| Author |
Message |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |     |
Okay, I'm not sure where to start because based on what I'm reading above I think that both Gilbert and Grwaitemd have different views. So let me start by seeing if I understand. Please tell me if I have correctly stated your views.
Gilbert, If I understand you, you are saying that you believe:
1) There is more than one god.
2) The Father, Son, and Spirit are each individual gods.
3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are personally distinct.
Am I correctly stating your views?
Grwaitemd, If I understand you, you are saying that you belive:
1) There is only one "Most High God"
2) The Father is the "Most High God", the Son is a lesser "god", and the Spirit is an agent or force.
3) The Father and Son are personally distinct, the Spirit is an agent or force.
Am I correctly stating your views?
Chris
P.S. Gilbert, my paperback Webster dictionary simply say's that the word "being" means "Existence, a creature". So as we use the word in the Trinitarian formula we are speaking of God's existence as a single living being. This would most closely correspond to definition #1 in the entry for "being" that you gave. The trinitarian idea of person most closely corresponds to definition #7 in the entry you gave for person. In other words, we are using "person" to denote subject/object distinctions, or realtionships (e.g. the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, the Father sends the Spirit, the Son send the Spirit, the Son speaks to the Father, etc.).
(Message edited by Chris on March 12, 2006)
(Message edited by Chris on March 12, 2006) |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 203
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Chris -- I appreciate your interest, effort and patience. At this point I think it would be fair to say that I don't have a view. I have 50+ years of Adventist (in essence Ellen White) indoctrination. Like I mentioned earlier, I have returned to Kindergarten where I can start with a "clean slate" and hopefully advance to a "First Grade" understanding. I feel quite ignorant when I get around people who have really studied the Bible.
At this point it appears to me that any meaningful understanding of this, and perhaps most Biblical topics, requires a much deeper understanding of the Hebrew or Greek nuances and context than I presently have. Becoming a "former Adventist" has indeed been a humbling experience.
At this point any proposition on my part would be conjecture that is not rooted in a sound expository understanding. I hope this does not disappoint you. 
Gilbert Jorgensen |
Grwaitemd
Registered user
Username: Grwaitemd
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 5:51 pm: | |
Dear Chris:
There is only one true God and that is the Father of Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Living God. That is what he declared. See John 17:3. He is the Son of the Highest. See Luke 1:32. He is a priest after the order of Melchisedec who was a priest of the Most High God. See Hebrews chapter 7. (if there is more than one "Most High God", how could the Son be a priest of multiple most high gods? is he a priest of himself as god no. 2? is he a priest of the spirit as god no. 3?)
The Son is lessor in regard to authority. He said that his Father was greater than himself. See John 14:28. The Son can do nothing of himself. John 5:19. The Son does not know the day or hour. See Mark 13:32. He was given power which he did not first possess. See Matthew 28:18 and John 17:2. God gave him revelation which he first did not possess. Revelation 1:1. The "life within himself" that the Son possessed was given to him of the Father. See John 5:26. The two sons asked to be on his right and be on his left. The Son said that it was not within his authority to decide this, but rather the authority belonged to his Father. Matthew 20:23. The Son did not possess the ability to be in more than one place at a given time and had to pray to his Father to send the Comforter as the agent of the Son so that he could be in more than one place at a given time. See John chapters 14 and 16. The Son kept his Father's commandments. See John 15:10. The fifth commandment says to honor your father and mother. If the Son was not in submission to the authority of his Father (and a lessor god if that is the term you want to use), he would be a commandment breaker. The Son has a God. See John 20:17. The Father does not have a God since he is the only true God.
Though the Bible does not directly say that the Spirit is a person, there is a lot of evidence showing that he is a person and is an agent or representative of the Son so that he could be in more than one place at a given time.
I believe that the Spirit is not only a force or power, but is a person who is the agent or representative of the Son and comes in the Son's name and only does what he is told to do and only speaks what he is told to speak. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:49 pm: | |
Gilbert, I understand. There are few things in life more confusing than coming out of Adventism and having to discover Biblical theology from the ground up. I was there and I still struggle with many issues.
On this particular issue, the nature of God, I grew up being taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit were like a family. They were united in purpose, but seperate in being. This is a form of the ancient heresy of tritheism (the idea that there are three beings that are gods). Imagine my surprise when I began studying the Bible and began to see how strongly the Bible teaches (over and over) that there is only one single God, YHWH.
There are not many gods, there are not three gods, there is only one single God and there are no others. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not a family of gods, they are quite literally the one true God. They are more than just one in purpose, they are one in being. They are one single living being of one essence or substance. The one true God has never been lonely, never been without love, never been without communication, never been without relationship. He is complete, perfect, and without need of anything just as He is. The one true God has eternally existed in relationship to Himself. When we speak of the persons of God, we speak of these eternal relationships of love, communication, and fellowship that have always defined the one being that is God.
I will start another thread to begin to outline the Biblical basis for this teaching. It's getting late here and I'm headed to bed. I'm also in budget week at work and am burning the midnight oil so I may not be able to start the thread for a day or two. However, I will provide scripture that reveals important truths about the being of God and His persons. I look forward to dialoging with you more Gilbert.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:52 pm: | |
Grw, thank you for clarifying your position further. I think I understand it now and will be better able to answer some of the questions you raised. In a day or two I will start a thread on the Being of God. I will provide scripture on what God has revealed about Himself in scripture and will address some of the questions and concerns you raised.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3534
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:24 pm: | |
Jesus was "in very nature God" but humbled himself, "taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." He humbled himself and "became obedient to death."
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:6-11).
"Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him..." (Hebrews 5:8-9)
As a human, Jesus functioned as a human. He emptied himself and took a position lower than the angelsóyet He has been exalted above ALL. He "ascended higher than the highest heaven in order that He might fill the whole universe" (Ephesians 4:10).
Jesus incurred the wrath of the Jews by identifying Himself as the One God who made himself known to Moses at the burning bush as the "I Am". In John 8 the Pharisees were calling Him demon-possessed because He was claiming the power to keep people from seeing death if they kept His word. Scornfully they asked if he considered himself greater than their father Abraham.
"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to Him. "You claim you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) The people tried to stone him.
This response angered the Jews because Jesus identified Himself as the One God, I AM, who had called Moses and whom Moses knew. "I AM" was a name of God the Jews recognized. They immediately assumed Jesus was blaspheming.
We cannot evalutate Jesus' eternal position by his human experience. He clearly proclaimed His oneness with the Father, but He came, born of a woman and born under law. His incarnation did not change who He was and is, but it changed his position temporarily.
The miracle and mystery of Jesus is that the Creatore, the eternal I Am took human flesh and "learned obedience" through suffering.
There is great mystery here, but the identity of Jesus is constant. He is the I Am.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3535
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:25 pm: | |
Chris, I'm looking foward to your proposed thread. (I just saw your last post!)
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:22 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen, I think you pretty well covered Jesus' choice to lay aside the priviledges and perogatives (but not the attributes or nature) of deity during the incarnation. During the incarnation Jesus chose to live in complete dependance upon and obedience to the Father. Jesus' life in the incarnation in no way denies his eternal ontological equality with the Father. Thank you for providing the scriptural support. Hopefully I'll be able to do some posting in a day or two.....Things are pretty crazy here right now......
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 8:37 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen, I think you pretty well covered Jesus' choice to lay aside the privileges and prerogatives (but not the attributes or nature) of deity during the incarnation. During the incarnation Jesus chose to live in complete dependence upon and obedience to the Father. Jesus' life in the incarnation in no way denies his eternal ontological equality with the Father. Thank you for providing the scriptural support. Hopefully I'll be able to do some posting in a day or two.....Things are pretty crazy here right now......
Chris
|
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 204
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 6:22 am: | |
Chris -- thank you for your valued contribution.
Somewhere (probably Ellen White!) I was of the impression that Lucifer (Satan) became jealous of the position that the Son held in relation to the Father, and wanted to also be at the Father's right hand" as an "equal" with the Son. That jealousy, I was taught, is what caused discontent in Lucifer's heart. He first shared his thoughts with some of his closest angels until it turned into an open rebellion. Evidently this is all Ellen White theology, as well?
Gilbert Jorgensen
(Message edited by jorgfe on March 14, 2006) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3542
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:34 am: | |
It is Ellen theology. Jeremy has shared quotes in the past that state these things; they are nowhere in the Bible.
The Bible suggests that pride was behind Lucifer's rebellion, but it never explains further.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 135
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:40 pm: | |
If the phrase "One true God" applies only to the Father, it means that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not "true God", they are a false God, the opposite of true.
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:58 am: | |
Gilbert,
Yes that is all EGW garbage, making it sound like "God" is a "group" that can be "joined." That nonsense all goes away when you realize, as Chris is showing from the Bible on the new thread, that God is One Being, who has always been and always will be. Nobody else can become God! But EGW taught that Jesus became equal with God, that Satan could have become equal with God, and that those who "earn eternal life" will become equal with God!
Gilbert, you wrote:
quote:My understanding is that the word "God" is an English word, similar to the word "sheep". It can be singular or plural. We used to raise sheep. Whether we had one, or many, we still referred to them as "sheep". We did not refer to them as "sheeps".
That is redefining words, as you said we were doing. The English word "God" is singular. The plural is "gods."
Christianity believes in monotheism, or one God--there are NOT three gods. The Christian Trinity doctrine is that God is One Being, Three Persons.
Gilbert, you need to realize that Adventism taught you a false "Trinity" doctrine--just like they teach a false gospel. In actuality, Adventism does NOT teach the Trinity. They just use the term, but change the Biblical, historic Christian meaning of the term to something that is definitely not the Christian definition--just like they do with so many other Christian terms. They teach Tritheism, just like Mormonism does. Adventism teaches exactly the same thing as the Mormons--check out this dialogue with a couple of Mormons: http://www.carm.org/dialogues/numberofgods_lds.htm
It seems that you are only reading part of what those links from blueletterbible.org say. The singular adon is used multiple times in the OT to refer to God. So is the singular elowahh, including in the very important verse, Isaiah 44:8. But Grwaitemd pointed out earlier in this thread that there are many examples in the OT that show that even elohiym is not necessarily plural. As it says at blueletterbible.org, it is used as a "plural intensive - singular meaning." Also, the Greek word for God in the NT, theos, is singular.
I have no problem going with the dictionary definitions. The definition you quoted for "Supreme Being" (singular) is "GOD." According to Adventism, there is no Supreme Being--there are Three Supreme Beings. Even according to the secular dictionary, this is not Christian!
The entry at m-w.com for GOD (which the entry for Supreme Being links you to) says:
quote:"1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
According to Merriam-Webster, God is one Being (singular). We are not redefining terms--this is the classic, historic, orthodox Christian definition of God! It is pseudo-Christian cults such as Mormonism and Adventism who teach otherwise.
Even the definition you quoted for "person" says:
quote:3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
Again, according to the dictionary, there are three persons but only one "being" (singular). We are not redefining terms--it is Mormonism and Adventism which have done that. Christianity and the Bible teach monotheism and do not in any way teach that there are three gods--that is heresy.
I think you have the right approach now to just start with a clean slate and see what the Bible teaches. Just throw out all of the SDA doctrine (assume it is cultic heresy from a satanic false prophet) and see what God's Word has to say.
Jeremy
P.S. One more thing. You mentioned Alden Thompson's book Inspiration. I think it is important to note that he teaches that the Bible is full of error and, like almost all Adventists teach, that it is not verbally inspired and is not inerrant. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:45 pm: | |
Chris,
I've been wondering something and would like to get your thoughts on it, when you have the time--and anyone else's thoughts.
Why is it that even with all of us having grown up being taught Tritheism, all of the EGW quotes teaching it, the Adventist Review teaching it, and, as I looked up yesterday, the official SDA book explaining their fundamental beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists Believe..., even teaching it--why does everyone say that the SDA church teaches the Trinity???
The fact that the Mormons teach Tritheism is one of the key points brought against them to show that they are a non-Christian cult. And yet Adventism also teaches it and they say, "Adventism is not a cult, because they teach the Trinity." Or, "Adventism is a cult, but at least they teach the Trinity, unlike other cults."
Just because they "borrow" (steal is really the more appropriate word) the term "Trinity," does not mean they have the Christian definition, just like they have a different definition for many other Christian terms they steal, such as "justification by faith," etc. But it seems that even more Christians have been deceived by their false use of the term Trinity than have been deceived by their false use of other terms.
Even Dale Ratzlaff says on page 298 of his book Cultic Doctrine:
quote:11. Disbelief in the Triune nature of God.
Adventists believe in the Trinity74 and therefore do not meet this common cult characteristic.
But, as I am finding out, that is simply not true. Just because they now use the term, the SDA church does not teach, and has never taught, the Trinity!
I think more people need to know this important fact!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 15, 2006) |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:23 pm: | |
Jeremy,
It's a historic fact that many of the early SDA leaders were anti-Trinitarian. To the best of my knowledge the SDA leadership has never fully publicly repented of its anti-Trinitarian roots nor has it condemned the aberrant statements made in the writing of EGW. For this reason there are still pockets of anti-Trinitarians within Adventism (albeit on the fringes). But worse yet, I would say that even within the mainstream of Adventism there is mass confusion on the doctrine of the Trinity at the lay level because the group's leadership has never made a full effort to educate it's membership. To do so would raise too many questions about the organizations history and its prophet.
Having said all this, I think the current statement in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs is just fine from a doctrinal standpoint.
quote: 2. The Trinity:There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God isimmortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyondhuman 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.)
The problem is not in the statement itself, but in the lack of repentance for past heresy and the lack of dedication to eradicating current ignorance and misinformation.
I will probably draw fire for saying this here, but to be fair and balanced I think modern day SDA theological thought in most publications and seminary classrooms is Trinitarian. The problem comes when some SDA teachers attempt to redefine the terms, explain the statement above in light of EGW's confused work, or simply leave their parishioners in ignorance.
I agree that modern Adventism is very very weak on the Trinity, but I'm not so sure that modern Adventism should be considered officially anti-Trinitarian. However, I might be convinced otherwise if I read some of the sources you alluded to above. If you have some links I would like to check them out.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3552
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:24 pm: | |
Jeremy, I agree with you. The confusion has come, I believe, from the fact that the Adventists have adopted the appropriate words about the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Unless one specifically delves into current publications (well, over the past 10-20 years or so) to see what is ACTUALLY being written, people have no idea that the Adventist words are, again, deceptions.
I agree that people need to know this fact. I also believe people don't understand that Adventist still do not teach the sinless nature of Jesus when you unpack the language. No matter what we CALL God, if one's understanding of His nature is wrong, the understanding of His identity is wrong.
I totally agree with you about this problem.
Colleen |
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:36 pm: | |
Jeremy,
You said anyone else's thoughts...about the Trinity. I can only speak about my own family, now, and myself, growing up.
I think the common SDA is confused about it and doesn't realize exactly what Ellen White taught.
I know that I and my family believed in the Trinity and they do now. But, when my daughter (age 16) got into a discussion on who Jesus is, my mom was way off base because of Ellen's presentation of Lucifer's jealousy and almost equal standing in heaven with Jesus. (My girl tried to tell her the correct way, but to no avail) My mother is all confused between what is Ellen White OR in the Bible, not knowing which is which, thinking she believes in the Trinity; yet not knowing what the Trinity exactly is either.
Let me repeat that. My SDA family says they beleive in the Trinity, but they don't know what the Trinity truly is, scripturally. They have another Trinity.
Every SDA I ever knew said that they believed in the Trinity. But I never recall my family or anyone else deeply studying Ellen White on the subject nor the Bible. I think it is like most other similar groups, where the common people don't know all their church's history or its own theology, even being born into it, and receiving it daily. Of course, with its 'visions' special, extra-Biblical revelation, they do not rely on scripture (whichever the groups may be; they all have common characteristics. Ellen was no different. That is one reason I believe she had a false spirit with her like Joseph Smith did, as some of you do, too).
So, because they truly believe that they believe in the Trinity, they proclaim so, even though it is not the Trinity of orthodox Christianity.
That's all I can see. But, like I said, I can only speak from observing people around me and my old SDA self, not SDA scholars, theologians, and editors behind 'The Review' and such.
I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts about Jeremy's question, too.
Cathy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:06 pm: | |
Thanks for your responses everyone.
Chris,
As far as I can see, the SDA church has always taught Tritheism (ever since they abandoned bitheism), and has never abandoned it. All they have changed is that they gradually started using the word Trinity and, by 1980, finally admitted that Jesus is eternal. So they now have a co-equal (somewhat at least), co-eternal Tritheistic "Godhead."
Look carefully at the official statement of belief that you quoted. You will notice that it is worded (much like other ambiguous statements of theirs) in such a way that it could fit Trinitarianism or Tritheism.
So, yes, evangelical Christians looking at the statement would say that it's fine. But the SDA understanding of it is Tritheistic. I will show this below.
I believe that Tritheism is a widespread teaching in the SDA church. Here is my evidence:
1. The testimonies of people, including several on this thread, who have said that they were taught Tritheism growing up in the SDA church. If the SDA church does not teach it, then why were we taught it?
2. All of the quotes from EGW teaching Tritheism, many of which I posted on the first archived page of this thread.
3. The Adventist Review, the official magazine of the SDA church, published the following by Gordon Jenson, which, according to a historical SDA web site (http://www.restorationministry.com/tracts/are_sdas_advancing.htm), was "presented in the Week of Prayer readings, appointed to be read in all Seventh-day Adventist churches worldwide":
quote:". . . a plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.
By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father . . ."
Adventist Review -Oct. 31, 1996 - p.12
(Taken from http://www.restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/pre_2000/open_face_june_1997.htm)
Then later in the article, Jenson wrote: "The divine Beings entered into the roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid." (Taken from http://www.presenttruth.info/newsletters/PresentTruth/2002/pt_k_nov02.htm)
According to the above web site, Gordon Jenson "was the president of Spicer Memorial College in Pune, India."
4. Samuele Bacchiocchi says: "Respect for the holiness of God precluded any attempt to represent the divine Beings of the Godhead." (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/passion_of_christ2.html)
5. The official SDA book explaining their fundamental beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists Believe..., teaches Tritheism. The book can be read online here: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm
Here are some quotes from Chapter 2, "The Godhead."
Even their statement on the oneness of God sounds questionable:
quote:The Oneness of God. In contrast to the heathen of surrounding nations, Israel believed there was only one God (Deut. 4:35; 6:4; Isa. 45:5; Zech. 14:9). The New Testament makes the same emphasis on the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). This monotheistic emphasis does not contradict the Christian concept of the triune God or TrinityóFather, Son, and Holy Spirit; rather, it affirms that there is no pantheon of various deities.
Now here is some of what they say about "The Relationship Within the Godhead":
quote:"John's Gospel reveals that the Godhead consists of God the Father (see chapter 3 of this book), God the Son (chapter 4), and God the Holy Spirit (chapter 5), a unity of three co-eternal persons having a unique and mysterious relationship."
Notice that they do not say that these three persons are one being, but it sounds as if they are using "persons" to mean "beings."
quote:"Sinners will never comprehend what Jesus' death meant to the Godhead. From eternity He had been with His Father and the Spirit. They had lived as coeternal, coexistent in utter self-giving and love for one another."
So, in other words, when Jesus died, the three beings were no longer coexistent. I guess there were only two beings left in the Godhead, since Jesus apparently ceased to exist (which is made clear later when they say: "Christ became man to die for the race. He valued selflessness more than self-existence."). This could only happen if the three persons were separate beings--it would have been impossible if all three were one being!
But wait, it gets even worse!
quote:"To be together for so long bespeaks the perfect, absolute love that existed within the Godhead. 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) means that each so lived for the others that they experienced complete fulfillment and happiness."
So if they happened to quit loving each other they would have disbanded--that is not one being! That is a "group," or "trio" as Ellen calls it.
Here's more:
quote:"There is no distance between the persons of the triune God. All three are divine, yet they share their divine powers and qualities. In human organizations final authority rests in one personóa president, king, or prime minister. In the Godhead, final authority resides in all three members."
Those first couple of sentences are clearly Tritheistic, and so is the last sentence.
quote:"While the Godhead is not one in person, God is one in purpose, mind, and character."
That is basically the definition of Tritheism!
quote:"This oneness does not obliterate the distinct personalities of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nor does the separateness of personalities within the Deity destroy the monotheistic thrust of Scripture, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God."
So these "separate personalities" (beings) together "make up" one God (their interesting use of italics, not mine), but we are told not to worry, that this "separateness" does not destroy the "monotheistic thrust" of Scripture."
quote:"The apostolic benediction includes all three persons of the Godhead. 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all' (2 Cor.13:14). Christ heads the list. God's point of contact with humanity was and is through Jesus Christóthe God who became man. Though all three members of the Trinity work together to save, only Jesus lived as a man, died as a man, and became our Saviour (John 6:47; Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12). But because 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself' (2 Cor. 5:19), God could also be designated as our Saviour (cf. Titus 3:4), for He saved us through Christ the Saviour (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; cf. Titus 3:6)."
That first part certainly sounds very strange, saying that Jesus is "the God who became man"--are they saying there is more than one God? And the last part makes it sound like God is not one being.
In conclusion, the SDA church teaches Tritheism, and does not teach the Trinity.
Also, I just came across another couple of interestng quotes from EGW. This first one is another one which teaches bitheism:
quote:"In order that the human family might have no excuse because of temptation, Christ became one with them. The only being who was one with God lived the law in humanity, descended to the lowly life of a common laborer, and toiled at the carpenter's bench with his earthly parent." (The Signs of the Times, 10-14-1897, paragraph 3.)
quote:"But while God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding his pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father." (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 04-05-1906, paragraph 5.)
"The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind." (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, paragraph 14.)
I found those last two quotes at the following interesting web page: http://www.babylonforsaken.com/sdagodhead.html
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 15, 2006) |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:13 pm: | |
Okay, okay I give up, you've convinced me. You are correct. Actually, I was just logging in to recant anyway before I read all of your very convincing references.
My wife just came home from being out with friends and I mentioned something about this thread and me not being sure whether it's fair to classify SDAs as anti-trinitarian. She just stared at me and said, "What? It's not enough for you that they've gone to great pains to edit all their hymns? I haven't even done much research and that's enough to convince me." As much as I hate to admit it, when she's right she's right.
Chris |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:51 am: | |
I was going to post the following last night, but the forum was down:
I just cannot get over that last EGW quote that I posted. Did you all get that? She says that JESUS was MADE! And she says that He was made in the express image of the Father's person--which sounds similar to how we're created as humans.
This is the clearest statement I've ever seen from EGW saying that Jesus is a created being!
I forgot to include the Clear Word "bible" in my above post. This distortion of God's Word which they call a "paraphrase," published by the SDA church, changes Jesus' own words about Him and the Father. In literal translations, in John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
The Clear Word changes it to: "I and my Father are so close we're one."
Jeremy
EDIT: I should also mention that the Clear Word also denies the deity of Christ in many places and also calls Him an angel. And this "bible" is published by the SDA church, sold in their Adventist Book Centers, advertised by them, etc.
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 16, 2006) |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:11 pm: | |
Jeremy,
That is the first time I have seen that reference to MADE in any EGW literature. It should be noted that you got that quote from an 1895 Sabbath Review and Herald--an official publication of the SDA church. That is excellent and well done research! I might suggest that you find out who the SDA researcher is at CRI and see if you can get Hank Hanegraaf's attention. Or, make an attempt to call the Bible answer man show. Because, Hank has always contended that EGW was orthodox on this point.
It is also interesting Jeremy, that that website Babylon Forsaken that you referenced above actually has a goal to bring folks back to an Arian view. I could be wrong, but at one time I read that site carefully, and I think that that is what they are getting at.
But you have definitively proven by that quote that EGW was Arian as late as 1895. If she has other statements that sound orthodox, then she was copying.
It is an unfortunate fact that SDAs are very good at crafting their belief statements to elude superficial cult watchers like Hank Hanegraaf and others.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
I'm quite convinced that Ellen really didn't have much of a clear-cut opinion about Jesus' nature or identity. She was so dependent upon the input of others' minds that she would likely have been unpublished if she hadn't had material to "borrow" or adapt.
A few years ago Verle Streifling had an article in Proclamation in which he compared phrases in The Clear Word with real translations. The focus of that article was to show that the Clear Word systematically undercut Jesus' deity. It is actually a bit shocking to me how consistently Jack Blanco deliberately wrote out refereneces to Jesus being identified as God. (And he was, at that time, head of the theology dept. at Southern Adventist U!) That quote you gave, Jeremy, is just one good example of a whole "Bible" full of those kinds of things.
There is no doubt in my mind that Adventism at the core is not Trinitarian. While today I believe there are some Adventists who do believe Jesus was truly God, many others see him as less-than-the-Father and/or not eternal. Those who do see Him as "God" still, I believe, have a distorted view and knowledge of Him. Even though they THINK He's God, in practical reality they relate to Him as a sort of demi-god.
I would have told you, as an SDA, that believed I Jesus was eternal and fully God. Yet I did not "see" Him as the all-powerful Lord Jesus. Oh, I knew those words, but I did not relate to Him as Sovereign God. I always pictured Him as more humble, more "limited", more pitying, somehow "softer" than God. He wasn't the "powerful" God, and I never felt that awe and gratitude that called me actually to worship Him. He was just a necessary piece of the eternal salvation puzzle.
I'm so glad you're bringing up these quotes, Jeremy, because they explain the diminutive understanding Adventists have of Jesus, even though they may say the right words about Him.
It is noteworthy that George Knight, the Adventist historian, says in his remarks in the republished Questions on Doctrine, that there is a growing movement back to anit-Trinitarianism among Adventists. I believe that the Adventists who take Ellen the most seriously have the greatest tendency to return to some version of Ariansm. This reactionary movement seems to be among the extremely conservative ends of Adventism. The liberal end tends to see Jesus as the Open Door who ushers all people into the kingdom. Neither extreme views His blood as the terrible necessity it really is.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 7:07 pm: | |
Yes, I got that quote from the Clear Word from the excellent study by Dr. Verle Streifling that is available online here.
Colleen, you make very good points. And I would add that a lot of those who do think Jesus is God, in actuality believe that He is one of three gods, or one of three "divine beings" that make up one "God" or "Godhead" (and thereby redefining the words God and Godhead).
Colleen, what you said about picturing Jesus as more "limited" grabbed my attention. Adventism teaches that Jesus is NOT omnipresent. They make this clear in their official book explaining their fundamental beliefs, Seventh-day Adventists Believe.... In chapter 4, "God the Son," on page 43, they say:
quote:"Although His divinity has the natural ability of omnipresence, the incarnate Christ has voluntarily limited Himself in this respect. He has chosen to be omnipresent through the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18)."
--http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm
They make it even more clear in chapter 5, "God the Holy Spirit," on page 64:
quote:"Cumbered with humanity, the Man Jesus was not omnipresent, which was why it was expedient that He depart. Through the Spirit He could be everywhere all the time."
--http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-05.htm
This heresy comes from EGW:
quote:"Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent." (Manuscript Releases, Volume Fourteen, page 23, paragraph 3.)
I also found a couple more Tritheistic-sounding quotes from Seventh-day Adventists Believe...:
quote:"Only an omnipresent personal God, not an impersonal influence, nor a created being, could perform the miracle of bringing the divine Christ to one individual, Mary."
--http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-05.htm
"Jesus Christ, the pre-existent God, the divine creative Word, at His incarnation became in a unique sense the Son of Godówhich is why He is designated 'monogenes' the only one of His kind, altogether unique in many aspects of His being and life. No other child of the human race was so compacted in his being, had so unequaled a relation to the Godhead, or did such a work as is true of Him. So 'monogenes' describes a relation between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as separate Persons of the Godhead. This is a relation that belongs to Christ's complex, divine-human personality, in connection with the economy of the plan of salvation."
--http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm
That last quote is a quotation that they took from a book called Problems in Bible Translation, published by Review and Herald in the 1950s.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 16, 2006) |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 208
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:45 pm: | |
http://www.atoday.com/6.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=56&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=a0b970f030
quote:"A number of alumni and other Adventist observers believe that what has happened is that denominational leadership is in a ìcrisis modeî for control of the church. They state that instead of church leadership showing evidence of becoming more inclusive, their positions are ìhardeningî on church beliefs like a literal understanding of the Genesis creation narratives, the authority of Ellen White, and several other ìfundamentals.î They seem to decry any deviation from ìold-time Adventistî understanding of the churchís fundamentals, and they particularly suspect teaching professors with advanced degrees."
See also:
http://www.atoday.com/6.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=55&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=b8f9182a47 |
|
