God As A Personal Being

[Gregory Matthews]

I have been in contact with an SDA scholar who, as I understand it, will provide us with some assistance in responding to the issues that Gustave has raised related to SDA positions on the Trinity. Due probably to his recent travels in Europe, this is taking longer than I had expected. So, I am going to make a partial response to Gustave, with more coming at a later time.

 As Gustave understands SDA history, early Adventists believed in a God that had a digestive system, in the same manner that we have today. If Gustave is correct on this, who might have thought that such was true. In my thinking, John Harvey Kellogg might have thought such. SDA scholars are not in total agreement as to what JHK believed. But, it is generally accepted that JHK had beliefs about God that were wrong, and not generally accepted by other early Adventists.

 I am not aware of Ellen White making such direct statements.

 I suspect that Gustave has based his thinking on this on statements made probably by EGW, and other early Advent that did not directly say such. Rather he may have based them upon conjecture and inference derived from statements as to
God being a personal being.

 In the early days of my life–high school and earlier, my understanding about God involved a so-called “personal being.” I was clearly taught that such was not related to the type of being that I as a human was. Rather that personal being was an amorphous type that was unlike us humans and could not be understood as it was outside of our human experience. In other words, what I was taught totally ruled out any idea that God had a digestive tract in the same manner that we humans have.

 My understanding of the nature of God, at that time, was clearly was not orthodox. I do not imply that it was. Keep in mind my young age which limited my ability to understand the issue.

 I do not suggest that either EGW, or other early SDA leaders had a totally orthodox understanding of the Trinity. I do not believe that they did have an orthodox understanding. I agree with current SDA scholarship that, as I understand it, posit that the range of early SDA positions on the Trinity were more complex than has typically been understood.

 I agree that James White, and others, had a nonorthodox understanding that was related to the so-called Christian Connection.

 There is a sense in which I say: So, what? Those early Adventists, including Ellen white were wrong. in their understanding of the Trinity. They were wrong regardless of whether of not they believed that God had a digestive system.

 I was never taught such. The SDA position today does not teach that God has a digestive system. From this perspective, I do not think that this issue is as important as Gustave thinks it is. Let us move on beyond it to more important issues. I do think that Gustave has raised issues that are much more important to our understanding of God today. Those issues need to be addressed. I hope that we can get some help on those issues from the SDA scholar who will be working with me.

 

[Gustave]

Outstanding, I look forward to learning more about this. 

Quote

As Gustave understands SDA history, early Adventists believed in a God that had a digestive system, in the same manner that we have today. If Gustave is correct on this, who might have thought that such was true. In my thinking, John Harvey Kellogg might have thought such. SDA scholars are not in total agreement as to what JHK believed. But, it is generally accepted that JHK had beliefs about God that were wrong, and not generally accepted by other early Adventists.

I've been saying that Adventism promulgated that God (defined as the Father) was a personal Being with a body and parts, all the parts that a perfect man would have. As a perfect man would have a liver, arms and a digestive tract those things would be included. I'm saying that the Adventists during Mrs. White's life publicly condemned the Creeds of Catholic & Protestant Churches specifically because those Creeds stipulated that God DID NOT HAVE A BODY, PART'S, etc. 

I'll share a few quotes:

Quote

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

&

There is no chance of escape here : Christ's soul and every part that dwelt in his flesh was put to death and buried in sheol, or hales. We now turn to Isa. liii ; " He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth.',

Nearly 12 years after the above 1859 statement there is a direct statement about the Spirit of Prophecy in the Sabbath Hearld.

Quote

Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1871 said: "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

7 years after the admission that the Spirit of Prophecy did not agree with the Trinity Doctrine (as believed by the Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics & Baptist Churches this is printed in the Sabbath Herald.

Quote

Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878 said: MRS. WHITE had-an appointment to speak in the Colorado Tent at Boulder City, on the evening of the 11th, so in the morning we took Elder Canright to the place with us, where we parted
with him the morning of the 12th, he to take the cars for Battle Creek, to be with his wife, who is reported to be rapidly failing. We parted with this dear brother with feelings of deep: regret that he leaves us before our return, and. yet we could not hold him a day from his faithful wife, who deserves his sympathy and care in her last hours. On our journey to this State,and for the first few weeks after our, arrival, we, needed his assistance, and he has acted the part of a true Christian brother. We have had many precious seasons of prayer together at the family
altar, and when bowed together in the evergreen groves of the mountains. Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,- Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form ; while he has assisted us on some importantworks. We have now :been togethersix weeks, and every day from the, first our union has grown stronger and more dear. May the blessing of God go -with him. We hope to meet him at the General Conference, both of us in the enjoyment of health and the blessing of God."

Ellen White and her husband were very fond of Mr. Canright according to the above and they (Ellen White & her Husband) worked with Mr. Canright on his pending "PERSONALITY OF GOD" article. Days after this admission the Sabbath Herald prints the Personality of God article revised by Mrs. White. The Article is perhaps the most scathing rebuke of the Trinity Doctrine to ever be printed by an SDA Publisher. See: Sabbath Hearld August 29, 1878 Personality of God. This lengthy article is continued and runs through multiple Sabbath Heralds and identifies the Trinity Doctrine as the wine of Babylon because it [Trinity Doctrine] dissolves the material flesh body of the Father and suggests that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is ONE BEING without body or parts. 

The Personality of God Doctrine was one of the most defined Doctrines the Adventist Church had during the life of Mrs. White and it's stated purpose was to directly combat the Trinity Doctrine by affirming that God (The Father) was a literal person that had all the members, organs and parts a perfect man would have. Michael the archangel was another separate Being with parts who looked so like the Father the similarity was compared to Father God & Michael being "identical twins". 

It is in this context that Mr. White wrote that there was a real risk in "the rupture of the Godhead", "part of the Godhead could have been eternally lost" had Christ sinned while on probation on the planet earth. 

 

Quote

 I do think that Gustave has raised issues that are much more important to our understanding of God today. Those issues need to be addressed. I hope that we can get some help on those issues from the SDA scholar who will be working with me.

I'd love to explore this. 

In the end I see many similarities between Catholicism and Seventh-day Adventists, I think Adventists fit better with Catholicism than with any other Church. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Again:  I have no problem with acknowledging that in the early days of Adventism, positions on the Trinity were held that were not orthodox.   I would not argue against the idea that some elements of those non-orthodox positions may exist in some SDA members today.

I think that both Gustave and I agree that the full nature of the Godhead is well beyond our human experience and understanding.  But, some aspects of that have been revealed to us in Scripture and therefore are worthy of discussion.

I hope that we can have some enlightenment from the person who will be working with us/me.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

An addition to the idea that Gustave and I would both agree that a full nature of the Godhead is well beyond our experience and understanding:

As I understand it, one of the major reasons for the separation between the Eastern and Western branches of the Christian Church involved a manner in which the Nisean Creed was amended in regard to a statement on the trinity.

Somewhere around 1054, what is known as the Western branch added the "filioque" to one of the statements in the Nicaean Creed.

As I understand it, in the ensuing discussion it was finally decided that the two branches of Christianity could co-exist in an equality that considered the filioque to simply be an alternate wording of a common understanding to which both sides agreed. 

Gustave is welcome to clarify any aspect of the above.

[Gregory Matthews]

So, what am I suggesting in the above post.

Perhaps my earlier comment as to my understanding of God as an amorphous being, not like the human me, could be accepted as an alternative wording that does not imply tritheism.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

So, what am I suggesting in the above post.

Perhaps my earlier comment as to my understanding of God as an amorphous being, not like the human me, could be accepted as an alternative wording that does not imply tritheism.

 

The Apostles, Early Church, Early Church Fathers and even the Reformers knew every belief within Christianity runs downstream of the Doctrine of God and given all the recorded heresies about God down through the ages great care was taken in crafting the Language of the Creeds. 

When the Methodists were hammering their creed out and speaking of God it was in the context of the Methodists already knowing about the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity. So when the Creed says God it's talking about that Nature you couldn't see in Christ, the Divine Nature or Substance in which the Father & the Holy Spirit also are. 

This ONE Substance or Nature that we can't define is Spiritual, it is Spirit - this one Spirit is the One Being that is God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit). This Nature can't be broken or altered; it simply eternally is.  God, in the Person of the Son became God by adding a human nature. The Divine Nature remained unaltered. 

I used the Methodists as an example because that is one of the Christian Faith traditions the SDA's called out in their Church paper as having an unbiblical (doctrine of demons) Creed pertaining to God, specifically the Trinity not because of the word Trinity but because of it's definition - i.e. God does not have a body or parts. 

Myself I don't' have a problem of viewing God with a human body because Jesus has a human body and was like us in all ways except for sin. Of course this is with the caveat that God the Son Incarnated in human flesh adding a human nature to the eternally existing Divine Nature - God became man without ceasing to be God. 

Anything that postulates that Christ could eternally cease to exist for any reason is by default anti-Trinitarian. 

I would think that being specific that God is 1 Being that isn't made up of "parts" would be good enough. I mean God could manifest as anything from a burning bush to a blue whale or a T-Rex so I don't think the various forms God happens to manifest in matters very much - but the point should be made that Christ had as much chance sinning and ceasing to exist as does the Father & Holy spirit (which is zero chance) is an important statement to make. 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Had a typo in there, OUCH! I said: 

"God, in the Person of the Son became God by adding a human nature. The Divine Nature remained unaltered"

what I meant to say was:

God, in the Person of the Son became man / human by adding a human nature. The Divine Nature remained unaltered.