Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[Gustave]

She says plainly that Jesus Christ was "God, essentially , and in the highest sense," and that Christ was equal to God the Father.

She "improved" her theology from where it started...

...I can agree with that - her mutable Christ teaching is the one that sends me up the wall.

Remember John, the Arian and Semi-Arian Pioneers SAID that Christ was God essentially, in the highest sense, etc...

...And you agree that they rejected the Trinity.

[John317]

Ok, so you are willing to admit that the SDA teachings on this issue up to the point of Ellen's death....

...Were in error?

I don't belive it either, I was just saying all the Adventists believed it...

...While Ellen White was still alive - are you SURE the SDA's don't still believe this.

...Perhaps, because it seems is such a blasphemous teaching the Church is attempting to distance itself from it.

In all due respect, Gustave, you have to be out of your mind to even consider this. It would be hilarious if it wasn't about such a serious subject. You still have not shown that SDA's ever believed what you are saying here. It just shows how great your misundersttanding of SDA doctrine is.

SDA teachings in the past regarding the Trinity and the Godhead were certainly wrong. There's no question of that in my mind or in the mind of SDA scholars. There have many papers and books and articles written about it, and a number of these are posted online.

Not only is it untrue that "All Adventists believed it" but it is untrue that the SDA church teaches or believes it today. I have never heard of such an outrageous thing, and I've been reading and studying SDA history and publications for close to 40 years. My grandfather and my father were both SDA pastors, and I myself studied theology at an SDA university and served as an associate pastor. I've continued to study the Bible and church beliefs since the 1970s. If it was something that has come up in the church or if it was something anyone in the church believed or was teaching today, I would know about it.

If you ever have told people that SDAs believe this, you are really speaking ignorantly, but if you continue to say these things after tonight, you will really be lying, because you have absolutely no evidence to support your allegation, except for a twisting of something you've read.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

She says plainly that Jesus Christ was "God, essentially , and in the highest sense," and that Christ was equal to God the Father.

She "improved" her theology from where it started...

...I can agree with that - her mutable Christ teaching is the one that sends me up the wall.

But she never had to go back to her writings and change what she had had written on the Godhead.

There is no doubt that Ellen White underwent changes in her understandign and thinking. All SDAs know this-- or should know it. She started out as a Methodist, who are Trinitarians. And it can be shown that she did not agree with her husband, James White. He never would have said the things she did about Christ or the Holy Spirit. But he was slowly changing. He was about 10 years behind her.

Ellen White did not discuss these thing even in her family so far as we can tell. She wrote and spoke, but she didn't believe in arguing or debating or even "discussing" these matters with people. She said that if people don't accept the truth on the basis of what she wrote and spoke, they wouldn't accept it because of argument. And I believe she was right. Often argument and discussion only causes people to get upset and put on the breaks.

What is necessary to understand is that Ellen White only wrote what God showed her in regard to the Godhead. And God did not show her everything at once. It was a process. Revelation is progressive. God doesn't shine all the light on us all at once. But what's critical is that Ellen White did not need to change her writings to make them harmonize with what God was showing her. And the reason is that she didn't write her personal opinions. She only wrote what God showed her, and God never showed her that the Trinity doctrine as a whole was in error. her husband, on theother hand, believed that the whole Trinity doctirne was false. Ellen White never attacked the Trinity doctrine per se; but she did attack certain false, unbiblical beliefs related to the Trintiy doctrine as some churches have taught it.

There are books on this topic which you can get and read if you are interested, and they go into great detail and are well documented.

[John317]

Remember John, the Arian and Semi-Arian Pioneers SAID that Christ was God essentially, in the highest sense, etc...

...And you agree that they rejected the Trinity.

Show the quote and give the reference.

I have never read this by anyone except Ellen White.

E.J. Waggoner, a semi-Arian and the son of an Arian, did come to the point where he believed Christ was equal to the Father, but most other SDAs did not agree with him on this until sometime in the early 20th century. By 1913, the editor of the main church paper wrote that the SDA church believed in the Trinity. This was 2 years before the death of Ellen White, and the editor was a man Ellen White thoroughly trusted. She appointed this same man, Wilcox, to be on the original committee to oversee her estate. She obviously wouldn't have done this if she was opposed to the Trinity.

But please give the quote and the reference of where any Arian or semi-Arian said that Christ was God essentially and in the highest sense. That would be impossible, because the statement means that Christ is God in every sense of the word. It means God the Father is not God in any higher sense than Christ is. An Arian or semi-Arian would never utter or write such a thing.

But if you beleive they have, then show your evidence, please.

By the way, according to Ellen White, Christ was also "self-existent," "infinite," "eternal," and "Omnipotent."

What does that mean? "Self-existence" means that Christ did not obtain His existence from any source outside of Himself. "Omnipotent" means Christ is all-powerful, and therefore Almighy God in the same sense as the Father is. "Eternal" and "Infinite" mean that He is without beginning. All this is actually supported by John 1: 1, but many people don't realize it. The last part of that verse means that "What God was, the Word was" (See NEB and REB). That is to say, whatever truth can be said about God, we can also say about the Word. Heb. 1: 3 says basically the same thing.

Let me know if you can ever find an Arian or semi-Arian who will agree with those statements. If they do, their agreement would prove they weren't really Arian, at least not one that understands English very well.

[John317]

I frankly don't see anything wrong with those quotes, friend. I am very familiar with all of them and believe they do not contradict the Bible in any way. If you Believe the Bible teaches contrary to those statements, please show where it does so. Please be specific.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

I've already posted where Ellen said Christ was the only being who could enter into all the councils of "God"...

...I've already posted where Ellen said next to Christ Satan was the highest in heaven.

...I've already posted where Ellen said next to Christ Satan was most honored in heaven.

...For Pete's sake have you done the math on that?

For Pete's sake, have you stopped to consider that Ellen White is not referring to "the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit"?

It's a given that God (the Holy Spirit) can enter "the councils of God." It's unreasonable to think that Ellen White is saying the thrid person of the Godhead-- who she says is "the fullness of the Godhead"-- is unable to enter the councils of God. The Holy Spirit is Himself God. Hello!!!

It should be self-evident that she is talking about beings other than God. She refers to Christ and Lucifer because Christ appeared to Lucifer to be an angel. Christ was known as Michael the Archangel. He was actually the commander or chief of the angels, but He seemed to be one fo them, just as on earth, he seemed to be merely a human being. So in that section of Great Controversy (and Patriarchs and Propehts) Ellen White is writing from the viewpoint of the angels, and particularly from the viewpoint of Lucifer, who was aware that no one except Christ could enter into the councils of God. It made Lucifer envious and jealous.

Lucifer was the highest angel. So, since Christ was(is) the commander of the angels, Lucifer was highest in honor next to Christ, the commander. In other words, Lucifer was the highest created being. No one who is truly thinking this through will be confused and believe Ellen White is saying the third person of the Godhead cannot enter the councils of God.

Where is common sense when such an interpretation is given to the writings of Ellen White? It seems to be completely lacking.

How can anyone seriously think that Ellen White is saying the third person of the Godhead-- who she says is the fullness of the Godhead-- cannot enter into the council of God, when He Himself is God?

Can you explain this?

I can. It is the thinking of people who are looking for something to criticize in Ellen White, and it is done by people who choose to believe that Ellen White was anti-Trinitarian.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Where did you do this? I have not yet seen it. Was this in a post on page 1 or 2? If so, could you please give me the post number?

Page 8 of the discussion, post #439809.

Thank you. I will read it and get back with you.

[John317]

How does the Greek help you there, Gustave? Please parse it and show us your exegesis.

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Doesn't it say that Christ was tempted in every respect just as we fallen humans are?

What is the Greek for "just as"? What does it mean?

How are we fallen humans tempted? It says that Jesus was tempted in every way just as we are, not as the pre-Fall Adam was tempted.

Here's how the Bible says we are tempted:

James 1:14-15

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

For what purpose was Christ so tempted?

Hebrews 2:17-18

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [18] For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

(quoting): INFIRMITIES = G769 / Strong's / ASTHENEIA /

..."Want of strength, weakness, infirmity, OF the BODY,it's native weakness or frailty, feebleness of heath, sickness.

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin".

Jesus was tempted [ TESTED ] with the feelings of ALL human INFIRMITIES...

...So Jesus caught colds, got sick, felt hunger, pain etc.

...He was tempted in ALL POINTS yet without SIN!

This is the ONLY meaning it can be unless you want to "make something up"....

...The ONLY other Greek meanings are weakness of the soul, internal sin, etc.

Satan tempted "Christ" after Christ had fasted and was very weak and hungry....

...Christ NOT being tempted within Himself was simply another PROOF He really was the Christ.

...Just like being "called out of Egypt" and all the other identifications Christ was required to have.

...So that Christ would be "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES".

You want me to vett a word or something deeper than this PLEASE just ask....

...The exegesis is accurate and ONLY violates Arian theology.

...It is in full keeping with the Sacred Scriptures.

You see, the Nicene Creed is fully in line with the Bible.....

...While the Arian teaching Christ could have lost His Salvation is NOT.

Please compare what I said above and what I asked you for, with what you wrote here. I asked you to parse the Greek and show your exegesis. All you've given is something you merely copied from some web-site. It doesn't show that you understand the Greek NT at all.

Another thing is, you have only addressed a very small part of the evidence.

You say:

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Jesus was tempted [ TESTED ] with the feelings of ALL human INFIRMITIES...

...So Jesus caught colds, got sick, felt hunger, pain etc.

...He was tempted in ALL POINTS yet without SIN!

This is the ONLY meaning it can be unless you want to "make something up"....

...The ONLY other Greek meanings are weakness of the soul, internal sin, etc.

But do we even have any evidence that Jesus was actually ever sick?

Explain how catching a cold is being tempted to sin.

And how is getting sick, feeling hunger, pain, etc., the same as being tempted in all points as humans are tempted? Are those the only points on which we humans are tempted?

Notice it says "Jesus was tempted like we are." So Jesus was tempted like we are, right? But then in what way are we tempted?

James 1: 14 answers: "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire."

Are you saying that Jesus does not know what it means to be tempted in the way that James 1: 14 says is the common experience of all mankind?

How does this harmonize with Heb. 2: 14-18?

Hebrews 2:14-18

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, [15] and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. [16] For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. [17] Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [18] For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

[miz3]

It is clear that SDA theology and Doctrine have changed.

In so doing SDA admit they have been wrong about the Light they received from God during the 19th Century period.

If they were wrong then, could they also be wrong now in some of their views?

I thought the PILLARS OF OUR FAITH that we received from the Pioneers could not be altered because to do that would make SDA irrelevant.

Trinitarianism was not a PILLAR, but ARIANISM was! Interesting!

If Ellen White was so vital to our adhering to the Truth, why didn't she press the issue harder if her trinitarian credentials are indeed bonafide?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

...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? What? Is a colonoscopy going to be a requirement before one can enter the pearly gates? People with polyps 3mm and smaller can go through, but larger ones must go to purgatory for awhile to be cauterized?

Goodness.

**sigh**

Back to ..... topic?

[John317]

It is clear that SDA theology and Doctrine have changed.

Of course SDA theology and doctrines have undergone changes. That is not news and it is not something that the SDA church has ever denied. Quite the contrary. Only people who are unfamiliar with the history of the church would write as if this is something new or strange.

Originally Posted By: miz3

In so doing SDA admit they have been wrong about the Light they received from God during the 19th Century period.

No one has ever said that the SDA church throughout its history has been without error. Nothing human is completely error-free. Any history book on the church or the writings of Ellen White herself will confirm that point.

Originally Posted By: miz3

If they were wrong then, could they also be wrong now in some of their views?

Yes, of course.

Originally Posted By: miz3

I thought the PILLARS OF OUR FAITH that we received from the Pioneers could not be altered because to do that would make SDA irrelevant.

The PILLARS OF OUR FAITH haven't altered.

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

NOTE: Arianism was never a pillar of our faith. As I have documented many times on this forum, there was a great variety of beliefs in our church during the 19th century regarding the Godhead. There was no agreement on the nature of Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Our church had ministers who were Semi-Arians, Arians, and Trinitarian, something that would not have been true if Arianism was a pillar of our fatih. Uriah Smith and James White did not agree on the subject. James White wrote in the Review and Herald that the Trinity doctrine was not a test of character or fellowship.

Quote:

Trinitarianism was not a PILLAR, but ARIANISM was! Interesting!

Ariansim was not a pillar of our faith. It was never considered such by anyone in the church. Arianism was never a part of our church's beliefs as published in the Review and Herald or in any other source. By 1913, two years before Ellen White's death, the editor of the RH wrote in that paper that the SDA church believes in the Trinity.

Anyone who claims that Arianism was a pillar of our faith needs to produce a statement from that period of time in which Ellen White affirmed that it was a pillar. Not a single leader of the church ever claimed Arianism to be a pillar.

The fact that most SDAs during those years-- from 1863 to 1890-- were Arian or semi-Arian doesn't mean that Arianim was a pillar of our faith. The "pillars of our faith" are decribed as such by the Lord's messenger, and are not determined by a vote or by some other way.

[miz3]

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.

You may think this a "minor" point, but I think it is a rather major issue as to the Nature of Christ as part of the Godhead. It wasn't until the 20th Century that SDA mysteriously slides into Trinitarianism. I wonder how many pew sitters are aware of this SDA histoy? Its probably pretty slim.

Whether you are Trinitarian or Arian makes a huge difference in the way you view Christ and his sacrifice and the way the Salvation Doctrine is also viewed.

I think that is pretty major! So did the Catholic Church at the time of the Nicene controversy. It makes a big difference if Jesus was created, etc. and whether Jesus is indeed Spirit with the Father and like the Father is eternal in both directions.

It makes all the difference in the world to the Incarnation.

In spite of our Pioneer's views, the Bible is quite clear that Jesus and the Father are infinite and eternal there is no difference in their makeup. To me it is so obvious I am amazed that they missed it, while at the same time those same Pioneers strained at a gnat by asserting the Sanctuary Doctrine and the Investigative Judgment which are not seen in the Bible but are inferred because Ellen White says so.

[miz3]

John317,

You would also think that at bare minimum Ellen White would have straightened out her own husband on this issue.

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

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.

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

Wow!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

You choose to believe it because Ellen White promulgated it despite the fact Scripture says it was impossible...

...This demonstrates' date=' at least in this case, that the Creed is fully compliant with the Bible.

...While the Arianism contained within Jehovah's Witness & SDA theology is NOT.

While there is obviously Arianism within the Jehvoah's Witnesses theology, there is none within SDA theology. None of our basic theology had to change because of Arianism. That aspect didn't affect any of our fundamental beliefs or any of the so-called "foundational pillars of our faith."

Instead of simply making claims, Gustave, please show your evidence for your allegations.

As for the Creed, it doesn't matter whether it is compliant with the Bible or not. That is not why SDAs reject the Creeds. We reject it, not because we find it to be in opposition to the Bible, but because our only creed is the Bible. Even if the creed were written by SDAs, we would still oppose it on principle.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...So far you've just offered what "you" believe and offered not one text to support it.[/quote']

Here's the Bible evidence that Jesus was free to choose whether to obey God or not.

I only need one verse:

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

NOTE: Jesus was tempted as we are. Who is "we"? Sinners. When we are tempted, are we able to choose whether to obey or disoeby? Yes. Therefore Jesus was able to decide whether to obey or disobey. Jesus had a real choice. He was truly tempted, or tested. And a test is meaningless if the person being tested cannot possibly fail the test. Since the first Adam was really tested and could choose to disobey, the second Adam also was able to decide whether to obey or disobey. Both were free agents.

[John317]

John317,

You would also think that at bare minimum Ellen White would have straightened out her own husband on this issue.

You fail to understand Ellen White. She didn't take her role to be that of telling her husband what to think. There is not the slightest evidence that Ellen White ever argued or debated with people concerning the Godhead or the Holy Spirit. She spoke in public and wrote articles about those things, but she never argued about them or told people what to think on those issues apart from her sermons and writings. She said that if people didn't accept the truth on the basis of her sermons and writings, they wouldn't change because of argument or discussion.

Being married to a prophet is hard enough without adding to it by ordering your husband to change his viewpoint. During the 1870s, the White's separated for a while because they weere both making the other feel that they didn't have freedom to be who they felt God wanted them to be and do what God wanted them to do.

James White believed as he did on the basis of Bible study. Ellen White wasn't about to tell him and others that they were wrong to believe as they did. She wanted that to come from the Bible. And that is what happened. When the church read Ellen White's statements in PP and DA, they began to re-study the subject of the Godhead and the Trinity, and they came to the conclusion on the basis of Bible study that the church had been wrong about the Trinity.

Uriah Smith was editor of the church paper, the Review and Herald, and wrote in its pages that Christ was "the first created being." That isn't what Ellen White believed, yet Ellen White did not correct Uriah Smith. As James White wrote in the RH, the doctrine of the Godhead, or Trinity, was not a test of character or fellowship.

Imagine if the prophet of God and the General Conference president, her husband, James White, had argued publically about the Trinity. This could not have benefited the church. It was better for things to go as they did-- with God slowly leading the small band of commandment-keeping Adventists into greater and greater light, not by driving them but by patiently guiding them by His Spirit and through His prophet.

[John317]

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.

You may think this a "minor" point, but I think it is a rather major issue as to the Nature of Christ as part of the Godhead.

There are four basic parts to the answer:

1) Ellen White herself was not certain of all aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity. God didn't show her all truth at once, either about the Trinity or about any other doctrine. She didn't have clear views of the Trinity until the 1890s, and these continued to grow until about 1910.

2) The doctrines regarding the Godhead weren't seen by the church or by Ellen White to be of first importance. Of first importance was the building up of the church and the giving of the Third Angels' Messages. The main things for all of them were that people were putting their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior; obeying all of his commandments, and looking for His second coming. Whether Christ was created at some point in eternity, or whether he had a beginning in the very distant past, wasn't understood to be of great significance.

3) It was Ellen white's work to keep the church together, and help guide it into fuller truth,not destroy it through arguments and disunity over the Trinity. No people change their views of something overnight. It was a process of study, reflection, and gradual change under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

4) It was never Ellen White's role to take the place of the Bible and of Bible study. The doctrine of the Trinity, like all other major doctines of the church, had to come out of the Bible, not merely because of Ellen White.

[Sonny]

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.

[miz3]

John317,

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

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

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.

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

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. After all, what could be more important than the Doctrine of Salvation?

[miz3]

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.

Again, everything hangs on the Doctrine of Salvation. God thought is so vital that He announced it right at the start (Genesis 3:15).

After the "sin" I don't see God telling us anything about:

the sanctuary in heaven, the 2300 days, the investigative judgment, or any of these "doctrines" that are most important to SDA. Instead God teaches Adam and Eve the Doctrine of Salvation (which is the Gospel).

In fact these doctrines (the sanctuary, 2300 days, investigative judgment, etc.) are so vital to SDA that they will move heaven and earth to protect them.

Yet they don't even list the Doctrine of Salvation which is the most vital of Doctrines on their "pillar list".

Amazing!

[ClubV12]

The plan of salvation seems so obvious I didn't realize it needed to be spelled out as a doctrinal point? It's a concept that is accepted by all those of christian faith, at the very least. All though the details are hotly debated. The details comprise the doctrinal points, not the concept itself. But the plan of salvation, Jesus dieing for our sin's, is transparent and clearly the cornerstone of all christian faith.

[miz3]

ClubV12,

Not everyone sees it as so obvious. Paul didn't think it was so obvious as to not even mention it. Paul's whole ministry was built around the Doctrine of Salvation.

Your statement makes my point. SDA take for granted this vital and most foundational of Doctrines. They do this in order to puff themselves up as the unique ones to carry to the world the doctrines of their special views of the "sanctuary", the "investigative judgment, the "2300 days", etc.

The Jews of Christ's day thought the same thing about themselves. The Jews refused to see their error because of Pride, and SDA are repeating the same mistake today.

The Jews missed Jesus Christ because they were too busy defending and spreading "their pillars" and SDA are copying the same today.

[ClubV12]

Time and place. In Pauls time and place his basic audience had no clear concept of the plan of salvation as applied to Jesus. Many were idol worshipers with no clear concept of a living God! The plan of salvation does not need to be a "doctrinal point", I think that lowers it's significance. Doctrinal points are the details, like circumcision, strangled meat, meat offered to idols, etc.

The plan of salvation is the very reason we exist, it is everything with all else being secondary in nature. It deserves a higher place than a mere "doctrinal point". Essentially, it goes without saying it is a doctrine, because it IS fundamentally WHAT we are saying and WHY we are here!

When entering a new country where the plan is not common knowledge you don't start preaching about "doctrine", you deliver the message, Christ died for your sins. First and foremost, we'll get into the doctrine in the right time and place, later.

Come to think of it, isn't this (plan of salvation) covered already within the 28 fundamental beliefs?

[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.

She did for almost 30 years - starting in the 1880's

[BobRyan]

While there is obviously Arianism within the Jehvoah's Witnesses theology, there is none within SDA theology. None of our basic theology had to change because of Arianism. That aspect didn't affect any of our fundamental beliefs or any of the so-called "foundational pillars of our faith."

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!

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

She did for almost 30 years - starting in the 1880's

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

Shouldn't the Doctrine of Salvation swallow up every other Doctrine?

Yet SDA believe their doctrine of the "sanctuary", the "investigative judgment", and the "2300 days" are the doctrines that "swallow up every other doctrine".

Interesting!

[John317]

Shouldn't the Doctrine of Salvation swallow up every other Doctrine?

Yet SDA believe their doctrine of the "sanctuary", the "investigative judgment", and the "2300 days" are the doctrines that "swallow up every other doctrine".

Our doctrine about the heavenly sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment and the "2300 days" is directly related to the doctrine of salvation. They are not side issues.

The heavenly sanctuary is all about what Christ is doing for our salvation today. What He is doing now is just as important as what He did on Golgotha 2000 years ago.

Without the Investigative Judgment, the Sabbath wouldn't be important, and the state of the dead would also lose much of its relevance. The heavenly sanctuary is our most foundational doctrine because all of the SDA doctrines gain their true importance in relationship to the sanctuary doctrine. It is like the hub of the wheel, and the other doctrines may be seen as spokes connecting to the hub. If you destroy the hub, all you have left are a bunch of individual spokes instead of a wheel.

That is why Satan and all his hosts are out to attack and destroy (if possible) the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary.

And it is why our prophet, Ellen G. White, wrote:

Quote:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Daniel 8:14 (GC 423)

Please study GC 424-432.