Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

James White's Essays


Recommended Posts

the1888message

Quote:
As for 2T page 200 it truly amazes me that anyone could ever take this to give any credence to the teaching that “her Trinitarian views were still developing”.

“The glorious plan of man’s salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God the Father. In this divine plan is seen the most marvelous manifestation of the love of God to the fallen race. Such love as is manifested in the gift of God’s beloved Son amazed the holy angels.”

Where is this assumed change here?

You are the only person that I have ever heard say that the passage you quoted is evidence of her changing viewpoint on the Trinity.

The evidence for her changing view on the Trinity, on 2T page 200, begins and ends as follows:

Quote:
This Savior was the brightness of His Father's glory and the express image of His person. HE possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God. 'It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.' 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, H humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.'

The statement immediately above does, if you have read well her earlier writings, show that her viewpoint was changing, even if not yet fully developed.

WOW; there is nothing in this T2 quote before, during, nor after that gives a hint that her views were changing.

“This Savior was the brightness of His Father's glory”

“and the express image of His person.”

“HE possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence.”

“He was equal with God.”

“It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.'”

Not one of these statements support the assumption that her views were changing. None of these statement do I disagree with either the Son of God was equal with God; this does not MAKE HIM GOD or A GOD.

Even after (if ) you read the R&H from 1905 I added. Which by the way came many years AFTER T2 was written where she clearly states that they ALL knew about Christ Biblically etc. in which this quote supports the ant-trinitarian view that the church once held as truth. You believe that the T2 quote shows some type of change in her mind? This I cannot understand. To hang on to a teaching that the pioneers and sister White never spoke in favor of as a church fundamental principle. That they did not come out and make any statements stating that there was or would be any change in their non-triniterain belief. The church and the majority of its members can only come up with assumptions and possibilities and twisting, the meaning of words that Sister White used to support their adoption of a Catholic dogma astounds me to no end.

The church changed the beliefs because they wanted to be accepted by the rest of Christendom so they would not be seen as a cult.

By accepting the Catholic / pagan doctrine they can call even the Catholic pope their brother in Christ. They can even call the pope “his holiness”, which by the way I have heard an SDA pastor do.

The true SDA teaching on the trinity as an absurdity and unbiblical would not allow you to call this priest of Babylon and her fallen daughters brothers and sisters in Christ, but you can now.

“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. {1SM 204.2}

Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?{1SM 205.1}

I hesitated and delayed about the sending out of that which the Spirit of the Lord impelled me to write. I did not want to be compelled to present the misleading influence of these sophistries. But in the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must be met.{1SM 205.2”

“Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.{1SM 208.2}”

The church today has fallen away from these truths and is now holding hands with the fallen churches their brothers in Christ. They have left the fundamental principles in favor of the dogma’s of the beast of Revelation.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • the1888message

    17

  • Gregory Matthews

    14

  • Don777

    8

  • teresaq

    4

Gregory Matthews

Quote:
WOW; there is nothing in this T2 quote before, during, nor after that gives a hint that her views were changing.

“This Savior was the brightness of His Father's glory”

“and the express image of His person.”

“HE possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence.”

“He was equal with God.”

“It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.'”

Not one of these statements support the assumption that her views were changing. None

1) You are partially correct. She did not say in my cited passage that her views were changing. I did not say that she said that her views were changing. So, in that aspect you are correct.

2)But, the fact that she does not state that her views were changing does not mean that they were not changing. A review of her statements on the nature of Christ, placed in chronological order (by date), demonstrates that her views on the nature of Christ developed over a period of years and my cited statement in 2T is part of that developmental process.

3) By the way, I believe that it is more accurate to say that over a period of years her views on the nature of Christ developed than it is to say that they changed. Of course, as they developed, they did change. It is just that I believe that developed is a more accurate word.

4) One might suggest that the statement on page 200 of 2T is not fully Trinitarian. O.K. I would not suggest that it is fully Trinitarian.

5) One should remember that in many areas of doctrine, the views of EGW and other early leaders, developed over a period of years. They were not fully formed at the beginning. For examples of this, I will suggest both the view of the time the Sabbath begins and the proper method of computing the tithe.

6) Further, it should be noted that EGW was a human being who did not always correctly understand Bible doctrine. God did not always immediately correct her. Rather, as she said, even in her personal beliefs, they developed over time (sometime years and were grounded in personal Bible study, rather than some supernatural vision. An example of this is her view of eating oysters. Even after she and others had accepted the idea of "clean" and "unclean" foods, there was disagreement as tot he boundaries of those foods. As a result, for several years EGW continued to eat oysters, even after she had given up eating other flesh foods. In addition, her move to abstain from eating oysters was progressive and not all at once.

7) People often illustrate this with the example of EGW and eating pork. On this specific subject it can clearly be demonstrated that her views progressively changed between 1858 and 1863/1864 a time period of 5 * 6 years. I have not used this as an example due to the fact that I believe that her view on eating oysters is a better example and it took a longer period of time than did her view on eating pork.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Quote:
The church changed the beliefs because they wanted to be accepted by the rest of Christendom so they would not be seen as a cult.

1) During the period of the life of EGW, the denomination was not concerned about being called a cult. It was expected and welcomed as an indication that different for other denominations and in accord with the Bible. It is only in very modern times that the SDA denomination has been concerned with being called a cult.

2) By the modern times in which the denomination was concerned with being considered a cult, it had become Trinitarian and been so for years.

3) On this basis your statement that the denomination change its view on the Trinity due to the fact that it did not want to be called a cult is pure nonsense and reflects ignorance of our historical doctrinal development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

By the way, a minor point perhaps, but still a point.

You have cited a passage that you say comes from 1SM, page 205.

Your cited passage begins on page 204 and extends onto page 205.

While this may be a minor error, it suggests to me that prior to citing the passage you failed to read it in the actual book.

The context of y9our cited passage actually begins on page 202. that context shows that EGW was talking about the book THE LIVING TEMPLE and its pantheistic theories. On page 204, she again places the statements that you cite in context where she says:

Quote:
The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy.

Please do not tell me that the statement I cited above is a statement that is anti-Trinitarian. To do so would be pure nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

You have cited a passage from 1SM that is supposed to relate to Trinitarian views as to the nature of Christ.

Let us look more closely at your cited passage:

Quote:
The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization.

* * * * *

The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless.

Interesting. Trinitarian doctrine is not mentioned. The doctrine of the Sabbath is mentioned, but not the Trinity.

Depending on human power is mentioned, but not the Trinity.

Tell me, did you carefully read the passage that you have cited/ I suggest that in the future you do so. a review of your cited passage shows that you have gone beyond what EGW actually said and you have placed the stamp of your own agenda on her statement. I Do not believe that God has inspired you to modify statements made by EGW with your own agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

It in fact does mention the ‘trinity’ by way of this part of the quote I supplied; “The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error”.

Have you not read the fundamental principles before those that had sustained the church for those past 50 years. That quote had been written in 1903 go back 50 years.

The church had not been a trinitarian church for years before it was considered a cult. It was, in fact believed by many denominations to be a cult before the 1950 fiasco of Froom and Barnhouse. You are partially correct however in your statement. The church through a few highly placed men were in the process of make this change to the churches religion, it began a few years after the death of the last pioneer. The SDA church did not become a trinity believing church as a whole until the GC in session changed the old fundamental prinicples that had once sustained the church and they voted on these changes.

Fundamentals Beliefs of SDAs in 1889 Yearbook Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists [1889 Yearbook]

As elsewhere stated, Seventh-day Adventists have no creed but the Bible; but they hold to certain well-defined points of faith, for which they feel prepared to give a reason “to every man that asketh” them. The following propositions may be taken as a summary of the principal features of their religious faith, upon which there is, so far as we know, entire unanimity throughout the body. They believe,—

I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom he created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, through the merits of his shed blood, he secures the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of all those who penitently come to him; and as the closing portion of his work as priest, before he takes his throne as king, he will make the great atonement for the sins of all such, and their sins will then be blotted out (Acts 3:19) and borne away from the sanctuary, as shown in the service of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; etc. (Fundamental Principles Of Seventh-Day Adventists no. 1, page 147) [This statement is clearly not a trinitarian statement, and is the belief that the entire church was in unity upon, including Ellen White.]

This is a partial list it has a total of 27 points; this were also published in the R&H in 1872.

These fundamental principles have been counted as error, just as sister White warned that they would be. When the church in a full GC conference setting voted to change these principles in their new fundamental beliefs with their new Catholic dogma on the trinity in the early 1980’s they joined hands with the catholic church and with her daughters.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Quote:
“The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error”.

Have you not read the fundamental principles before those that had sustained the church for those past 50 years.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, EGW in her statement lists fundamental principles that would be changed. The Trinity was not one that she listed.

You are going bey0nd what she said and inserting your own agenda into her comment. If she had wanted to include the Trinity, she could have mentioned it. She did not.

You may respond by telling me that she intended to say that all of our fundamental principles would be changed. She could not have meant that as that has not happened.

One of the fundamental principles of the SDA Church is that of salvation through the merits, actions and life of Christ. That is a very basic, fundamental principle that remains to this day. It has not been changed.

So, take her as she said it, which was without the Trinity, and do not read your own agenda into her messages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
So, take her as she said it, which was without the Trinity, and do not read your own agenda into her messages.

Amen, Gregory!

Your previous posts are clear, definitive, and without bias. Your scholarship and eloquence are a large asset to this community. I look forward to meeting you in person someday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

JoMo:

You are gracious.

You live in the Denver metro area. You can meet me at the Boulder SDA Church, tomorrow (July 21, 2014).

The 1st service 9non-traditional) will begin at 9 AM and end at 10 AM

Classes will follow and end at 11:15 AM.

The 2nd service (traditional) will begin at 11:P30 and end at 12:30.

The Associate Pastor, J. Murdock will preach at both services.

You can also meet me there on the 28th. However, the services will be changed.

1) Classes will begin at 9 AM to 10 AM.

2) Foot washing: 10:15 To to 10:45 AM.

3) 10:45 to 11:30 AM Combined Communion service.

4) 11:45 AM to 1:30 PM Potluck

In July the services will be as I have posted in the 1st above.

The Sr. Pastor, Japhet DeOliveira will preach the 1st two weeks in July.

Any and all reading this would be welcome to attend any of the services. The Potluck on June 28th will be the last for a while as some construction on the building will be going on.

You all can attend the potluck if you would like. Bring a vege dish if you would like to.

Jo: Please read the private message that I have just sent you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

You live in the Denver metro area. You can meet me at the Boulder SDA Church, tomorrow (July 21, 2014).

If you hadn't put "tomorrow" in there I might have ignored your post, but where I live we're still in June. So what's your excuse?

Hope Joemo isn't late and both of you have a happysabbath.

God cares and doesn't want anyone to be late (or early).

Jesus saves! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

A little far to travel: Only as you see it. NOTE: Yes, I know that you said to drive.

In church one morning, when they asked who had traveled the greatest distance, I mentioned that I had traveled 1,000 miles, since I got up that morning, in order to make it to church.

That was not the 1st time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

Quote:
“The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error”.

Have you not read the fundamental principles before those that had sustained the church for those past 50 years.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, EGW in her statement lists fundamental principles that would be changed. The Trinity was not one that she listed.

You are going bey0nd what she said and inserting your own agenda into her comment. If she had wanted to include the Trinity, she could have mentioned it. She did not.

You may respond by telling me that she intended to say that all of our fundamental principles would be changed. She could not have meant that as that has not happened.

One of the fundamental principles of the SDA Church is that of salvation through the merits, actions and life of Christ. That is a very basic, fundamental principle that remains to this day. It has not been changed.

So, take her as she said it, which was without the Trinity, and do not read your own agenda into her messages.

It is plain that you do not know what the fundamental principles are. She said they would be changed and #'s 1 and 2 where changed, which I posted what the had been before the change, It is interesting that you deny this change and claim it is my 'agenda.

There where 2 that were changed she did not say which ones would be changed . Even changing only 1 still is a change to the fundamental principles.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

R&H 10 22 1895 page 1 begin at the 1st sentence written by Sister White. This was written how many years after she had begun this supposed transformation of understanding in favor of the ‘trinity’?

“SPEAKING of Satan, our Lord says that "he abode not in the truth.'' He was once the covering cherub, glorious in beauty and holiness. He was next to Christ in exaltation and character. It was with Satan that self-exaltation had its origin. He became jealous of Christ, and falsely accused him, and then laid blame upon the Father. He was envious of the position that was held by Christ and the Father, and he turned from his allegiance to the Commander of heaven and lost his high and holy estate. Though the angels had a knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, though they were happy in the glorious service which they did for the King of heaven, yet, through his crooked representations of Christ and the Father, the evil one deceived a great company of angels, drew them into sympathy with himself, and associated them with himself in rebellion. Satan and his sympathizers became the avowed antagonists of God, established their own infernal empire, and set up a standard of rebellion against the God of heaven. All the principalities and powers of evil rallied to the work of overthrowing the government of God.”

Where is ‘god the holy spirit’, should it not be god the holy spirit that was next to Christ in exaltation and character instead of Satan? If she was changing her understanding, why not point it out. This clearly does not even mention this third god the holy spirit as being next to the Son of God. Although I do see statan as this ‘god the holy spirit’ in the trinity, as well as the other 2 in gods which create this one god trinity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

Quote:
“The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error”.

Have you not read the fundamental principles before those that had sustained the church for those past 50 years.

So, take her as she said it, which was without the Trinity, and do not read your own agenda into her messages.

I did it is not I who is adding to what she wrote but you and the other Trinitarians by making your assumption as to what she wrote and what she meant. Claiming that she was changing from non- trinitarian to becoming a trinitarian. I have taken nothing out of context nor have I twisted any of her writings to fit into my beliefs.

If Christ is 'god' then how could He have received all things from God? It takes all three to make up this god after all and if Christ is this 'god the son' and makes up what is 'god' why would he need to receive anything as a god he would already have it?

"In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God[/b, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.{DA 21.2}"

Further if Christ has life "unborrowed and underived" why did Sister White write the above paragraph? Clearly she states here that it is the Fathers life that flows THROUGH HIS SON. Who is this 'great source of all that she is referring to god the holy spirit, god the son, god the father? Or is this great source of all the Father who is the only true God? 1 cor 8:6

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

Quote:
So, take her as she said it, which was without the Trinity, and do not read your own agenda into her messages.

Amen, Gregory!

Your previous posts are clear, definitive, and without bias. Your scholarship and eloquence are a large asset to this community. I look forward to meeting you in person someday.

Praise should not be given to men but unto God and His dear Son only.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Praise should not be given to men but unto God and His dear Son only.

David

so, in contrast, it's okay just to be critical? Odd view, that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

Originally Posted By: the1888message

Praise should not be given to men but unto God and His dear Son only.

David

so, in contrast, it's okay just to be critical? Odd view, that...

Praise is given to God or His Son.

Critical now there is a two way street.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Praise should not be given to men but unto God and His dear Son only.

"And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.

Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always "

"1 Thessalonians 5:12-15 NKJV

God cares! Jesus saves! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Quote:
In short, the idea that EGW remained an anti-Trinitarian during the years of her ministry and until her death is simply false. She clearly moved to a Trinitarian position as God led her to do in a study of the Bible.
I think the problem may be in not stepping outside our apologists and circle to know the beliefs of others, in this case their understanding of the papal/protestant trinity doctrine as devised over the centuries.

Non-SDA scholars as well as those studied in that understanding are quite clear in seeing both Ellen White, as well as we, as tritheists.

The good news is most people aren't that studied or concerned with the precise trinity definition. As long as SDAs or SDA influenced stay away from the knowledgeable all is well.

http://www.cultorchristian.com/

Quote:
... Ellen G. White) taught ... "three living persons of the heavenly trio"1 and one of "the three holiest Beings in heaven"2--and the current SDA teaching of Tritheism (that there are three divine beings in "the Godhead" who are "one" only in purpose, character, etc.) was born...The SDA Church gradually adopted the use of the term "Trinity" to describe this tritheistic view of the Godhead, eventually culminating in the official General Conference session endorsement, in 1946, of a statement of beliefs that incorporated the word "Trinity."3

Quote:
So while they now, officially, use the term "Trinity," in reality they deny the Trinity and actually teach Tritheism, just like ...In fact, as we will see later on, even the SDA Church's own theologians/scholars admit that Adventism teaches a different "Trinity" doctrine than the historical, orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Now, let us explore what Adventism teaches about this essential point of doctrine.

...

"2. Trinity:

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. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)

At first glance many may think that this statement appears to be orthodox-sounding. But we must investigate further to see what they actually mean by this statement. Just as Mormons claim to believe in "one God" but in reality teach Tritheism, this claim by the SDAs is not enough to make them Trinitarian. The statement can make evangelical Christians believe they are orthodox, while at the same time meaning something different within Adventism. (Anyone who is familiar with Adventism knows that this is exactly what they do on many different subjects--they have their own, different definitions for Christian terms.)

Before looking at further SDA sources, let's first look a little bit closer at this statement itself. Notice that it does not say that there is one God in three persons, but that the "one God" is "a unity of three co-eternal Persons" (capital 'P'). Here is a hint of their teaching that "God" is a group/"trio" of three "divine Beings," which we will see more of later. At first glance, the Fundamental Belief statement may appear to at least be compatible with orthodoxy. But in fact, what it says is not very orthodox at all, and their statement is actually heretical in itself. It states, "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." Notice how their "one God" is defined as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons." As Christians, we don't worship "a unity of three"--we worship one living God (one indivisible simple Being who exists as three persons). They define "one God" as a "unity [group] of three" Persons. So even what their official statement is saying is that there is a "united group" or "family" of three "Persons"--and this group is called "God" and there is only "one" group. In fact, in some ways their current statement of Fundamental Beliefs is less orthodox than the pre-1980 statement of beliefs, even though that statement did not say Jesus is eternal. Interestingly, in 1980 they deleted their previous (1931) wording about Jesus, where they had said that he was "of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." (Although, even that was deceptively stated--even back then they didn't mean the same thing orthodox Christianity means, that God is one Being!) Also, since they define "God" as a group of three, then they are actually lying in this Fundamental Belief statement when they say that they believe that "God" is "ever present," considering the fact that they deny that Jesus Christ is omnipresent (click here to jump down to the section "Denial of Christ's Omnipresence"). In other words, since they redefine and (mis)use the word "God" as a collective (group) noun, then "God" would have to include all three in the "group/trio," and yet they deny that Jesus is omnipresent. Looking at this Fundamental Belief statement further, notice that it also does not say that "God" (the "Trinity") is the Creator. Under belief number 3, they say that the Father "is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation." Under belief number 4, regarding the Son, they will only admit that, "Through Him all things were created..."; and under belief number 5 they say that the Holy Spirit was only "active with the Father and the Son in Creation." This is in direct contradiction to God's Word which says that Jesus is the Creator and Source and Sustainer of all creation. According to God's Word, Jesus is the Sovereign God of the universe. The Biblical truth is that there is only one Being, only one God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--who is the Creator, Source, Sustainer and Sovereign of all creation. Also under belief number 3 ("Father"), they say: "The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father." But, interestingly, they have no similar declarations in their belief statements about the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit." So, in conclusion, as will be overwhelmingly confirmed as we go on, these official "Fundamental Beliefs" actually separate and divide the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into multiple gods.5

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://biblestudiesforadventists.com/2012/quarter1/week1/sabbathschool1.html

Quote:
Observations

First of all, in both the Introduction to this quarter and the first day of Lesson 1, it is stated that “God” is “composed of three Persons” (or, as the Easy Reading Edition of the quarterly puts it: “made up of Three Persons”). This sort of language is typical in Adventism, because they do not believe in the orthodox concept of Divine simplicity, as we will also see tomorrow. God is not “composed” or “made up” of parts, but rather He is one single indivisible/simple (as opposed to composite/complex/aggregate) living Being. As the Wikipedia article on Divine simplicity puts it: “This doctrine also helps keep trinitarianism from drifting into tritheism, which is the belief in three different gods: the persons of God are not parts or essential differences, but are rather the way in which the one God exists personally.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity)

The author of this quarter's lessons certainly wastes no time in showing that Adventism teaches Tritheism (three divine beings/gods) rather than orthodox Trinitarianism. The first day's lesson states:

“The 'eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit,' as Ellen G. White calls them (Evangelism, p. 616), are equal but not identical or interchangeable.”

Not only does Ellen White use the tritheistic term “eternal heavenly dignitaries” but the author then uses the word “them” to refer to these “heavenly dignitaries.” And the Easy Reading Edition paraphrases Ellen White's statement in a clearly Tritheistic manner: “Ellen G. White calls the Godhead the 'eternal Rulers of heaven—God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.'—Adapted from Evangelism, page 616. They are equal but not the same.” Notice also that “the Godhead” is being defined as a “they/them” (i.e., a group or committee of three gods).

Additionally, in the accompanying Study Helps, immediately before and after the Ellen White quote above, are the following two quotes:

“When they [israel] came to Sinai, He took occasion to refresh their minds in regard to His requirements. Christ and the Father, standing side by side upon the mount, with solemn majesty proclaimed the Ten Commandments.—Historical Sketches, p. 231. (1866). {Ev 616.3}”

“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.—Manuscript 66, 1899 (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.). {Ev 616.5}”

Both of these quotes illustrate the Adventist denial of God's incorporeal nature—that He is spirit and does not by nature have a body. Not only did Ellen White teach that the Father has a body (and that the Son had his own separate body before the incarnation), but the second quote above (when compared to other quotes of hers about the Father and as admitted by SDA scholars... also teaches that the Holy Spirit has a body. This teaching of divine corporeality also necessitates their belief in polytheism (multiple divine beings). Thus, Adventism has three separate physical divine beings, who are united as a group (called “the Godhead”). This concept is diametrically opposed to the orthodox Christian teaching that God is one divine spirit being without body or parts. Jesus says in John 4:24 that "God is spirit." And in Luke 24:39, He says, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones."

etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/white/desire.html

Quote:
In (Desire of Ages), she draws on mystical experience and comes to conclusions far different from the mainstream attitudes of her time. Theologians today still criticize her work on the basis of its potentially heretical views on such core doctrines as those of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Kathleen O’Bannon

CCEL Staff

This does not include the not a few discussion forums where there are those who will all too happily set any different understandings straight in a hurry. With the all too clear threat that one could be bounced from the forum for persisting in questioning what "should be taken on faith, tho incomprehensible".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...