More on the Trinity

[Gustave]

Hanseng, you should realize that the text says Jesus was driven into the wilderness to be tempted BY the Devil. 

Jesus was indeed tempted BY THE DEVIL which is light years away from claiming Jesus was tempted within Himself in the context of James 1 which clearly states / defines what constitutes A MAN BEING TEMPTED - "a man" is tempted when that man is drawn away by his own lust. 

For Jesus to be tempted within Himself as Ellen White taught and you evidently believe Jesus would have had to LUST or YEARN for what was forbidden (look up concupiscence & lust in Strong's). 

 

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

Read Hebrews over again and realize the temptation was in the context of our human infirmities and NOT the yearning for what is forbidden. 

[Hanseng]

Gustave, The issue being the temptation of Christ, it is not difficult to understand that when Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, we should give due weight to such a plain declaration. Temptation is a word that some versions translate as "test." Jesus went into the wilderness to be tested. Thayer says "tempt" means "the trial of man’s fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy." Abraham was tested by God regarding the offering of Isaac. The purpose of the test was to determine Abraham's faithfulness (Gen. 22).

Are you suggesting that Abraham could not have failed the test by refusing to offer Issac?

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Hanseng said:

Gustave, The issue being the temptation of Christ, it is not difficult to understand that when Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, we should give due weight to such a plain declaration. Temptation is a word that some versions translate as "test." Jesus went into the wilderness to be tested. Thayer says "tempt" means "the trial of man’s fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy." Abraham was tested by God regarding the offering of Isaac. The purpose of the test was to determine Abraham's faithfulness (Gen. 22).

Are you suggesting that Abraham could not have failed the test by refusing to offer Issac?

You continue to dance around the fact that Hebrews does not say or even imply what you and Ellen White claimed it does.

I'm asking you directly - WHAT would have happened if ANY one of the below happened. 

• Jesus born by a well-seasoned prostitute. 
• Jesus was decapitated by the sword.
• Jesus entered Jerusalem riding atop an Elephant. 
• Jesus spat and cursed those who persecuted him.
• Jesus failed at healing the lame and sick - also failed to raise the dead.
• Jesus, after commanding the wind to stop is blown over by it and tumbles off the boat into the lake.
• Jesus sinned.

I want to know what you say to this? What in your opinion would disqualify Jesus as being the Christ? Chose two of these and let us know what it would mean if Jesus failed in any of the above. 

 

 

 

 

1. 1. 1.  

[Hanseng]

19 minutes ago, Gustave said:

You continue to dance around the fact that Hebrews does not say or even imply what you and Ellen White claimed it does.

Gustave, Hebrews says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. What does that say or imply?  It's a plain statement. Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. Perhaps more importantly, the word tempt is often translated as "test." A man is tested when he is drawn away of his own desires. When Jesus was tested, Satan played upon the human desire for nourishment, i.e., hunger. Make some bread for yourself from these stones. Luke 4:2 says Jesus was hungry after 40 days without food. Jesus did not make bread from stones but he could have. You  suggest that the sufferings of Christ were  a charade, a meaningless fiction. I'm interested in what the Bible says, not hypotheticals. God tested/tempted Israel in the wilderness. They failed, dying in the wilderness. The possibility of failure is embedded in the concept of temptation. Were it not, we would all be sinless.

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Gustave, Hebrews says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. What does that say or imply?  It's a plain statement. Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. Perhaps more importantly, the word tempt is often translated as "test." A man is tested when he is drawn away of his own desires. When Jesus was tested, Satan played upon the human desire for nourishment, i.e., hunger. Make some bread for yourself from these stones. Luke 4:2 says Jesus was hungry after 40 days without food. Jesus did not make bread from stones but he could have. You  suggest that the sufferings of Christ were  a charade, a meaningless fiction. I'm interested in what the Bible says, not hypotheticals. God tested/tempted Israel in the wilderness. They failed, dying in the wilderness. The possibility of failure is embedded in the concept of temptation. Were it not, we would all be sinless.

You won't answer will you. 

It doesn't matter if you translate the word as test or tempt - the mechanism whereby a person is DRAWN TOWARD WHAT IS FORBIDDEN IS THEIR OWN LUST ( which is a yearning desire for what is forbidden ). 

Satan played upon Jesus' infirmities of the human body (Jesus' human body). I don't think you've ever looked up what the words in question mean. 

Concupiscence, G1939:  desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust

there is a distinction between evil concupiscence and innocent concupiscence, but something tells me you know this perfectly well. We are talking about evil concupiscence whereby a person LUSTS FOR WHAT IS FORBIDDEN. 

Scripture is perfectly clear how sin works, how a person is tempted. 

Hanseng, someone could come up to YOU and say, 'hey Hanseng lets fly to Thailand and have sex with underage kids'!

James 1 teaches us that while you can be tempted by someone to do the above YOU ARE NOT TEMPTED WITHIN YOURSELF TO DO IT UNLESS YOU, YOURSELF ARE DRAWN AWAY BY YOUR OWN LONGING DESIRE, YOUR OWN YEARNING TO BUGGER LITTLE KIDS. 

Here is another way you can understand just how simple this concept is. 

I had a gay co-worker who invited / tempted me and other co-workers to go to a gay strip club so I could see what it was all about. I thanked him for the invite but declined because I had no interest, longing or yearning to go do that. I was tempted "BY MY CO-WORKER" but I wasn't tempted within myself. 

Probably a year after that a bunch of guys at work had a plan to go to a strip club that had girls and I got an invite - because that particular desire was in me, because I desired that type of entertainment - I could "feel the pull".  

Now, read James 1, 13 again and recognize what's happening here - realize its the Biblical definition of WHY you are tempted within yourself to do some things and other things you are not tempted. 

Not all of us have the same desires or lusts but guaranteed that the Devil will find something inside you that will respond to the pull. Jesus said the Devil had NOTHING IN HIM (John 14, 30). 

What you are saying here is classical Adventist (Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphian, WWCOG, SDA), IT IS ARIAN. 

Jesus was tempted or tested within the context of His infirmities - which were identical to our infirmities MINUS SIN - Exactly as Hebrews spells it out. 

The obvious part here is that your own lust to protect Ellen's status as a prophet you can't tell me what would have happened if Jesus would have been born in Pythia Greece by a prostitute.

The correct answer would have been if that happened Jesus couldn't have been the Christ in the 1st place. The same answer applies if Jesus were to have sinned but admitting this would require you to admit Ellen was wrong in this case which triggers SDA programming: 

Ellen White / 1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.

In other words 50 years prior to Ellen Writing that the SDA Church advocated Arianism and semi-Arianism which absolutely, straight out of the Arian playbook demanded that Christ be able to commit vice (to be able to sin and could have sinned). 

This is what the Council of Nicea had to say about all that:

"investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of VICE and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear"

Hanseng, You realize that the SDA Church, officially had checked all the above boxes that were condemned by the Council of Nicea? I've long suspected the reason the Creed isn't repeated in SDA Church is on account of this. 

[Hanseng]

24 minutes ago, Gustave said:

It doesn't matter if you translate the word as test or tempt - the mechanism whereby a person is DRAWN TOWARD WHAT IS FORBIDDEN IS THEIR OWN LUST ( which is a yearning desire for what is forbidden ). 

Gustave, I'm not going to respond to your contrived constructs. If you have some Scripture which bears on the subject, I'd like to see those. Apparently, you don't want to deal with the passages that actually refer to the temptations Jesus faced. Abraham was also tempted. To be consistent, you must believe that Abraham also could have not sinned when tempted, since Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. Sometimes Abraham failed the test, sometimes he did not. Praise God that Jesus never failed.

Israel often tempted God, who had no evil desire. The word simply means test. Jesus was tested, not only by Satan in the desert but by human opponents. Apparently, you want to make all the times Jesus was tempted nothing more than a charade, a play, a performance rather than a matter of human salvation. Revelation 5:5 says Jesus prevailed/conquered, overcame. That's not a fiction or fantasy but your view would have it so.

 

[Gustave]

Of course Israel "tempted God" however as God is IMPASSABLE God was never tempted within The Trinity - no different than Christ when He was tempted BY THE DEVIL. 

I'm not giving you contrived constructs at all - what I've done is show you from Scripture that Jesus said EVERYTHING said about Him in the OT absolutely had to happen - Jesus also called His Disciples "fools" for believing Him  after He repeatedly told them. 

I've shown you where God the Holy Spirit affirmed Christ would not fail, Old Testament Prophets stated Christ would not fail, Jesus Himself stating He would not fail, the angel who appeared to Joeseph said Christ would not fail and you come back with Jesus could have failed because the Bible says He was tempted and if He couldn't have failed than the whole thing is a farce and a mockery. 

You asked for Scriptures and after being provided with them you've not addressed once the nature of what those Scriptures all stated. This demonstrates that Ellen White, according to you, has more authority than Catholics claim for the Pope. 

In any event I wish you the best and did enjoy the conversation. 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Jesus Himself stating He would not fail,

Actually, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed that God's will rather than his own be done. He had a will which could have been exercised contrary to the will of God, resulting in sin/failure ( Lk. 22:42). 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Actually, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed that God's will rather than his own be done. He had a will which could have been exercised contrary to the will of God, resulting in sin/failure ( Lk. 22:42). 

It's NOT a sin to want to live and not to suffer horrific torture. But I can understand why you would want to push it into that area in defense of the otherwise indefensible rubric where Ellen White's teaching that something God said was impossible was actually possible and it is VITAL that Christians believe it was possible. 

Matthew 1, 22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Matthew 3, 3: For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight

Matthew 8, 17: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Matthew 12, 17:  That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

Matthew 16, 24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works [ provided he doesn't sin, loose His Salvation, rot in the tomb and eternally cease to exist - Ellen White edit].

I think not. 

 

 

[Hanseng]

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

It's NOT a sin to want to live and not to suffer horrific torture. But I can understand why you would want to push it into that area in defense of the otherwise indefensible rubric where Ellen White's teaching that something God said was impossible was actually possible and it is VITAL that Christians believe it was possible.

Not sure why you keep mentioning EGW. Kind of ironic, actually. You hate her so much, yet she wrote to help people such as yourself, those who don't understand the Bible or know how to understand it. She even suggested a certain methodology, which she appropriated from William Miller. Miller's Bible study method wasn't foolproof, however, since he, like you, misunderstood what the Bible said.

I can see why you think as you do. Since you are trying to interpret Christ's work in shadows of the OT rather than in the light of the NT. Lot of people get confused using the same methodology. God didn't paint Himself into a corner via the OT writings on this topic. The Jews had so many texts with which to flatter themselves as the people of God; unfortunately, they misunderstood the passages and overlooked the fact that God was not constrained by their constricted understanding of how things must be or would be. 

Being omniscient, God knew how things would turn out. Not sure that, in his humanity, Jesus did.

[Gustave]

Not sure why you keep mentioning EGW. Kind of ironic, actually. You hate her so much, yet she wrote to help people such as yourself, those who don't understand the Bible or know how to understand it. She even suggested a certain methodology, which she appropriated from William Miller. Miller's Bible study method wasn't foolproof, however, since he, like you, misunderstood what the Bible said.

This isn't the way the cow ate the cabbage friend. 

The hard facts are that the SDA Church started as Arian / semi-Arian and compliments of their "Bible Study" concluded that Jesus was a creature of God & subsequently the General Conference got fully behind promulgating this teaching out to the masses - folks that didn't realize that Scripture taught Christ was a creature that had a point of origin. 

I can see why you think as you do. Since you are trying to interpret Christ's work in shadows of the OT rather than in the light of the NT. Lot of people get confused using the same methodology. God didn't paint Himself into a corner via the OT writings on this topic. The Jews had so many texts with which to flatter themselves as the people of God; unfortunately, they misunderstood the passages and overlooked the fact that God was not constrained by their constricted understanding of how things must be or would be. 

Being omniscient, God knew how things would turn out. Not sure that, in his humanity, Jesus did.

When the NT tells us in no uncertain terms that the baby in Mary's womb WOULD SAVE, When Jesus quotes Isaiah affirming that He is God Almighty that was explicitly promised 700 years prior and He would indeed save - when God the Holy Ghost said Simeon would not see death until he saw THE CHRIST and he confirmed THE CHRIST was the baby he was holding - yeah, I take that to mean that the NT confirmed Christ COULDN'T sin just as the the NT confirmed Christ HAD TO BE BORN where He was born, etc.

 

[Hanseng]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

The hard facts are that the SDA Church started as Arian / semi-Arian and compliments of their "Bible Study" concluded that Jesus was a creature of God

Not sure that is the case. Many of the people who formed the SDA church brought certain beliefs into the church with them. If you have evidence that Arian beliefs developed from the studies done by early Adventists, I'd like to see it. Even if they did, it is well known that the Millerite Movement was based on a misunderstanding of Scripture which a lot of people bought into. Many did not, the Campbellites, for example. They tried to warn the Adventists that they were in for a disappointment.

As to the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned, whether he was truly tempted. To understand what Jesus experienced as a man, I look at other men, Adam and Abraham. Adam was a sinless being who exercised his own will contrary to God's will. This is exactly what Jesus did not do. Abraham was "tempted" by God to offer up his son, which he did do; consequently, God was assured of Abraham's "fear" of him. 

[Gustave]

Not sure that is the case. Many of the people who formed the SDA church brought certain beliefs into the church with them. If you have evidence that Arian beliefs developed from the studies done by early Adventists, I'd like to see it. 

General Conference approving for promulgation of "Daniel & the Revelation" - which asserted Christ was a creature. 

 

And again,

The above was pulled from the GC Archives....

I've done my homework on this. 

 

 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

 I've done my homework on this...

 

Yes, but you misunderstood the assignment which was "If you have evidence that Arian beliefs developed from the studies done by early Adventists, I'd like to see it. " Early SDA had Bible studies on various topics which were validated by EGW. No one is disputing that some early SDA held Arian views. It's been known and publicized for years in works such as Movement of Destiny and Erwin Gane's research. Now it may be that early SDA got together in an official capacity and decided Jesus was a created being. If that happened, I'd like to see the evidence. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse. Uriah Smith wrote some books that were sold and promoted by the denomination. Actually, those books are likely full of errors. His interpretation of the 7 trumpets, Revelation 9 and probably other areas are mistaken. I say probably because I don't have a better explanation. Those books are Uriah Smith's views which were published by the denomination, seemingly endorsed by the GC. If you want to consider publication as an official endorsement, all right but that's in the past. That has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus could have sinned, whether he was really tempted as we are. You think the life of Christ was a choreographed fiction. I don't

The point of our discussion was whether the temptations which Christ endured were real. In Matthew 26, Jesus said he could call legions of angels to his side but he didn't because he wanted to fulfill Scripture. It would have been a sin for him to do that. He wasn't lying. He could have called legions of angles which would have been a sin. He did not. He was a sinless offering but the possibility of him failing was inherent in the temptations he faced; otherwise, they would have not been temptations.

[Gustave]

Quote

Yes, but you misunderstood the assignment which was "If you have evidence that Arian beliefs developed from the studies done by early Adventists, I'd like to see it. " Early SDA had Bible studies on various topics which were validated by EGW. No one is disputing that some early SDA held Arian views. It's been known and publicized for years in works such as Movement of Destiny and Erwin Gane's research. 

The vast majority of the Millerites were Trinitarian and when William Miller admitted his error everyone left the movement and returned to their former Churches EXCEPT the anti-Trinitarians. Those that rejected the Nicene Creed that were left soon started to squabble and subsequently fractured into different groups which became "Adventists". 

What I shared with you earlier (Daniel and the Revelation) is one example of that - individuals who had little to none education and even less Biblical education started churning out Doctrines, upon which Ellen White would leverage her supposed charism and validate those teachings via the Spirit of Prophecy. 

Uriah Smith, 1882, Daniel and the Revelation, p. 430
“The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. (See remarks on Rev. 3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while as the Son he does not possess a co-eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb. 1:2”

Like this;

Manuscript Releases vol. pg. 63.9
The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King? {1MR 63.1}

Manuscript Releases vol 19 pg. 192.2.7
The Bible Readings was brought in before the books of great importance—Great Controversy and Daniel and Revelation—which relate to the vital interests before us. Through the special instruction to the canvassing agents, The Great Controversy had little opportunity to be circulated, and the very light which the people needed for that time was nearly eclipsed

"Especially should the book Daniel and the Revelation be brought before people as the very book for this time. This book contains the message which all need to read and understand. Translated into many different languages, it will be a power to enlighten the world. This book has had a large sale in Australia and New Zealand. By reading it many souls have come to a knowledge of the truth. I have received many letters expressing appreciation of this book". 1MR 60.5

 

No one is disputing that some early SDA held Arian views. It's been known and publicized for years in works such as Movement of Destiny and Erwin Gane's research. Now it may be that early SDA got together in an official capacity and decided Jesus was a created being. If that happened, I'd like to see the evidence. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse.

 

If you read Movement of Destiny you'd know that (circa 1944) on pages 422 & 465 that the SDA Church had to remove Arian statements from standard books they had been circulating for evangelism. Books that Ellen White while under the Spirit of Prophecy charism HAD endorsed. 

The GC is the official go / no go of the SDA Church. 

Christ's temptations were REAL, I never implied they were not. 

What I'm saying is that Christ's temptation were EXTERNAL, as in Christ was tempted BY The DEVIL, as in Christ DID NOT HAVE EVIL CONCUPISCENCE - Christ did not yearn or long to commit sin such as YOU DO, & I DO. This is what I'm saying. 

[Hanseng]

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

The vast majority of the Millerites were Trinitarian and when William Miller admitted his error everyone left the movement and returned to their former Churches EXCEPT the anti-Trinitarians. Those that rejected the Nicene Creed that were left soon started to squabble and subsequently fractured into different groups which became "Adventists". 

Gustave, Froom, in Movement of Destiny, page 73 contradicts your assertion:

"Second, there were the Eternal Verities of the Everlasting Gospel, in
which there were two areas of major difference: (1) Over the Deity of Christ,
Trinity, and Personality of the Holy Spirit; and (2) the Atonement in relation
to the Act of the Cross. Our early position on these was optional. The majority
were Trinitarians, and held to the complete Deity of Christ, as did the Spirit
of Prophecy with consistency. A few were Arian. 

According to Froom, the last denominational publication pushing Arian Views was Smith's 1898 "Looking Unto Jesus"  (MOD 166).

These issues on the development of SDA Christology have been treated in some depth by Froom. He described the revision of Smith's D+R books because his Arian views had been fully repudiated by the denomination ~1944. MOD p. 424

If you haven't read Movement of Destiny, you should. You are trying to reinvent a wheel that Froom has already spun.

Movement Of Destiny | Adventist Digital Library

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Gustave, Froom, in Movement of Destiny, page 73 contradicts your assertion:

"Second, there were the Eternal Verities of the Everlasting Gospel, in
which there were two areas of major difference: (1) Over the Deity of Christ,
Trinity, and Personality of the Holy Spirit; and (2) the Atonement in relation
to the Act of the Cross. Our early position on these was optional. The majority
were Trinitarians, and held to the complete Deity of Christ, as did the Spirit
of Prophecy with consistency. A few were Arian. 

According to Froom, the last denominational publication pushing Arian Views was Smith's 1898 "Looking Unto Jesus"  (MOD 166).

These issues on the development of SDA Christology have been treated in some depth by Froom. He described the revision of Smith's D+R books because his Arian views had been fully repudiated by the denomination ~1944. MOD p. 424

If you haven't read Movement of Destiny, you should. You are trying to reinvent a wheel that Froom has already spun.

Movement Of Destiny | Adventist Digital Library

If you spent a little time in your own archives, you'd not put much stock in Froom's assessment of what date  denominational publications stop pushing Anti-Trinitarianism. You are demonstrating you know less about this subject than I do. 

The Sabbath Hearld is a publication of the SDA's is it not? 

Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 28,  1909
In the pervious article the chivalrous and romantic story of the birth of the Ottoman empire was traced. In this paper will be shown the rapid and remarkable rise of that people to opulence and power, and also the motive force back of this and all Mohammedan movements.

Perhaps it will be best to take the last feature first. The Turks hold that they are descended from Japheth, the son of Noah. He was the father of three sons. The Turks teach that to his firstborn Aboul-Turk, he gave the sovereignty of Turkestan.

Again: the Turks profess the religion of Mohammed: "The creed of that faith is generally compressed into the well known forumla: "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet." But there is another and longer form which reads as follow: --

"I believe in God and his angels, and his books, and his prophets, and the last day, and the predestination of good and evil by God, and the resurrection after death. I bear witness to that there is no God but God, and I bear witness that Mohammed is his slave and his prophet."

From the above IT MUST BE PERFECTLY CLEAR that Mohammedanism is very far from being a heathan religion, as some are wont to believe. It teaches belief in God, angels, the prophets, the last day, and the resurrection of the dead. MORE THAN THIS ABOUT ONE HALF OF THE KORAN IS A POLEMIC AGAINST POLYTHESIM AND TRINITARIANISM. In fact the word Allah is an abbreviation of Al-iah, which means the ONE, TRUE, ONLY God.

The following comes from a Seventh-day Adventist 1923 Missionary Report - one would assume that a Church which sends missionaries out wouldn't teach something that went against the Churches beliefs, would you? Do you have any examples of the Catholic Church sending out missionaries who teach that Mary is not the Mother of God? 

April 15, 1923 - Eastern Tidings, SDA Southeran Asian Division Report of the Education Dept: As soon as our schools are opened the first difficulty we meet is what to put into the hands of our, children, in their mother tongue, as they progress in its study. There are many "Readers" produced by the C. L. S and by Indian educators. In our school at Prakasapuram, we have used many kinds, but we prefer the latest publications of the C, L. S. to all the previous ones. In the former C. L. S. Beaders we have come across certain anti-Scriptural expressions here and there on the personality of God, immortality of the soul, and the fate of the wicked.

The article goes on to say how the teachers would deface the books to damage those areas that taught Trinitarianism ("which destroys the Personality of God". 

So no, the anti-Trinitarianism went long after Froom said it did. But I can appreciate how you'd want to accept what Froom said. 

[Hanseng]

Have you read Movement of Destiny? If not, why do you spend your time cobbling together citations which may or may not make the point you claim they make. Froom says few early SDA were Arians, you say most were. Who do you expect me to believe, you or Froom?

Froom contradicts your remark that the people who comprised the early SDA were actually Arians. To the contrary, Both Bates and J. White, who came from the Christian Connection [Arian] were moderates on the topic.

News reports such as you quote are hardly comparable to the books written by Smith and J.H Waggoner promoting Arianism. 

It's hard for me to tell if the sources you quote are contrary to what Froom wrote. They read more like news reports, not theological treatises promoting Arianism, which was what Froom was referring to. 

42 minutes ago, Gustave said:

one would assume that a Church which sends missionaries out wouldn't teach something that went against the Churches beliefs, would you?

The article to which you refer was printed in 1923. No official statement of beliefs appeared in the SDA yearbook until the 1930s, i.e., there was no official church beliefs when that 1923 article was written; consequently, your remark evinces lack of familiarity with SDA history and doctrinal development.  Froom is also very clear that various individuals held onto Arian beliefs when most did not. Personal views appeared in publications because there was no corporate view to be upheld.  Probably better to not make assumptions about a topic of which we have limited knowledge. You might be interested in knowing that he attributes the embrace of more conventional views of the Godhead to EGW's Desire of Ages volume. Another irony, that the writer you hate so much was bringing the denomination closer to your views around 1900.

[Hanseng]

Gustave, I'm learning as we go along here. Apparently, there was an off and on statement of "Fundamental Principles" for a time prior to the 1930s:

 1890-1904—Yearbooks contained no statement of "Principles."
1905—Yearbook—"Principles" reads "only . . . rule of faith and practise"
(p. 188).
1906—No statement of "Principles."
1907-1914—Reads, "Only . . . rule of faith and practise."
1915-1930—No statement of "Principles."

Froom. p.92

[Gregory Matthews]

 SDA scholars of today do debate the depth to which early SDAs were Arian.  It is agreed that to some extent they were.  But, exact boundaries of that are coming into scholarly debate.

L.E.. Froom is to be respected for the extensive amount of research that a he did on various subjects.   However, his analysis of the materials was sometimes weak, as he was not the trained scholar that would have better analized the materials. 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Have you read Movement of Destiny? If not, why do you spend your time cobbling together citations which may or may not make the point you claim they make. Froom says few early SDA were Arians, you say most were. Who do you expect me to believe, you or Froom?

Froom contradicts your remark that the people who comprised the early SDA were actually Arians. To the contrary, Both Bates and J. White, who came from the Christian Connection [Arian] were moderates on the topic.

News reports such as you quote are hardly comparable to the books written by Smith and J.H Waggoner promoting Arianism. 

It's hard for me to tell if the sources you quote are contrary to what Froom wrote. They read more like news reports, not theological treatises promoting Arianism, which was what Froom was referring to. 

The article to which you refer was printed in 1923. No official statement of beliefs appeared in the SDA yearbook until the 1930s, i.e., there was no official church beliefs when that 1923 article was written; consequently, your remark evinces lack of familiarity with SDA history and doctrinal development.  Froom is also very clear that various individuals held onto Arian beliefs when most did not. Personal views appeared in publications because there was no corporate view to be upheld.  Probably better to not make assumptions about a topic of which we have limited knowledge. You might be interested in knowing that he attributes the embrace of more conventional views of the Godhead to EGW's Desire of Ages volume. Another irony, that the writer you hate so much was bringing the denomination closer to your views around 1900.

You will not find a Catholic periodical teaching that Mary isn't the Mother of God - what we are reading in the SDA periodicals about the Trinity subsequent to 1898 isn't a mutation of Doctrine, it's the same Arian Doctrine.

I understand that today the Church isn't quite that way - but it was, it was certainly. 

[Hanseng]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

However, his analysis of the materials was sometimes weak, as he was not the trained scholar that would have better analized the materials. 

So who would you say is more credible regarding SDA history, Gustave or LeRoy Froom? When you say he was not a trained scholar, why did the denomination hire him to write extensively on conditionalism and prophetic understanding? I have wondered whether he was an apologist or a historian. Whichever, Movement of Destiny covers a lot of  interesting ground 

[Hanseng]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

The article goes on to say how the teachers would deface the books to damage those areas that taught Trinitarianism ("which destroys the Personality of God". 

Sounds loke a news report, descriptive rather than prescriptive.

[Hanseng]

"DEDUCTION: The evidence attests that there were at least 38 known
Trinitarian ministers [among the Millerites], with but five known Arian Christian Connection
ministers—a ratio of seven to one, which is a preponderant majority.
That was the illuminating doctrinal background of the leading
Millerite ministers. A majority of our own founding fathers were likewise
evidently Trinitarian."

Froom, 147

[Gregory Matthews]

As to L. E. Froom:  As demonstrated by his works on conditionalism and on prophetic understanding he was an excellent researcher.  I have those books in my library and I value them.  His academic background shows that he was not a trained scholar in the  fields in which he Often wrote.  In the scholarly world, analysis research material is actually more important than the research material it itself.  His writings demonstrate that he was weak in analysis, at times.  As to comments o n Arianism,  today we know more about it than we did in his time.  Yet, scholars will acknowledge that there is still much to be learned about Arianism.  

As to Gustave:  He has never claimed to be a trained scholar.  He has simply said that he is a Roman Catholic Apologist.  There is a difference.  I have never said   he was a trained scholar.

As to current debates in the scholarly world related to early SDA history:  There is a difference between one who is/was an Arian and one who is/was a Semi-Arian.  The scholarly world recognizes that difference.  In some cases the debate in Adventism relates to that issue.

When your tell us that there were 38 well known Trinitarian clergy among the Millerites it looks to me like you may be including people who while Millerites were never a part of what became the SDA denomination.  My comments have always related to people who were part of  what became the SDA denomination.  The fact remains that early SDAs did have a background that to some degree was Airian.