Froom and Arianism

[Hanseng]

 

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

[ except to Arians]

Gustave, blindly adhering to papal dogma, such as is found in the Athanasian creed, is as bad or worse than being an "Arian," depending on how "Arian" is defined.  If someone says to me, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:28, "I believe that the Son is subject to the Father," I can understand that point of view, even support it:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

If another person says, "I believe in the blessed trinity because of the Creed," I reject that. I don't support it.

The Athanasian creed doesn't contain a word of Scripture. It's merely a philosophical construct. I would prefer to have Scripture, understood to the best of one's ability. Human tradition, cited authoritatively, particularly from the papacy, is a hateful thing to real Protestants.

Scripture, referring to the likeness of Melchisedec to Christ says, 

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The Son of God had neither beginning of days nor end of life (Heb. 7:3). That I believe.

The creed, in certain respects is a rather nonsensical document, devoid of any reference to salvation by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. It nakedly teaches salvation by works. It emphasizes faith in the trinity doctrine but not faith in the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins. Neither the blood of Christ nor justification by faith are mentioned. In that sense, it is rubbish.  

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

Gustave, blindly adhering to papal dogma, such as is found in the Athanasian creed, is as bad or worse than being an "Arian," depending on how "Arian" is defined.  If someone says to me, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:28, "I believe that the Son is subject to the Father," I can understand that point of view, even support it:

The Son is subject to the Father, eternally - and as Jesus clearly said, He always complies with the will of the Father. This is part of the Trinity Doctrine. 

Quote

Hanseng said: 

If another person says, "I believe in the blessed trinity because of the Creed," I reject that. I don't support it.

The Creed was developed directly from the Scriptures, that's the whole point. 

Quote

Hanseng said: 

The Athanasian creed doesn't contain a word of Scripture. It's merely a philosophical construct. I would prefer to have Scripture, understood to the best of one's ability. Human tradition, cited authoritatively, particularly from the papacy, is a hateful thing to real Protestants.

This is the difference between a Protestant and a Restorationist of which you would be the latter. Last time I checked Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. accepted the Athanasian Creed - while Mormon's Jehovah's Witnesses, COG, SDA's don't. Why do you think this is? 

Quote

Hanseng said: 

The creed, in certain respects is a rather nonsensical document, devoid of any reference to salvation by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. It nakedly teaches salvation by works. It emphasizes faith in the trinity doctrine but not faith in the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins. Neither the blood of Christ nor justification by faith are mentioned. In that sense, it is rubbish.  

Amazing, either the Jehovah's Witnesses took that from SDA's or SDA's took that from the JW's. I've heard the same exact thing from the JW's - seriously, almost word for word. 

[Hanseng]

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Amazing, either the Jehovah's Witnesses took that from SDA's or SDA's took that from the JW's. I've heard the same exact thing from the JW's - seriously, almost word for word.

Lot of good people among the JWs. You seem to think that identifying someone with the Mormons or JWs is an insult or something a person should be ashamed of. Reminds me of the pictures of RC priests putting pointed caps on people and marching them to be burned alive. True faith transcends ridicule. As for the Restorationists, the Campbellites were the great antagonists of SDA in the early days. Canright often debated them. In more recent times, Des Ford distinguished himself in Australia debating a Campbellite minister. Alexander Campbell delivered a famous sermon on antinomianism, something taboo to SDA. The ICOC was probably the most spirit filled church I ever attended. I'd much prefer to be identified with the Mormons, JWs or Campbellites than the papacy. One of the best friends I ever had was a Mormon. Great family, both parents, beautiful sister upon whom I had a mad crush. His Dad bought him a Harley when he was 15 or so, Mom took us to the beach to surf frequently. I'd much prefer their company to the RC priest who came to my house hoping I'd perform an obscene act upon him. I should have given him a copy of Solitary Vice by EGW.  You don't get any cred bad mouthing Mormons to me.

Strange that something developed from Scripture doesn't refer to it. The Athanasian creed is nothing more than an attempt to bring people under the yoke of papal tradition. That some denominations have fallen for it is a pox on them.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

Lot of good people among the JWs. You seem to think that identifying someone with the Mormons or JWs is an insult or something a person should be ashamed of. Reminds me of the pictures of RC priests putting pointed caps on people and marching them to be burned alive. True faith transcends ridicule.

Zero doubt there are outstanding people among the JW's, Mormons and Christadelphians - I happen to know some. I also know some outstanding Hindu's, Muslim's and Buddhists. 

The point I'm making is that SDA's consider the LDS Church to be outside of the pale of "Christianity" - just why is that Hanseng? Its not meant to be an insult, it's meant to be something tangible for you. 

Like below

Quote

Sabbath Herald October 28, 1909 says:

"I believe in God, and his angels, and his books, and his prophets, and the last day, and the predestination of good and evil by God, and the resurrection after death. I bear witness that there is no God but God, and I bear witness that Mohammed is his slave and his prophet." (Cited by Sir Charles Eliot, "Turkey and the Turks," chap. 6, par. 3.)
From the above it must be perfectly clear that Mohammedanism is very far from being a heathen religion, as some are wont to believe. It teaches belief in God, angels, the prophets, the last day, and the resurrection of the dead. More than this, " about one half of the Koran is a polemic against polytheism and Trinitarianism." In fact, the word Allah is an abbreviation of Al-iah, which means the one, true, only God. There is something in the nature of a challenge in the word itself to the dominant Christian church of the period when Mohammedanism arose. For that church was sunk in the mazes of the worship of saints and images when Mohammed came asserting that everlasting truth: " There is but one God." " And he did not engage in vain metaphysics, but applied himself to improving the social condition of his people by regulations respecting personal cleanliness, sobriety,
fasting, prayer. Above all other works he esteemed almsgiving and charity." See Sir Charles Norton Eliot, "Turkey
in Europe," chap. 6, pages 155, x56; Draper, " Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. I, chap. 11, par. 1o.

A Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran or any other Protestant wouldn't agree the above was a theologically sound statement, I'd lay money that it would be viewed as an incorrect statement. This doesn't change the fact that there exist countless excellent Muslims, Mormons and otherwise - it just means they are not Trinitarian. 

[Hanseng]

51 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The point I'm making is that SDA's consider the LDS Church to be outside of the pale of "Christianity"

I was unaware that SDA officially considered Mormons outside of the pale of Christianity. Do you have official statements from the denomination to that effect?

[Hanseng]

Testing 1234567

[Gustave]

51 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

I was unaware that SDA officially considered Mormons outside of the pale of Christianity. Do you have official statements from the denomination to that effect?

"We have now dealt at considerable length with the main doctrines which have been and are now being taught by the "Latter Day Saints." We have tried to deal with them quite fairly, but with all frankness. In view of the fact that they are anti-scriptural—indeed anti-Christian—and because they are again being agitated in our land, we feel it our duty to raise this note of warning against them." Signs of the Times

PT19230510-V39-10.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

"No man in the Mormon Church was better qualified than Brigham Young to know whether that church harbored such characters, and he bears positive witness that •it did. We do not deny the truthfulness of his statement, but we protest against the impious assertion that Mormon elders can beat the world at lying, thieving, and gambling " because " they " live in the light of the Lord," " and hold the keys of the kingdom of God." Such an assertion is a dishonor to the divine Being. It is a proof that Mormonism is not of Christ, who said, " Depart from me, ye that work iniquity," and who is " of purer eyes than to behold evil." Sabbath Herald

RH19090114-V86-02.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

I could run out of room just posting statements from the SDA archives but I'm thinking you get the general idea here. 

 

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

you get the general idea here. 

I get the idea that two SDA writers took issue with views held by Mormons at that time or at some time in their history. What the Mormons did or believed a hundred years ago may be interesting to some. Not sure that they hold those beliefs now. Perhaps more relevant to you is what SDA have, historically, thought about Roman Catholicism. 

Whatever they believed or believe, if their beliefs produce people similar to my friend's family, I've no quarrel with them.

I'll let God be their judge.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

I get the idea that two SDA writers took issue with views held by Mormons at that time or at some time in their history. What the Mormons did or believed a hundred years ago may be interesting to some. Not sure that they hold those beliefs now.

How current of a statement do you need to see? 

Quote

Hanseng said: 

Perhaps more relevant to you is what SDA have, historically, thought about Roman Catholicism. 

Yes, definitely, that's what I've been doing here for quite some time. A summary about what SDA's have historically taught about Catholicism is: 

• Catholicism polluted the Protestant Reformers with the Trinity Doctrine who perpetuated the blasphemy. 
• Catholicism affirmed and taught the demonic Doctrine that God is a single Being without body and parts.
• Catholicism taught the soul damning Doctrine that Jesus was God Almighty.
• Catholicism taught it was impossible that Jesus could have sinned. 

This is "historically" what SDA's taught about Catholicism.  The Sabbath, the Atonement and every other thing came downstream from those bullet points listed above. 

 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

• Catholicism polluted the Protestant Reformers with the Trinity Doctrine who perpetuated the blasphemy. 
• Catholicism affirmed and taught the demonic Doctrine that God is a single Being without body and parts.
• Catholicism taught the soul damning Doctrine that Jesus was God Almighty.
• Catholicism taught it was impossible that Jesus could have sinned. 

If you want to know what Adventism taught and continues to teach about Roman Catholicism, download a .pdf copy of Great Controversy; then, do a search of all the times the papacy/ Roman Catholicism is mentioned. Articles written in old SDA publications were, more or less, simply the opinions of the writers at that time, not the official position of the denomination. It's false to say the denomination teaches such and such, simply because of an article written decades ago.

The fundamental beliefs are the official teachings of the denomination. Beyond those "fundamentals" people are free to believe what they like. There are many people in the denomination who don't believe the official doctrines. There are many, especially among those raised in the denomination, who are described as cultural Adventists. They may not believe in Jesus. They are not Christians. 

When Paul described the gospel he taught to the Corinthians, it was fairly simple: Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he rose again the third day and was seen of many witnesses. That's what I believe.

[Gustave]

Hanseng, I've been posting material from the General Conference Archives for quite a while now. Ellen didn't create any Doctrines of the SDA Church - she confirmed the Doctrines of the SDA Pioneers. Understanding what the SDA Pioneers believed and taught clarifies what Ellen White wrote as what she wrote was in the context of the SDA Pioneers. 

The early SDA's were very specific about what their beef against Catholicism was, it was Trinitarianism. 

There are many details you're leaving out. 

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the 3rd day. The other details matter here. 

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Understanding what the SDA Pioneers believed and taught clarifies what Ellen White wrote as what she wrote was in the context of the SDA Pioneers. 

That's a false statement. This is the problem with a lot of the "work" you do. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The pioneer writings shouldn't clarify what EGW wrote. The Bible clarifies what EGW and the pioneers wrote. That's something difficult for you to grasp, that the Bible is the rule of faith and practice. Whatever EGW, the pioneers, or anybody else teaches must be measured by the Bible. EGW was not a Scriptural expositor or an exegete. She couldn't even come up with an interpretation of passages in Galatians without checking her notes. She was primarily a devotional writer.

If you define the trinity by the Athanasian creed, then I congratulate the pioneers for their resistance to it. I don't just resist it, I reject the Athanasian creed. It's non scriptural rubbish.

As for Jesus being able to sin, I have no problem with that. I consider his life as more than Yiddish theater. Adam was a sinless being with a will of his own who chose to sin. Jesus could have done the same. Your problem is that you don't understand the nature of OT prophecy. I probably don't either but I know enough to say that it did not preclude the possibility of Christ sinning. Adam was made in the image of God. An image is a likeness or something similar to something else. Jesus is portrayed in vision with eyes, a tongue, feet, a beard, hair and other similarities to the human form. Jesus may be God Almighty but he is still subject to the Father.

Modern Adventism's primary objection to the papacy is that it is viewed as either the antichrist or an antichrist which changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Recall that Smith's Arian views were removed from his book on D&R. His identity of Rome as the Antichrist was not. 

EGW:  When the papal bull reached Luther, he said: “I despise and
attack it, as impious, false.... It is Christ Himself who is condemned 
therein.... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes.
Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the
pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.”—
D’Aubigne, b. 6, ch. 9 (GC 119).

The antichristian power which the protesters of
 Spires rejected is now with renewed vigor seeking to re-establish
its lost supremacy. The same unswerving adherence to the word of
God manifested at that crisis of the Reformation is the only hope of
reform today (GC, 173,174).

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

That's a false statement. This is the problem with a lot of the "work" you do. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The pioneer writings shouldn't clarify what EGW wrote.

My statement is spot-on. No SDA Apologist I'm aware of claims SDA Doctrines were created by Ellen White. Ellen White herself claims she didn't create SDA Doctrines. The way this all worked was various ideas were promoted by SDA Pioneers AND the ideas that James White, Captain Bates and a few others liked caused Ellen to have a vision thus confirming the teaching. 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

If you take even a small amount of time and read what the SDA Pioneers said about the Trinity Doctrine it will become obvious that Ellen White's visions just so happened to hit the specific points the SDA Pioneers made about why they rejected and condemned the Trinity. 

The SDA Pioneers would repudiate the Trinity Doctrine saying that it destroyed the flesh body of the Father, also that contrary to the Trinity Doctrine Father God had parts with all the same organs and members that a perfect man would have. If I'm not mistaken one of the 1st visions Ellen had

 she said she talked to Christ that was literally the one of the first questions she asked Him - Does Father have a body like Christs? 

Slow down a little bit here, read things more slowly.

[Hanseng]

23 hours ago, Gustave said:

Understanding what the SDA Pioneers believed and taught clarifies what Ellen White wrote as what she wrote was in the context of the SDA Pioneers. 

Whatever that sentence means, my point is that the pioneer doctrines should be measured by what the Bible says. If EGW confirmed the work of Bible students, that reflected correct understanding of Scripture, that's not an issue. God gave people brains to use and the Holy Spirit to guide in understanding Scripture. Being subject to EGW in Bible interpretation is little different than being subject to papal dogma.

Luther had a much greater impact on the world than SDA. He didn't have everything right. The Formula of Concord was eventually prepared by one of Melanchthon's students to clarify controverted issues among the Lutherans. In a similar manner, the Great Controversy was prepared to set forth SDA positions on various topics. Neither the Formula of Concord nor the Great Controversy are the final word on Biblical understanding, even though, for many years "Sr. White said" pretty much ended discussions on Bible topics among Adventists.

If you can show, for example, that the human form of Adam, was not in the image and likeness of the Creator, please do. Genesis 5: 3 says Seth, the son of Adam was in his likeness and image, just as Genesis 1:26 says Adam was in the image and likeness of his Creator. 

[Kevin H]

On 8/3/2023 at 10:22 PM, Rahab said:

I will share privately only. Pretty scary stuff. 

There are wild stories going around. Like I said there were people who believed that a Jesuit worked their way into Ellen Whites inner circle and influenced much of her post 1888 views. Even a broadside or two wondering if Mrs. White herself became a Jesuit when she was in Australia. 

Another story that is going around is that Benjamin Wilkinson found a Jesuit teaching at Washington Missionary College by him finding a letter with instructions from the Vatican. Elder Wilkinson was mentored by Elder Washburn and for much of his life he carried on Washburn's views..

Elder Washburn was a major critic of Jones and Wagner and the 1888 message. He could not see why Ellen White supported this message and had to take some time to figure it out. Eventually he formed a way to accept the 1888 message into his view. With this he became very excited about Jesus, and spent a lot more times preaching about Jesus. He was a lively preacher and often would get out from behind the pulpit and stand down among the congregation in his preaching.  While Washburn became excited about Jesus, he never accepted the trinity and felt that the growth of members believing in the trinity starting in the 1890s was horrible. Washburn focused on Jesus as our example. Much of his thought has grown into what has been labeled as "Historic Adventism" "Last Generation Adventism" and "Fulcrum7".

Elder Wilkinson's religious views came from his close friendship to Washburn.  Wilkinson's field of study was modern language, never taking a Bible class nor a ancient language. Both Washburn and Wilkinson were seen to have some strange ideas. Mrs. White and Willie wrote to them, but they defended their version of Adventism. They did not like the direction that the church was going. They would defend themselves to Mrs. White and protest that it was people in her inner circle who was polluting her mind against them; and after her death had no problem publicly calling Willie "Nadab and Abihu" and "Samuel's sons. [Note: there is evidence that Samuel's sons were not quite as bad as the people said. Even in the days of the Judges, there were the two collations of the Northern tribes and the Southern tribes that eventually broke into Israel and Judah. Rather than a "united monarchy" the rule of David and Solomon was more of a shared king. While Samuel was a pillar for northern YAHWEHISM; his sons could well have been more sympathetic to how YAHWEISM and politics were developing in the south, making them very unpopular in the north, and the northerners talking to Samuel exaggerated.)

Washburn and Wilkinson were very critical of the 1919 Bible Conference and worked with the more moderate Stephen Haskell to the outcome of the 1922 General Conference session. 

Elder Wilkinson became president of Washington Missionary College. He had a number of professors who held views that grew out of the 1888 and Mrs. White's development in the 1890s. I'd love to learn more about what they taught; a little is mentioned in the book Ostriches and Canaries. My professors, with out giving details would mention that they were teaching the truth and was punished for their faithfulness. As the issue about the letter he intercepted that was instructions to one of these professors was investigated, it was found to be a fraud. Elder Wilkinson had a student who was right on the verge of failing his class. Elder Wilkinson made a deal with him to create the letter. It was a false charge. However, Elder Daniels gave permission to Wilkinson to discharge these three professors hoping that it would make Wilkinson less of an accuser of church leadership and messages. However it did not work. Wilkinson continued to be critical of the direction where the church was going and wanting to entrench Washburn's views as true Adventism. He also started the King James only movement. Once one of his former students visited him and he complained that he was being ignored by the church leadership and critical of the direction of the church. 

Wilkinson's actions lead to burning a lot of bridges in relationships to most of the church, while he was active in what developed into the groups I mentioned above. Wilkinson was the only person that HMS Richards SR. hated, because whenever Wilkinson talked to his mother, his mother would cry. However they had a partial healing when connected to HMS's ordination. As the years went by, Wilkinson's children not only did not want anything to do with his church, they did not want any thing to do with God. This was very painful to him and as he reflected over his life he came to the conclusion that many of his views were wrong and that those he was critical of turned out to be right after all. He repented of his role in creating that false letter and having those three professors fired. This change ended up burning bridges with the thought that became "Historic Adventism" After his wife died he became a very lonely man with limited connection with his children, The more moderate Adventists did not trust his change of view. He had become a very, very lonely man. Then HMS Richards Sr. learned about Wilkinson's loneliness and change of heart. Unlike others who were too hurt to trust this supposed becoming more moderate; HMS decided that he would give Wilkinson a chance. As they spent time together, HMS completely gave up his hatred for the man. The two became the best of friends for the rest of his life. 

[phkrause]

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

There are wild stories going around. Like I said there were people who believed that a Jesuit worked their way into Ellen Whites inner circle and influenced much of her post 1888 views. Even a broadside or two wondering if Mrs. White herself became a Jesuit when she was in Australia.

Pretty crazy stuff!!

[Kevin H]

Sadly, we have always had those who believe that the gospel is the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket. You keep finding similar stories over the history of the church. Once James White was to preach, and the brother giving opening prayer started spending a long time on James' sin of pride. After a while James asked him "Why do you think I'm proud?" and the man replied "You are wearing a shirt with a collar." James pointed out to the man that in traveling to the church his shirt, which does not have a collar, got muddy so someone loaned him the shirt he was wearing. Another time Willie asked his dad if he could sell the empty jars the family had, (I don't remember for sure, maybe he filled them with oil). While going into town and picking up some other workers, Willie was asking his dad about how to determine a fair price. The next thing there was gossip that James White was such a stingy money grabber, that he was forcing his little boy to sell these jars. 

Eli Siegel said "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world.." I fear that those who have yet to learn the love of Jesus, tend to look for people worst than them to help them feel like they have a better chance to get into heaven.

If you want to read a book that presents the arguments from a VERY different perspective than mine, and get an idea of some of the stories going around (of course this was written long enough after Mrs. White's, Willie's, Prescott's, Daniel's, as well as the others that this version of Adventistism complained about had died, for the author to forget that this movement went through a stage of seeing these people as bringing problems into the church, and death and time seems to turn most of them into saints. But the book is "With Cloak & Dagger" by H. H. Meyers. (If I recall correctly, I think that the book continues to claim that Elder Wilkinson really did find communications from the Vatican to a Jesuit Spy teaching at WMC.)  I wonder if this might have been the book where Rahab got her comments and questions.

If I recall correctly, this book does not tell about how Wilkinson became more moderate at the end of his life. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Froom does not mention Canright's anti-trinitarism in Movement of Destiny.  Canright, at times, had close relationship with the Whites, as well as a prominent position as an evangelist and debater. James White, in the November 29, 1877, R&H p. 172, wrote a short article "Christ equal With God." This was about a year before Canright's decidedly anti-trinitarian piece. Uriah Smith was editor at that time

Canright likely didn't mention Canright's anti-Trinitarianism because it would demonstrate Canright was anti-Trinity on account of Ellen and James White. 

Ellen herself revised Canright's most anti-Trinitarian article which was published in the Sabbath Herald. 

[Did you mean to say:  "Froom likely didn't mention. . .?  Gregory Matthews.]

[Gustave]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:39 AM, Gustave said:

Canright likely didn't mention Canright's anti-Trinitarianism because it would demonstrate Canright was anti-Trinity on account of Ellen and James White. 

Ellen herself revised Canright's most anti-Trinitarian article which was published in the Sabbath Herald. 

[Did you mean to say:  "Froom likely didn't mention. . .?  Gregory Matthews.]

Yes, good catch Pastor Matthews, I meant to say Froom.