SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Hanseng]

4 hours ago, Challenger said:

Can that be said of your faith?

Roman Catholicism has certainly advanced. During the reign of Charles V, in the Netherlands, the papacy slaughtered ~ 50,000 Protestants, according to D'Aubigne. That hasn't happened lately.

[Gustave]

Quote

hanseng said: You have demonstrated is that Canright opposed the trinity and wrote articles expressing his view. It's  unlikely that EGW edited his work in any meaningful way, since she admitted that she required help with grammar and style in her own books. Her own writings required extensive editorial input, yet you think she edited the work of others? I doubt it.

Ellen didn't seem to have any problem at all in reviewing the Living Temple and voicing her displeasure with it. If she was able to do that she would have been more than capable of assisting in the revision of Canright's Trinitarian hit piece in the Sabbath Herald.  

[Hanseng]

1 minute ago, Gustave said:

Where can you point me to within official SDA sources that I can see the SDA Church has repudiated the "vital"  SDA teaching that it was possible Christ could have sinned, lost His Salvation and eternally ceased to exist and "The Father" would simply trudge on? If the SDA Church has done that I owe everyone here a colossal apology. 

How about you show any official denominational teaching that states Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father "simply trudged on?" Not saying the teaching  doesn't exist but I'd like to see it.

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

Roman Catholicism has certainly advanced. During the reign of Charles V, in the Netherlands, the papacy slaughtered ~ 50,000 Protestants, according to D'Aubigne. That hasn't happened lately.

Judicial executions Vs. WAR. There were perhaps 2 to 5000 protestants killed by Spain in the Netherlands. 

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

How about you show any official denominational teaching that states Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father "simply trudged on?" Not saying the teaching  doesn't exist but I'd like to see it.

Is Ellen White "official denominational teaching" in your view, or, is she not now considered a prophet? 

[Hanseng]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

There were perhaps 2 to 5000 protestants killed by Spain in the Netherlands. 

D'Aubigne said 50,000. The context of his comment was religious persecution. Many of the wars in those days were fought over religious issues.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

How about you show any official denominational teaching that states Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father "simply trudged on?" Not saying the teaching  doesn't exist but I'd like to see it.

Sure,

Quote

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

 

Quote

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926
He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

 

Quote

Ellen White, DA 131
Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not ONLY became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure AND eternal loss

 

Quote

Ellen White, SM book 1, page 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Quote

Ellen White
Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC

Quote

Ellen White
The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would NEVER have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

What do you think of these? 

[Hanseng]

Is Ellen White "official denominational teaching" in your view, or, is she not now considered a prophet?

5 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Is Ellen White "official denominational teaching" in your view, or, is she not now considered a prophet? 

I would consider that "official church teaching." Glad to see where she said Jesus Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father" simply trudged on."

[Hanseng]

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

What do you think of these? 

Glad to be reminded of the love God evinced in redeeming humanity.  What you revile as blasphemy is a wonderful testimony to the love God has for humanity. Roman Catholics have an unfortunate history of calling good evil and evil good, e.g., the Reformation.

Didn't notice anything about the Father trudging on. The "spin" you put on things you don't understand does you no credit.

I'm working on a post regarding the early SDA  detestation of the Papacy as revealed in R& H articles of that time. Stay tuned.

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Is Ellen White "official denominational teaching" in your view, or, is she not now considered a prophet?

I would consider that "official church teaching." Glad to see where she said Jesus Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father" simply trudged on."

What I meant here is I would like to see where EGW said Jesus Christ would have ceased to exist while the Father simply trudged on. Without verifying the accuracy of that statement,  consider that just because something is beyond our comprehension doesn't mean it can't happen. Apparently you want to limit God to what reason says is true, essentially saying that Reason defines the God you serve. 

"As the heaven is higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than ours." Consider that next time you want to limit the Creator to  the prison of [your]  human reason.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Glad to be reminded of the love God evinced in redeeming humanity.  What you revile as blasphemy is a wonderful testimony to the love God has for humanity. 

A wonderful testimony that is the opposite of what the Bible defines the Gospel to be. 1st Corinthians 15, 1-10 is explicit as to the Gospel St. Paul was given to preach and the most important part of that Gospel was that there couldn't be any outcome other than what was destined "according to the Scriptures". I get it that Ellen White provides you with what you want - I'm just asking you to recognize that her hypothetical possibility of Jesus failing IS ANOTHER GOSPEL, according to what the Bible clearly says the Gospel is. 

Quote

hanseng said: Didn't notice anything about the Father trudging on. The "spin" you put on things you don't understand does you no credit.

Your reading comprehension does you no favors. 

Quote

Ellen White, SM book 1, page 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Had Ellen's hypothetical been realized WHO would have been capable of bringing "Divine wrath" against "Christ" hanseng? Are you now suggesting that immediately after "God" issued "Divine wrath" against Christ "God" would have self-destructed leaving Lucifer the option of leveling up? Or is it more reasonable to conclude whatever it was that was capable of bringing Divine wrath against Christ trudged on? Please explain, inquiring minds want to know. 

Quote

hanseng said: "As the heaven is higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than ours." Consider that next time you want to limit the Creator to  the prison of [your]  human reason.

If that's the rubric you claim justifies ignoring what the Bible itself identifies the Gospel to be so that you can substitute anything that Ellen White said (even if it's the direct opposite of what the Bible said) you are free to continue worshipping that golden calf. 

Would you like me to break-down more Ellen White quotes for you where she states Christ could have went Kaput and "God" would have kept on truckin? 

[Hanseng]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

*

 

[Hanseng]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

Would you like me to break-down more Ellen White quotes for you where she states Christ could have went Kaput and "God" would have kept on truckin? 

No,  I'm done demonstrating, for the moment, the ugliness of conflict over matters of belief.

[Gustave]

Please don't go. I don't want anyone reading this thread to feel uncomfortable and not interact with the things being said on either side. I can feel that you are devout in your positions hanseng and I hope you can realize anything I may say that sounds to like ugliness is just my own strong beliefs coming through in my writing. Same goes for you challenger, keep on challenging. 

[Challenger]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

Where can you point me to within official SDA sources that I can see the SDA Church has repudiated the "vital"  SDA teaching that it was possible Christ could have sinned, lost His Salvation and eternally ceased to exist and "The Father" would simply trudge on? If the SDA Church has done that I owe everyone here a colossal apology. 

Excuse me, but too quote my question without respect in giving an answer, and steer the topic in another direction by asking a question of your own,  seems to demonstrate your need to take control of our conversation. Such behavior does not make for good dialogue. 

Best Regards.

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Challenger said:

Excuse me, but too quote my question without respect in giving an answer, and steer the topic in another direction by asking a question of your own,  seems to demonstrate your need to take control of our conversation. Such behavior does not make for good dialogue. 

Best Regards.

My apologies Challenger, I didn't intend to give any disrespect. Let me do better and repost your question below and do a better job of addressing it. 

Quote

Challenger said: 

Why is it that you are you so adamant in documenting our early anti-triune teachings since we as Adventists today have acknowledged that this was in error, and no longer teach it?  

In digging into this subject I discovered that at large, the Millerites were Trinitarian. The impetus of the Millerite movement wasn't the Trinity at all. The Millerite movement's message was 'Hey, Jesus is coming back on x, y, and then z dates SO GET READY. That was it, there was no other message. 

When William Miller admitted his Biblical errors and begged his followers to return to their former Churches the only folks that were left (who didn't have a Church to go back to) were the anti-Trinitarians who had no "Church" to return to. It didn't take very long for this collection of anti-Trinitarians to start squabbling over what Doctrines they should observe (this left over group was referred to as "Adventist". This group of Adventists fractured into multiple factions - one faction solidified around Ellen Harmon / later white and these specific Adventists became known as the Seventh-day Adventists. 

It's very true that majority of Seventh-day Adventists today claim that they have left the errors of the Pioneers and no longer teach anti-Trinitarianism. I find this to be incorrect. What I believe happened is that later SDA's re-defined the Trinity Doctrine so that it would comply with Ellen White's teachings - primarily the Personality of God Doctrine which asserted that God was a collection of separate Beings with the ultimate of these "beings" being Father God. In other words God was made out of "parts" with one being (part) being Father God, another being (Michael the archangel) and later on a third "being" called the Holy Ghost was added to the mix. These three beings were considered ONE GOD because they were united in mission and love (sort of like a perfect military unit or family that's completely unified). There was a caveat however to all of this and that was Michael was in reality a "creature christ". Because the anti-Trinitarians believed that Jesus could have sinned, lost His salvation and eternally cease to exist all while affirming that Father God would continue on if that happened. As Ellen said it, had Christ sinned "Divine wrath would have come upon Christ". This concept is so far afield of the Trinity Doctrine it would be better for SDA's to just say (like the Mormons and Christadelphians, Mormons and Muslim's) that they are not Trinitarian. 

This is why I'm interested in this topic. 

Thanks for letting me know I didn't answer your question Challenger. I appreciate the dialogue. 

[Challenger]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

My apologies Challenger, I didn't intend to give any disrespect. Let me do better and repost your question below and do a better job of addressing it. 

Apology accepted. 

 

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

digging into this subject I discovered that at large, the Millerites were Trinitarian. The impetus of the Millerite movement wasn't the Trinity at all. The Millerite movement's message was 'Hey, Jesus is coming back on x, y, and then z dates SO GET READY. That was it, there was no other message. 

Do you not mean, the Millerites were Anti-Trinitarian?  I believe your second sentence to be a correct assesment.

 

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

It's very true that majority of Seventh-day Adventists today claim that they have left the errors of the Pioneers and no longer teach anti-Trinitarianism. I find this to be incorrect. What I believe happened is that later SDA's re-defined the Trinity Doctrine so that it would comply with Ellen White's teachings - primarily the Personality of God Doctrine which asserted that God was a collection of separate Beings with the ultimate of these "beings" being Father God. In other words God was made out of "parts" with one being (part) being Father God, another being (Michael the archangel) and later on a third "being" called the Holy Ghost was added to the mix. These three beings were considered ONE GOD because they were united in mission and love (sort of like a perfect military unit or family that's completely unified).

I studied my way into Adventism over forty years ago. Over these forty years I have never been made aware that our early church fathers were anti-Trinitarians. I owe that to you. Thanks. I believe you are incorrect in stating that the majority of SDA's today, claim they have left the errors of our pioneers. I don't believe the majority are aware, since they are not discussed. 

 We have embraced the Trinity Doctrine since the late 1890's as I understand,  based on what I learned in the link I posted earlier. Did you view it? You state that SDA's re-defined the Trinity Doctrine in order to comply with EG White's teaching. Please enlighten me of the difference in the two. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:23 PM by Challenger
Better clarity

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: Do you not mean, the Millerites were Anti-Trinitarian?  I believe your second sentence to be a correct assesment.

No, the "Millerites" were Trinitarian. William Miller was a Trinitarian. The Millerite movement attracted Christians of nearly every denomination - and this included folks who rejected the Trinity. After William disbanded his group the anti-Trinitarians who were left were called "Adventists". 

Quote

Challenger said: I studied my way into Adventism over forty years ago. Over these forty years I have never been made aware that our early church fathers were anti-Trinitarians. I owe that to you. Thanks. I believe you are incorrect in stating that the majority of SDA's today, claim they have left the errors of our pioneers. I don't believe the majority are aware, since they are not discussed. 

Initially the SDA Church was militantly anti-Trinitarian, later the SDA Church (after it became more educated) realized the Trinity Doctrine was true but had to reconcile / save Ellen White's status as a Prophet so they were required to re-jig the Trinity Doctrine to comport with Ellen White's writings. This is what I believe happened. 

Quote

Challenger said: We have embraced the Trinity Doctrine since the late 1890's as I understand,  based on what I learned in the link I posted earlier. Did you view it? You state that SDA's re-defined the Trinity Doctrine in order to comply with EG White's teaching. Please enlighten me of the difference in the two. 

Ellen White taught that Christ was malleable or squishy (he could have sinned, eternally ceased to exist). This concept is absolutely anti-Trinitarian. You simply cannot be a Trinitarian and believe this. Additionally you cannot believe that God is 3 Beings - this also is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. This isn't just me saying this - a Bible beating Baptist, a Lutheran, an Eastern Orthodox or Methodist Christian would say this. 

[Challenger]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

No, the "Millerites" were Trinitarian. William Miller was a Trinitarian. The Millerite movement attracted Christians of nearly every denomination - and this included folks who rejected the Trinity. After William disbanded his group the anti-Trinitarians who were left were called "Adventists". 

Initially the SDA Church was militantly anti-Trinitarian, later the SDA Church (after it became more educated) realized the Trinity Doctrine was true but had to reconcile / save Ellen White's status as a Prophet so they were required to re-jig the Trinity Doctrine to comport with Ellen White's writings. This is what I believe happened. 

Ellen White taught that Christ was malleable or squishy (he could have sinned, eternally ceased to exist). This concept is absolutely anti-Trinitarian. You simply cannot be a Trinitarian and believe this. Additionally you cannot believe that God is 3 Beings - this also is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. This isn't just me saying this - a Bible beating Baptist, a Lutheran, an Eastern Orthodox or Methodist Christian would say this. 

I'm still in the Dark, as you have not clearly explained what you understand the " Trinity Doctrine" to be, but rather what it can't be. To claim you are a Trinitarian, does that not mean you believe in "three of something"? What is it then? 

Thanks for the clarification that the Millerites were Trinitarian, early Adventist anti- Trinitarian. 

 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Challenger said:

I'm still in the Dark, as you have not clearly explained what you understand the " Trinity Doctrine" to be, but rather what it can't be. To claim you are a Trinitarian, does that not mean you believe in "three of something"? What is it then? 

Thanks for the clarification that the Millerites were Trinitarian, early Adventist anti- Trinitarian. 

 

We are finite creatures of an infinite God so I'd no more be able to explain what the Trinity is than dung could explain how to split an atom. That said what Scripture does provide us with is what the Trinity is NOT. God is NOT a collection of "parts" (i.e. Christ is not 1/3 of God). If Christ ceased to exist God would cease to exist because Christ is as much God as the Father is God, God is a spiritual substance that is not separable.

Yes, the Millerites were absolutely Trinitarian and after William Miller admitted he taught heresy and asked everyone to return to their former Church's the only folks left were the folks that didn't have a Church to return to - these were the anti-Trinitarians who soon fractured and formed into different sects. 

A Jehovah's Witness IS an Adventist - they are just not "Seventh-day" Adventist. 

A Christadelphian IS an Adventist - they are just not "Seventh-day" Adventist.

WWCOG are Adventist - they are just not "Seventh-day" Adventist. 

There are many Adventist groups but only one of them is "Seventh-day" Adventist. 

 

[Gustave]

Here Challenger.