SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gregory Matthews]

Previously I have mentioned the works by Norman Gulley, and his second, 676 page volume II on the Trinity.  In addition other volumes in that set have information on the Trinity.

An additional work on the Trinity is in Volume 12 of the Commentary Reference Series, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, 2000, 1,025 pages.  A major article in this book is the 54 page article, “Doctrine of God,” by Fernando L. Canale.  In addition, other articles may have something to say on this subject.

In all cases, what people say in their books and articles are important individual opinions, but, may not be fully in accord with the voted statements of SDA belief. 

I do not personally know either Norman Gulley, or Fernando Canale.  I perceive Canale as being a bit on the conservative side of Adventism, and Gulley is resident as a SDA University that is considered to be on the conservative side of Adventism.

Often times when people discuss somewhat esoteric subjects, their failure to fully communicate is due to differences in understanding important words that each is using.  For that reason, I intend to comment   on issues in a manner that sets out how some important words are understood in the hope that better communication can take police.  Those words will be bolded.

NOTE:  It should be noted that when I cite another person, unless I provide quotation marks, I have stated that person in my words and I am not making an exact quote.

Timeless:  There is a view that God is eternal and beyond time.  As developed by Parmenides (540-470 BCE) he stated that God was timeless.   This view was accepted into Christian theology by some theologians who stated that God is timeless.  As I understand this, a primary reason for accepting this view is the idea that God is eternal and to say that God is not timeless would be a denial of the eternity of God. 

Seventh-day Adventist theologians have tended to deny the idea that God is timeless.  This is not due to the idea that God is not eternal, as they accept the eternity of God.  Rather it is due to the idea that God has often interacted with humanity in time.  The incarnation took place in a moment of time.  Individuals may enter a salvific state at a moment of time.  These ideas are expanded into other reasons. 

In short, on this subject, miscommunication can occur.  But an accurate understanding of how each side is using the term may demonstrate that the differences are not as large as has been thought.

Immutability:  “The Immutability of God is an attribute that ‘God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises.’ “  (https://slife.org/immutability/)  Seventh-day Adventists would not have a problem with that definition.  As Canale has said:  “. . . God does not vary, nor does He change from a less perfect into a more perfect being.  God is always the same.”   As Canale also said:  “” . . . the Bible conceives divine change in relation to God’s dynamic life, and not in relation to the constitution of His being.”

Impassibility:  “The impassibility of God deals with whether or not God can be emotionally affected, either externally or internally by something or someone other than himself.  It also concerns the relationship between God and people regarding our effect upon God as it relates to his emotions.  Can God thus experience pain and suffering due to our sin?  How is he affected by our actions?  Does he react to us?  It is a complicated topic. The doctrine of impassibility has slightly varying views.”   (https://carm.org/about-god/what-is-the-impassibility-of-god/)

The critical issue here is whether or not God is controlled by what God sees happening in human life.  Love is an emotion.  Does God experience love?  SDAs would say that God experiences love for humanity and that this is evident from the salvation provide by Christi on the cross. 

But, God’s emotion of love does not change God’s activity toward humanity.  In the final end of time, God will accept the decision of some people to not be given the gift of spending an eternity with God.    GOD’s love allows repentant people to be given such a gift.  It does not result in God forcing people to spend such an eternity with God that they have chosen not to accept.

 

I hope that this gives some understanding of the alleged differences that SDAs may be thought to have.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A common understanding of the meaning of words is important:

*  The Eastern and Western divisions of the Chruch may not have the same exact understanding of the meaning of a word.

*  Protestants and Catholics may have some differences in understanding the meaning of a word.

*  Protestants may differ among themselves as to the exact meaning of a word.

All of the above may lead to confusion in communication.

 

 

[phkrause]

14 hours ago, GHansen said:

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

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

I hear you, I've done that myself!! ?

[phkrause]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJoVbcsi6ME

I believe this is the video Gustave! I just found it on You Tube and will be watching this either tomorrow or Sabbath!!

[Gustave]

That's it! How it is that I spent hours looking for it on youtube and about every other platform and couldn't' find it I can't tell you. 

[phkrause]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

That's it! How it is that I spent hours looking for it on youtube and about every other platform and couldn't' find it I can't tell you. 

That's life I guess or just blessed beyond words!! ?

[Gustave]

Within the first 10 minutes of Boonstra's presentation on the Holy Trinity he says, 

"Here's what the whole thing boiled down to - The mainline Church was teaching - IN THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES - that Jesus Christ was actually God - not merely a reflection of God or some sort of lesser God but God Himself in human flesh. There were three members to the Godhed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and even though they represented three distinct persons there was still IN ESSENSE ONLY ONE GOD."

Perhaps Shawn Boonstra took some Bible classes from T.H. Jemison? The above is explicit that God is indeed numerically ONE ESSENSE or SUBSTANCE and that the 3 Person's exist within the ONE SUBSTANCE and never have been or ever will be separated. 

If SDA's started posting these kinds of statements in their Sabbath publications instead of the anti-Trinitarian stuff NO ONE could accuse them of holding and promulgating unorthodox views of God. I'm glad I now have the quotes that Gregory provided me with - its good that Boonstra isn't alone as I thought he was. The Boonstra video Substance of God USED TO BE right there on the It is Written Website - they pulled it. My thinking was someone high up in Church saw the video and didn't like Boonstra saying the Catholic Trinity was in the tradition of the Apostles and that Jesus was actually God Himself in Human flesh and that God was actually mathematically ONE, ONE SUBSTANCE.

Given I could carry all the Trinitarian quotes I've seen in SDA publications in the basket of a moped while I'd need a  semi truck to carry a fraction of the anti-Trinitarian quotes I've found in SDA publications - I'd get the word out on these 3 individuals - make sure that the Church officially condones and promotes what Boonstra and Jemison are so clearly saying. 

It's good stuff 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  Pastor Boonstra has moved to a new position and is now associated with The Voice of Prophecy, in Colorado.

John Bradshaw is the present speaker for It Is Written.

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Within the first 10 minutes of Boonstra's presentation on the Holy Trinity he says, 

"Here's what the whole thing boiled down to - The mainline Church was teaching - IN THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES - that Jesus Christ was actually God - not merely a reflection of God or some sort of lesser God but God Himself in human flesh. There were three members to the Godhed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and even though they represented three distinct persons there was still IN ESSENSE ONLY ONE GOD."

Perhaps Shawn Boonstra took some Bible classes from T.H. Jemison? The above is explicit that God is indeed numerically ONE ESSENSE or SUBSTANCE and that the 3 Person's exist within the ONE SUBSTANCE and never have been or ever will be separated. 

If SDA's started posting these kinds of statements in their Sabbath publications instead of the anti-Trinitarian stuff NO ONE could accuse them of holding and promulgating unorthodox views of God. I'm glad I now have the quotes that Gregory provided me with - its good that Boonstra isn't alone as I thought he was. The Boonstra video Substance of God USED TO BE right there on the It is Written Website - they pulled it. My thinking was someone high up in Church saw the video and didn't like Boonstra saying the Catholic Trinity was in the tradition of the Apostles and that Jesus was actually God Himself in Human flesh and that God was actually mathematically ONE, ONE SUBSTANCE.

Given I could carry all the Trinitarian quotes I've seen in SDA publications in the basket of a moped while I'd need a  semi truck to carry a fraction of the anti-Trinitarian quotes I've found in SDA publications - I'd get the word out on these 3 individuals - make sure that the Church officially condones and promotes what Boonstra and Jemison are so clearly saying. 

It's good stuff

I've always liked him. He has a series called "Authentic" which is awesome, at least to me! Like Pr Matthews mentioned be was at IIW, I believe he took over when Pr Vanderman pasted away. Than he became ill and stepped down as the speaker for IIW and than when he was able to resume, he was asked to take over VOP. Not sure if you'd call him a theologian, but he sure delves into scripture and is very well read in many areas!!

[Hanseng]

On 7/16/2019 at 1:34 PM, Gustave said:

This seems incredibly similar to Arianism to me. 

Most of the issues regarding Arianism concern the inferior nature of Christ to the Father. There is however, a scant reference to whether or not Jesus could sin. This is a summary of the issues contra Arius from the Synodal letter to the church of Alexandria (325AD): "blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature." 

Note the phrase "capable of vice and virtue." Those are the offending words. This is a good example of how far reaching the papal yoke is. Lot more to the papacy's reach than Sabbath of Sunday. Jesus had a will of his own illustrated by his prayer in the garden, "Not my will built thy will be done." Unlike the man of Romans 7, Jesus also inherently possessed the capability of carrying out his will. This is something sinful man could not do in his natural state. As Paul said, "To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good, I find not." As Hebrews says, "He was tempted in all points as we are. The basic idea of "tempt" is to test. Being tempted is being tested. If there is no possibility of failure, there is no real test.

Since no statement from EGW regarding Christ's inferiority to the Father, exists, she is still denounced as an Arian because she wrote that Jesus could have sinned. Guess that makes me an Arian too, since I also believe that Jesus could have sinned, not because of what EGW said. That's what the Bible indicates. 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Most of the issues regarding Arianism concern the inferior nature of Christ to the Father. There is however, a scant reference to whether or not Jesus could sin. This is a summary of the issues contra Arius from the Synodal letter to the church of Alexandria (325AD): "blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature." 

Note the phrase "capable of vice and virtue." Those are the offending words. This is a good example of how far reaching the papal yoke is. Lot more to the papacy's reach than Sabbath of Sunday. Jesus had a will of his own illustrated by his prayer in the garden, "Not my will built thy will be done." Unlike the man of Romans 7, Jesus also inherently possessed the capability of carrying out his will. This is something sinful man could not do in his natural state. As Paul said, "To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good, I find not." As Hebrews says, "He was tempted in all points as we are. The basic idea of "tempt" is to test. Being tempted is being tested. If there is no possibility of failure, there is no real test.

Since no statement from EGW regarding Christ's inferiority to the Father, exists, she is still denounced as an Arian because she wrote that Jesus could have sinned. Guess that makes me an Arian too, since I also believe that Jesus could have sinned, not because of what EGW said. That's what the Bible indicates. 

God the Son became man without ceasing to be God. There were two Natures in Christ (Divine and Human). These two natures were perfectly united - THEY WERE NOT MIXED, BLENDED OR CONFUSED. 

The early SDA's taught that Christ was Flesh Father's primary creature.

 

As I've previously shown after the SDA Church was organized it promulgated that Christ was a creature AND was capable of sinning. Ellen White validated this teaching and urged the book containing it be placed in every hand it could be. The General Conference immediately took this issue up and voted to get behind this effort to include insuring it be translated into languages other than English so that it could be fed to the people on a global scale. 

Quote

General Conference of SDA said: 

RESOLVED, That this Conference earnestly recommend the extensive circulation of that important book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation; first, because it covers a large field in the great system of present truth, introducing many important doctrines in a clear and interesting manner, well calculated to favorably impress the reader; secondly, because there is in the public mind a desire more or less strong to understand the meaning of these prophetic books, which are supposed to be so mysterious, of which desire we should take advantage to bring before them the great truths of the message; thirdly, because we have no book better calculated to reach intelligent, influential, business men, who cannot find time to attend courses of lectures and long series of meetings, but who would purchase such a book and read it at home; fourthly, because such a book, bound in an attractive manner, presenting the truth in a permanent form, retaining its place on the center tables and in the libraries till the Lord comes, will command the attention of many persons in the aggregate, and has some advantages which the presentation of the truth in periodicals, tracts, and pamphlets does not possess; and finally, because our past experience has demonstrated beyond all dispute the usefulness of the canvass on Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, and that we cannot afford to neglect it.

Quote

General Conference of SDA said:

RESOLVED, That we recommend that the work, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, be issued in the German, Danish, and Swedish languages.

Quote

General Conference of SDA said: 

In June, 1888, Brother William Arnold arrived from Australia, and spent a
few weeks canvassing for Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. His efforts
were attended with marked success. The willingness to read on the subjects
presented in the Bible readings which have been held, is continually increasing, and many families have become interested in different parts of the city.

 

I've attached one meager file of the General Conference of SDA's serenading this book. If you look in the G.C. Archives, you will see 4 more that praise the doctrinal purity of this book. This was, of course, after Ellen White said:

Quote

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

Quote

Manuscript Releases vol 19 pg. 192.2.7
The Bible Readings was brought in before the books of great importance—Great Controversy and Daniel and Revelation—which relate to the vital interests before us. Through the special instruction to the canvassing agents, 

You claim that the yoke of the Magisterium is far reaching - I challenge you to find an example in the Magisterium that orders the faithful to accept as a teaching that there was a point in eternity where God the Son didn't exist and that God's existence is conditional. 

In actuality the SDA Church has it's own Magisterium as I've demonstrated it above. 

Quote

Hanseng said: 

Since no statement from EGW regarding Christ's inferiority to the Father, exists, she is still denounced as an Arian because she wrote that Jesus could have sinned. Guess that makes me an Arian too, since I also believe that Jesus could have sinned, not because of what EGW said. That's what the Bible indicates.

I can see I have another post to make. I'll try to do this over the weekend if time permits - my next three weeks will be challenging with the work load I've got right now. Rest assured that I will provide plenty of materials for you to view and provide comments on. 

GCB1863-88.pdf

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

You claim that the yoke of the Magisterium is far reaching - I challenge you to find an example in the Magisterium that orders the faithful to accept as a teaching that there was a point in eternity where God the Son didn't exist and that God's existence is conditional. 

The problem here is what you think Jesus being able to sin implies, i.e., the death of God. It's doubtful that many others read that into the doctrine of Christ's humanity, which is what we are really talking about. It's a prime example of eisegesis, reading into the text something that isn't actually there. 

I'll go with Froom on the matter of D&R. The gist of those books was the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, not the nature of Christ. Smith slipped his personal views into the book. They probably should have been edited out; however, considering that the denomination was still trying to come to grips with exactly what constituted the Godhead, they let it slide. Eventually, those sentiments were edited out of the book. EGW's endorsement of the book, since she herself was likely not an Arian, did not include Smith's personal views on Christ's nature. Even if EGW held Arian-like views at that point in her life, she had abandoned them by the time Desire of Ages was published. The Magisterium, as I understand it is the official teaching of the church. I'm unaware that the SDA denomination ever officially taught that God would die if Jesus had sinned.

As far as the existence of the Son, Jesus became the  Son by decree. Acts 13 says 32  "And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33  how that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." According to this passage, Jesus became "Son" when he was resurrected.

Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus inherited a better name than the angels. The fact that he inherited it means that it wasn't always His. He was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, the angels, when he became Son. That's what Hebrews chapter 1 says. If that doesn't fit the RC magisterium, that's your problem, not mine.

[Hanseng]

14. RESOLVED, That this Conference earnestly recommend the extensive circulation of that important book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation; first, because it covers a large field in the great system of present truth, introducing many important doctrines in a clear and interesting manner, well calculated to favorably impress the reader; secondly, because there is in the public mind a desire more or less strong to understand the meaning of these prophetic books, which are supposed to be so mysterious, of which desire we should take advantage to bring before them the great truths of the message; thirdly, because we have no book better calculated to reach intelligent, influential, business men, who cannot find time to attend courses of lectures and long series of meetings, but who would purchase such a book and read it at home; fourthly, because such a book, bound in an attractive manner, presenting the truth in a permanent form, retaining its place on the center tables and in the libraries till the Lord comes, will command the attention of many persons 303--GCS 63-88 in the aggregate, and has some advantages which the presentation of the truth in periodicals, tracts, and pamphlets does not possess; and finally, because our past experience has demonstrated beyond all dispute the usefulness of the canvass on Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, and that we cannot afford to neglect it.

The reason the denomination wanted to circulate D&R was because it offered explanations of the prophetic books, not because it presented Arianism. Desire of Ages, which was definitely not Arian, also received large circulation through canvassing. Jesus is described in that book as having original, unborrowed, underived 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" (DA460).

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

The problem here is what you think Jesus being able to sin implies, i.e., the death of God. It's doubtful that many others read that into the doctrine of Christ's humanity, which is what we are really talking about. It's a prime example of eisegesis, reading into the text something that isn't actually there. 

It not implying at all - its an admission that Jesus ISN'T God.  Remember, SDA's affirm that God is 3 Being's that are one in the exact same sense that the Mormon Church says THE BEINGS are one. What the SDA Church says in this case isn't just like what the Mormons say, it's EXACTLY what the Mormon's say. The Mormons openly admit they are not Trinitarian - they don't re-define the Doctrine of the Trinity as Seventh-day Adventists do. 

Trinitarian = 1 Being which is Father, Son & Holy Spirit which are ontologically ONE.

SDA Trinity = 3 separate Beings Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are one in the sense that the Greek gods were one when they battled the Titans. i.e. the Greek god's were united in purpose. The Son ONLY had and could keep his unlimited power if He was strictly obedient to Flesh Father for if Christ stayed off the path the Father would have smashed him like a stink bug (think stinkbug between a military boot and a sidewalk). 

Quote

Hanseng said:

I'll go with Froom on the matter of D&R. The gist of those books was the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, not the nature of Christ. Smith slipped his personal views into the book. They probably should have been edited out; however, considering that the denomination was still trying to come to grips with exactly what constituted the Godhead, they let it slide. Eventually, those sentiments were edited out of the book. EGW's endorsement of the book, since she herself was likely not an Arian, did not include Smith's personal views on Christ's nature. Even if EGW held Arian-like views at that point in her life, she had abandoned them by the time Desire of Ages was published. The Magisterium, as I understand it is the official teaching of the church. I'm unaware that the SDA denomination ever officially taught that God would die if Jesus had sinned.

You just proved my point perfectly! SDA teaching affirms that Christ is PART OF GOD, the "part" that had a conditional deity that was his to keep provided he ever remained obedient to the "BEING" that issued the deity he conditionally possessed. Had Christ sinned he would have eternally ceased to exist leaving Flesh Father 

 

Quote

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

I've posted so many Ellen White statements so many different times on this forum to show exactly where Mr. Longacre got this idea from its reache a point of being pointless to post they all over again. Rest assured, Ellen White's teaching on this subject is as anti-Trinitarian as it gets. 

Ellen White affirmed Christ could have sinned and lost "His Salvation" - that's as Arian as it gets. 

I'll have to finish up on this later - work has called me in.

 

 

s

[Hanseng]

Apparently, you want to now focus on Christ's humanity as the central focus of Arianism. That's disingenuous at best, if not outright sleight of hand. The focus of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed is the relationship of Christ to the Father. In the Synodal letter to Alexandria, there is a scant mention of Christ being capable of "vice and virtue. "Froom, in MOD page 159, reviews Smith's Arian views expressed in Daniel & Revelation. Nothing there about Christ being capable of "vice and virtue."

If you want to define Arian as believing Christ was capable of vice or virtue, then you can count me among the Arians, probably a lot of other people in the SDA community as well. Most would be uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed any way. It refers to Christ descending into hell, which SDA do not believe Jesus did. Since the Nicene Creed doesn't address Christ being capable of vice or virtue, the larger problem would be Christ descending into hell. 

[Gustave]

 

Quote

Hanseng said:

Apparently, you want to now focus on Christ's humanity as the central focus of Arianism. That's disingenuous at best, if not outright sleight of hand. The focus of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed is the relationship of Christ to the Father. In the Synodal letter to Alexandria, there is a scant mention of Christ being capable of "vice and virtue. "Froom, in MOD page 159, reviews Smith's Arian views expressed in Daniel & Revelation. Nothing there about Christ being capable of "vice and virtue."

And the point was that Christ wasn't a creature or reflection of God but ACTUALLY WAS GOD HIMSELF. If God has "Parts" so that it can be said part of God could have been eternally lost THAT IS NOT THE BIBLICAL GOD, period. 

I'm not sure you're yet appreciating the fact that the Mormon Church officially describes how their Godhead is ONE and formally rejects the Trinity doctrine - The SDA Church has the same definition, 3 separate Beings who are totally united in purpose and character. This is something you will have to come to grips with - I'm sure there is help out there somewhere. 

Froom wouldn't have to mention it, Ellen White did, so often it could be considered verbose. 

Quote

Ellen White said:

What a statement is this: the only begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father ; He whom God has declared to be " the Man that is my fellow " (Zech. xiii. 7)—the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth. Ellen White, The Oriental Watchman, April 1899 Volume 2 No. 4

You will find a lot of that kind of language in the archives that contrasts Christ with the "eternal God". 

As you know the early SDA's to include Ellen White vigorously taught that Christ was actually "Michael the archangel" and contrary to the Jewish meaning of the name (Who is like God? - a rhetorical question with the answer being NO ONE IS LIKE GOD) The SDA's repeatedly taught that the name Michael meant one "WHO IS LIKE GOD". 

Quote

Sabbath Herald Sabbath School October 9, 1893 Volume 60 No. 40:

Who was Michael who here came to Gabriel's assistance ? The term signifies, " He who is like God ; " and the `,"criptures clearly show that Christ is the one who bears this name. Jude (verse 9) tells us that Michael is the archangel

Quote

Sabbath Herald, May 18, 1886 Volume 60 No. 20:

From "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation" Comments on Daniel 10, 13 we give the following extract, which shows very conclusively WHO MICHAEL IS. 

Who was Michael who here came to Gabriels's assistance?  The term signifies "HE WHO IS LIKE GOD". 

Quote

Signs of the Times, Prophetic Weekly, October 7, 1947

But Christ was "the first," in importance, to rise from thedead. He who is called Michael, "One Who Is Like God," raised Moses' body to life. Jude 9. It is through Him that all the other dead are raised to life. John 5:28, 29.

You accuse me of using "slight of hand"??? 

When I was growing up I went over to a friends house to ride my dirt bike with my friend and his grandpa served for lunch rattlesnake, that was a little too exotic for me and when my hesitation was noticed my friend's grandpa said, "don't worry, its LIKE CHICKEN". Well, I hate to break it to ya Hanseng - Rattlesnake ISN'T Chicken. 

Past this obvious fact there is another issue I see here as Ellen White said that Lucifer was also an archangel AND was made as close to possible to be LIKE GOD. 

Quote

Ellen White, Sabbath Herald September 24, 1901 & TA 26.4

God made him [Lucifer] good and beautiful, as near as possible like Himself.

If "God" made Lucifer as near as possible like himself and God had a flesh body with all the same parts as a perfect man then Lucifer the archangel would have also been "ONE WHO IS LIKE GOD" - you should be able to see how this defaults into what I've been saying. 

Quote

Hanseng said:

If you want to define Arian as believing Christ was capable of vice or virtue, then you can count me among the Arians, probably a lot of other people in the SDA community as well. Most would be uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed any way. It refers to Christ descending into hell, which SDA do not believe Jesus did. Since the Nicene Creed doesn't address Christ being capable of vice or virtue, the larger problem would be Christ descending into hell. 

The Denominations I'm aware of that teach Christ was capable of vice also teach that Christ was Michael the archangel who while LIKE GOD was NOT GOD in the ultimate sense. These would be Adventist groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th day, SDA's, etc. 

The Nicene Creed actually does - where it says, "in accordance with the Scriptures". 

The Catholic position is that Jesus was crystal clear that everything spoken of Him HAD TO HAPPEN, this would include being killed for our sins and raising from the dead on the 3rd day. 

I think you are confusing the Apostles Creed with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed doesn't address Jesus' decent into Hell. I take this to mean you wouldn't affirm both the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed? 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said:

God the Son became man without ceasing to be God. There were two Natures in Christ (Divine and Human). These two natures were perfectly united - THEY WERE NOT MIXED, BLENDED OR CONFUSED. 

I agree with the above.

I agree that the above is presently taught in Adventism.  However, that does not mean that every person teaches it.

I would agree that in the early days of the formation of the SDA denomination, some would not have agreed with the above statement.

 

 

[Hanseng]

41 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I think you are confusing the Apostles Creed with the Nicene Creed.

My mistake, Sorry.

I do believe that there is some sleight of hand on your part, Gustave. The reason being that when you get "cornered" you bring up another issue r/t Arianism. Originally, the issue was EGW's anti Trinity statements regarding Christ's relation to the Father. You never produced a single statement. Coincidentally, 3 SDA scholars have affirmed that no such statement exists.

Since you couldn't produce a statement or admit there wasn't such a statement, you moved to another issue, i.e., Christ being capable of vice/virtue. That's hardly a legitimate issue, since it is not mentioned in the Nicene creed or the Athanasian creed. Now you want to move into the matter of anthropomorphology, the identity of Michael, and other matters that are possibly corollaries but not the central issue. The central issue is really, what the terms begotten and firstborn mean. You have admitted that Canright's anti trinity article can not legitimately be imputed to EGW. I commend you for that.

The Bible clearly states, in more than one place, that Jesus became the Son of God by decree. Since he became the son of God, He couldn't have always been the Son. Sonship implies the right of inheritance, which was accorded to Christ upon his resurrection and coronation as high priest.

As for affirming any creed, can't do that. It's just a way of moving people away from the authority of Scripture to the doctrines of men. What I believe about Christ is what is recorded in Hebrews chapter 1 and a few other places, such as Colossians 2:9,10. Interestingly, I hold the same view of this matter as Calvin, although I didn't learn it from him.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: 

I do believe that there is some sleight of hand on your part, Gustave. The reason being that when you get "cornered" you bring up another issue r/t Arianism. Originally, the issue was EGW's anti Trinity statements regarding Christ's relation to the Father. You never produced a single statement. Coincidentally, 3 SDA scholars have affirmed that no such statement exists.

Arianism is anti-Trinitarianism, Ellen's statements regarding Christ's relation to the Father are the issue. I can see my prior offerings weren't blunt enough. Fair enough. 

The contemporaries of the Spirit of Prophecy (Elen White) were very clear about this - let's look at it again.

Quote

Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. 

Ellen had been churning out visions for nearly 27 years by the time it was publicly announced in the Sabbath Herald that the Trinity Doctrine had been repudiated by the Spirit of Prophecy. Reason clearly stated is because the Trinity Doctrine is INCOMPATIBLE with the Spirit of Prophecy. What follows is a short list of items I've literally beat to death on this forum.

• SDA Personality of God Doctrine: The Sabbath Herald along with every other SDA Publication repeatedly rebuked the Catholic Church for creating the Trinity Doctrine claiming that it "DESTROYED THE PERSONALITY OF GOD ( AKA God's flesh, bone, member and organ body) because the Trinity Doctrine held that God was without "BODY AND PARTS".  The same SDA publications rebuked the Protestant Churches for placing the Trinity Doctrine in their respective Articles of Religion ( AKA Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. Creeds ). In addition to Ellen Confirming the Personality of God Doctrine by a vision and discussion with Christ Himself Ellen stated that the Personality of God was a "PILLAR DOCTRINE" of the SDA Faith. If you don't accept this as direct evidence how in the world would you expect those 3 "SDA Scholars" to accept it? My logic chain is as solid as it is easy to understand - 27 years into Ellen White's prophetic ministry the SDA Church announced that the Spirit of Prophecy is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. 

 

• Ellen White asserted that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were BLENDED or mixed (AKA CONFUSED) resulting in a nature that was different than either nature was initially. Scripture is very clear that Jesus was a Person that was fully God and fully man therefor Christ had a human nature and a divine nature and these natures were NOT BLENDED - Christ didn't cease being God when He became Man - God became man without ceasing to be God. To blend or confuse the two natures of Christ is absolutely as "Anti-Trinitarian as anything can be. 

 

• Ellen White taught that Christ was ONE WITH THE FATHER IN THE SAME WAY CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES WERE ONE. One shouldn't need to point out that the Disciples weren't God. The Trinity Doctrine affirms that God is ONE BEING, a Spiritual Substance and within this ONE BEING there subsists 3 Persons (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) with each person being fully God. Jesus said if you had seen Him you had seen the Father this is because God is unable to be separated - i.e. Christ isn't 1/3rd of God because God is a simple substance WITHOUT ANY PARTS. 

 

The SDA Church was started by a bunch of anti-Trinitarians who had no religious education to speak of and unfortunately because of their anti-Trinitarian zeal this aspect of Christianity was never studied whereas in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestant Denominations this is entry level 101 stuff and part of the 1st things a new Christian is educated in.

I think it is far better to acknowledge that Ellen got some theological things very wrong and indeed did make heretical statements from time to time. This would still leave Ellen White with an amazing legacy for what she was able to accomplish as a woman in the 19th century. 

I like to think of myself as meeting the issues head-on and I'm glad you clarified what you meant by the slight of hand comment. I'm always happy to re-phrase things. 

 

a

[DickOdenthal]

On 3/30/2022 at 7:32 PM, GHansen said:

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

I don’t know if this thread is still open but your comment touched on a frustration of mine. Why is it that there is such a dearth of strong biblical preaching in the Adventist church?

[Gustave]

On 1/26/2024 at 2:46 PM, DickOdenthal said:

I don’t know if this thread is still open but your comment touched on a frustration of mine. Why is it that there is such a dearth of strong biblical preaching in the Adventist church?

Postulating that God the Son could have sinned, lost His salvation and eternally ceased to exist definitely shows a dearth of strong biblical preaching.