Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Jesus was tempted as we are.

Yes, but much more severely. Jesus, on the cross, was tempted to grab on to His Divinity, come down off the cross and save Himself. He was tempted to use His power of divinity that He had voluntarily handed over to His Father.

On the cross Jesus was tempted with our bent to self. He was tempted with the love of self. He was tempted to come down off the cross and save His own skin - to heck with the human race.

You got that right, Sonny.

His temptations were far greater than ours because, among other things, He knew He was God and could leave this earth any time He wanted. But like you say, He stayed with it and went through hell for us. He was free to do otherwise. He didn't have to save us. God was not obligated to save humanity. He would have been right to leave us to the consequences of our sins if that is what God chose to do. It was only because of His mercy and pity and love that Christ CHOSE to suffer for our sakes. It was for the same reason that Christ CHOSE to always obey His Heavenly Father.

[John317]

That leaves a big hole of 30 to 35 years before the 1880s.

If you study SDA history from the time of the Millerite Movement to 1888, you will see what was happening during those years. There's no hole. It is all filled in.

As far as the Trinity doctrine is concerned, it is neccesary to understand that Adventists came from many different denominational and doctrinal backgrounds. For a long time, the only doctrine they held in common was their belief that Jesus was coming back soon. Later they also agreed about the keeping of the commandments of God, including the 7th day Sababth. Later still, they added their agreement on other doctrines, such as the 2300 day prophecy, the state of the dead, and the three angels messsages, the health message.

But the doctrine of the Godhead, or the Trinity, was never a doctrine that the whole church agreed upon, nor was it ever a foundational belief. Only in 1912 did the editor of the Review and Herald write in its pages that the SDA church believed in the Trintiy. That was just 2 years before Ellen White's death.

As I mentioned before, Ellen White herself did not have a clear and comprehensive understanding of those issues until the late 1880s and 1890s. She was also growing in her understanding through Bible study and through the visions God gave her.

Yet what is remarkable is that Ellen White never needed to go back to her earlier writings and change them in order to make them conform to God's most recent revelations to her. The reason is that Ellen White didn't write her personal opinions, but only wrote what she knew God had revealed to her. Revelation of truth is always progressive-- a little bit at a time.

That's the way God has always worked. After all, the Trinity is revealed slowly, or progressively, in the Scriptures themselves. Even the knowledge we have of Christ's first coming was revelead slowly, not all at once. This is how our Adventist pioneers learned the truth, progressively, a little bit at a time. That is why it is not wise to go back and adopt their views on everything. They were wrong on some things. The Trinity was one of those things about which they were plainly wrong. They never would have wanted us to base all our beliefs upon them. They would be the first to urge us to get the truth out of Bible study and the Spirit of propehcy.

[John317]

That is correct - not one of the SDA published list of beliefs from 1870 through 1920 (or at any other point in time) declared/specified/affirmed the arian POV against the Triune Godhead, One God in Three Persons.

No not one!

Exactly.

There is nothing in any of the lists of our published doctrines that I don't agree with today. None of them attack the Trinity or declare that Christ was created or that the Holy Spirit is not God. I believe that is strong evidence that God was leading our church in the formation of its doctrines. It also is good evidence that our church never felt united on the issues of the Godhead, because if it had felt united on the question of Christ being a creature or on the Holy Spirit's being merely an influence, they would have included it among the beliefs of the church.

[John317]

John317,

Why then are so many SDA, even today as well as in the past, so ignorant of our Arian roots?

You can't rightly blame it on the church itself because our Arian roots are mentioned in almost all books dealing with our doctrinal history. It is not as if the church is trying to hide it. Our publishing houses print books and articles on it, and it is the subject of many research papers in the SDA universities. Much of this information is available online.

I personally would like to see more people aware of it. That is why I often write about it and encourage others to read the books that deal with these questions.

But as to why people are ignorant of our Arian roots, the real reason is that most people don't study and read as they should. Many will tell you they are "bored" with history and doctrine. It's the same reason that so many SDAs are almost completely ignorant of the Investigative Judgment and of many other fundamental beliefs of the church. People shouldn't wait for others to teach them, but they need to take the initiative and be responsible for teaching themselves.

[John317]

In addition are you suggesting that Ellen White was so busy that she did not have time to study the Bible?

Certainly not. I've mentioned that she studied the Bible.

[John317]

Why did SDA cave on their Arianism to "mainline Protestantism"?

We didn't. What is your evidence that we SDAs have "caved in on" Arianism. Are you Arian in your theology? What is your personal belief? Are you an SDA?

[John317]

Again, this may not seem important to you, but I believe everything hangs on the Divinity of Jesus Christ and that support of Arian views changes everything.

Do you mean deity of Jesus Christ or divinity?

Saying Christ is divine is not the same as saying He is deity.

Many people will be saved by faith in Christ who did not believe He is God.

I do believe belief in the Trinity is important but I don't believe it is essential to one's salvation.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Christ's pre-existence and in His divinity. But they don't believe in Christ's deity. The same could be said about Uriah Smith, Loughborough, and the senior Waggoner. E.J. Waggoner believed in Christ's derived deity. He did not agree with his daddy. Ellen White did not agree with any of them on the matter of Christ's deity. These are just a few examples of what I mean when I say that our church was not united on the Godhead.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Here are the pillars of our faith:

The Second advent of Christ

7th day Sabbath

Third Angels Message

Sanctuary in heaven

Non-immortality of the wicked

Baptism and the Lord's Supper

State of the dead

Creation

Perpetuity of the Law of God

Nothing about the Doctrine of Salvation here! It appears that SDA think such a Doctrine so trivial that they do not even have it as a singular item.

...Amazing!

This has been the subject of many books, or at least parts of many books. The simple truth is that since the early SDAs came out of other churches, they took the knowledge of salvation for granted. In other words, it was a given. Most SDAs were not new believers but had been united with Christ for a long time before becoming SDA. Therefore their emphasis was upon those doctrines that brought them together into the SDA church.

It's important to remember that the list above is not a comprehensive list of SDA beliefs. I have only given the Foundational Pillars of the SDA church. Our church had additonal beliefs, including that of salvation, of course.

SDAs didn't have an official list of beliefs approved by the world church in General Conference until 1980.

[John317]

Why didn't Ellen White discuss the "issue" with her husband in private? No one is suggesting that she had to do it in public. As a loving wife she could have pointed out to him from the Bible that his Arian views were clearly wrong.

The evidence indicates that Ellen White did not discuss these issues even with Willie White. Sometime in early 1900s, Willie White wrote a letter in which he said that he didn't understand his mother's views on the subject of the Godhead. Willie White was semi-Arian, but he didn't write very much at all regarding his beliefs on it. Most SDAs didn't say or write much if anything on the topic simply because they didn't view it as important to be correct (or be in agreement) on all the details. From the viewpoint of the pioneers, it was enough for people to believe in Christ's pre-existence and divinity and to believe that God sent the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, etc. It was of secondary important to them whether people agreed with them on whether Christ had been created or had been begotten in eternity, or whether the Holy Spirit was a person or an influence. These things did not become important until the 1888 Message began to be understood. When it is completely understood, the 1888 Message of the righteousness of Christ requires a knowledge and appreciation of Christ's full deity and full humanity.

[John317]

Terrific post, ClubV12.

[John317]

How one can make the Nature of the Godhead "not a major pillar" is just simply amazing.

What is a Foundational pillar of SDA faith? Do you know? It is not simply an important truth. The Foundational pillars are those teachings that make us the distinctive church that we are, and they are described as such by the Spirit of prophecy, i.e., the writings of Ellen G. White.

Even most of the churches in spiritual Babylon believe in the Trinity, although their views of it are somewhat different from ours. Most of them base their views of the Trinity on the Creeds rather than on the Bible. The SDA church, on the other hand, bases its understanding of the Godhead, or the "heavenly trio," on the Bible.

[John317]

I also think the 20th Century shift is also amazing considering that many think such a change came under pressure from "mainline Protestantism". That's a major switcharoo especially after so many decades of Arian dominance.

All anyone has to do to see this is in error is read our history and understand how and when the doctrine of the Trinity came into our church.

Remember that the move toward the Trinity doctrine began in 1888 and continued until 1913, when the editor of the R& H wrote that the SDA church accepts and believes the Trinity. Also remember that there were Trinitarians in our church and serving as pastors before the 1880s. That would not have happened if our church was as solidly Arian and anti-Trinitarian as you seem to think. As I said, our church was never "officially" Arian, although virtually all of our leaders were either Arian or semi-Arian.

None of our basic doctrines were affected by Ariansism.

By the 1890s and early 1900s, many of our leaders were beginning to change and move toward Trinitairanism. That includes Prescott, A.T. Jones, and Ellen White. However, some never did, including Uriah Smith & J.H. Waggoner. Of course these latter died 1903 and 1889, respectively.

[John317]

...It also appears that the SDA Church tried to slip Trinitarianism silently by so that future generations would never notice SDA's Arian roots.

This is not true, and is easily disproved by the fact that the church has published books and research papers desribing the church's Arian roots. Furthermore, some of these sources are posted online for people who are interested in reading them.

The information has been available in the libraries for people to read if they choose to. If they don't know about it, it is their own fault.

On the other hand, it is not the church's responsibility to keep reminding people of the false doctrines that the church once held.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...I just proved that the Pioneers believed God who created Adam had a rectum PRIOR to His creating Adam.

...That's all I said - and that it was very important to the Sanctuary teaching.

I can't believe the above was in Theological Townhall. Having a rectum is an important Sanctuary teaching?

Yes, it is a first, and hopefully will be the last, too.

A most ridiculous idea, and it goes to show what some people will try to dig up in order to attack Ellen White and the SDA church. It's a sign the Devil is working overtime and is getting very desperate indeed.

I find it odd that Miz3 doesn't say Gustave's idea is "strange" or "amazing," etc.

[Sonny]

He was free to do otherwise.

Yes, no one held a gun to God's head, but.... God is agape. He lives to serve. You and I are a product of the fall. We had no choice in the matter.

For God to turn His face from the fallen race wouldn't be an act of agape. God could do no other than come to save the fallen race. After all He loves us more than Himself. The cross proves forever that He loves us, His enemies, more than Himself.

[John317]

God has a free choice, and He did not do it because He had to. He did because of His mercy toward the human race. However, God could have justly allowed us to reap the consequences of our sins. Turning away from us would have been an act of justice. What I am saying, then, is that it would have been just for Him to've done so. He wasn't compelled by some outside law or power to give His beloved Son for the human race. But God is not only just and righteous but He is also agape/love.

[Sonny]

God has a free choice, and He did not do it because He had to.

[miz3]

John317,

Then why did Paul make that statement?

[BobRyan]

John317,

Why didn't Ellen White disabuse the "brethren" that they were wrong in regard to their Arian views and that the TRUTH about the Godhead was Trinitarian.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

God has a free choice, and He did not do it because He had to.

God's will never works outside His agape....Never!

Yes, this is true, so true.

Yet we are told-- and I do believe it-- that it was a struggle for the Father to give up His only Son to die for the world. It was not an easy decision.

[miz3]

BobRyan,

Revelation chapter 14 and Daniel chapter 7 say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the investigative judgment!

You are imposing something on the Word of God.

[John317]

John317,

Then why did Paul make that statement?

That is what shows we need to study ALL that the Bible says. Paul also said:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 1 Cor. 15: 14.

[Sonny]

The IJ doctrine begins with the "Everlasting Gospel" in Rev 14:6-7.

6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people-- 7 saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."

The gospel is and has always been Christ crucified! The gospel is therefore the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. This is what saves.

Those who reject this message constitute Babylon - those who preach the false of gospel of salvation by faith plus works. Such a gospel doesn't give glory to God, but rather man's works. This is brought out in the following:

Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them , I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Babylon rejects the gospel. It adds man's works. When you teach that a man is saved by faith + works those works will be polluted with selfishness. The works are a denial of Christ's perfect redemption. They are works of iniquity - works done for a reward. Such works are void of agape.....

[miz3]

John317,

"And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

1Corinthians 2:1-8.

Sounds to me like "Christ Crucified Only" message. Sounds to me like everything stems from this ONE DOCTRINE!

AMAZING! JUST ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: miz3

John317,

Then why did Paul make that statement?

That is what shows we need to study ALL that the Bible says. Paul also said:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 1 Cor. 15: 14.

The evidence that Christ's work of redemption was perfect & complete was His resurrection.