Gustave Posted February 6, 2021 Posted February 6, 2021 Welcome Slawek G. I followed your profile to some articles you generated. You realize that W.W. Prescott was not a Trinitarian, right? Quote
Slawek G Posted February 8, 2021 Author Posted February 8, 2021 Hi Gustave, Thanks for your comment. May I know why you are asking me if I know Prescott was not a trinitarian? Quote
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 9, 2021 Moderators Posted February 9, 2021 The Seventh-day Adventist denomination grew out of the failure of the prediction of William Miller that Christ would return in the Second Advent during an 1843 to 1844 time period. It formally organized in 1863. Those early leaders came from a variety of religious backgrounds. While Ellen White came from a Methodist background, James White and several others came from what has been called the Christian Connection. Other early leaders came from other denominations. The Christian Connection rejected the Trinitarian position on God that is generally held by Christians today. It took what is called a Deist position on the Trinity. Other early leaders in what became the SDA denomination, even if not associated with the Christian Connection took positions on the Trinity that were not in accord with the Trinitarian position held today by most Christians. NOTE: Joseph Bates James White and Uriah Smith were all associated with the Christian Connection. It is well known the Ellen White, in the early days of this denomination did not hold to a traditional position on the Trinity. However, as with other doctrinal beliefs of Ellen White, her beliefs on the nature of God changed over time and she moved to a more traditional position on the Trinity. In truth, many early references by our early leaders show that they had a confused understanding to the Trinity doctrine that they rejected. Some of the heretical views on God included Docetism, Modalism and Tritheism. Some have described the early Adventist as Semi-Arian. J. B. Frisbie’s view on the Trinity is not totally clear. But it is possible that he may have accepted Docetism. In any case, his understanding of the nature of God was seriously flawed. NOTE: Docetism taught that Christ was a spirit with no real body. Joseph Bates totally misunderstood the Trinity Doctrine. He thought it taught that Christ and God the Father were one and the same being, which is false. He strongly condemned Modalistic Monarchianism. From this perspective, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. NOTE: Modalism teaches that the one God appeared in three different versions (forms). John Loughborough rejected the Trinity because he believed that it taught Tritheism, which involves the existence of three Gods. J. M. Stephenson, a one-time SDA preacher, taught that Christ was a created being. In a historical understanding of the development of Christian doctrine, it is clear that early Christian leaders developed their doctrinal understandings over a period of time. They did not come into immediate perfection in understanding. Justin Martyr, writing in the Apology made a major contribution in his identification of Christ as the cosmic Logos. However, some of his statements come close to Tritheism. NOTE: The above, which I have written, has been based upon the following book Paul Peterson & Rob McIver, editors. Biblical and Theological Studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 251 pages. I have not researched the theological beliefs of W. W. Prescott (1855-1944) regarding the Trinity. The following website may be of interest in this respect, and I am going to have to give it further consideration. https://www.asitreads.com/w-w-prescott NOTE: I just came upon this and right now I am short on time and I do not have the time to give extensive thought to what I read on that website. I do hold consider any SDA leader to have the total of all truth. All of us humans need further development is some aspects of our doctrinal beliefs. If Prescott was wrong in his understanding of the Trinity, that does not mean that he was wrong on everything else that he believed. Slawek G and phkrause 2 Quote Gregory
Slawek G Posted February 9, 2021 Author Posted February 9, 2021 According to one article "From 1900 to 1931, WW Prescott frequently wrote in support of the Trinity". The No-Longer Neglected Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity (spectrummagazine.org) However, according to other sources, it doesn't seem to be true (How The Trinity Got Into The Seventh Day Adventist Church (trinitytruth.org). Anyway, as Gregory mentioned, even if Prescott never changed his mind on the subject of Trinity, it doesn't mean that everything else he wrote or said, including his excellent, most precious and inspired Armadale sermons (which imho completed the 1888 message) should be rejected. Quote
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 9, 2021 Moderators Posted February 9, 2021 The second cited website in the above post is so long that probably few people will read it. It makes a number of accusations against the SDA church, including the idea that Jesuits may have infiltrated the SDA Church. * It makes the following statement, that I have quoted, below: That statement clearly presents a false understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is the same problem that resulted in many early SDAs rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. * That website article also references Alberto Rivera (AR), who was widely published by Jack Chick. I have an extensive background in the early publications of Jack Chick. much of what he ahs published is without foundation. The following website provides accurate information about AR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera_(activist) Any religious claim that is based upon Alberto Rivera should be dismissed as without foundation. * The SDA Church is not perfect, either in its history or in the present. Valid criticisms can be made about it. Valid objections to Roman Catholic doctrine and practice may be made. but, none such can be said to rest upon the statement of either Rivera or Chick. I do not have the time to post a reply to every aspect of that article that I believe to be false. Quote The Trinity doctrine states there are three literal gods that are equal in every way and that all three gods have always existed. Three gods that are co-equal and co-eternal in other words. But now we have a serious problem because the Bible says there is only one God. Satan via the Catholic Church says no problem…I have just the answer to keep all deceived. We will teach that all three gods are really only one god! 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 ! phkrause 1 Quote Gregory
Slawek G Posted February 10, 2021 Author Posted February 10, 2021 “That night I dreamed that I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: ‘This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order’." (Testimonies for the Church Volume I, p 577) [The above quotation does not appear on the cited page in the standard edition of the cited book. In addition, the words 'our holy order' were not bolded. Accurate quotes should not bold something that has not been bolded by the author. It should be noted that Ellen White did not identify her reference to a "holy order." Further, she did not say it was a Catholic procession. She only stated that it looked to her like what she thought a catholic procession would look like--GM] “At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy. When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites.” (Great Controversy, Chapter 12—The French Reformation) [The above quotation is largely based upon a 1902 publication, Concerning Jesuits. It must be remembered that The Great Controversy consists largely of material selected from other authors, one major one was D'Aubigne.--GM] [Final note: I will not usually insert a comment directly into another post. But, I decided to do so on this one--GM.] Quote
Gustave Posted February 11, 2021 Posted February 11, 2021 On 2/8/2021 at 9:02 AM, Slawek G said: Hi Gustave, Thanks for your comment. May I know why you are asking me if I know Prescott was not a trinitarian? Your other post references Prescott rather heavily and I noticed that you made honorable mention of Walter Veith - who in my opinion is other than a Trinitarian. Quote
Gustave Posted February 13, 2021 Posted February 13, 2021 On 2/9/2021 at 9:02 AM, Slawek G said: According to one article "From 1900 to 1931, WW Prescott frequently wrote in support of the Trinity". The No-Longer Neglected Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity (spectrummagazine.org) However, according to other sources, it doesn't seem to be true (How The Trinity Got Into The Seventh Day Adventist Church (trinitytruth.org). Anyway, as Gregory mentioned, even if Prescott never changed his mind on the subject of Trinity, it doesn't mean that everything else he wrote or said, including his excellent, most precious and inspired Armadale sermons (which imho completed the 1888 message) should be rejected. That would depend greatly on the perception one has of Prescott's position - it looks like many SDA's believed that he supported the Trinity Doctrine which he absolutely did not. Additionally here is the position from that second website you posted - which is a gross misrepresentation of the Trinity but typical of the SDA Church's teaching during the lifetime of Ellen White. "The trinity doctrine says there are: 3 beings who are co-eternal 3 beings who are all immortal 3 beings who are all powerful, all knowing etc. 3 beings who are worthy of worship and praise 3 beings each acting a different role So if all three members of the Godhead are co-eternal, then there was “never” a time that they did not exist, and they all must be the same infinite age. If this is true, then the titles which they possess merely reflect the roles taken to act out the plan of redemption. They cannot then be taken in a literal sense. For example, the Son of God then is not really God's Son, He is the member of the Godhead playing the role of the Son. Yet Scripture teaches us over and over again that God gave His Son, but the trinity doctrine tells us that Jesus was not really God's Son, He was the member of the Godhead playing the role of the Son. The Trinitarian typically claims that Jesus was referred to as God's Son because of His birth in Bethlehem. But the Bible states that Jesus was brought forth before all things were created. So if Jesus has “always” existed then it is impossible for Him to be the Son of God. And if Christ is not a literal Son, then God cannot be a literal Father either. And so the trinity doctrine destroys the personality of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. And since this doctrine denies the Father and Son, which it also does by teaching the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are the same one God, then this is a denial of both the Father and the Son in more ways than one which 1 John 2:22-23 states is antichrist. Notice that John says nothing about denying the Holy Spirit. Thus more than 100 verses that state Jesus is the Son of God apparently do not really mean what they say at all. Do you know of any other doctrine that has to explain away so many clear Scriptures? If you accept the Trinity doctrine, then Jesus cannot be the Son of God. And if you do not accept Jesus as being the Son of God, then you cannot have eternal life! With these facts in mind, consider the following Scriptures very carefully and ask yourself does this affect your eternal life by denying who the Father and Son truly are. And considering the trinity doctrine is from Satan, it is not hard to see what his plan is if your eyes are wide open." Quote
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 13, 2021 Moderators Posted February 13, 2021 Gustave has made a very important point, which I have previously stated: Many of the early SDAs had a false understanding of the doctrine Trinity. It was that false doctrine that they rejected. Those who criticize us today for accepting the doctrine of the Trinity often do so because they also have a false understanding of the Trinity. While there are several versions of a false doctrine of the Trinity, a common one is often Tritheism (three individual gods). That should be rejected. It is not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. phkrause 1 Quote Gregory
Gustave Posted February 13, 2021 Posted February 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said: Gustave has made a very important point, which I have previously stated: Many of the early SDAs had a false understanding of the doctrine Trinity. It was that false doctrine that they rejected. Those who criticize us today for accepting the doctrine of the Trinity often do so because they also have a false understanding of the Trinity. While there are several versions of a false doctrine of the Trinity, a common one is often Tritheism (three individual gods). That should be rejected. It is not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. They may have indeed had a incorrect understanding of the Trinity Doctrine and spoke against it however they articulated quite well whatever it was they were selling and it wasn't the Trinity. Uriah Smith's understanding seemed to be what the early SDA Church really got behind - at least up until the death of Ellen White. It will be interesting to hear what Slawek has to say about this and if he agrees with the historical or Apostolic Church version of the Trinity or if he prefers a new definition. [Gustave, I trust you will not mind my inserting directly into your post. Yes, you are correct. The fact that early SDAs did not correctly understand the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that what they taught about the Godhead was correct. It was not. Many early SDAs did not correctly understand the Godhead. This is brought out in the book that I reference in a post below--GM.] Quote
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 13, 2021 Moderators Posted February 13, 2021 In all honesty, the doctrine of the Trinity is hard to understand. in one sense, we will probably have to wait until we spend eternity with God, to understand it. As far as the SDA Church is concerned, the following book by Avondale Academic Press, contains, in my mind, the best in Adventism on this subject. I have copied the Table of Contents below, followed by a citation to the book. Table of Contents List of Contributors ix Introduction xi Part 1 Biblical Studies 1. Some Aspects of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel Relevant to Contemporary Christological Controversy, Robert K. McIver 3 2. Jesus—the ‘One and Onlyl’ or ‘Only Begotten’: The Meaning of Monogenes, Paul Peterson 29 .3. Worshiping Jesus—the ‘eternally blessed God!’ (Romans 9:5), Paul Peterson) 35 4. A Study of Paul’s Concept of the Saving Act of 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Roland D. Meyer 47 5. The Firstborn of Colossians 1:15, Ekkehardt Mueller 65 Part 2 Historical and Theological Studies 6. Trinity: Toward a (Somewhat) Postmodern Perspective, Ray CW Roennfeldt 89 7. The Trinitarian Basis of Christian Community, Richard Rice 101 8. Alexandrian School and the Trinitarian Problem, Darius Jankiewicz 113 9. The Holy Spirit: His Divinity and Personality, Frank M. Hasel 127 10. Trinity and Tawlhlid in Islam—An Appraisal, Barge Schantz 145 Part 3 Studies in Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology 11. The Influence of Restorationism on Early Seventh-day Adventism and The emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective, Karl Arasola 165 12. The Trinitarian Issue in Seventh-day Adventism, Gunnar Pedersen 131 13. John Harvey Kellogg’s Concept of the Godhead, John Skrzypaszek 193 Appendix: Consensus Statement 219 Index of Persons & Authors 221 Index of Subjects 227 Index of Christian Scriptural References 237 Index of Islamic Scriptural References 251 The above table of Contents has been taken from: Paul Peterson & Rob McIver, Editors. Biblical and Theological Studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 252 pages. Quote Gregory
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 13, 2021 Moderators Posted February 13, 2021 Walter Veith: It is not my practice to post on this forum attacks on either people or denominations. So, I will only say that people should not think that Walter Veith always represents the beliefs of the SDA Church. Quote Gregory
Gustave Posted February 13, 2021 Posted February 13, 2021 Slawek G. posted an article in which two prominent SDA's stated that many SDA's went to their graves as "heretics". These SDA's were taught heresy, believed it and died under that same teaching. "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." My comment to Slawek with this is that the early Adventist Church could have really used some help from the Jesuits in curbing what Moon and Burt rose awareness to. I've heard it said by multiple SDA's that God raised up the Adventist movement to restore truth and this article that Slawek posted contradicts that narrative. If this is accurate than it stands to reason that any Church can be started, depart from the truth & teach open heresy - even teach heresy for 100 years but as long as eventually things start to get more in line with real Christian teaching it will all be ok in the end. I don't know, I'd like for this to be true but something tells me it might not be true - do Christians have a responsibility in accepting heresy and passing it on to their Children? Quote
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted February 13, 2021 Moderators Posted February 13, 2021 The role of Ellen White was not to correct doctrinal misunderstandings of Scripture. Such could be said to elevate her above Scripture. Rather, Scripture has (had) authority over the writings of Ellen White. In the years following EGWs death, The Trinitarian question largely died out in the SDA Church, with a few elements remaining. However, in recent times, this question is growing and gaining strength. We SDAs are beginning to face it again. When Gustave posits a relationship between this issue and the role of women in the SDA Church, he is only, as he probably knows, stating what other SDAs are beginning to state. There is such a relationship. The numbers of anti-Trinitarians in the SDA Church is growing. It may not be as large as Gustave may think thar it is. But, at the very least, it is becoming more vocal. Quote Gregory
Gustave Posted February 13, 2021 Posted February 13, 2021 I've just learned something then, I thought Ellen's writings were to be used for correction among other things. "Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church." The Gift of Prophecy | Adventist.org The Book of Daniel, Isiah or any other Prophetic Book of Scripture speaks with guidance, instruction, and correction to the Church? This seems like saying that Ellen's writings are additional books of Scripture. A logical question would be why do Protestants accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church in determination of the Canon, particularly the New Testament Canon and reject the idea that the protection of the Holy Spirit didn't extend into teachings concerning Faith and Morals? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.