SDA Evangelism

[Gregory Matthews]

Standard SDA belief would agree that God knows exactly what will happen in the future.  But, it would also say that God's knowledge of the future does NOT mandate that such a future will happen.

As an example,  Let us say that God knew that in the future, due to God's gift of "free will" to created beings, there would be a rebellion among the angelic beings, and sin would arise.  But, foreknowledge did not mandate that one of the angels would rebel and it did not mandate that Adam and Eve would also sin.    

It is from this perspective that a SDA would agree that both the OT and the NT agree that Christ would not fail and yet at the same  time such agreement does not preclude the idea that Christ could have failed.

My point is to establish that area of mutual agreement (The Biblical teaching that Christ would not fail.) and to narrow the point of disagreement to the idea that Christ could have failed. 

[Gustave]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:07 PM, BlessedMan said:

thats correct. There is no such thing in EGW writings as "a failed Christ" no matter how many times someone bruits a single sentence (with lots of square bracket "emphasis") they cannot make it to mean something that it does not.

 

I've never said Ellen taught a failed Christ - what I've said was that she taught Christ COULD HAVE sinned (or failed). 

[Gregory Matthews]

EGW did teach that Christ could have failed.

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I've never said Ellen taught a failed Christ - what I've said was that she taught Christ COULD HAVE sinned (or failed). 

Im not sure why you are insisting on taking a single thought or sentence; really just part of one at that, and trying to make it say this. We, nor she have never taught this. Its not in our official teachings anywhere. Never has been. Taking "quotes" and making them to mean what they dont, is at the root of this problem.

[Gustave]

On 2/8/2020 at 8:04 PM, BlessedMan said:

I see you are finding it necessary to resort to materials on an anti-trinity web site in your last post. Makes one wonder if you will ever start to actually quote OFFICIAL denominational fundamental beliefs in order to "expose" what Adventists "really believe."

 

If that's your point than the General Conference Archives (of the Seventh-day Adventist Church) is arguably an anti-Trinitarian website, at least up to the mid 20th century. SEE: https://www.andrews.edu/~burt/010524_Burt.pdf

What, contained in the Denominational Fundamentals can you proffer that puts a Seventh-day Adventist on actual notice that "The Trinity" is a fundamental belief?  Given that the term was coined (defined) by the historic Christian Church I'm looking for a description that would be in line with the historic definition. Remember, a Mormon can say in all honesty that he or she believes in The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. 

You should be able to point to something other than saying Jesus is one with the Father "in the same way" that Jesus was one with His Disciples. 

 

 

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

Im not sure why you are insisting on taking a single thought or sentence; really just part of one at that, and trying to make it say this. We, nor she have never taught this. Its not in our official teachings anywhere. Never has been. Taking "quotes" and making them to mean what they dont, is at the root of this problem.

"For a period of time Christ WAS ON PROBATION. He took humanity on himself TO STAND THE TEST AND TRIAL which the first Adam failed to endure. HAD HE FAILED IN HIS TEST AND TRIAL, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISOBEDIENT TO THE VOICE OF GOD AND THE WORLD WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST." Mrs. E.G. White: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST18990510-V25-19.pdf

 

As you know we can replicate this type of affirmation (from Ellen White & other prominent SDA's)  ad-nauseam. Am I to understand you're here submitting Ellen White, the other Pioneer's & Sabbath School lessons never taught that Christ was initially "an experiment" until it was determined He was suitable? I want to understand your position here. 

 

 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

You should be able to point to something other than saying Jesus is one with the Father "in the same way" that Jesus was one with His Disciples. 

I don't mind discussing yes or no do we belief such and such in this topic. but I don't intend to have any "trinity" discussions unless its a different thread. While you continue to repeat the same thing over & over again and trying to make one thought an entire spectrum of doctrine, you could do better by recalling I am very cognizant of what the various materials out there teach.  If you did know as much about Adventist beliefs as you seem to be saying here; you would know that in the official belief does not even use the word "trinity" and there is, I believe, very good reason for that:

Quote

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. -The Godhead, Fundamental Beliefs 2

While some have expressed concern that "trinity" is an RCC construct, and therefore we shouldn't believe what they do; I would posit that there are many miles between how Adventists see this subject, and how our RCC brethren typically see it.

What you seem to be doing here my friend is taking one thought/sentence and isolating it from its context, and then from that, bruiting it into what Adventists "really" believe. I am not very interested in such discussions.

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Standard SDA belief would agree that God knows exactly what will happen in the future.  But, it would also say that God's knowledge of the future does NOT mandate that such a future will happen.

As an example,  Let us say that God knew that in the future, due to God's gift of "free will" to created beings, there would be a rebellion among the angelic beings, and sin would arise.  But, foreknowledge did not mandate that one of the angels would rebel and it did not mandate that Adam and Eve would also sin.    

It is from this perspective that a SDA would agree that both the OT and the NT agree that Christ would not fail and yet at the same  time such agreement does not preclude the idea that Christ could have failed.

My point is to establish that area of mutual agreement (The Biblical teaching that Christ would not fail.) and to narrow the point of disagreement to the idea that Christ could have failed. 

Had Scripture not so explicitly precluded Christ from failing I could agree with what you said above. I certainly agree (wholeheartedly) that God knowing something will happen does not mean that it was predestined to happen - OTHER than, of course, Christ. Eph 1,4

Moreover,

Luke 24, 44.

 

[Gustave]

23 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I don't mind discussing yes or no do we belief such and such in this topic. but I don't intend to have any "trinity" discussions unless its a different thread. While you continue to repeat the same thing over & over again and trying to make one thought an entire spectrum of doctrine, you could do better by recalling I am very cognizant of what the various materials out there teach.  If you did know as much about Adventist beliefs as you seem to be saying here; you would know that in the official belief does not even use the word "trinity" and there is, I believe, very good reason for that:

While some have expressed concern that "trinity" is an RCC construct, and therefore we shouldn't believe what they do; I would posit that there are many miles between how Adventists see this subject, and how our RCC brethren typically see it.

What you seem to be doing here my friend is taking one thought/sentence and isolating it from its context, and then from that, bruiting it into what Adventists "really" believe. I am not very interested in such discussions.

What you posted there, about God being numerically ONE. When was that addition made to SDA Fundamental Belief. When I started looking into these matters I'm pretty sure there were 27 Fundamental beliefs of the SDA. I realized there now are 28 Fundamental beliefs listed but I'm interested in knowing when the part you quoted was added as a FB? 

 

Thanks

[BlessedMan]

40 minutes ago, Gustave said:

What you posted there, about God being numerically ONE.

Your use of the word "numerical" here is based upon a presumption to KNOW the physical Substance of divinity, something no one can know.

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Your use of the word "numerical" here is based upon a presumption to KNOW the physical Substance of divinity, something no one can know.

Not at all. We don't know (no one does) what it is & that's why we call it 'Substance'. All we know is that God is ONE and the meaning is definitely past 'of the same mind, purpose, etc! Scripture calls it a mystery for a reason.  

[Gregory Matthews]

As I understand a comment made by Gustave, he has asked for a specific date as to when the SDA Church converted from an anti-Trinitarian belief to a Trinitarian position.  I consider this question to be fair and worthy of an answer.  However, I do not believe that a clear, good, response can be made to this question.

*  Fundamental Belief # 2, in the 1988, so-called 27 Fundamental Beliefs, is a clear Trinitarian position.

*  Substantially all of the early SDA Founders held a view of the Godhead that was not the classic Trinitarian view held across Christianity today. 

*  However, as I have posted before, those views were not unified.  In actual fact they ranged from a mild Arian view to a total rejection of the Trinity.

*  Part of the problem resulted from the fact that those early SDA founders often totally misunderstood what the actual doctrine of the trinity taught.  IOW, they rejected something that was not aught by the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

*  As an example, some (Frisbie) confused the doctrine of the Trinity with Docetism.  Bates confused   it with Modalistic Monarchianism.  Loughborough confused it with Tritheism.

*  In addition, among those early founders, there was an anti-Catholic bias that associated the doctrine of the Trinity with the Catholic churches.  I do not consider this to be a major aspect.  But, it was present.

*  One suggestion has been that the SDA Church had shifted to a Trinitarian position  by about 1900.   

*  In any case, I can not give Gustave a clear, specific date for this development of SDA understanding of the Trinity.  It was a progress that took place over a period of time.

 

NOTE: I am not repeating here some aspects of this question that I have posted before.   I consider the following book to be of value to consideration of this issue, but, it does not give a comprehensive, clear answer to the question as I have stated the question.  Much of what I have posted above has come from this book.

Paul Petersen & Rob McIver, Editors.  Biblical and Theological Studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014. 251 pages.   

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I understand a comment made by Gustave, he has asked for a specific date as to when the SDA Church converted from an anti-Trinitarian belief to a Trinitarian position.  I consider this question to be fair and worthy of an answer.  However, I do not believe that a clear, good, response can be made to this question.

*  Fundamental Belief # 2, in the 1988, so-called 27 Fundamental Beliefs, is a clear Trinitarian position.

*  Substantially all of the early SDA Founders held a view of the Godhead that was not the classic Trinitarian view held across Christianity today. 

*  However, as I have posted before, those views were not unified.  In actual fact they ranged from a mild Arian view to a total rejection of the Trinity.

*  Part of the problem resulted from the fact that those early SDA founders often totally misunderstood what the actual doctrine of the trinity taught.  IOW, they rejected something that was not aught by the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

*  As an example, some (Frisbie) confused the doctrine of the Trinity with Docetism.  Bates confused   it with Modalistic Monarchianism.  Loughborough confused it with Tritheism.

*  In addition, among those early founders, there was an anti-Catholic bias that associated the doctrine of the Trinity with the Catholic churches.  I do not consider this to be a major aspect.  But, it was present.

*  One suggestion has been that the SDA Church had shifted to a Trinitarian position  by about 1900.   

*  In any case, I can not give Gustave a clear, specific date for this development of SDA understanding of the Trinity.  It was a progress that took place over a period of time.

 

NOTE: I am not repeating here some aspects of this question that I have posted before.   I consider the following book to be of value to consideration of this issue, but, it does not give a comprehensive, clear answer to the question as I have stated the question.  Much of what I have posted above has come from this book.

Paul Petersen & Rob McIver, Editors.  Biblical and Theological Studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014. 251 pages.   

Thanks Gregory, my hunch is that the transition toward the Trinity came after the death of Ellen White. Ellen made some statements in Desire of Ages that are held up as being Trinitarian or helping move the SDA Church toward that direction. I disagree with that because I found the same statements made by SDA Pioneers that everyone agrees were anti-Trinitarian. 

I must admit that the SDA Church officially appears (at least to me) to be taking a position on the side of the historic Trinity. The Peccability of Christ teaching seems to be the last part of the Pioneer's theology that's hanging on for dear life. 

I still wonder why Shawn Boonstra's  video on "THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD" is the only video / training I've seen produced from SDA's that admit the Council of Nicaea and others (about the Trinity) got it right?  I[ve not seen another video that spelled it out like Boonstra did. 

[Gregory Matthews]

You might be interested in the book I cited from Avondale Academic Press.  It is located in Australia.  

[Gregory Matthews]

The following are two relatively recent SDA statements on the Trinity, which I have not yet read:

God in Three Persons in the Old Testament, 2015.  27 page document.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Bediako290915.pdf

 

God in Three Persons in Theology, 2015, 29 pages.  29 pages.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Donkor290915.pdf

 

 

NOTE:  I see that I left off the URL. where you can read the above.  I will recover and post.

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

You might be interested in the book I cited from Avondale Academic Press.  It is located in Australia.  

I'll try to squeeze that Book in, still engrossed by those two theologians (Fritz & Guy) you pointed out. Likable & smart gents these two. 

I read this morning: https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/12/13/no-longer-neglected-biblical-doctrine-trinity

And also listened to some of the video lectures presented by these folks. I did note the below paragraph in the article:

"Moon and Burt raise awareness that the anti-Trinitarianism that predominated among the early Adventists was not a momentary lapse in doctrinal understanding, a lapse that Ellen White could easily correct with the stroke of a pen, but a heresy that has lasted for generations. Many children of the Adventist Movement, as Seventh-day Adventists, descended into the grave six, seven, and eight decades later believing that the Son and Holy Spirit are lesser beings. We should infer from Moon and Burt’s historical overviews that there is still a struggle between Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The dispute regarding women’s ordination is a manifestation of that ongoing struggle".

All in all it does look like the leadership of the Church is doing its diligence in addressing the early Adventist groups errors pertaining to the Trinity. Another thing I appreciate was how Dr. Burt was frank about how the other Adventist Churches such as the JW's are still in the same camp as the SDA's were at the time of Ellen White whereas the Trinity Doctrine is concerned.  Burt also claimed the SDA Trinity Doctrine departs from the Catholic Doctrine in the area of Impassibility and Eternal Generation - he didn't go into WHY but implied that Impassibility made God less personal. 

Lot of material there in this article by spectrum. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave has pointed us to the following URL, in SDA literature:

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/12/13/no-longer-neglected-biblical-doctrine-trinity

I consider it to be of immense value to many of us and suggest that you read it.

 

[BlessedMan]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

One suggestion has been that the SDA Church had shifted to a Trinitarian position  by about 1900.   

I havent had time to get back to this in a timely manner; but I would say this is pretty close. And I would agree, its not very straight-forward to give an exact date or circumstance.

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Dr. Burt was frank about how the other Adventist Churches such as the JW's are still in the same camp as the SDA's were at the time of Ellen White whereas

I cannot quite agree with this, it has some truth to it, but there is at least one big question here. The JWs do not teach the same Christ that Adventists or other believers would typically teach. They teach that Christ was created; while they teach that The Holy Spirit is a "force" or a "power," something akin that "Jehovah" uses to "fill" us with.  SDAs have never been in that camp.  SOME SDAs did at various points teach an Arian view of this topic. But that was really just a case of people studying more into it and revising their belief accordingly; which I think is great. Something I have always appreciated about the church.

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Burt also claimed the SDA Trinity Doctrine departs from the Catholic Doctrine

This is quite true; I believe its one of the reasons Adventists can and should say that we are miles apart from the RCCs on the "trinity" doctrine.

Thanks, for posting that link Gustave! See? Thats why we need you on this forum! To keep us informed!

Edited February 23, 2020 by BlessedMan
grammar correction

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, BlessedMan said:

I cannot quite agree with this, it has some truth to it, but there is at least one big question here. The JWs do not teach the same Christ that Adventists or other believers would typically teach. They teach that Christ was created; while they teach that The Holy Spirit is a "force" or a "power," something akin that "Jehovah" uses to "fill" us with.  SDAs have never been in that camp.  SOME SDAs did at various points teach an Arian view of this topic. But that was really just a case of people studying more into it and revising their belief accordingly; which I think is great. Something I have always appreciated about the church.

This is quite true; I believe its one of the reasons Adventists can and should say that we are miles apart from the RCCs on the "trinity" doctrine.

Thanks, for posting that link Gustave! See? Thats why we need you on this forum! To keep us informed!

I probably could have (should have) said what I did better. My understanding of the presentation was that while the  Adventist Church 'was' teaching that Christ wasn't God -at the time - that's not the case today. I readily admit that since the death of Ellen White the SDA Church has taken steps to align it's official position on the Trinity Doctrine to be more in-line with "Liturgical Churches". The author describes how after Miller disbanded his group the only folks left were non Trinitarian - these folks started to disagree on distinctive doctrines and thus branched out - thus the SDA Church is today the only Adventist Church that is not speaking negatively about the Trinity Doctrine. 

Two years before Ellen White passed away:

Signs of the Times, 1912, Vol 39 # 32

3829 — Is The Holy Spirit A Personality?

Question:
Can't we say that the Holy Spirit is a
personality, as long as the personal pronoun
is attributed to it? T. A. Z.

Answer:
The use of the personal pronoun is not of itself proof that the Holy Spirit is a personality, and yet the work of the Spirit is the work of a personality. By the Spirit both the Father and the Son come personally to every soul that receives the Spirit. In that wonderful sense which no human being can comprehend, the Spirit comes to each soul as a personality. And yet it does not have what we would call human personality of being in one place only at one time, that is, such personality as has our Lord Himself — in one place as He is in no other place. The Holy Spirit may be in any number of places at one and the same time, bringing the special presence of God in each of those places. In the office of the "Signs of the Times" there are fourteen different telephones all connecting with the manager. The manager may connect all these with him at one and the same time. He could issue a general order so that the foreman of each department could hear his voice at the same time. In a way he is personally present in every department. Every department hears his voice. The marvelous invention of the telephone makes him present in fifteen different places at the same time. So it is that God's Spirit makes the Father and the Son present in as many different places as God may direct, at one and the same time. We know somewhat of the working. We understand how it is to some extent of the Lord's ways and methods. We see the effects, but we know almost nothing of the nature and the power that Infinity uses to communicate with man. Let us be willing to leave it there. In some instances the Spirit is represented as the great life of God. In some it is spoken of as a power that is poured out and shed forth. To the individual it comes as the representative of the personal God. Therefore it may be spoken of as a personality, and looking at it from another view-point, as not a personality

 

 

[phkrause]

On 2/23/2020 at 12:13 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave has pointed us to the following URL, in SDA literature:

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/12/13/no-longer-neglected-biblical-doctrine-trinity

I consider it to be of immense value to many of us and suggest that you read it.

 

Great article!! As I've said on a number of occasions, one of the main reasons I have accepted the trinity, is because Satan always seems to counterfeit everything that God does and one of those was the  unholy Trinity, I had learned that not from Stefanovic, but from Dr Dean Davis at AUC, and if I'm mistaken probably from as far back to my days going to the Jewish/Adventist Bronx Temple, with Dr J M Hoffman as the pastor there!!

[BlessedMan]

On 2/23/2020 at 9:36 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

The following are two relatively recent SDA statements on the Trinity, which I have not yet read:

God in Three Persons in the Old Testament, 2015.  27 page document.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Bediako290915.pdf

 

God in Three Persons in Theology, 2015, 29 pages.  29 pages.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Donkor290915.pdf

 

 

NOTE:  I see that I left off the URL. where you can read the above.  I will recover and post.

I am enjoying the second article. Havent looked at the first one yet. I pulled this from pgs 4-5 or thereabouts:
 

Quote

 

Not surprisingly, the status of the Holy Spirit eventually became part of the discussion. The foundational issue with the doctrine of the Trinity as it developed was not how God is three and one, as if the ultimate concern is a mathematical one.

The basic concern of the doctrine was how the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was the issues surrounding this basic concern that required attention then as they do for some now. In this presentation, we will provide a statement of the doctrine and trace the key dynamics and moments of its development and reception throughout Christian history until the present. After this discussion, which will necessarily be brief, the question of the Trinity within Adventism will be addressed.

 

Its only 31 pages, and a good read if one is interested in history of the subject.