good illustration why we should be opposed to WO.

I wonder why I don't see any supporters of WO disputing what you're saying here.

There's absolutely no biblical basis for thinking the Holy Spirit is female or "the Mother." I've seen all the so-called evidence you've brought to this topic and in my view and in the view of the SDA church, it doesn't hold water. Jesus Christ did not come into being through a divine mother. The pre-existent Christ has always existed.

[Dr. Rich]

John, I did not say that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist did I? Not at all! Jesus was Michael prior to Him being placed into Mary as a zygote (so to speak) just as a fertilized egg is implanted into a surrogate's womb today. Mary was just a surrogate mother. Jesus never called her His mother. In fact, the best evidence for the Holy Spirit being the Mother of Jesus is in Jesus' own words found in Matthew 11:11 where Jesus said "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone (including Jesus) greater than John the Baptist..."

So John, now you can't say their is no biblical support for the Mother of Jesus being the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich:

So John, now you can't say their is no biblical support for the Mother of Jesus being the Holy Spirit.

If that's what you call support for the idea that Holy Spirit being Christ's mother, then it's certainly true that there is no valid support for it, which is the reason the church has never viewed it that way, and why the SDA church in particular does not view it that way. But if you want to keep thinking of it that way, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, be my guest.

It's unimportant whether Jesus is recording as calling Mary his mother. He said many things unrecorded. But the more important fact is that the Bible itself calls her His mother (John 19: 26), and tells us that Jesus was a descendent of Adam and David. That couldn't have happened if Jesus was not a man related to David and Adam through His human mother, Mary. It is also why the Bible traces Jesus human geneology back to Abraham and even to Adam, which it would not have done if He wasn't related to those people through Mary. Jesus was indeed the Son (descendent, according to the flesh) of David. Jesus' favorite title for himself is "Son of man," which has reference to His being a descendent of Adam.

[Kevin H]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

Now, regarding the “three persons of the Godhead”: Is this in the Bible? Is the doctrine of the Trinity in the bible? As far as I know, the original Adventist pioneers recognized only God the Father and God the son as the members of the Deity. Wasn’t this strange doctrine a late comer into the Christian church, and modeled after the triad pagan gods?

Yes, the Trinity doctrine as SDAs understand that doctrine and express it in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, is certainly in the Bible, as well as in the SOP. This has been discussed at length on the Adventist Forum.

It's true that Joseph Bates and James White as well as many others of the Adventist pioneers did not believe in the Trinity...

Good post John, however just a note, from what I've studied about James White (mostly from lectures by Elder Wheeler I think his name was) but also from books and articles about the trinity, it appears that James was more undecided about the trinity rather than a non-believer in the trinity, and at the end of his life he did write a letter saying that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against it. Yes, many of our pioneers were anti-trinitarian, but there has not yet been enough evidence to include James White on that list.

[Kevin H]

All three members of the trinity have verses that give them male and female qualities. Linguists say that in the Old Testament God is translated masculine 50% of the time and feminine 50% of the time. The idea of the second member of the Godhead was pictured as the woman wisdom, but later developed into the man Jesus. Linguists also say that the "Abba" from which we get the Father in the New Testament is a child's enterment term but which can be applied to either or both parents not just the male parent.

However dispite male and female together being the immage of God in the Bible, we still have Jesus as a male human, and the linguists tell us that the phrase translated "The Holy Spirit" are the linguistic structure of a real MALE person. So while, like the other members of the trinity haveing both qualities, all THREE also show up as exclusively male (at least Jesus and the Holy Spirit) the arguments for the Holy Spirit being the feminine member of the trinity does not fit the linguistic structure.

The Woman in Revelation 12 is not the Holy Spirit but Judio-Christianity; God's pure woman in Revelation 12 who runs into the wilderness, who John admires, and later we see a woman riding the beast from OUT of the wilderness and when John saw HER he was astonsished that God's pure woman, Judio-Christianity is now controling the beast of the political powers and has come under league with the devil. In the Resurection Peter will be shocked to see that built over his tomb was a symbol of this union.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You made the following numbered statements:

1.

Quote:

You are directly contradicting the words of Jesus as recorded in Luke 24: 25-26, where our Lord says that it was "necessary" for the Messiah to "suffer these things." Others passages of Scripture teach that it "had to" happen.

No, I am not contradicting. I am interpreting them on the basis of everything that the Bible teaches. The story of Jonah teaches me that God’s predictions are contingent on human response. It also teaches me that God loves justice. There is no justice in the notion that God needed to see his own son killed before he was willing to offer forgiveness to sinners.

Dr. Graham Maxwell used to illustrate this as follows: What would we think of a father whose son had committed a great sin if he has said to the repentant boy: “Bring your innocent little brother and we will kill him. This action will allow me to forgive you your transgression.” Would we say: “Yes, this is real justice!”

God’s original plan was that the Jewish nation would accept their promised Messiah and king and that he would reign from Jerusalem. This is why we find so many predictions of a glorious future for the nation of Israel. Ellen White did state that, had this taken place, Jerusalem would have become the capital of the world.

The death of the Messiah was stated on a contingency basis as I pointed out in a previous posting. This means that the future of Jesus was contingent on human response. Before his death, Jesus predicted his own crucifixion because at that point in history the Maginot line had been crossed already and there was no chance for the Jewish nation to alter their determination to kill Jesus.

He could read their minds and could see that they had already committed the unpardonable sin and were beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit. They had rejected the greatest evidence Jesus could provide for them that he was in fact the Son of God. This is why he could say at that point in history that there was only one alternative: his death.

2.

Quote:

Is. 53 also clearly shows that Christ must shed his blood and give His life.

There is an “IF” in Is. 53:10 in many translations. I posted those for you. Did you miss them? Even Jesus himself on another occasion expressed his death on a contingency basis:

Quote:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

International Standard Version (©2008)

As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

King James Bible

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

American King James Version

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.

American Standard Version

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Bible in Basic English

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will make all men come to me.

Douay-Rheims Bible

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

Darby Bible Translation

and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me.

English Revised Version

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Webster's Bible Translation

And I, if I shall be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.

Weymouth New Testament

And I-- if I am lifted up from the earth--will draw all men to me."

World English Bible

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Young's Literal Translation

and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

3.

Quote:

You say you believe that it was possible for Jesus never to have been killed and mankind still to be saved. But your belief is not in accordance with what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach. Acts 2: 23 says that what happened to Jesus was done "with the definite plan and purpose of God."

True, that was one alternative—the less desirable alternative. When the Jewish leaders decided to kill him, God adopted Plan B for the salvation of sinners. Do not forget that Jesus lamented over Jerusalen for a reason:

Quote:

New International Version (©1984)

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.

New Living Translation (©2007)

But as he came closer to Jerusalem and saw the city ahead, he began to weep. "How I wish today that you of all people would understand the way to peace. But now it is too late, and peace is hidden from your eyes.

Jesus wept because he knew that the Jewish leaders had made the final choice. There would no additional appeal for them to change their minds. They had decided they wanted him dead regardless of all the miracles he had performed for them. At that point there was no turning back. Jesus could have liberated them from the Roman domination if they had accepted him as their promised Messiah. Like Moses of old and Samuel, Jesus would have freed them from oppression, but they had neglected to repent and thus sealed their own and the destiny of their entire nation. In a few decades the holy city of Jerusalem was destroyed.

The rest of your arguments can be understood if you accept that God had Plan A and Plan B for the Jewish nation. The death of Jesus was couched on a contingency basis in Is. 53:10. There is an “if” there in many translations. This means that God did not require that the most innocent being in the universe be killed. This was what Satan wanted—not God.

4.

Quote:

And finally, the Bible says, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission [forgiveness] of sin."

Are you suggesting that the “eye for an eye” should rule the day today? From the human point of view, there can be no forgiveness without this type of legal equity because human can’t read the mind and discriminate between true repentance and a fake one. Jesus said to the adulterous woman: “Neither do I condemn thee.” According to the “talionis lex” she should have been stoned.

When Jesus said to the paralytic man: “Your sins are forgiven,” he did not add “provided I am killed either by the Jews of by somebody else." There was no contingency on the forgiveness offered by Jesus. The Lord has no need to see blood flowing from Jesus’ veins as a condition for forgiveness.

All the texts referring to the forgiveness of sins on the basis of Jesus death are an after the fact explanation. Had the Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah, then we would argue that when God intervened to save the life of Isaac on Mount Moriah, this is evidence that there was no need for Jesus to die.

When the brothers of Joseph confessed their sin to their brother, Joseph explained that God in his providence used said experience to save their entire family from famine. Does this mean that God planned that they would sell Joseph as a slave? Was God ability to save them from famine contingent on their cruel act of selling their brother? This shows that after the fact explanations do not reveal the entire truth.

[John317]

...the arguments for the Holy Spirit being the feminine member of the trinity does not fit the linguistic structure.

The Woman in Revelation 12 is not the Holy Spirit but Judio-Christianity; God's pure woman in Revelation 12 who runs into the wilderness, who John admires, and later we see a woman riding the beast from OUT of the wilderness and when John saw HER he was astonsished that God's pure woman, Judio-Christianity is now controling the beast of the political powers and has come under league with the devil.

I completely agree with this, Kevin. Thanks.

[Kevin H]

Your'e welcome, I thought you'd like it.

This is a reason why we need to be leary of the doctrine of the rapture... Too many Christians are expecting to be raptured away before the antichrist; thus not realizing that the powers they are supporting thinking that it will support the spreading of the gospel could end up being the antichrist's power.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

Is. 53 also clearly shows that Christ must shed his blood and give His life.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: There is an “IF” in Is. 53:10 in many translations. I posted those for you. Did you miss them? Even Jesus himself on another occasion expressed his death on a contingency basis:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

I didn't see your post quoting Is. 53: 10 before. I'll have to go check it out.

I know that the conjuction that is usually translatted "when" in v. 10 may also be translated as "if."

Even if you translate it with the conjuction, "if," it means the same thing. It means that if Christ wanted to see his seed, prolong his days, and if the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hand, he would have to make his soul an offering for sin. There was no other way. The conjuction "if" in that verse doesn't mean that it was possible that Christ could never die or be sacrificed and yet the world be saved. The Bible says, "Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

It's significant that when Ellen White quotes it, she never quotes it with the "if" but only with the word "when."

The words, "And I, if I am lifted up," do not necessarily imply that Jesus wouldn't be lifted up. We often speak that way when we say things such as, "If you're an American..." Or "If you are an SDA,..." It's not intended to cast doubt on whether someone is an American or SDA; it is more in the sense of "since you are..."

There was never any doubt that Jesus would be lifted up from the earth. It was prophecied to Adam and Eve and not as something that might happen. See PP 64.

"When His mission as a teacher should be ended, He MUST be delivered into the hands of wicked men and be subjected to every insult and torture that Satan could inspire them to inflict. He must die the cruelist of deaths, lifted up between the heaven and the earth as a guilty sinner. He must pass long hours of agony so terrible that angels could not look upon it..." Read entire chapter of "The Plan of Redemption."

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: And finally, the Bible says, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission [forgiveness] of sin."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are you suggesting that the “eye for an eye” should rule the day today? From the human point of view, there can be no forgiveness without this type of legal equity because human can’t read the mind and discriminate between true repentance and a fake one.

No. I'm suggesting the meaning of Hebrews 9: 22, 23. It teaches that it was necessary for the Messiah to shed his blood for the remission or forgiveness of sins.

This is also plainly stated in Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 64-67.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

God’s original plan was that the Jewish nation would accept their promised Messiah and king and that he would reign from Jerusalem. This is why we find so many predictions of a glorious future for the nation of Israel. Ellen White did state that, had this taken place, Jerusalem would have become the capital of the world.

This is getting off the main topic of the thread, but as long as it doesn't go too far for too long, I'll allow it.

I realize that the Bible contains both kinds of prophecies, of the Messiah accepted by His people, and of the Messiah rejected. But does Ellen White ever indicate that Jesus did not need to be killed?

Where do you find she said this? Do you find a hint of it on PP 64, 65?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The death of the Messiah was stated on a contingency basis as I pointed out in a previous posting. This means that the future of Jesus was contingent on human response.

If you mean Isaiah 53: 10, I don't find that to be a "contingency basis." Even if the word "if" is granted in that verse, it still means that Christ had to die in order to see his "seed." And moreover, there are no "ifs" in the rest of that chapter.

The word "if" need not show that his death was a contigency plan at all. It could very well be in the sense of "since," which is a common expression.

Notice that verses 8 and 9 refer to no contingency plan when they speak of Christ's death, "cut off," "his grave," and "his death."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Before his death, Jesus predicted his own crucifixion because at that point in history the Maginot line had been crossed already and there was no chance for the Jewish nation to alter their determination to kill Jesus.

I agree that the Jews could have accepted Christ. That was the whole purpose of the prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27. They were given a real opportunity to accept the Messiah. But that would not have meant Christ would not have been killed. They were not forced to kill Him, but God foresaw that they would do it. God's foreknowledge doesn't interfere with people's free choices.

My point is that whether the Jews accepted Christ or not, Christ would have met a violent death, shedding his blood.

What is your evidence from the Bible and from Ellen White that Christ need not have died in order to save the world?

[John317]

Quote:

Kevin H:... it appears that James was more undecided about the trinity rather than a non-believer in the trinity,

Quote:

Kevin H:... and at the end of his life he did write a letter saying that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against it. Yes, many of our pioneers were anti-trinitarian, but there has not yet been enough evidence to include James White on that list.

I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me how I might find such a letter by James White.

I'm trying to find all the writings of James White with respect to the Trinity, and I've never seen this letter by him. He wrote very litle about it as it wasn't high on his list of priorities. He was against making the doctrine a test of faith or of character. There were some SDA ministers who believed in the Trinity and who weren't asked to change or leave the SDA ministry. James White didn't believe it sbhould be a determining factor in deciding one's church membership or fellowship.

Ellen White must not have spoken very much to others in her family about the subject, because Willie White wrote that he himself didn't understand His mother's writings on the topic. I think this is consistent with Ellen White's character. She said she would write and speak publically about these questions, but she didn't "discuss" them or argue about them. She felt that if anyone was going to accept the truth, they would accept it when it's written or spoken in public, so if they didn't, there was no use arguing with them about it.

James and Ellen White fought against the spiritualized doctrine of the Trinity-- of the kind represented later by John H. Kellogg. They definitely rejected that view of the Godhead, but Ellen White would go on to eventually accept the doctrine as it is taught by the modern SDA church. See Ev. 613-617.

[Kevin H]

Quote:

Kevin H:... it appears that James was more undecided about the trinity rather than a non-believer in the trinity,

Quote:

Kevin H:... and at the end of his life he did write a letter saying that the arguments for the trinity was starting to make more sense to him than the arguments against it. Yes, many of our pioneers were anti-trinitarian, but there has not yet been enough evidence to include James White on that list.

I would very much appreciate it if you would tell me how I might find such a letter by James White.

I'm trying to find all the writings of James White with respect to the Trinity, and I've never seen this letter by him. He wrote very litle about it as it wasn't high on his list of priorities. He was against making the doctrine a test of faith or of character. There were some SDA ministers who believed in the Trinity and who weren't asked to change or leave the SDA ministry. James White didn't believe it sbhould be a determining factor in deciding one's church membership or fellowship.

Ellen White must not have spoken very much to others in her family about the subject, because Willie White wrote that he himself didn't understand His mother's writings on the topic. I think this is consistent with Ellen White's character. She said she would write and speak publically about these questions, but she didn't "discuss" them or argue about them. She felt that if anyone was going to accept the truth, they would accept it when it's written or spoken in public, so if they didn't, there was no use arguing with them about it.

James and Ellen White fought against the spiritualized doctrine of the Trinity-- of the kind represented later by John H. Kellogg. They definitely rejected that view of the Godhead, but Ellen White would go on to eventually accept the doctrine as it is taught by the modern SDA church. See Ev. 613-617.

Have you read the biography of James White by, I believe it is by Gerald Wheeler(?) it is part of the series of biographies on our leaders such as W. W. Prescott and others. Elder Wheeler spoke at the New York Campmeeting a few years ago and he told about this, and I seem to remember reading in other articles and in class lectures about how James White was quite silent when it came to the trinity. As to the letter Elder Wheeler talked about finding it when he was researching the book.

[Nic Samojluk]

Trinity? John 15:26. God is a family, the Father is "God Almighty", the Mother is "Holy Spirit" and the Child/Son is "Jesus Christ".

The 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of those found in verse 17. Mary and the Church were NEVER in heaven so therefore they can't be this 'Woman'. What this tends to show is that WO is not out of the line and if fact, something out church should be doing.

Dr. Rich,

Sorry to disagree. The Bible tells me that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus in Mary's womb. Otherwise, we would have a lesbian relationship between the HS and Mary.

[Dr. Rich]

John, you have your opinion, but please do NOT make fun of what is clearly stated by Jesus in the bible! You have been doing this for a long time now and I have not said much about it, but isn't it about time you take off your rose colored glasses and examine another view without chastisement and then attempting to back it up by using words from people who have NO authority except by you?

1. Your view of the God-head and family makes one to believe they all are males and live in a homosexual heaven.

2. Your view also makes women the second class humans/citizens which is called discrimination.

3. I believe your view is totally evil in that presenting the "God" as found in the first chapter of Genesis as being a 'male' who created both male and female and then you attempt to shut your eyes to the word "OUR" within this creation. Just who do you think the female God was at this time?

Yes, I know that you are a moderator for these threads and can ban people like me for pointing out FACTS that mess up your FAITH. But I can't sit here seeing you write the evil things that you do and attempt to justify them by faith and words from anyone other than the words of Jesus.

Now, if you can justly prove by solid evidence that the "Woman" in Revelation 12 is NOT the Holy Spirit, then be my guest.

As for ordination by laying hands and praying for someone--that is something that the corporate church did and was passed to us by the Catholic Church. Do you suggest we use them to justify our rules in the SDA Church today?

[Nic Samojluk]

Trinity? John 15:26. God is a family, the Father is "God Almighty", the Mother is "Holy Spirit" and the Child/Son is "Jesus Christ".

The 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of those found in verse 17. Mary and the Church were NEVER in heaven so therefore they can't be this 'Woman'. What this tends to show is that WO is not out of the line and if fact, something out church should be doing.

Dr. Rich,

Can you provide at least one text where the Holy Spirit was worshipped by a saint? Also, can you provide a Bible text showing that the HS is equal to God the Father in authority and power. The Bible tells me that the HS was instrumental in God's revelation to the prophets, yet when I go to the book of Daniel I find the Angel Gabriel there doing said work and the same is true about Rev. chapter 1. Can you explain this apparent anomaly?

[John317]

Quote:

Kevin H: Have you read the biography of James White by, I believe it is by Gerald Wheeler(?) it is part of the series of biographies on our leaders such as W. W. Prescott and others. Elder Wheeler spoke at the New York Campmeeting a few years ago and he told about this, and I seem to remember reading in other articles and in class lectures about how James White was quite silent when it came to the trinity. As to the letter Elder Wheeler talked about finding it when he was researching the book.

Yes, I have. It's very interesting. I've also gone to the Ellen White Estate branch here in Loma Linda and read the material in their files on the history of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA church.

What James White wrote and published in the RH showed he opposed the Trintiy as it was understood at that time. For instance, on Nov. 8, 1861, Loughborough wrote a reply to a reader in response to his question, "What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?" The answer given (at some length) was "1) It is contrary to common sense; 2) It is contrary to scripture; and 3) Its origin is Pagan and fabulous." Based on the few things that came from James White's pen, Loughborough's article was apparently in line with James White's thinking at the time.

Two very helpful articles are Jerry Moon's paper "Ellen White's Role in the Adventist Trinity Debate" and Robert Olson's "Thoughts on the Deity and the Humanity of Christ."

There's also the book, The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. This book contains virtually everything James White wrote on the subject, which was very little, although what he did write about it showed that he rejected it. However, it should be noted that all of the early Adventists were rerjecting false views of the Trinity, not the biblical doctrine. They didn't understand the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. SDAs wouldn't begin to understand the true teaching of the Bible on the Trinity until the beginning of the 1890s. The SDA church reversed itself on the Trintiy between 1898 and 1915. Ellen White, of course, was at the very center of this change.

[Dr. Rich]

Quote:

John 3:17: And finally, the Bible says, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission [forgiveness] of sin."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are you suggesting that the “eye for an eye” should rule the day today? From the human point of view, there can be no forgiveness without this type of legal equity because human can’t read the mind and discriminate between true repentance and a fake one.

No. I'm suggesting the meaning of Hebrews 9: 22, 23. It teaches that it was necessary for the Messiah to shed his blood for the remission or forgiveness of sins.

This is also plainly stated in Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 64-67.

John, can you support your claim by using the words of Jesus instead of the unknown writer of Hebrews and the writer of fictional books like PP?

[Kevin H]

Yes, I have. It's very interesting. I've also gone to the Ellen White Estate branch here in Loma Linda and read the material in their files on the history of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA church.

What James White wrote and published in the RH showed he opposed the Trintiy as it was understood at that time. For instance, on Nov. 8, 1861, Loughborough wrote a reply to a reader in response to his question, "What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?" The answer given (at some length) was "1) It is contrary to common sense; 2) It is contrary to scripture; and 3) Its origin is Pagan and fabulous." Based on the few things that came from James White's pen, Loughborough's article was apparently in line with James White's thinking at the time.

Two very helpful articles are Jerry Moon's paper "Ellen White's Role in the Adventist Trinity Debate" and Robert Olson's "Thoughts on the Deity and the Humanity of Christ."

There's also the book, The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. This book contains virtually everything James White wrote on the subject, which was very little, although what he did write about it showed that he rejected it. However, it should be noted that all of the early Adventists were rerjecting false views of the Trinity, not the biblical doctrine. They didn't understand the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. SDAs wouldn't begin to understand the true teaching of the Bible on the Trinity until the beginning of the 1890s. The SDA church reversed itself on the Trintiy between 1898 and 1915. Ellen White, of course, was at the very center of this change.

These, plus the campmeeting statements by Elder Wheeler are pretty much my references too. While others were quite vocal about the trinity, James was very quiet. Elder Wheeler told about how the church asked people who had known James personally and with one exception (a man who was a little boy who once had a Sabbath Lunch with the Whites) said that they don't know what his view of the trinity was, that it was a topic that he tended not to speak on or say much about. That one man who as a boy had lunch with the Whites said that at the lunch James spoke against the trinity. And then Elder Wheeler talked about that letter he found that James wrote at the end of his life that the arguments for the trinity were starting to make more sense than the arguments against it.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Trinity? John 15:26. God is a family, the Father is "God Almighty", the Mother is "Holy Spirit" and the Child/Son is "Jesus Christ".

The 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is evidence that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of those found in verse 17. Mary and the Church were NEVER in heaven so therefore they can't be this 'Woman'. What this tends to show is that WO is not out of the line and if fact, something out church should be doing.

Dr. Rich,

Sorry to disagree. The Bible tells me that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus in Mary's womb. Otherwise, we would have a lesbian relationship between the HS and Mary.

Nic, please check out Luke 1:35. You will see that BOTH the Father (Most High) AND the Holy Spirit are responsible for placing Michael, as a zygote, into the womb of Mary. The 'offspring' here is called "HOLY OFFSPRING" and shall be called the "SON of GOD".

In John 3, Jesus told Nicodemus that to even see the Kingdom of Heaven one had to be BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Common sense would--or should tell you that only women can provide this 'birth'-right?

Verse 17 of Rev. 12 shows us that those who are born of the Holy Spirit are the ones who are also born of the Woman of Revelation 12, which would make them brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.

Now, is this too hard to see? Sure, it will cause havoc with your prior understanding, but it fits and because it agrees with EVERY word for the [Holy] Spirit in the old testament is a female noun.

Now, if that is not enough evidence, the go to Genesis 3:14-15 where it should be clear that God is talking to the serpent (Satan) and says that God will put enmity between YOU (Satan) and the WOMAN (Holy Spirit) and between your (Satan's) seed and Her (Holy Spirit's) seed...

Is this enough Nic?

[John317]

Quote:

Kevin H... they don't know what his view of the trinity was, that [the Trinity] was a topic that he tended not to speak on or say much about.

And this was no doubt due to James White's belief that the doctrines on the Godhead, whether Trinitarian or not, were were not tests of fellowship or Christian character. There were some SDA ministers at that time who believed in the Trinity, and these were never asked to change their view or cease being ministers. Ellen White herself was undergoing changes in her view of the Godhead, a fact that is well documented and traced in Jerry Moon's paper, "Ellen White's Role in the Adventist Trinity Debate."

It's clear to me that God was slowly leading Ellen White and the Adventist church along to a fuller understanding and appreciation of who God is and of the relationship between "the Three Holist Beings of heaven."

[Woody]

Quote:

It's clear to me that God was slowly leading Ellen White and the Adventist church along to a fuller understanding and appreciation of who God is and of the relationship between "the Three Holist Beings of heaven."

Just as He is on the topic of this thread. But change is difficult when people want to follow the traditions of men rather than the ways of God. Scripture is clear on the issue of WO but many are stuck in the traditions of old.