More on the Trinity

[Hanseng]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

I want to help.

Chaplain Matthew's offering 2 AUSS articles by Jerry Moon "helped." Now you want to pivot to the personality of God doctrine, discussing whether God has a buttocks and procreative member, etc. Earlier, you pivoted from a discussion about the humanity of Christ. I absolutely don't trust you. The obvious spin and agenda you have, to discredit EGW, precludes that. Movement of Destiny, Erwin Gane's work, Moon's articles, and you all agree that Arianism was a force in early Adventism. Moon suggests it was because early Adventists wanted to move away from tradition, specifically the influence of Greek philosophy on the papacy.  James White denounced the classic trinity doctrine as unscriptural. That's a good thing. SDA were/are not Roman Catholics and need not be dependent on the papacy for doctrinal formulation. If the early SDA Arian leanings were part of a process to return to the Bible as the source of doctrine, I applaud them. 

You have yet to provide any EGW statements denigrating the doctrine of the Godhead. If you want to help, become informed by reading the research that SDA scholars have already done, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Certainly they are not completely objective but neither are you. It's refreshing to read material written by people who love the denomination rather than by those who obviously hate it.

[You have personalized this discussion beyond what is acceptable.  This forum requires the discussion to be civil.  Therefore, based upon your response, I am going to have to  consider the future of this discussion--Gregory Matthews.]

[Hanseng]

22 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following is a link to a critical article on this subject. 

Thank you very much for that contribution, Chaplain Matthews. Moon's articles are very informative.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  I am in the process of writing a detailed response to some issues raised in this thread.  After I post it, I will give further thought to opening it again. 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

Objective:  In this post I plan to discuss several of the divisive issues that have been discussed in this thread. I may summarize them and make a concluding statement related to my position on those issues.

·        * *   * * *   * * *

Bias:  Probably every person posting in this forum has some level of bias as to their approach to the subject under discussion and as to the conclusions that one reaches.  This is to be understood.    The more important issue relates to the extent that our inherent bias relates to the conclusions that we draw and whether that bias may be reflected in the posts that we make in this forum.  To some degree, it probably does affect the conclusions that we make and what we post.

 

* * * * * * * * *

EGW & copied material:  It is clear that the published writings of EGW contain material that was copied from other sources.    Her works are not original in every aspect.  This was first recognized in the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, while EGW was still alive.  The 1911 edition contained references to other works from which material had been copied.

 

The Desire of Ages Project:  About 30 years ago, in a project  funded by the E G White Estate and the General Conference, Dr. Fred Veltman spent eight years in a study attempting to determine whether or not EGW used other sources in writing the book, The Desire of Ages. His results were published in somewhat convoluted document that exceeded 1,000 pages.  I think it may have been over 1,200 pages, as I have a copy.  A brief summary of his work may be found at the following link:

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1990/12/the-desire-of-ages-project-the-conclusions

He clearly established that copied material was used in The Desire of Ages.

 

Today SDA Scholars agree that EGW used copied material in her published writings.  However the debate continues in the following areas:

1)    Some disagreements exist as to the amount of copied material used.

2)     Disagreement exists in part as to whether the source EGW used was from the original author, or came from a secondary source.  Uriah Smith is one person thought to be the source for what Ellen White used.

3)     There is disagreement today over the extent to which copied material was placed in the published writings by the editorial assistants that EGW used.  In any case, it is assumed that EGW approved of such.  NOTE:  The documents seem to show that to some extent that happened.

.

·        * *   * * *   * * *

Trinity Issues:  SDA Scholars today agree that to some extent Ellen White and other early leaders in what became the SDA denomination were not orthodox Trinitarians.  But, there is a fair amount of debate on this issue.  That debate has a focus on the extent to which various people were not orthodox Trinitarian.  Some may have been Semi-Arian.  Others may have held some other non-orthodox understanding of the Trinity.  These matters are of continuing discussion.

There is general agreement that EGW moved to an understanding of the Trinity that was closer to the orthodox understanding, prior to her death in 1915.  There is disagreement as to whether or not she fully moved to an orthodox position.

·        * *   * * *   * * *

EGW & the Bible: Ellen White in some ways lacked clarity in her published material.  Situations exist where she would tell one person X and then tell another person the exact opposite.  An examination of those cases often would result in seeing it as individual advice that was not intended to be for every person in the world-wide church.  Problems have arisen when people have attempted to tell us that advice was for every person at all times. This is more a wrong use of her writings than it is a problem with her.

Another aspect of this area of consideration relates to the extent to which Ellen White influenced SDAs in the development of their doctrinal understandings.

 

The record is not totally clear on this.  I am aware of places that I understand to say that she was not the source of our doctrinal understanding and that is the position that I have taken.

 

However, in honesty, I must say that there are sources that can be understood by an honest person to say that she had a greater influence on SDA Doctrinal understandings than I believe to be true.  The bottom line is that the evidence is not totally compelling for either position.  As a result, honest people can differ as to the conclusions that they make.  Each of us, in our conclusions, may be influenced by our bias.  None of us are totally unbiased.

 

  Conclusions:  Perhaps (?) this thread had run its course and nothing more needs to be said?  So, perhaps, I should close it.  Perhaps not?  In any case, if the conversation is to remain, it must remain civil.   I will swiftly close it, if  I open it and it does not remain civil.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Chaplain Matthew's offering 2 AUSS articles by Jerry Moon "helped." Now you want to pivot to the personality of God doctrine, discussing whether God has a buttocks and procreative member, etc. Earlier, you pivoted from a discussion about the humanity of Christ. I absolutely don't trust you. 

 

*Pastor Matthews* I appreciate the summary you gave, as usual you are a credit to your Church. 

Hanseng,

You asked me for documentation that Ellen White supported an anti-trinitarian position and from my position I have provided it. "The Personality of God" Doctrine was defined to be incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine by the Adventists who founded the Doctrine and explained what it is - therefore I am certain that support of the Personality of God Doctrine equates to anti-Trinitarianism. 

Perhaps you've not seen the following quotes from the Sabbath Herald.

 

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854

After we know and remember God, by keeping his holy Sabbath, then the Bible will teach of his PERSONALITY and dwelling place. Man is in the image and likeness of God.

 &

 We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between the God of the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in the dark through Sunday-keeping. Catholic Catechism Abridged by the Rt. Rev. John Pubois, Bishop of New York. Page 5. Ques. Where is God ? Ans. God is everywhere. Q. Does God see and know all things 3 A. Yes, he does know and see all things. Q. Has God any body 1 A. No; God has no body, he is a pure Spirit. Q. Are there more Gods than pne ? A. No; there is but one God. Q. Are there more persons than one in God ? A. Yes ; in God there are three persons. Q. Which are they 1 A. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Q. Are there not three Gods ? A. No; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are all but one and the same God.

 

You can see here that "THE DARK god" supports a theological system that is "Trinitarian" while "THE SABBATH GOD" will reveal that the Father has a body with "parts". 

 

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854 

The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what became of the body of Jesus who had a body when he ascended, who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere. Doxology. "To God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, three in one." Again. "Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees. Lives through all life, extends through all extent, Spreads undivided and operates unspent."-Pope. These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers.

Sabbath Herald March 13, 1856
BRO. DANIEL BAKER writes from Tioga, CO., Pa: : "After contending against the Trinitarian doctrine and all sectarian  disciplines for about sixteen years, and against the doctrine of the soul's immortality eight years, and for the seventh-day Sabbath three years, it is truly refreshing to find in your paper the same views proved by Scripture. I therefore enclose," &c.

Sabbath Herald, June 6, 1878

Fon, fifteen years I was a member of the Wesleyan Methodist church, and during the whole of that time I was deeply convinced of sin. Although the last three years of that time I was appointed class leader and local preacher, I did not feel what I tried to point out to others,—the experience of a true believer in Jesus; but the more I studied their doctrines the more I became bewildered, until I finally decided to try no longer to attain that height of perfection which is set forth in the Scriptures; for when I examined their teaching in describing the personality of God, I found that it was altogether contrary to the word of God.

 

 

 

Now, James White had been talking about "The Personality of God" from the beginning of his writings and was very specific that the P.O.G. meant that God [Father] is an Actual Person that was tangible - the Father was flesh, blood, organs and members. It was taught by Smith and the other "doctrine creating" individuals of the SDA Church that to agree with the creeds that God was spirit and didn't have a body was PANTHEISM - i.e. the Trinity Doctrine DESTROYED the body (personality) of God. The Trinity Doctrine was incompatible with the Personality of God Doctrine. 

Ellen White took part in revising / editing the Personality of God article defining the  P.O.G. Doctrine which appeared in the Sabbath Herald on August 29, 1878 - that article repudiates the Trinity Doctrine flat out. Combine this fact along with James White telling Sabbath Herald readers that Ellen's testimonies from the Holy Spirit are not compatible with the Trinity Doctrine and I find myself not believing you that don't consider anything I've produced to have demonstrated that Ellen was contra Trinity. This isn't reasonable. 

On March 8, 1906 Ellen White wrote an article for the Sabbath Herald and below is the salient portion of her article.

"He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus 'Christ, is denying God and 'Christ. " If that which ye
have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." If you
continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love. There will be seen that union for which Christ prayed just before his trial and crucifixion:— " That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Observe what Ellen said about the importance of the SDA pillars of Faith:

Ellen White, MR760 9.5
“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.”

 

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

You can see where Ellen placed the Personality of God Doctrinal pillar - she warned against it being touched, moved, etc. It was to be as it was over the prior 50 years. 

What it appears to me you are doing is re-defining what the Personality of God meant to Ellen White and the SDA Pioneers who presented it to her so that her testimonies could validate the Doctrine as truth. You've accused me of being dishonest and twisting / spinning history. I don't think so. I consider myself tackling issues head-on. 

As a reminder I refer you back to the 1854 James White "THE SUNDAY GOD" article where he says:

"The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this
God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts."

Remember, the Sunday God is contrasted with "THE SABBATH GOD" which HAD A BODY and HAD PARTS - this is why Ellen White and other early SDA's warned against the Trinity Doctrine because it "DESTROYED THE PERSONALITY [physical body] OF GOD". 

I understand the SDA Church is a big tent and that there are active members in good standing that categorically reject the Trinity Doctrine - All I'm saying here is that Ellen White was clearly an anti-Trinitarian as you can't hold the Personality of God Doctrine and be Trinitarian. 

Sabbath Herald, October 8, 1903: "The doctrine of the personality of God is the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures"

After the death of Ellen White the Sabbath Hearld, February 13, 1919 said:

"But what is the common point in the teaching of the cults 1 — They all deny the personality of God. While some of their adherents use words and expressions that seem to imply a belief in a personal God, it is scarcely even a camouflage. When questioned directly,, they categorically deny belief in a personal God, dwelling in heaven and hearing and answering the prayers of his needy children on earth. For a personal God they substitute a universal principle,
giving 1 it some name such as Love, Life, or Fate".

The November 15, 1934 Sabbath Herald has an article titled "PROCLAIMING THE SABBATH MORE FULLY" which says, 

"When the advent movement began, no one dreamed that the day would come when in a large majority of pulpits, the very fundamentals of the Christian religion would be denied, even to the deity of Christ and the personality of God.
True, conditions existed spiritually, in 1844, that made the churches an easy prey to such heresies, as was revealed by the actual hostility to the preaching of the soon coming of Christ."

Here is the end of it - this next August 17, 1939 Sabbath Herald speaks of an "AUGUST attack" on the Personality of God Doctrine, the article is large so I'll just quote a little bit of it. 

"Many among us remember the stirring messages that came through the Spirit of prophecy at a time of crisis in the early years of this century. Subtle teachings regarding the personality of God were presented by some who stood high in the cause, and in such a pleasing and attractive manner that they themselves did not discern the implications of these theories. Some who heard them accepted them as truth, not discerning that their acceptance would, when carried to their logical conclusions, sweep away the very foundations of the faith. These deceptive errors were unmasked by the Spirit of prophecy * in such a striking manner as to content and time as to manifest the divine credentials of the messages. The instruction published in the past is needed today as a shield against the subtle delusions that will seek for entrance among the churches now and in the future. Everything that can be shaken will be shaken. "Past history will be repeated ; old controversies will arouse to new life, and peril will beset God's people on every side."—Id., p. 116".

Unless this is challenged I rest my case that the Personality of God Doctrine is incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

My sincere apologies to anyone I offended in my zeal in discussing this topic - we all have our beliefs. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said:

*Pastor Matthews* I appreciate the summary you gave, as usual you are a credit to your Church. 

God is fundamentally a God of truth, wherever that truth may take us.  We fundamentally deny God when we engage in dishonesty.  As we are human, we do not fully understand truth and are subject to error.  But, it is our responsibility to seek the truth and to represent  God as truthfully as is humanly possible for us to do so.

[Hanseng]

Froom stated, contra Gane "DEDUCTION: The evidence attests that there were at least 38 known Trinitarian ministers, 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" (Movement of Destiny, 147).

Uriah Smith was an influential Arian/SemiArian throughout his life. He was 12 years old in 1844 and became a Sabbatarian Adventist in 1852 (MOD, 157).

Erwin Gane, in his 1963 thesis on the subject of early Adventist views of the trinity opines that both James White and Joseph Bates were Arians, Bates certainly, J. White probably. William Miller definitely was trinitarian, Joshua Himes was not. (Gane, chapter 2; http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane02.htm ). 

Gane names 3 Adventist Sabbatarians who were anti trinity in the 1850s, Stephenson, Frisbie, and Hull Gane, (chapter 2), He names others from the 1860s e.g., Loughborough (ch. 5).

Gane concluded in :  Attempts have been made to demonstrate that the Arians among Seventh-day Adventists were a small but influential minority. As indicated, Uriah Smith and J. H. Waggoner are sometimes blamed for the existence of anti-Trinitarianism in the Adventist Church. The evidence suggests otherwise. Four Seventh-day Adventist writers declared themselves Arians before publication of Uriah Smith’s Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation in 1865. Stephenson wrote in 1854, Hull in 1859, Loughborough in 1861, and Whitney in 1862. Although Joseph Bates did not write his autobiography until 1868, in it he clearly demonstrates that he had been an Arian since 1827. The views of such a prominent pioneer were undoubtedly influential. Even Smith’s extreme statement in 1865 to the effect that Christ was a created being finds its antecedent in a similar statement by Stephenson in 1854. By the same token the views expressed by J. H. Waggoner in 1884 were by no means original with himself. His anti-Trinitarianism and his limited view of the atonement were shared by a considerable stream of writers who preceded him"(Gane, ch. 16).

[Gregory Matthews]

Hnseng, I find it of interest that you rely for your scholarship on previous generations of SDAs and neglect to cite much more recent scholarship.  The following reflects more recent SDA Scholarship:

*  J. B. Frisbie:  Clearly not a Trinitarian.  Thought by some to have been classified with Docetism, which  can be challenged.  Gane cited him a Arian, but that is subject to challenge today.

* Joseph Bates:  Clearly did not have an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.  Thought by some to be Modalistic Monarchianism.  But, was he actually Arian?

*  John Lughborough:  Clearly not orthodox Trinitarian.    Seems to have believed in Tritheism, which differs from Arianism. 

*  J. M. Stephenson:   As he believed that Christ was a created being, he was not orthodox Trinitarian.  HIs exact beliefs should be considered with further study.

 

In short.  some early SDA leaders may not have been either Arian or Semi-Arian.  However, they were clearly not what is considered today to be orthodox Trinitarian.  Rather they held to some other non-orthodox views that differed from the Arian view.

It is on this basis that I consider your listing of a small number of early SDA leaders as Arian to be incomplete due to the fact that it  may not include others who while not Arian were not orthodox Trinitarian.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

To  set this in perspective,  citations from:

*  Erwin Gane are likely taken from material published in 1963.

*  Jerry Moon, are likely taken from material published in 2003, and in 2008

*  L. E. Froom are likely taken from material published in 1971.  As is stated, his work reflects an "apologetic agenda."

My comments in an above post are based on  scholarly work published in 2014,  by Avondale Academic Press, which is an official SDA publisher.

[Hanseng]

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is on this basis that I consider your listing of a small number of early SDA leaders as Arian to be incomplete due to the fact that it  may not include others who while not Arian were not orthodox Trinitarian.

 

I mentioned Loughborough, Frisbie, Stephenson, Hull, and Bates in the post. I also included the publication dates of Froom's and Gane's work. This was just the first post. Another will follow dealing with more recent work. As for Froom's "apologetic" agenda, it's refreshing to read work from someone who is sympathetic to the cause he addresses. It doesn't mean he is inaccurate, confused, or obfuscating. One purpose of my post was to show that Gane and Froom disagreed, two SDA scholars with rather impeccable credentials.  Both were somewhat limited by the fact that they wrote in a time when the type of research they were doing was much more difficult, e,g, lack of computer search ability, no word processing, limited availability of source material. Froom must have been familiar with Gane's work; nevertheless, he had his own view, different from Gane's

As for the term "orthodox Trinitarian." The Athanasian Creed contains not a single verse of Scripture. It is a human construct. The term "trinity" is not found in Scripture. Essentially, the creed damns anyone who does not subscribe to it, as if humanity is to be judged by human constructs. The Bible speaks of a Godhead, not a trinity. There is not a problem with early SDA being anti-trinitarian. They were not Roman Catholics and considered trinitarian Protestant denominations "fallen." They were also anti-creedal. Personally, I don't understand the nature of the Creator of the universe. If you do, my hat is off to you.

[Hanseng]

Before saying more about this topic, on which I'm not an expert, I'd like to see what Chaplain Matthews has to say on another thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not understand your question.  What thread?

 

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I do not understand your question.  What thread?

"The trinity in recent SDA times." This book was mentioned:   "One important recent book on this subject is:  Peterson, Paul & McIver, Rob Editors, Biblical & Theological Studies on The Trinity, Avondale academic Press, 2014, 251 pages."

[Gregory Matthews]

O. K.  I am still uncertain as to exactly what you want.  But, I will attempt a response.

*  When I cite a book, such as that one, it is generally because I believe it to be of value to the discussion.  My citation in itself does not indicate my level of approval of the book.  This book was written by 12 different people.  I clearly have  some approval.   But, my interest varies from chapter to chapter.

*  in an attempt to respond to your question, I shall cite the books Table of Contents, which should give you an idea to  the subjects that it addresses.

Part 1:  Biblical Studies

1, Some Aspects of the Christology of the Forth Gospel Relevant to Contemporary Christological Controversy,  Robert K McIver

2.  Jesus--the 'One and Only" or "Only Begotten":  The Meaning of Monogenes,  Paul Petersen

3. Worshipping Jesus--the 'eternally blessed God' (Romans 9:5),  Paul Petersen

4>  A Study of Paul's Concept of the Saving Act of 1 Corinthians 15:27-28,  Roland D. Meyer

5.  The First born in Colossians 1:15,  Ekkehardt Mueller

Part 2:  Historical & Theological Studies

6,  Trinity: Toward a (Somewhat) Postmodern Perspective, Ray CW Roennfeldt.

7.  The Trinitarian Basis of Christian Community, Richard Rice.

8.  Alexandrian school and the Trinitarian Problem,  Darius Jankiewicz.

9.  The Holy Spirit:  His Divinity & Personality, Frank M Hasel.

10.  Trinity & Tawhid In Islam--An Appraisal,  Borge Schantz.

Part 3:  Studies in SDA history & Theology

11.  The influence of Restorationism on Early Seventh-day Adventism and the Emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective, Karl Arasola.

12.  The Trinitarian issue in Seventh-day Adventism, Gunnar Pedersen.

13.  John Harvey Kellogg's Concept of the Godhead, John Skrzypaszek

Appendix:  Consensus Statement

Index of Persons & Authors

Index of Subjects

Index of Christian scriptural References

Index of Islamic Scriptural References

 

[Hanseng]

While the history of the trinity among SDA is interesting, the more important issue has to do with understanding the nature of the Godhead. Whatever the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is clear is that Jesus took humanity upon himself and redeemed the world. The Athanasian creed is dogmatic in its assertions that one who does not believe it cannot be saved. That is problematic, the idea that a humanly concocted creed can be used to condemn people. There is not a single bible verse in the creed. 

If EGW's statement that the existence of Jesus was "original, unborrowed and underived" changed the thinking of an Arian leaning denomination, that is also troubling. Her comment that the divinity of Christ was "original, unborrowed, underived" is essentially no more Scriptural that the proclamation of Athanasius. Here is the quote from DA 460/530:  "Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed,
underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life."

When Jesus said I am the resurrection and the life, I don't understand "I am the resurrection and the life" to mean his existence is original, unborrowed, and underived. Basing belief on what Athanasius said or what Sr. White said is not belief based on Scripture.

[Hanseng]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:03 PM, Gustave said:

Christ didn't assume the role of a servant - He was eternally a servant of God the Father. In case you didn't realize it The Son was always the Son, in eternity. 

Scripture doesn't say Jesus was always a servant or always a son. 

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb 5:5  So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

These are quotes from Psalm 2:7 which states that sonship happened through a decree/law/statute/covenant. The Psalmist says it happened "today" or "this day." That's a certain point in time. According to Hebrews 5:5, Jesus became a son when he was crowned as high priest. That took place after the ascension and is portrayed in Revelation 5. The Spirit has moved from before the throne in chapter 4 to the lamb in chapter 5.

I can't say it all makes sense but that's what the Bible says.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Scripture doesn't say Jesus was always a servant or always a son. 

Yes, it does. 

In Trinitarianism the 3 Person's within the ONE SUBSTANCE (which is God) don't just exist as ONE God - the 3 Person's co-exist in relation to one another. As clearly stated in the tome "The Christian Faith In the Doctrinal Documents Of The Catholic Church, page 136 

"The theological concepts and terminology used in these documents became more and more technical and at times somewhat involved. This could hardly be avoided in view of the depth of the mystery which they had to convey. It should, however, be born in mind that the subtlety in reasoning was never meant to rationalise the divine mystery but to preserve it its integrity against all rationalistic simplifications. ALL TRINITARIAN HERESIES ARE SUCH SIMPLICICATIONS WHICH, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL, WOULD ULTIMATELY NULLIFY THE MYSTERY". 

""We believe in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE ALMIGHTY GOD; and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is the same essence, the same substance, equally eternal and equally almighty, of one will, one power and majesty. This Trinity is the creator of all things created, from whom, in whom, by whomall things exist in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, the corporal and the spiritual. We believe that each single person in the Trinity is the ONE TRUE GOD, fully and perfectly." page 18

John 3 16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved

Scripture is clear that Christ created the world, the angels, everything (Colossians 1, 16) therefore he was present before all things - as Scripture says He was begotten (caused) by the Father, not an event in time but outside of time itself. My own imperfect and vastly ignorant way of thinking of this would be: 

Imagine a turned-on light bulb that always existed, an eternal lightbulb, the bulb is the Father, the light eternally generated by the Father is the Son and the heat eternally generated by the Father and Son is the Holy Spirit. Imperfect way to describe the indescribable - of course! But notice I've not nullified the mystery. 

Ellen White and her contemporaries were explicit that Jesus WAS GOD, COULD BE CALLED GOD but NOT IN THE ULTIMATE SENSE, in essence they re-defined God to be:

1. Ultimate God, the Eternal one (a hominid flesh "Being")

2. The begotten Son of God (another hominid flesh "Being") that possessed deity as a matter of privilege. 

3. Lucifer, another hominid flesh "Being" that looked and operated as close to the flesh Father as possible. 

4. The Son was believed to be like a flesh twin of the Father thus the confusion in the host of heaven when Lucifer went sideways. 

Quote

Hanseng says: 

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb 5:5  So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

These are quotes from Psalm 2:7 which states that sonship happened through a decree/law/statute/covenant. The Psalmist says it happened "today" or "this day." That's a certain point in time. According to Hebrews 5:5, Jesus became a son when he was crowned as high priest. That took place after the ascension and is portrayed in Revelation 5. The Spirit has moved from before the throne in chapter 4 to the lamb in chapter 5.

I can't say it all makes sense but that's what the Bible says.

 

Some representative examples of Adventist teaching on the above:

JAMES S. WHITE: “The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance  that he is the Son of the eternal God.” – James White, The Day Star, January 24, 1846

Sabbath Herald, November 21, 1854: So, after all that has been said and written by these two schools, it appears that there is no real difference in their respective theories, in reFerence to the atonement; both have, in fact, only a human sacrifice: but with reference to their views of the highest nature of the Son of God, they are as far asunder as finitude and infinitude, time and eternity. The former makes the " only Begotten of the Father," a mere mortal, finite man; the latter makes him the Infinite, Omnipotent, All-wise, and Eternal God, absolutely equal with the Everlasting Father. Now, I understand the truth to be in the medium between these two extremes. I have proved, as I think conclusively, 1st, that the Son of God in his highest nature existed before the creation of the first world, or the first intelligent being in the vast Universe; 2d, that he had an origin; that "he was the first born of every creature;" "the beginning of the creation of God ;" [Rev. iii, 14;] 3d, that, in his highest nature, all things in heaven and in earth were created, and are upheld, by him; 4th, in his dignity, he was exalted far above all the angels of heaven, and all the kings and potentates of earth; 5th, in his nature he was immortal, (not in an absolute sense,) and Divine; 6th, in his titles and privileges, he was " the only begotten of his Father," whose glory he shared "before the world was ;" the "image of the invisible God ;" "in the form of God ;" and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God ;" "the likeness of his Father's glory and express image of his person ;" " the Word" who "was in the beginning with God" and who "was God."

 

Sabbath Herald, October 13, 1859: Just so with Jesus and his Father : they are one in Spirit, one in purpose, and one in action ; but not identical in body and person. This view, and this only, is consistent with the scripture which represents Christ as a created being, ["the beginning of the creation of God," Rev. iii, 14], and that large class of texts which speak of Christ as distinct from the Father, in as plain terms as language ,can employ, and declare him to be subordinate to him, sent forth by him, dying to reconcile the world to him, &c., declarations utterly at variance with the popular idea of a triune God

 

Sabbath Herald, November 10, 1859: THE inconsistent positions held by many in regard to the Trinity, as it is termed, has; no doubt, been the prime cause of many other errors. Erroneous views of the divinity of Christ are apt to lead us into error in regard to the nature of the atonement. Viewing the atonement as an arbitrary scheme (and all must believe it to be so, who view Christ as the only "very and eternal God"), has led to some of the arbitrary conclusions of one or two classes of persons ; such as Predestinarianism, Universalism, &e., &c. The doctrine which we propose to examine, was established by the Council of Nice, A. D., 3:5, and ever since that period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for a disbelief in this doctrine, that the Arians were anathematized in A. B., 513. As. we can trace this doctrine no farther back than the origin of the " Man of Sin." and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scripture on this subject. Just here I will meet a question which is very frequently asked, namely, Do you believe in the divinity of Christ? Most unquestionably we do; but we don't believe, as the M. E. church Discipline teaches, that Christ is the-very and eternal God; and, at the same time, verily man ; that the human part was the Son, and the divine part was the Father,

 

 

Sabbath Herald, September 24, 1863, “HOW SHALL WE EXPLAIN IT: "In Rev 1:8 occurs a passage which has presented some difficulty to those who REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. The text, with its forgoing connection, reads as following: “Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so, Amen. I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the ending thus saith the Lord, which is, which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Verses 7 & 8. The question has often arisen here, IN WHAT SENSE IS JESUS CHRIST THE ALMIGHTY”.  TO US THIS QUESTION IS EASILY ANSWERED. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CHRIST IS AT ALL MEANT BY THE PHRASE “THE ALMIGHTY”,  AND FOR THIS BELIEF WE WILL GIVE A FEW SHORT REASONS. 1. WE THINK THERE ARE TWO PERSONS brought to view in these texts – the Savior in the 7^th verse and; the Father in the eighth. There is another most august title in verse 8 which NEVER REFERRS TO THE SON – IT IS THE PHRASE “WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME”. This title points out THE ETERNITY OF THE BEING TO WHOM IT REFERS……………Here are the two personages pointed out – THE EVERLASTING GOD UNDER THE FITTING TITLE, “WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS AND WHICH IS TO COME, the Almighty AND Jesus Christ by the no less appropriate titles of “the faithful witness”, “the first begotten of the dead” and, “the prince of the kings of the earth”…..We will now present three other texts where this phrase is found, and which all readily admit speak of the IMMORTAL FATHER – Rev 4:8,  Rev 11: 16-17 and Rev 16: 5-7….. with these passages we DISMISS the point, as it can serve no purpose to the Trinitarians, and to us seems to plain that the wayfaring man need not err therein”.

Sabbath Herald, September 7, 1869: ‘And as to the Son of God, he could be excluded also, for he had God for His Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days. So that if we use Paul’s language in an absolute sense, it would be impossible to find but one being in the universe, and that is God the Father, who is without father, or mother, or descent, or beginning of days, or end of life. Yet probably no one for a moment contends that Melchizedek was God the Father.’’

I could continue to quote Sabbath Herald articles until I ran out of room for this post but you can grasp the concept here. 

Remember, Ellen White said Jesus' deity was privileged to Him, it was His to keep provided He did what was right and didn't screw up. No one would dare to say this of the Father and herein lies the rub, to SDA's God the Son isn't really God in the same sense they believe the Father is God, it's a different God and a different Jesus. 

[Hanseng]

Gustave, What EGW and the SDA pioneers said about the trinity or Godhead is, in many respects, irrelevant to what Scripture says.  Save yourself some time. At this point, I don't care what the pioneers/ commentators/crackpots have said.  The Bible says Jesus was made the Son of God by a "decree," which took place when He was crowned as high priest. That's what the Bible says. Contrary to your assertion, the Bible specifies a time when this happened. While his place as a member of the Godhead could have been outside of time as we know it, his role as the son of God began at a specific time "This *day* I have brought you forth."

"Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church" have no authority or place in a discussion of what the Bible says. Even if I believed EGW has doctrinal authority, knowing that you believe her to have been inspired by Satan, I wouldn't cite her as a matter of courtesy. I'd appreciate the same. 

John 3:16 has no bearing on a discussion of Christ's place in the Godhead. There is no question about Jesus being the only begotten. The issue is what is meant by that. Issac was the only begotten son of Abraham according to Scripture. Fact is Abraham had several other sons. Issac wasn't even his firstborn son; nevertheless, he is called the only begotten son of Abraham. 

I can't explain all this. Neither can you or the sources you reference. Perhaps with time and study of Scripture, it will become clearer.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave, What EGW and the SDA pioneers said about the trinity or Godhead is, in many respects, irrelevant to what Scripture says.  Save yourself some time. At this point, I don't care what the pioneers/ commentators/crackpots have said

If you are SDA you absolutely do. Are you not SDA? My apologies if you've told me you're not and I forgot. The fact is that Ellen's visions and testimonies were affirmations of what the Pioneers believed / taught. 

Quote

Hanseng said: The Bible says Jesus was made the Son of God by a "decree," which took place when He was crowned as high priest. That's what the Bible says. Contrary to your assertion, the Bible specifies a time when this happened. While his place as a member of the Godhead could have been outside of time as we know it, his role as the son of God began at a specific time "This *day* I have brought you forth."

A Trinitarian would reject this as they (I) believe Almighty God = Father, Son & Holy Spirit with each person being 100% fully "God" and "God" being a single (ontological) "Being" that DOESN'T CHANGE. The Person's are the "WHO", the single Being is the "WHAT". 

It is therefore impossible for God (The Almighty) to eternally cease to exist because God is ontologically ONE. You should really re- read Philippians 2 again, slower this time and understand that Christ eternally had this mind we are called to emulate. 

Quote

Hanseng said: Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church" have no authority or place in a discussion of what the Bible says. Even if I believed EGW has doctrinal authority, knowing that you believe her to have been inspired by Satan, I wouldn't cite her as a matter of courtesy. I'd appreciate the same. 

Again, you are failing to realize that the Creed and other Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church systematize Sacred Scripture, that's the whole point - the reason why the Apostles Creed is literally read by so many Churches. 

Quote

Hanseng said: John 3:16 has no bearing on a discussion of Christ's place in the Godhead. There is no question about Jesus being the only begotten. The issue is what is meant by that. Issac was the only begotten son of Abraham according to Scripture. Fact is Abraham had several other sons. Issac wasn't even his firstborn son; nevertheless, he is called the only begotten son of Abraham. 

Christ is "The Almighty", the same as The Father and The Holy Spirit. 

Christ is not "part" or 1/3rd of the Godhead, He is as fully God as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. There was no investiture, promotion, ceremony or decree that Christ SHOULD BE equal with God, Christ was God, eternally. I'll start a thread soon on this so we can work our way through this together. 

 

[Hanseng]

19 minutes ago, Gustave said:

If you are SDA you absolutely do. Are you not SDA? My apologies if you've told me you're not and I forgot. The fact is that Ellen's visions and testimonies were affirmations of what the Pioneers believed / taught. 

A Trinitarian would reject this as they (I) believe Almighty God = Father, Son & Holy Spirit with each person being 100% fully "God" and "God" being a single (ontological) "Being" that DOESN'T CHANGE. The Person's are the "WHO", the single Being is the "WHAT". 

It is therefore impossible for God (The Almighty) to eternally cease to exist because God is ontologically ONE. You should really re- read Philippians 2 again, slower this time and understand that Christ eternally had this mind we are called to emulate. 

Again, you are failing to realize that the Creed and other Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church systematize Sacred Scripture, that's the whole point - the reason why the Apostles Creed is literally read by so many Churches. 

Christ is "The Almighty", the same as The Father and The Holy Spirit. 

Christ is not "part" or 1/3rd of the Godhead, He is as fully God as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. There was no investiture, promotion, ceremony or decree that Christ SHOULD BE equal with God, Christ was God, eternally. I'll start a thread soon on this so we can work our way through this together. 

 

Gustave, your   "ministry" is intended here to do 2 things. One is to discredit EGW. The other is to bring people under the papal yoke. Your attempt to discredit EGW is attempted by numerous references to pioneer writings which you say she endorsed. While the Arian leanings of SDA pioneers have been known for decades, just how widespread it was is a matter of dispute. A non-SDA wrote one of the first Review articles advocating for the trinity. That indicates that there were few early Adventists interested enough to promote the trinity. OTOH, Gane listed ~21 early Adventists with Arian leanings. The average annual church membership from 1863 to 1888 was ~14000. 21/14000 does not sound like the denomination was crawling with Arians.  Most of the early SDA came from either the Baptist or Methodist denomination, both of which were trinitarian. Of course, it's possible that new members were indoctrinated into Arianism.

I have yet to see you produce a single statement form EGW advocating Arianism. You certainly have spun numerous quotes to make that point, e.g., Canright's articles which she was somehow involved with. Since exactly what she did is unknown, it proves nothing. She may have been mitigating extreme positions he took.

What really matters to me is what the Bible says. The Athanasian creed is not an authoritative source of doctrine. Neither is EGW. The Bible says that Jesus became the Son of God by a decree at the time he became high priest in heaven after his ascension. Now that may not be all there is to it but it surpasses Athanasius, RC dogma, or EGW in its authority.

I was baptized by SDA pastors but am not a member of any denomination. Baptism by an SDA pastor is not automatic entry into the Adventist denomination. Denominational membership is a separate event.

[Hanseng]

Hebrews chapter 1 is about Christ and His identity. It's an entire chapter on the topic. Verse 5 says "For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten [perfect]  You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?" The words "have begotten" are in the perfect tense, usually illustrated as .________  . That's a point with a continuing result. Jesus was begotten at a point and continued in that state.  

“I will be [future]to Him a Father, And He shall be [shall be] to Me a Son”? Future is future. According to this verse, the Father/Son relationship was at a point in the future from when the prophecy was given.

Verse 4 says  "having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained [perfect]a more excellent name than they." Jesus obtained a better name. Perfect tense, indicating that he obtained a better name at some point in time and continued to hold that name.

The better name Jesus obtained was that of "Son." 

If he obtained the name, there was a time when he didn't have it.

That's what Hebrews chapter 1 says. It may not be the end of the matter but it certainly is an important element.

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave, your   "ministry" is intended here to do 2 things. One is to discredit EGW. The other is to bring people under the papal yoke. 

I don't consider myself a "ministry" by any stretch of the means. I'm illustrating where Ellen White radically departs from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If you consider this discrediting to Ellen White I'm not sure what I could do to change your mind. I'm simply showing you where Sacred Scripture says X and Ellen says Z. Claiming Christ could have eternally ceased to exist based on a hypothetical moral flaw in God is so far out in left field it's not even on the planet. 

There is no "Papal yoke". That would be like me saying you are under an Ellen White and General Conference of SDA yoke. What we have here is a doctrinal discussion where I'm supporting my points with Scripture and reasoning. 

I appreciate the points you made with the Scripture that uses begotten. Remember Jesus was God's Son PRIOR to Him being sent and that invalidates the interpretation you gave about the Father becoming Christ's Father at a point forward of the statement. 

[Kevin H]

On 2/5/2023 at 3:53 AM, Gustave said:

Ellen White answered that question horrifically wrong. There are many explicit Scriptures which affirm impossible Christ sinning, loosing His Salvation and being eternally exterminated. 

The poet Eli Siegel pointed out that reality is composed of things we can call opposites. and that often they need to become a oneness of opposites, such as dark and light, curved and straight, surface and depth in a picture. 

Does God have free will or is he a servant of instinct?

God claims to be totally loving, part of the questions of the great controversy is whether he was indeed all loving, or if there was selfishness inside of him. Also, Satan claims that creatures cannot fully follow the law of self sacrificing love, and that in fact this law is hostel to creatures.   

We find these opposites oned in Christ. His very nature was totally self sacrificing love, self renouncing love. And if this was really true it would be impossible for him to sin. Yet, he still had free will, and God had never been a creature before. The issue is whether or not self sacrificing / self renouncing love possible in a creature, or will Jesus end up using his freedom of choice to yield to maybe just a little bit of selfishness? Jesus' free will, freedom of choice, and living as a weak creature makes it theoretically possible for Jesus to fail. 

In trying to point this out in the role of the great controversy, and how our salvation was dependent on Jesus constantly living in the law of self sacrificing love come what may. Was God really what he claimed to be or was he just as selfish as the rest of us? And she is trying to tell us the high cost of the incarnation. If Jesus was to fail, that would mean that God had something selfish inside of him and that he is not worthy of our love. Since life in based on a righteousness by faith relationship between the trinity members, and sharing this connection to creatures; it would show that God is not worth having this relationship with. If he failed it would not be Enoch, Moses and Elijah being called before an angelic firing squad for their execution as sinners needing to die and not being able to have Jesus be their substitute and the earth being destroyed and the rest of the universe continuing on into eternity in the same old same old way. We don't know what effect this would have on divinity, but it would have been horrible, but it would have destroyed the entire universe. 

Fortunately God's nature truly is unselfish and thus no matter what Satan threw at him, he constantly choose love and unselfishness.  But Gustive, you are only taking one aspect of truth and using it against the rest of the truth. What you say is in danger of picturing Jesus as not having freewill and the power of choice, but that he is merely an automation programed in a way that prevents him from having freewill and freedom of choice.    

[Gustave]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:58 AM, Kevin H said:

The poet Eli Siegel pointed out that reality is composed of things we can call opposites. and that often they need to become a oneness of opposites, such as dark and light, curved and straight, surface and depth in a picture. 

Does God have free will or is he a servant of instinct?

God claims to be totally loving, part of the questions of the great controversy is whether he was indeed all loving, or if there was selfishness inside of him. Also, Satan claims that creatures cannot fully follow the law of self sacrificing love, and that in fact this law is hostel to creatures.   

We find these opposites oned in Christ. His very nature was totally self sacrificing love, self renouncing love. And if this was really true it would be impossible for him to sin. Yet, he still had free will, and God had never been a creature before. The issue is whether or not self sacrificing / self renouncing love possible in a creature, or will Jesus end up using his freedom of choice to yield to maybe just a little bit of selfishness? Jesus' free will, freedom of choice, and living as a weak creature makes it theoretically possible for Jesus to fail. 

In trying to point this out in the role of the great controversy, and how our salvation was dependent on Jesus constantly living in the law of self sacrificing love come what may. Was God really what he claimed to be or was he just as selfish as the rest of us? And she is trying to tell us the high cost of the incarnation. If Jesus was to fail, that would mean that God had something selfish inside of him and that he is not worthy of our love. Since life in based on a righteousness by faith relationship between the trinity members, and sharing this connection to creatures; it would show that God is not worth having this relationship with. If he failed it would not be Enoch, Moses and Elijah being called before an angelic firing squad for their execution as sinners needing to die and not being able to have Jesus be their substitute and the earth being destroyed and the rest of the universe continuing on into eternity in the same old same old way. We don't know what effect this would have on divinity, but it would have been horrible, but it would have destroyed the entire universe. 

Fortunately God's nature truly is unselfish and thus no matter what Satan threw at him, he constantly choose love and unselfishness.  But Gustive, you are only taking one aspect of truth and using it against the rest of the truth. What you say is in danger of picturing Jesus as not having freewill and the power of choice, but that he is merely an automation programed in a way that prevents him from having freewill and freedom of choice.    

Mary had free will.

This is different than God becoming man without ceasing to be God in the Incarnation.

God does not have free will to not be God - which is what you'd have if Christ, as Arius said, could have sinned. 

Ask yourself the following question.

Could ANY hypothetical situation cause God the Father to cease to eternally cease to exist? Come up with anything you can think of from a star going super nova, a black hole, losing a poker game with Lucifer, whatever you can think of. The point I'm making is that ANY hypothetical you can think of resulting in God the Father eternally being killed off demonstrates that it's NOT GOD. 

Jesus is God for the same exact reason The Father and Holy Spirit are, God is THE ONE SAME SUBSTANCE. If Jesus ceased to exist, the Father and Holy Spirit would also - which defaults into none of them being God - It's as simple as that. 

I don't know if you are a Star Trek fan or not but in the off chance you are familiar I'll use an example for that series.

"The Borg" are many yet are ONE in thought, character and purpose. In certain situations individual Borg from a Borg Cube can be killed. You have Borg 1 trough 9 and it so happened that Borg 1 - 6, 8 & 9 were killed leaving ONLY Borg 7 of 9. The is how it appears you think of the Father, a separate Borg that simply can't cease to exist for any reason but other Borg who have the same character, purpose and thought CAN cease to exist. This is possible because God isn't ONE in your mind other than in purpose and character. Like ONE Company of Soldiers trying to take a hill that has self existent eternal god within it that can't be killed or defeated but the rest of the company can be. 

This is such a radical departure from the Trinity it really would be better to call it something else.