Thoughts On Issues

[Gregory Matthews]

April 12. 2024

I hope to be able later today to post additional material in response to issues that Gustave has raised.  Until I am able to do that, I am locking this thread.  I will remove any comments that are placed in this thread by the few people who can post in a locked thread.  After I have placed additional material in this thread, I will allow for posts to be made in this thread.

In further study of the responses made to me, I believe that I have permission to post them in this forum.   So, I will do so, with some explanatory remarks.

I am still uncertain as to whether or not I have permission to publish either his name, or position in the SDA denomination.   At this time I will simply call him Dr. Paul, (not his real name) and state that he is an SDA Scholar.

[Gregory Matthews]

[The following are the responses that Dr. Paul gave to two Issues that Gustave had raised.  The first is a response to the comments that Gustave had made in regard to whether or not Christ, who was God, could sin in his incarnate state--Gregory Matthews]

Question 1: The Bible certainly teaches that God "cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). But concerning the incarnate Christ, it says that "he was tempted every way that we are, but he did not sin” (Heb 4:16). In the gospels there are multiple examples for the temptations that assailed Him. The most obvious ones are the temptations by Satan in the wilderness. Interestingly, it appears that the strongest temptations tempted Him to employ His divine power for His own sake, which would have been a selfish act. The incarnate Christ was both God and man. It appears to me that the New Testament teaches that as a man, Christ did not utilize His divine power for His own sake but only to help others. In that sense, His actions were unselfish and other-centered, not selfish. He did not make it easier for Himself. Thus, His divinity was actually a liability because the temptations were stronger. To avoid being misunderstood, the New Testament is also clear that Jesus withstood those temptations through His close connection with the Father and by receiving divine power from Him. Thus, He never sinned.

[The second is a response from Dr. Paul to the comments that Gustave had made in regard to God having a digestive system--Gregory Matthews.]

 

Question 2: It is certainly true that the early Seventh-day Adventists had a more materialistic view of God (body and form, though invisible to human sight) than is reflected in classical Theism. That they claimed that God had a digestive system appears to me more an attribution than an actual belief held by them. That is, some modern-day scholars have concluded that from their materialistic descriptions of God based on passages that refer to Him as the Ancient of Days, His arm, sitting on a throne, His feet, etc. I doubt that they would have ventured out to claim that God had a digestive system since that would have been quite speculative and they generally shied away from speculation. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

[The following is a response that Dr. Paul has made to me in regard to some issues made by Gustave--Gregory Matthews.]

 

Well, this is quite a lengthy post and I am not sure whether I should really address all points. For time’s sake, I will touch on some aspects.

 

1. I would disagree with his estimation that there aren’t any SDAs that inadvertently hold modalistic views. A couple years ago, I interacted with a couple non-Trinitarian Adventists that argued that the Holy Spirit would be Jesus in another form, a third manifestation/personification of deity, a spiritual manifestation of Christ. Therefore, it was fine to call the Spirit a person, but that did not mean that he was an individual being apart from Christ, but the Spirit was Christ himself in a different form. I asked them whether this wouldn’t be a form of modalism, upon which they replied that modalism has to do with three persons that are actually one being (note: those non-Trinitarians equate “person" and “being”). Then I responded that it doesn’t have to be. They claim that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two persons but actually they are the same being. So, I asked if that isn’t a form of modalism too. They had to give in and replied that upon further thinking about it, I may be right.
2. When one compares Christian views of the doctrine of the Trinity, one realizes that there is a whole spectrum of views. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism are as unified as their respective creeds seem to suggest. Creeds are official declarations of faith, yet there are different levels of belief—the works of academically trained theologians (dogmatics, commentaries, systematic theologies, etc.), the beliefs held by lay members, the faith reflected in hymnology, liturgy, and worship, etc. I have seen statements about the Trinity Catholic catechisms that go far beyond the early Christian creeds that are foundational to Catholicism. It appears to me that if one argues that there is only one doctrine of the Trinity and the remainder of the spectrum doesn’t present that doctrine exalts that person that makes that judgment call to a norm. Or it exalts a certain creed as a norm. In my view, throughout Christian history various people have studied Scripture and endeavored to capture the rudimentary biblical witness to the triune God. There have been different expressions of the belief of three persons that are one God. 
3. Seventh-day Adventists did not start out as a creedal church. While they eventually issued a list of Fundamental Principles (later called Fundamental Beliefs), they referred to them as having a descriptive rather than prescriptive character (this is what Adventists generally hold in common vs. this is what everybody should believe). Initially, it was simply the editor of the main church periodical capturing what the members generally believed. Eventually, that list was printed in more official church publications, such as the yearbook, yet the statement (esp. in 1931) was still not voted because it was not intended to be a creed. Therefore, they intended to denied that statement an official vote. This changed somewhat in 1946 and 1980, when it was decided that the Fundamental Beliefs could be changed only by all delegates of the world field at a General Conference in session and when a revised statement was actually voted by those delegates. Yet, the preamble, at least in theory, still stresses the tentative nature of the document, thus trying to stay away from a creed. In practice, some people would like to employ it as a creed. However, since it is not a creed and since its statements are fairly rudimentary, there is still quite a bit of room for differing views on technicalities and details. Therefore, one has to be careful when one pastor, church member, or even administrator, makes statements. It isn’t always representative for the entire church. In fact, this is most likely the case for most churches. For example, one cannot simply assume that Hans Küng’s writings on papal infallibility are fully representative for the entire Catholic Church and yet his writings are a witness to the views of some in that church
4. He [Gustave--GM] argues that Ellen White endorsed D. M. Canright’s Review and Herald articles in 1878. On what basis does he claim that Ellen White endorsed his articles? I have never seen an endorsement from her for those articles. Further, during those early decades, while Ellen White had no problem to confirm the insights of her fellow Adventist ministers on all kinds of other topics, yet in regards to their aggressive statements on the doctrine of God she remained silent. She neither affirmed the Trinity nor did she oppose it. Why? Or why not? Had she made any positive remarks she would have either become a theological trailblazer or, more likely, she would have been rejected as a false prophet because she would have promoted a belief that her fellow Adventists would have considered unbiblical. It was only after others began advocating aspects of the divinity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, and doctrine of the Trinity that she confirmed those insights too. Yet, it may also well be that, in her early years, she herself had no clear position on the topic because it had not been clearly revealed to her, and that she therefore simply did not know

[Gregory Matthews]

This topic is now open.  I am reserving my right to respond at a later time, in this space.  Others may now post comments related to the above posts.

[Gustave]

Quote

Dr. Paul said: 

1. I would disagree with his estimation that there aren’t any SDAs that inadvertently hold modalistic views. A couple years ago, I interacted with a couple non-Trinitarian Adventists that argued that the Holy Spirit would be Jesus in another form, a third manifestation/personification of deity, a spiritual manifestation of Christ. Therefore, it was fine to call the Spirit a person, but that did not mean that he was an individual being apart from Christ, but the Spirit was Christ himself in a different form. I asked them whether this wouldn’t be a form of modalism, upon which they replied that modalism has to do with three persons that are actually one being (note: those non-Trinitarians equate “person" and “being”). Then I responded that it doesn’t have to be. They claim that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two persons but actually they are the same being. So, I asked if that isn’t a form of modalism too. They had to give in and replied that upon further thinking about it, I may be right.

I stand corrected here, I wouldn't have thought this about SDA's. Granted, I've run into people in my own Church that vigorously believed in Big Foot and theological errors pertaining to the Catholic faith however those people I've run into were absolutely NOT the kind of people who would sit down with a Priest or Deacon and discuss Church teachings, let alone "argue" about it.- they just believed in whatever oddity they held to and if comfortable would talk about it / share it.  

 

Quote

Dr Paul Said:

When one compares Christian views of the doctrine of the Trinity, one realizes that there is a whole spectrum of views. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism are as unified as their respective creeds seem to suggest. Creeds are official declarations of faith, yet there are different levels of belief—the works of academically trained theologians (dogmatics, commentaries, systematic theologies, etc.), the beliefs held by lay members, the faith reflected in hymnology, liturgy, and worship, etc. I have seen statements about the Trinity Catholic catechisms that go far beyond the early Christian creeds that are foundational to Catholicism. It appears to me that if one argues that there is only one doctrine of the Trinity and the remainder of the spectrum doesn’t present that doctrine exalts that person that makes that judgment call to a norm. Or it exalts a certain creed as a norm. In my view, throughout Christian history various people have studied Scripture and endeavored to capture the rudimentary biblical witness to the triune God. There have been different expressions of the belief of three persons that are one God.

Pertaining to the Trinity Doctrine they are unified - there may be some different terms and mechanics deployed however A Baptist's Doctrine of the Trinity is Catholic, like the Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian Church. Literally, if one does not vocally subscribe to the Trinity Doctrine one cannot be baptized into the Baptist Church. It's that big of a deal. I absolutely agree with Dr. Paul that there are cases of a [radical] difference between what a Denomination officially teaches and what comes out of a member of that Denominations mouth but this discussion hinges around what a Denomination officially teaches. 

In the case of this topic what I did is collect statements made by the founders of the SDA Church when they rebuked the Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Baptist, Catholic, etc. Doctrine of God. The issue that SDA's had with other Christian Creeds during the time of Mrs. White's life was that those other official Denominations Doctrinal Statements asserted that God, the One Substance, DID NOT HAVE A BODY. The SDA's militantly disagreed with this and asserted that God the Father DID have a body and that it consisted of material parts - the same as a perfect man would have. Ellen White said that this specific Doctrine was a Pillar and Landmark of the Adventist Faith. 

Quote

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

I also agree with what Dr. Paul says about there being different expressions or perhaps I could use the word developments of the Trinity Doctrine but they are judged to be so close in their ending that a Baptist or Methodist who seeks to become a member of the Catholic Church, Lutheran, Methodist doesn't need to be re-baptized. This isn't the case with Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Mormons and recently SDA's. 

What I'm trying to convey here is that the difference between the Methodist Doctrine of God and the Baptist, Lutheran & Catholic are nuanced while the SDA position is not and is in fact a radical departure. Below Mrs. White asserts that if one were allowed they could feel the flesh of Father with their hands - 180 degrees off John 4, 24

Quote

Mrs. White, The Signs of the Times, April 25, 1878 : The words and works of Christ testified to a divine power which accomplishes miraculous results, of a future, eternal life exalted above the finite life, of God as a Father to the children of men, watchful of their true interests, and guarding them. He taught that God was a rewarder of the righteous, and a punisher of the transgressor. He was not an intangible spirit, but a living ruler of the universe,. This gracious Father was constantly working for the good of man, and mindful of all that concerns him. The very hairs of his head are numbered.

Mrs. White wrote the above right around the time she revised and edited Canrights 1878 articles on "Personality of God"  which said the exact same thing. Mrs. White was not at all silent on the nature of God - James White, Canright, Kellogg and others repeatedly stated publicly stated that the Father was NOT SPIRIT, had flesh, parts and organs and as you can see Mrs. White plainly stated the Father was NOT an intangible spirit. The SDA Pioneers defined exactly what the personality of God Doctrine was for Seventh Day Adventists and Ellen never wrote anything contrary to that - she supported it. 

Quote

Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878: 

MRS. WRITE 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 takethe 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 Sabbath Herald Personality of God article referred to above was as anti-Trinitarian as it gets and dove tails with what Dr. Kellogg said in the Sabbath Herald two years later. 

Quote

Sabbath Herald, November 25, 1880: 

Our reviewer then goes on at some length to show that according to our view the death of Christ was but
a human sacrifice, and finally concludes, "Hence the Doctor's theory claims that the essence of God, the
Supreme Being, who created and upholds all things from the beginning, was made into corruptible flesh,
was killed by men," etc. The above statement is entirely correct, with a slight addition; the insertion of
the words, " does not " just before the word " claim " will make the statement correct. As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to
shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point.

Hans Kung was stripped by the Church of his authority to teach precisely because he publicly contradicted Catholic teaching and was called out on it. Could it be said that Mrs. White, Canright & Dr. Kellogg were called onto the carpet by the SDA Church for publicly repudiating SDA teaching - in the Church paper???

The specific beef the SDA's had with the Trinity Doctrine was that it didn't allow for God to be a unity of arbitrary separate "Beings", some of which could exist without others (i.e. The Son could eternally cease to exist leaving the Father as still the "one and only absolute living God". This is such a radical departure from the Trinity Doctrine it can't be compatible with it unless one is willing to concede that Mormon's are in fact nuanced Trinitarians. It makes God (which is Father, Son & Holy Spirit) "arbitrary". 

In the end perhaps I'm too set in my ways, yet I do find confirmation for my beliefs in the Rosary which calls one to contemplate the Annunciation which includes:

"Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end".

This seems to me to be a direct reference to the Prophecy of Christ in the Book of Daniel where Daniel tells the King the meaning of the dream he had and states that Almighty God told Daniel how things would end up with the Christ - that Christ would be successful and that this was the only way things would end up.

Of course there is also the Nicene Creed which affirms Jesus' life, death & resurrection were "according to the Scriptures" which is also directly what Jesus said in Luke 24, 44. and what Sacred Scripture continues to say in 100 plus other places - explicitly. 

The Trinity Doctrine requires that the one substance which is God is eternal and therefore Jesus ceasing to exist would require the Holy Spirit and The Father ceasing to exist - it just isn't possible. 

Dr. Paul's statements on the Trinity in the history of the SDA Church has sparked my interest - I need to re- read that section of his answer over a few more times and I'm sure I will have many questions about it! 

I appreciate that an official SDA Scholar has responded to this form and honestly hope I've not been offensive in my response to some of the things he has said - Pastor Matthews has my express permission to re-jig anything I've said that smacks of disrespect as that is not my intention - my intention here is to lean and provide reason as to why I believe the way I do. 

God Bless

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

This forum intends to facilitate civil discussion.   Civil discussion can be frank.

This discussion meets the expected norms of discussion.

[Gustave]

Quote

Dr. Paul said: 

Question 1: The Bible certainly teaches that God "cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). But concerning the incarnate Christ, it says that "he was tempted every way that we are, but he did not sin” (Heb 4:16). In the gospels there are multiple examples for the temptations that assailed Him. The most obvious ones are the temptations by Satan in the wilderness. Interestingly, it appears that the strongest temptations tempted Him to employ His divine power for His own sake, which would have been a selfish act. The incarnate Christ was both God and man. It appears to me that the New Testament teaches that as a man, Christ did not utilize His divine power for His own sake but only to help others. In that sense, His actions were unselfish and other-centered, not selfish. He did not make it easier for Himself. Thus, His divinity was actually a liability because the temptations were stronger. To avoid being misunderstood, the New Testament is also clear that Jesus withstood those temptations through His close connection with the Father and by receiving divine power from Him. Thus, He never sinned.

If God is ONE, as in one Spirit (Substance) and within God is no separation the 3 Persons within this one God are eternally connected - there isn't 1 or 2 without the other. 

Scripture goes on to define the mechanics of sin and clearly states that a man sins when he is drawn away by things he already lusts or yearns to do. Jesus said He "always" did the will of the Father and "always" did those things which pleased the Father therefore while it's true Jesus was "tempted by the devil" or "temped of the devil" there was no point where Jesus yearned or lusted within himself to commit sin. 

As I've explained previously it would be like a person coming up to you and offering you a sin - however the sin wasn't something you internally lusted or yearned for - in this case you WERE tempted by Bill or Fred or whoever YET you yourself were NOT TEMPTED because you didn't lust or yearn for what Bill or Fred or whoever was offering. Christ addresses this exact thing: 

"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me".

Satan had nothing in Jesus (lust for sin) that would respond to temptation - therefore Jesus was telling His Apostles not to worry because despite being tempted by the Author himself of sin Satan really had NOTHING in Him that would respond. 

Quote

James 1, 12 says: 

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

What I've been saying all this time is that there was never a point where Christ was drawn away of His own lust, and enticed (this is the point where someone feels the pull toward sin, they WANT IT, THEY YEARN FOR IT, THEY LUST FOR IT - they either follow through on their own yearning for the sin or resist their temptation. This describes by using the Bibe how a person is tempted within themselves.  Jesus was explicit that Satan had NOTHING in Him that Satan could use. 

For the Adventist hypothetical situation of Christ sinning, loosing His Salvation and eternally ceasing to exist to be realized would require that Jesus spoke a falsehood in John 14, 30 as it would require that Satan actually did have something in Christ that Jesus yearned or lusted for and then went through with doing it - it's either that or Jesus within Himself without lust for sin decided that Lucifer was in the right and The Father was wrong - take your pick as that's all there is. 

Dr. Paul does say something that rings true to me, I agree with the following. 

Quote

Dr. Paul says: 

it appears that the strongest temptations tempted Him to employ His divine power for His own sake, which would have been a selfish act. The incarnate Christ was both God and man. It appears to me that the New Testament teaches that as a man, Christ did not utilize His divine power for His own sake but only to help others. In that sense, His actions were unselfish and other-centered, not selfish. He did not make it easier for Himself. Thus, His divinity was actually a liability because the temptations were stronger. To avoid being misunderstood, the New Testament is also clear that Jesus withstood those temptations through His close connection with the Father and by receiving divine power from Him. Thus, He never sinned.

The Person Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, it was the Person Jesus who did everything recorded in the Gospels (not the man Christ or the God Christ). Jesus had the same mind Incarnate as He did prior to the Incarnation - this is what Philippians 2 is saying - that Christ being God did not view that fact as a reason it was below Him to do the will of the Father. Christ is eternally the Son of God and when Jesus said He always did the will of the Father that means He's always (eternally) been of that same mind - it's why He came. 

I agree with Dr. Paul that Christ did not use His Divine power to make things easier for Himself and yes I can't imagine how it would feel to be God and be treated the way He was by His own creation all the time having the power to zap anything from a person or the universe itself out of existence - mind blowing thing to contemplate to be sure. 

The close connection Jesus had with the Father is (and always was) perpetual - there was never a microsecond in eternity that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit weren't intimately connected - this is basic Trinity 101 stuff. I do agree with Dr. Paul that all Christ's actions were unselfish and other-centered. 

In the end Christ couldn't have sinned because God Almighty said He wouldn't / couldn't sin in over 100 places in Scripture. 

 

[Gustave]

To add another way of looking at the question as to if Jesus could have sinned and lost His Salvation. 

Quote

Dr. Paul said: 

Question 1: The Bible certainly teaches that God "cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). But concerning the incarnate Christ, it says that "he was tempted every way that we are, but he did not sin” (Heb 4:16). In the gospels there are multiple examples for the temptations that assailed Him. The most obvious ones are the temptations by Satan in the wilderness. Interestingly, it appears that the strongest temptations tempted Him to employ His divine power for His own sake, which would have been a selfish act. The incarnate Christ was both God and man. It appears to me that the New Testament teaches that as a man, Christ did not utilize His divine power for His own sake but only to help others. In that sense, His actions were unselfish and other-centered, not selfish. He did not make it easier for Himself. Thus, His divinity was actually a liability because the temptations were stronger. To avoid being misunderstood, the New Testament is also clear that Jesus withstood those temptations through His close connection with the Father and by receiving divine power from Him. Thus, He never sinned.

The beef I've had from the beginning was the hypothetical situation Ellen White affirmed that Christ "could have failed", i.e. sinned and had that happened God would have annihilated Christ like a bug. 

This concept (Christ's liability to sin) was considered a VITAL TEACHING for Seventh-day Adventists. 

Quote

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

 

I'm coming from the position that the above was impossible on account that Mary was the Mother of God and that God swore an oath that there would be no failure. I realize I've beat the following verse (and many others) to death - but, seriously, what "Biblical" concept would invalidate the following. 

Quote

Acts 2, 29

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

When I look at the 100 plus Scriptures that explicitly say God wins in the end and when I read what Jesus said about Himself prior to His trials I'm left with the realization that the reason SDA's won't agree that it was impossible for Christ to sin, loose His salvation and eternally cease to exist is only because Ellen White said it was possible. 

phkrause, in a recent post you made you aske me what I thought about something you said, I'm going to ask you what you think of all this? Am I way off base to hold the beliefs that i do?