At the Creation

[Gregory Matthews]

My point was to support my comment that when the 27 Fundamental Beliefs were first published, they were not intended to be a creed. 

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  At thee top of this page, page 9, I have responded to the 2nd question that Gustave asked.

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, has also asked another valid question that  I will quote below:

I am saving this space to respond to his question, which I will do later, either today or early tomorrow.  I want to respond first to the question he asked in the above post before I respond to his second question.

Please wait.   

Here is my response to his 2nd question:

Thank you for asking a good question, which I will attempt to answer.  Before getting to the heart of your question, I will make several generalized statements.

In his previously cited work, Bruinsma cites the Millerite Movement from which Adventism arose as drawing from some seventeen (17) different denominations (Page 38). In my opinion, this has led, from the beginning of this denomination, to the current day,  to a range of belief within the SDA denomination.  Up to the present, diversity has been accepted.  This range has often been described as a “Big Tent” philosophy.

The membership of this forum, as I describe it, consists of about 1/3rd who are traditional Adventists, 1/3rd who are on the edge of Adventism and 1/3rd who are not Adventist. 

I have typically described Adventism as consisting of conservatives, moderates and liberals.  In more recent times I have had to add a 4^th group, fundamentalists.  With the rise of this group, the Big Tent approach is under attack by some.

Some  have described Adventism in terms of some major person, such as Desmond Ford.  Ford was defrocked and removed from clergy status.  Attempts were made to remove him from membership, which failed.  He remained a SDA member, illustrating the power that a local congregation has to determine who is a member.  While I do not agree with every doctrinal position that Ford took, I do support his retention as a SDA member.

In contrast to some denominations. We do  not have a primary leader who can speak ex cathedra.  Our highest elected leader is the General Conference President.  While he  has major administrative power, he does not have the power to define SDA doctrine and belief.  The result is that there are major discussions going on in Adventism on some aspects of SDA belief and practice.

 For some time, SDA scholars have suggested that Adventism is divided into five (5) different groups.  However, those who have so divided Adventism have not agreed on how to define those five groups.  So, I will not attempt to define them.

Currently Adventism is undergoing major discussion in the following areas:

·         The role that women should have in spiritual nurture, and often stated in regard to ordination.

·        The role and function of the local congregation to include the boundaries that should be placed upon membership.

·        Our Biblical understanding of what the Bible teaches in regard to God as creator.

If I wanted to do so, I could probably add some additional comments. One   might be the role that the Roman Catholic Church has in Biblical prophecy  that would probably interest you, so I have added it here.  J  But, the three that I have listed above .  I consider to be the current most divisive points.

There are those who consider that the divisions that currently exist within Adventism on those three points have the potential to split this denomination.  I have some agreement with that positon.  Some even suggest that the current GC President, is attempting to lead to such a split.  I am not going to attribute that to him.  However, I will say that he sometimes presents himself in a manner that leads people to believe such of him.

So, to get to the heart of your question:   From its beginning, to the current day, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has consisted of several groups that differ in some ways in doctrinal understanding and in life style.   Will it split over these current differences?  I do not think it will split.  But, I could be wrong.

 

 

 

Well, I may have to reassess some elements of my thinking on S.D.A belief. You are the first person who's ever said what you did in this way. I've been active with apologetics since the 90's and as far as SDA's generally go ( on forums that discuss / debate religious things ) the S.D.A. position has been: 

Ellen White was a prophet like the Bible  prophets and if she spoke about something ( pertaining to a distinctive SDA teaching ) THAT was the end of that. Her writings, to SDA's are a continuing source of authority for SDA belief like Christ & Lucifer being archangels  (I'll concede Lucifer could have been one), the Personality of God, Investigative judgement, etc. 

I understand that many SDA's think the Catholic Church will eventually outlaw Christian worship on Saturday and implement a law requiring Church attendance on Sunday - as this will never happen it seems foolish to debate about it -which is why I don't spend much time on that part. Now the Trinity is another matter all together and in my view is the most important Doctrine of the Christian Faith - it provides all the necessary backing to make Christ's commands the commands of God. 

Ellen White and her family were, in my understanding, excommunicated or otherwise removed from the Methodist Church they attended - is there a general consensus within SDA's as to why this happened?  You are telling me that in the SDA Church people are not generally removed for openly rejecting doctrines the leadership has endorsed and there hasn't been examples of what happened to Ellen White's family to be found in the SDA Church? Other than Kellogg I don't know so I'm not asking a trick question. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  I appreciate the spirit in which your are participating in this conversation.  Your questions are valid and often complex with multiple factors.  I am attempting to respond to your often complex questions with honesty, openness and transparency.  I am not attempting to convert you to a SDA view.  That is not my role.  To respond to your questions, I will quote your post below and I will place my response in brackets  [ ]s.

"Well, I may have to reassess some elements of my thinking on S.D.A belief. You are the first person who's ever said what you did in this way. I've been active with apologetics since the 90's and as far as SDA's generally go ( on forums that discuss / debate religious things ) the S.D.A. position has been: 

[You have clearly done your study.  I appreciate your openness to include your present manner of participating in this conversation--GM.]

Ellen White was a prophet like the Bible  prophets and if she spoke about something ( pertaining to a distinctive SDA teaching ) THAT was the end of that. Her writings, to SDA's are a continuing source of authority for SDA belief like Christ & Lucifer being archangels  (I'll concede Lucifer could have been one), the Personality of God, Investigative judgement, etc. 

[There are some SDAs who relate to EGW in the manner that you have stated here.  That is contrary to what EGW wrote.  She clearly stated that the Bible was the authority and it had authority over her writings.  She clearly stated that God had not dictated her words.  She did not claim to be without error.  I will give you an example of her relationship to the Bible in practice.  EGW clearly teaches healthful living.  As an example of this, she advocated what we today would call a lacto-ova-vegetarian diet if practically available.  I will be the first to tell you that such can not be found as an explicit statement in the Bible.  As that is not explicitly found in the Bible, the SDA Church does not require such for membership and on a world wide basis probably the majority of SDAs do not follow that type of diet--GM.]

[As to the Investigative Judgment:  Current SDA understanding on this point has evolved some what from the manner in which EGW probably understood it.  IOW, she was not the end of that--GM.]

[Personality of God:  While I reject some of what you have stated as the belief of our early denominational leaders, I will also be willing to grant that this has also evolved with the passage of time--GM.] 

[Christ as archangel:  I once joined "Catholic Answers" and questions on this issue was almost the only question that I was asked.   This reached the point where I no longer had the ability to   respond to questions  (They fired so to speak.).  So, I no longer can  participate in that forum.  This question involves  both the word "archangel" and the name "Michael."   The standard  meaning attached to the work "archangel" in the Christian world today is that of a created angel being the one in charge of the other angels.  Seventh-day Adventists have not understood that word in that manner.  Rather, SDAs have understood that word to mean the one in   charge of the angels, without the assumption that that the one in charge was a created being.  If you tell me that SDAs are wrong on this, I will not challenge you.  That is not my point.  I simply point out how SDAs have understood it.  Yes,  SDAs have also understood the name "Michael,"  as in "Michael the archangel," to apply to Christ.  Within the context of the SDA understanding of the meaning of "archangel" SDAs are not saying that Christ was a created being.  I will be the first to tell you that this has been a very confusing matter for people outside of the SDA denomination to understand--GM.]  

 

I understand that many SDA's think the Catholic Church will eventually outlaw Christian worship on Saturday and implement a law requiring Church attendance on Sunday - as this will never happen it seems foolish to debate about it -which is why I don't spend much time on that part.

[I will not challenge you on minor points.  You are substantially correct, as far as past teaching is concerned.  This view is presently under debate in the SDA Church and it is not accepted by some--GM.]  

Now the Trinity is another matter all together and in my view is the most important Doctrine of the Christian Faith - it provides all the necessary backing to make Christ's commands the commands of God. 

[I agree that it is a doctrine of major importance.  I will be the first to say that some, not all, early leaders in the developing SDA denomination were not Trinitarian in the orthodox sense.  People who came from what is called the Christian Connection were deist in background.  James White was one such.  Ellen White came from a Methodist background.   It can be truthfully stated that there were early leaders who were Arian in orientation.  It should also be stated that there were differences among those.  Some were probably Semi-Arian in orientation.  IOW, there are aspects of this that are under current debate within Adventism.  But the fact remains that to some extent some were not orthodox Trinitarians.  As a matter of fact, in those early days, Ellen  White was not an orthodox Trinitarian.  It is the SDA position, of which I agree, that over time EGW changed into a more orthodox position.   It should be noted that in a number of areas, EGW her doctrinal views from what she had held in earlier days.  EGW was as human as are you and I.  Her spiritual life was a journey just as it is for you and for me.  God did not protect her from doctrinal error.  The Bible was to be the authority, not EGW--GM.]  

[On another point:  Currently within Adventism, a small but very vocal group has arisen who reflect that anti-trinitarian views of our early SDA leaders.  They are very vocal in advocating for a return to that viewpoint.  I will simply say that their view conflicts with the official SDA view which is Trinitarian--GM.]

Ellen White and her family were, in my understanding, excommunicated or otherwise removed from the Methodist Church they attended - is there a general consensus within SDA's as to why this happened?  You are telling me that in the SDA Church people are not generally removed for openly rejecting doctrines the leadership has endorsed and there hasn't been examples of what happened to Ellen White's family to be found in the SDA Church? Other than Kellogg I don't know so I'm not asking a trick question. 

[SDA understanding is that EGW, her family and many other followers of William Miller were removed from membership in their denomination due to the fact that they followed the teachings of William Miller.  It should be noted that this all happened prior to the formation of the SDA denomination in 1863--GM.]

[As to being removed form membership due to a doctrinal difference:  Yes, as a local congregation has the authority to decide, it can do such and it may do such.  My point is that that there a wide range in belief and application exists.   I am not attempting to say that it never happens--GM.]

{Personally I almost think that in responding to you I have added more confusion to your thinking.  I apologize if I have done such.   I am simply attempting to be transparent in a complex situation--GM.]

[NOTE:  I am uncertain as to whether I have fully responded to your question.  If not, ask again--GM.]"

[Gustave]

I appreciate the depth you put into answering my questions. Here is what I don't understand about a few items. 

Ellen White: I've found those statements where she claims people are not supposed to view her writings as the end all for religious matters however I've found a greater number of statements where she says the direct opposite. I could be wrong but it looks to me as if she was attempting to please EVERYONE by saying what some people within the Denomination wanted to hear and would switch direction and say the opposite to appease other people within the Denomination. I'm thinking this may be a reasonable understanding IF the leadership of the Denomination was trying to keep a new Church from splintering even more than it already had - because of the "Big Tent" theological differences of the members. 

Personality of God / Trinity issue: Trying to distill my own research I would simply say that the SDA's rejected God was ONE Being and initially claimed that God was the Father ONLY, later on the understanding evolved into Three BEINGS (not one) who were unified in purpose, mind, etc. The SDA understanding I could never find repudiated in SDA Publications was that The Father and Pre-Incarnate Michael were flesh hominids ( 2 Beings ). My understanding of the Orthodox position is that God is ONE BEING, a Substance or Nature co-equally shared by three distinct Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). To put it another way THE WAY the SDA Theological authorities explained the Trinity on the Symposium you posted is IDENTICAL to the way the Mormons would describe their belief and I can't imagine any SDA member who would be willing to go on record in saying the Mormons believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity. To me, and this is just IMHO, this is a problem the size of an elephant.

Big Tent Church: It's going to take me a while to get this understood but you may be onto something here. Obviously as a former SDA credentialed clergy you would know how the denomination views / deals with members who view things differently than the leadership. 

[8thdaypriest]

A debate on church leadership history,  the legitimacy of a centralized church governance hierarchy which claims to have been appointed to that role by God through Christ, is over my head at this point.   I have not studied into the arguments of protesting reformers.   I know they believed in the authority of Scripture alone,  salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone.  

Did representatives - leaders of Churches - sent to a council called for by the Emperor Constantine, some 300 years after the death of Christ, have authority from God (from Christ) to define truth, for the entire Church of Christ Jesus?  Did Constantine then have authority from Christ - to banish or otherwise silence those who disagreed with the vote of that Council?  I don't believe so.  Did Constantine have authority from Christ to declare himself "head of the church".  I don't believe so. 

Should we go back to the "divine right of kings" ? 

The LORD appointed the Sons of Aaron to be priests for His Tabernacle, to "make atonement" for the Children of Israel through animal sacrifices, to teach The Law,  to settle disputes (acting as judges of last resort).   This centralized governmental authority, was eventually shared with a king (something the LORD strongly discouraged).   But this priesthood - very quickly - became corrupt.  The priests stole from the people they were to serve.  They made money from the Temple services they were appointed of God to perform.  They perverted the Law - to serve themselves.  

Centralized power corrupts!   

The Tabernacle, with it's priesthood and ceremonies - was given as PROPHECY, of Messiah and those things that Christ would do.   Once Christ had fulfilled those prophecies (as the sacrifice) that priesthood (exclusively of Aaron's sons) was rendered obsolete.  Yes - the priesthood was "changed".  How?  In what way?  

I believe "the priesthood" was "changed" BACK to the original priesthood of the firstborn.  Christ was "the firstborn over all creation" therefore Christ is High Priest, over all the Israel of God.  (Citizenship within "Israel" has little to do with DNA, and everything to do with faith in Jesus Christ.)   God called Israel "my firstborn", therefore Israel redeemed (all members of that body) are becoming "priests of God and of Christ", who will serve as such in the Kingdom restored.     

Gustave believes that Christ instituted "a new priesthood",  to serve the Church of Christ, based not upon DNA from Jacob/Levi/Aaron, but rather upon secession (by anointing) from the first 12 disciples (specifically Peter) with priests appointing priests.  Church members would need to find atonement (absolution) for sins, through this new priesthood.   The new priests would act as intermediaries between Christ and "the people", permitting or denying forgiveness sins (absolution), and access to "the body" and "blood" of Christ,  etc., etc. etc. 

Do I reject all leadership within the Church of Christ.  No.  But I believe that leadership should be chosen by the members to be served, (with much prayer) NOT by higher church authorities.   Bottom up - not top down.   

[8thdaypriest]

47 minutes ago, Gustave said:

THE WAY the SDA Theological authorities explained the Trinity on the Symposium you posted is IDENTICAL to the way the Mormons would describe their belief and I can't imagine any SDA member who would be willing to go on record in saying the Mormons believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I am not afraid to hold beliefs in common with any denomination, if those beliefs are supported by Scripture.   Mormons believe that God the Father "beget" many offspring, who all shared His divine nature.   Lucifer and Michael were literally "brothers".  SDAs do not believe this, and neither do I.   God the Father beget ONLY ONE offspring - His "only begotten Son" .   

I share SDAs belief that Michael was the name of God's begotten Son, prior to His incarnation into flesh.   

The name Michael means "like unto God".  That name FITS  only one being - God's Son who was begotten in His Father's "express image".  An "image" is a COPY, and an "express image" is an EXACT COPY.   God the Father beget His double - so that HE might die, while at the same time HE continued to uphold all things.  The "Son of God" was begotten to one day rescue the creation They would soon bring into being.  

[Gregory Matthews]

My comment relates to what Gustave said in the quote below:

I am presently retired and I am neither active in either a congregational or an institutional role.  However, I continue to be recognized as ordained SDA clergy.

* On the 4th of this month, I conducted the services at a SDA Church, to include preaching during the worship service.

*  I have been used by local clergy to perform services that are restricted to ordained clergy.

*  I consult with SDA leadership on issues that interest me on both the administrative level of North America as well as the Western United States.  NOTE:  I am not saying that they initiate this conversation.   I am  saying that when I initiate it they take my telephone call and listen to what I have to say.

*  My extensive knowledge as to how the SDA Church works stems primarily from my duties as a military chaplain in the U.S., Asia and Central America.  In all of these areas I became closely connected to local denominational leadership.

While the exact term for this has slipped my mind, my status is probably similar to that of a Catholic Priest who has been released from certain of his vows to either his Order or to the Diocese and  may engage in secular work but still retains sacramental authority as a Catholic Priest.  As I understand this, Malachi Martin is a well known example of a Jesuit priest who was released by the Pope from certain vows to the Jesuit Order but retained the right to administer the Sacraments, if appropriate.

Quote

Obviously as a former SDA credentialed clergy you would know how the denomination views / deals with members who view things differently than the leadership. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  The following may interest you, as to certain of my views:

*  You and I are alike as to the fact, in my understanding, we are both on a spiritual journey.

*  You and I have major differences in doctrinal understanding as well as some common agreements.

*  I believe that the Holy Spirit, God, is in charge of the spiritual development of both you and I.  Therefore, I do not believe that it is my task to convince you of any doctrinal errors that you might have.  When that is necessary, that is God's work.

*  So, I am not going to attempt to convince you of such.

*  I have  spent much time in seeking to understand  the beliefs and practices of Catholics, as well as that of other groups.  Some of this has taken place in dialogue with Roman Catholic priests who have been ever willing to talk with me and have given me access to Catholic publications.

*  I appreciate in you this same attitude of wanting to learn more about SDAs.

*  If I can help you to understand SDAs better, great.  If I confuse you, well, we can be confusing to people at times.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

A debate on church leadership history,  the legitimacy of a centralized church governance hierarchy which claims to have been appointed to that role by God through Christ, is over my head at this point.   I have not studied into the arguments of protesting reformers.   I know they believed in the authority of Scripture alone,  salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone.  

Did representatives - leaders of Churches - sent to a council called for by the Emperor Constantine, some 300 years after the death of Christ, have authority from God (from Christ) to define truth, for the entire Church of Christ Jesus?  Did Constantine then have authority from Christ - to banish or otherwise silence those who disagreed with the vote of that Council?  I don't believe so.  Did Constantine have authority from Christ to declare himself "head of the church".  I don't believe so. 

Should we go back to the "divine right of kings" ? 

The LORD appointed the Sons of Aaron to be priests for His Tabernacle, to "make atonement" for the Children of Israel through animal sacrifices, to teach The Law,  to settle disputes (acting as judges of last resort).   This centralized governmental authority, was eventually shared with a king (something the LORD strongly discouraged).   But this priesthood - very quickly - became corrupt.  The priests stole from the people they were to serve.  They made money from the Temple services they were appointed of God to perform.  They perverted the Law - to serve themselves.  

Centralized power corrupts!   

The Tabernacle, with it's priesthood and ceremonies - was given as PROPHECY, of Messiah and those things that Christ would do.   Once Christ had fulfilled those prophecies (as the sacrifice) that priesthood (exclusively of Aaron's sons) was rendered obsolete.  Yes - the priesthood was "changed".  How?  In what way?  

I believe "the priesthood" was "changed" BACK to the original priesthood of the firstborn.  Christ was "the firstborn over all creation" therefore Christ is High Priest, over all the Israel of God.  (Citizenship within "Israel" has little to do with DNA, and everything to do with faith in Jesus Christ.)   God called Israel "my firstborn", therefore Israel redeemed (all members of that body) are becoming "priests of God and of Christ", who will serve as such in the Kingdom restored.     

Gustave believes that Christ instituted "a new priesthood",  to serve the Church of Christ, based not upon DNA from Jacob/Levi/Aaron, but rather upon secession (by anointing) from the first 12 disciples (specifically Peter) with priests appointing priests.  Church members would need to find atonement (absolution) for sins, through this new priesthood.   The new priests would act as intermediaries between Christ and "the people", permitting or denying forgiveness sins (absolution), and access to "the body" and "blood" of Christ,  etc., etc. etc. 

Do I reject all leadership within the Church of Christ.  No.  But I believe that leadership should be chosen by the members to be served, (with much prayer) NOT by higher church authorities.   Bottom up - not top down.   

8thdaypriest, 

You've accurately summarized my position, which is also the position of Scripture if we allow it to interpret itself. 

St. Paul appointed Timothy & Titus to the Office of Bishop ( 2 Timothy 1,16 & Titus 1,5 ). It's unavoidable that the New Testament sets the Church as hierarchical / episcopal with deacons priests, Bishops, "holder of the keys". As clearly demonstrated Scripture also models Apostolic succession in the New Testament in similar fashion to that of the Old Testament:

Numbers 27, 12-23: And the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him;  cause him to stand before Elea′zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.  And he shall stand before Elea′zar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.”  And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand before Elea′zar the priest and the whole congregation,  and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the Lord directed through Moses. 

Someone else just SAT on the seat of Moses and as the priesthood was already established and working God evidently had a reason for doing this. The understanding of this succession is absolute because Jesus confirms succession had continued from the death of Moses to the time of Jesus' ministry.

Matthew 23,1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;  so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

In other-words do WHATEVER they tell you but don't do what they themselves do because they are hypocrites and don't practice what they preach. Count the hundreds of years of that succession. The reason for this is simple and can be found in the mechanics of Korah's prototype Protestant rebellion detailed in Numbers 16. Korah said: 

“You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” Verse 3

That was Korah's big mistake - Moses didn't "establish himself" as the human head of God's religious Authority on earth - God DID - which means JESUS DID.

Consider John 8, 42: "Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me".

The Father "SENT" [ APOSTELLO, G649 ] The Son. This doesn't equate to sending a letter or message - it means the one who is sent bears the authority OF THE SENDER. The Son was the Apostle OF the Father. Jesus in Matthew 28 not only breaks the succession of Moses seat - he replaces it and orders His Apostles to do whatsoever He (Jesus) commanded and that is a radical departure from what Jesus said in Matthew 23,1 prior to His death. Combine this with the language Christ uses about THE KEYS and the meaning is crystal clear. 

David's Kingdom was set up in the 11th century B.C. - Isaiah was written around the 8th century B.C. - THOSE KEYS had been passed down in succession for over 300 years. No matter how you slice it that's succession. 

Does Eliakim, have a throne of honor given to him in Isaiah 22,23? 

If Christ is prefigured in Isaiah 22 and the "BURDEN" of this Office will be cut off at some point in the future who else other than Peter would you understand Jesus was going to give the Keys to? 

Matthew 16,18:  "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [future action], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [FUTURE ACTION] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

After Jesus' Resurrection He sends ( Apostello's ) His Apostles WITH HIS AUTHORITY and the clear understanding of the Apostles was that their Office would succeed their death and that they had the necessary Authority to BUILD Christ's Body ( which is the Church ). 

Acts 20, 28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Biblically speaking Religious Authority is TOP DOWN, not bottom up ( as you said ). This is exactly what Korah attempted to do. 

Do I believe we should go back to the Divine Right of the King's - of course not, that's not at all what I'm saying. I am saying however that Religious Authority is taught clearly in both the Old and New Testaments and while the Brean's were said to be NOBLE because they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul and Silas said about Jesus COULD BE TRUE that was where it ended - all they did was search the existing Scriptures ( Old Testament ) to see IF Jesus could be the Christ. There was no new testament Scriptures - everything "TAUGHT" at that time was based off the Authority of the Apostles. 

I look forward to getting much more in depth about these topics with you 8thday. Thanks for being wiling to discuss them with me. 

By the time we're done I'm thinking you will be thinking it is very reasonable to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity and while you may choose not to believe in it I think you'll have a new level of respect for those that do. 

 

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I am not afraid to hold beliefs in common with any denomination, if those beliefs are supported by Scripture.   Mormons believe that God the Father "beget" many offspring, who all shared His divine nature.   Lucifer and Michael were literally "brothers".  SDAs do not believe this, and neither do I.   God the Father beget ONLY ONE offspring - His "only begotten Son" .   

I share SDAs belief that Michael was the name of God's begotten Son, prior to His incarnation into flesh.   

The name Michael means "like unto God".  That name FITS  only one being - God's Son who was begotten in His Father's "express image".  An "image" is a COPY, and an "express image" is an EXACT COPY.   God the Father beget His double - so that HE might die, while at the same time HE continued to uphold all things.  The "Son of God" was begotten to one day rescue the creation They would soon bring into being.  

Like the Mormons and primitive and current SDA's you believe that God is a "unity" and NOT a compound "Being", right? 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My comment relates to what Gustave said in the quote below:

I am presently retired and I am neither active in either a congregational or an institutional role.  However, I continue to be recognized as ordained SDA clergy.

* On the 4th of this month, I conducted the services at a SDA Church, to include preaching during the worship service.

*  I have been used by local clergy to perform services that are restricted to ordained clergy.

*  I consult with SDA leadership on issues that interest me on both the administrative level of North America as well as the Western United States.  NOTE:  I am not saying that they initiate this conversation.   I am  saying that when I initiate it they take my telephone call and listen to what I have to say.

*  My extensive knowledge as to how the SDA Church works stems primarily from my duties as a military chaplain in the U.S., Asia and Central America.  In all of these areas I became closely connected to local denominational leadership.

While the exact term for this has slipped my mind, my status is probably similar to that of a Catholic Priest who has been released from certain of his vows to either his Order or to the Diocese and  may engage in secular work but still retains sacramental authority as a Catholic Priest.  As I understand this, Malachi Martin is a well known example of a Jesuit priest who was released by the Pope from certain vows to the Jesuit Order but retained the right to administer the Sacraments, if appropriate.

Yes, that makes sense. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will suggest that the Andrews University Press is a good source for material about Adventism.  It contains much material that is of value to the common SDA member and sells for less than $20.  I also contains much that is of value to the specialized scholar.   

https://universitypress.andrews.edu/catalog.php

One of the items of value to the scholars is a 4-volumn set of books on Systematic Theology,. these were written by Norman R. Gulley.

 

Vol 1 was published in 2003, and contains 810 pages.  Prolegomena, to include General Revelation, the Bible and more.

Vol 2 ws published in 2011 and it contains 676 pages.  The primary focus, the Trinity.

Vol 3 ws published in 2012 and it contains 871 pages.  The primary focus Creation, Christ & Salvation.

Vol 4 was published in 2016 and it contains 868 pages.  The primary focus, Eschatology (End time events.)

But there is much of value to those who are not scholars in other works.

 

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It does sometimes happen; but I dont know of any of our "official" teachings that would advise this course of action as an automatic response to doctrinal differences. I think in most cases, one can find that even with very adament opponents; they are usually afforded plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter with the church and come to some kind of agreement. I dont think its any secret that any church would take such action if the person in question was disrupting  peaceful worship and making it a mad house instead of God's house in order to aggressively pursue doctrines that they know the majority will not be comfortable with. If a person is super-pushy about it, and for all intents and purposes will not stop literally harassing church members over it, then what is wrong with denying them membership? I have had to deal with this kind of thing twice when I was in church  leadership; and I have to say I did not want to; but I also knew I had to take a public stand. I cannot get into exactly what it was about here; but there are some people who make it so miserable for everyone else that something has to be done; and it is not usually done "just because of doctrinal difference.

Gustave; I am not sure where it can be found but I think a brief internet search should take you to it:

I have this document and it does reflect on some of the things you have been asking about. I hope you find it useful If you cannot  find it online let me know, as I could email it to you.

Yes, I've read that previously but noticed that the article didn't touch on "the Personality Of God", which really is the Elephant in the room. The beef Ellen had with Kellogg, the beef all the Pioneers had with the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity was that they said it "destroyed the personality [hominid flesh, bone & organ body] of God"". The Trinity Doctrine affirms that God is WITHOUT PARTS, it's ONE and within the Godhead are Three distinct Persons. 

"One in Being with the Father" or "consubstantial with the Father"

 

I know and can appreciate you don't agree with Catholicism in general and my posting this video isn't to rub the Trinity in anyone's nose, it's just to illustrate that EVERY Church that the SDA's called out in their Church papers for agreeing with the Nicene Creed was over this specific thing - that Christ was ONE IN BEING with the Father. I've not seen this addressed in any SDA writing on the Trinity in the last 60 or so years. What I've seen is the opposite direction in that I keep hearing SDA's define the Trinity as three Persons who are also separate in Being. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave has spent some time in telling us what he considers to be the SDA position on certain aspects of the Trinity and the personhood of God.  The following book addresses this issue:

Norman R. Gully, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity.  Andrews University Press, 2011, pages 56 -60. 

In brief, God is described to us humans in human language, which is metaphorical in order "to accommodate our finite human understanding of a God who is finite." Page 58

Even inspired descriptions of God's form, actins, and occupations are drawn from the sphere of our experience in order to make who God is comprehensible to humans.  but human language will always fall short of doing justice to God.  It is wise to understand these descriptive words as anthropomorphic, accommodating our finite intellect, keeping in mind that God is also a spirit . . .  page 57.

 

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  The following may interest you, as to certain of my views:

*  You and I are alike as to the fact, in my understanding, we are both on a spiritual journey.

*  You and I have major differences in doctrinal understanding as well as some common agreements.

*  I believe that the Holy Spirit, God, is in charge of the spiritual development of both you and I.  Therefore, I do not believe that it is my task to convince you of any doctrinal errors that you might have.  When that is necessary, that is God's work.

*  So, I am not going to attempt to convince you of such.

*  I have  spent much time in seeking to understand  the beliefs and practices of Catholics, as well as that of other groups.  Some of this has taken place in dialogue with Roman Catholic priests who have been ever willing to talk with me and have given me access to Catholic publications.

*  I appreciate in you this same attitude of wanting to learn more about SDAs.

*  If I can help you to understand SDAs better, great.  If I confuse you, well, we can be confusing to people at times.

With your experience Gregory, you are a treasure!

[Gregory Matthews]

There is no question that official SDA teachings reflect a God that is one and consists of "three coeternal Persons."    See Fundamental Belief # 2.

The use of that  word "persons" leads to confusion as Gustave had aptly pointed out.  The problem, as he has stated it is that he has neglected to consider the metaphorical understanding that we attach to that word.  As some early SDA leaders were Arian, to some degree, I am not gong to state that those early SDAs were orthodox as we would understand it today.  But, I do take substantial issue with his claim to the effect that those early leaders believed in a God with digestive organs as have we humans.  Such would be pure garbage.   I do not defend early leadership for errors in theology that they may have had.   But, this claim of digestive organs is simply without merit.  Even within the context of Arianism that some had, this idea of digestive organs is simply without foundation.

If I were to be believed to be in error on this:  So, what?  Those early SDA leaders, to include EGW, were wrong, at times on some points.   God did not many any of them without error. 

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Gustave said:

Like the Mormons and primitive and current SDA's you believe that God is a "unity" and NOT a compound "Being", right? 

I believe that God is "the Father",  and "the Father" is "the only true God".  

I believe that God the Father "beget" a second divine being - from out of Himself.  His exact double.  (Think cell division perhaps.)  He called that second being "My Son".  

I believe that God the Father and His Son are TWO separate, individual, divine beings - each with mind and will.  I believe they were such before "the Son" incarnated, and still are now.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a THIRD divine being - either "in unity" or "compound".   I believe the Holy Spirit Comforter is Christ glorified -  Christ as "living Spirit" - "with us" and "in us". 

I do not believe that one's belief concerning the nature of God - as Trinity or not - is a salvational issue.  One will not be saved for believing Trinity, or lost for disbelieving Trinity.  

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Gustave said:

8thdaypriest, 

You've accurately summarized my position, which is also the position of Scripture if we allow it to interpret itself. 

St. Paul appointed Timothy & Titus to the Office of Bishop ( 2 Timothy 1,16 & Titus 1,5 ). It's unavoidable that the New Testament sets the Church as hierarchical / episcopal with deacons priests, Bishops, "holder of the keys". As clearly demonstrated Scripture also models Apostolic succession in the New Testament in similar fashion to that of the Old Testament:

Numbers 27, 12-23: And the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him;  cause him to stand before Elea′zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.  And he shall stand before Elea′zar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.”  And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand before Elea′zar the priest and the whole congregation,  and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the Lord directed through Moses. 

Someone else just SAT on the seat of Moses and as the priesthood was already established and working God evidently had a reason for doing this. The understanding of this succession is absolute because Jesus confirms succession had continued from the death of Moses to the time of Jesus' ministry.

Matthew 23,1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;  so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

In other-words do WHATEVER they tell you but don't do what they themselves do because they are hypocrites and don't practice what they preach. Count the hundreds of years of that succession. The reason for this is simple and can be found in the mechanics of Korah's prototype Protestant rebellion detailed in Numbers 16. Korah said: 

“You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” Verse 3

That was Korah's big mistake - Moses didn't "establish himself" as the human head of God's religious Authority on earth - God DID - which means JESUS DID.

Consider John 8, 42: "Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me".

The Father "SENT" [ APOSTELLO, G649 ] The Son. This doesn't equate to sending a letter or message - it means the one who is sent bears the authority OF THE SENDER. The Son was the Apostle OF the Father. Jesus in Matthew 28 not only breaks the succession of Moses seat - he replaces it and orders His Apostles to do whatsoever He (Jesus) commanded and that is a radical departure from what Jesus said in Matthew 23,1 prior to His death. Combine this with the language Christ uses about THE KEYS and the meaning is crystal clear. 

David's Kingdom was set up in the 11th century B.C. - Isaiah was written around the 8th century B.C. - THOSE KEYS had been passed down in succession for over 300 years. No matter how you slice it that's succession. 

Does Eliakim, have a throne of honor given to him in Isaiah 22,23? 

If Christ is prefigured in Isaiah 22 and the "BURDEN" of this Office will be cut off at some point in the future who else other than Peter would you understand Jesus was going to give the Keys to? 

Matthew 16,18:  "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [future action], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [FUTURE ACTION] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

After Jesus' Resurrection He sends ( Apostello's ) His Apostles WITH HIS AUTHORITY and the clear understanding of the Apostles was that their Office would succeed their death and that they had the necessary Authority to BUILD Christ's Body ( which is the Church ). 

Acts 20, 28: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Biblically speaking Religious Authority is TOP DOWN, not bottom up ( as you said ). This is exactly what Korah attempted to do. 

Do I believe we should go back to the Divine Right of the King's - of course not, that's not at all what I'm saying. I am saying however that Religious Authority is taught clearly in both the Old and New Testaments and while the Brean's were said to be NOBLE because they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul and Silas said about Jesus COULD BE TRUE that was where it ended - all they did was search the existing Scriptures ( Old Testament ) to see IF Jesus could be the Christ. There was no new testament Scriptures - everything "TAUGHT" at that time was based off the Authority of the Apostles. 

I look forward to getting much more in depth about these topics with you 8thday. Thanks for being wiling to discuss them with me. 

By the time we're done I'm thinking you will be thinking it is very reasonable to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity and while you may choose not to believe in it I think you'll have a new level of respect for those that do. 

 

 

Gustave,  

You've done a great job of explaining authority by secession.  Thanks.   I have not studied into the arguments for and against this position.  This present discussion will probably help me with this.  It will get me thinking.  

Some time back, I was trying to follow the Levite priesthood from Aaron's son Eleazar TO Caiaphas. 

I have a book by James C. VanderKam - "From Joshua to Caiaphas - High Priests after the Exile".    What I had not realized, is that Annas and his 5 sons and 1 son in law (Caiaphas), were NOT descended from Levi/Aaron.   They were illegitimate - installed by the Romans.   They may have sat "in Moses seat" but they had no right to be there.   They had also instituted many "laws" which were only to benefit themselves.  Annas held on to power by rotating his sons through the High Priestly position, even after he was removed by a new Roman governor in Judea, afraid that Annas held too much power.  

When Jesus told the people to obey the priesthood of His day,  He may just have been telling them not to rebel and get themselves into trouble with the authorities.   He may NOT have been confirming the legitimacy of that priesthood.  

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that God is "the Father",  and "the Father" is "the only true God".  

I believe that God the Father "beget" a second divine being - from out of Himself.  His exact double.  (Think cell division perhaps.)  He called that second being "My Son".  

I believe that God the Father and His Son are TWO separate, individual, divine beings - each with mind and will.  I believe they were such before "the Son" incarnated, and still are now.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a THIRD divine being - either "in unity" or "compound".   I believe the Holy Spirit Comforter is Christ glorified -  Christ as "living Spirit" - "with us" and "in us". 

I do not believe that one's belief concerning the nature of God - as Trinity or not - is a salvational issue.  One will not be saved for believing Trinity, or lost for disbelieving Trinity.  

One of the best verses to show the separation of mind, between God the Father and Christ the Son, is Matthew 24:36.

If God and His son are "one being" - "one substance" - how could one part of a "being" know something   that another part of that same being does NOT know?  

Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (NIV)

In the Gospels, Jesus only "knew" what His Father revealed to Him.  

And there is no mention that the Holy Spirit also knew.   ONLY the Father.   

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave has spent some time in telling us what he considers to be the SDA position on certain aspects of the Trinity and the personhood of God.  The following book addresses this issue:

Norman R. Gully, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity.  Andrews University Press, 2011, pages 56 -60. 

In brief, God is described to us humans in human language, which is metaphorical in order "to accommodate our finite human understanding of a God who is finite." Page 58

 

 

 

Thanks Gregory, THAT is my whole point. God ( the Divine Nature or Substance ) is ONE BEING. I understand that Scripture uses Anthropomorphic language and that helps to accommodate our finite human understanding - I've got no problem with this. What I'm saying is that the Pioneers nor Ellen White took it in a metaphorical sense - they took it literally - as in God is a PERSON with a PERSONALITY (i.e. a material body)

If you're telling me that the SDA Church officially teaches that God is ONE Substance or Nature without parts - ONE God in three Persons than I owe you and every SDA here an apology. EVERYTHING I've seen and have understood folks here saying is that God is ONE in the sense that a husband and wife is said to be one. The Oneness I've heard from SDA's thus far is that it simply means that the Three Person's are united in purpose, ideas, tasks, etc. and NOT ONE IN BEING.

Creed: "ONE in BEING with the Father"

Ellen White: "The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father is truly God in infinity BUT NOT IN PERSONALITY". MS 116, December 19, 1905

If the Personality of God doesn't mean precisely what I've said it means what did Ellen White intend to teach with what she said above?

Have I got this all wrong here or what?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave,  You have challenged me, and I appreciate that.

I intend to post more on this subject.   I just do not have time right now.

By the way, on another subject,  see what I have posted, today,  on "666"  as well as VFD,  the Theology section of this   forum.   I think that will surprise you..

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

That sounds like a good book. May I ask where you got it?

amazon

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,  

You've done a great job of explaining authority by secession.  Thanks.   I have not studied into the arguments for and against this position.  This present discussion will probably help me with this.  It will get me thinking.  

Some time back, I was trying to follow the Levite priesthood from Aaron's son Eleazar TO Caiaphas. 

I have a book by James C. VanderKam - "From Joshua to Caiaphas - High Priests after the Exile".    What I had not realized, is that Annas and his 5 sons and 1 son in law (Caiaphas), were NOT descended from Levi/Aaron.   They were illegitimate - installed by the Romans.   They may have sat "in Moses seat" but they had no right to be there.   They had also instituted many "laws" which were only to benefit themselves.  Annas held on to power by rotating his sons through the High Priestly position, even after he was removed by a new Roman governor in Judea, afraid that Annas held too much power.  

When Jesus told the people to obey the priesthood of His day,  He may just have been telling them not to rebel and get themselves into trouble with the authorities.   He may NOT have been confirming the legitimacy of that priesthood.  

The Scribes and Pharisees, according to Jesus, were sitting on Moses' seat. The Pharisees were not generally charged with Liturgical Services like Caiaphas & his sons would have been. Pharisees were essentially the keepers of the oral law of Moses ( Jewish Sacred Tradition ). Rabbinic Judaism is essentially an outgrowth of what the Pharisees were back in the day. In other words the Pharisees that Jesus was speaking of that were sitting on Moses seat - were legitimate.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave,  You have challenged me, and I appreciate that.

I intend to post more on this subject.   I just do not have time right now.

By the way, on another subject,  see what I have posted, today,  on "666"  as well as VFD,  the Theology section of this   forum.   I think that will surprise you..

 

 

I'll head over there and read it - thanks!