| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3815 Registered: 12-2003  |
Adrian, Adventists do teach that the Holy Spirit is a "person", but they don't really teach about Him the way the Bible presents Him. The most telling ways they misrepresent Him is in their idea of humans not having spirits. I believe this heresy is one of the underlying foundations for their not only misunderstanding what the new birth is, but also reflects a deep void in their understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God. I had that phrase, "created in God's image", explained variously to me as we are like Him in our creativity, in our ability to have emotions, in our ability to have relationships...it always centered on human characteristics that reflected characteristics we could infer about God. NEVER did I learn that we are created with spirit quite separate from our physical substance that could know and unite with God who is spirit (John 4:23-24). As a result, the Holy Spirit was a "force" or a "person" who enlighted our minds. While they called Him a "person", they described His work in us in ways they would describe a "force". For example, we had to follow the health laws, eat according to Leviticus 11 restrictions, follow Ellen's principles of health (preferably 2 meals a day, no refined foods, avoid medications, early to bed and early to rise, etc etc) as a means of keeping our minds clear so we could be equipped to preceive the Holy Spirit when He tried to teach us. Also, educating our children in SDA schools and urging them to go to college in SDA universities was also part of developing our minds so we could understand the truth the Holy Spirit would try to impress upon us. A friend of mine, a "former" who teaches at an SDA university, told me that just last week a young woman from a well-to-do, well-known Adventist family introduced a visiting lecturer at a special convocation held at the university. In her introduction she stated that we honor our Adventist heritage by embracing new ideas. The whole mystery of the Spirit has been lost in trying to figure out how He works. Without a corresponding human Spirit, Adventists are left to explain the Holy Spirit as "something" that does His best to enlighten and educate us in the cognitive arena. "Spiritual truth" is, to Adventists, mostly just words. I've known many Adventists (on the more liberal end) who say that they embrace "truth, whether it's found in the Bible or science or Mozart or Monet." Those on the more conservative end see spiritual truth best revealed in the prophetic work of Ellen White whom, they believe, God gave to the church to reveal His will. It's all nebulous, and Adventists on the whole have a pretty great fear of "being filled with the Holy Spirit." Most tend to distrust any signs of spiritual gifting, considering such to be deceptions from Satan. Those married to the idea that truth and knowledge come from training the brainóand the Holy Spirit can help if we let Himóreact to the idea of "being filled with the Spirit" almost as if it were a sort-of "positive demon possession". I'm using just my own words here to describe the reactions I knew when I was there. They fear being "taken over" and becoming or being made to do things they would never like or wish to pursue. Basically, they see themsleves as the key to whether or not the Holy Spirit will enlighten them, and they see themselves as the great monitor of all claims to the Holy Spirit's power. If He doesn't "look" like what they believe, it is the "wrong spirit". It never dawns on them that the Holy Spirit's indwelling is not a "foreign body" in their minds but rather is the eternal Spirit uniting with our own to give us eternal life. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1579 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Please educate me some more. I think I am just not getting it. Please tell me what is tri-theistic about the SDA fudamental belief statement on the Trinity. Here is the link www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html But if I were never an SDA, and I read the fundamental beliefs statement, for the Trinity, Christ, Father, and Holy Spirit, I would have to conclude that these beliefs are orthodox. Words mean things. Men like Walter Martin, Anthony Hoekema, Ken Samples, Dale Ratzlaff, are these men just plain ignorant of Adventism? One of these men actually has been a pastor in the SDA church. (smiley) Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1580 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I have studied a few links on Apollinarianism. I believe that you are making a very serious charge that SDAs teach the doctrine of the anti-christ, and apollinarianism. Here is a link to the Catholic encyclopedia about this www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm I don't see how this definition fits the SDA doctrine of Christ. Have any other scholars ever said that SDAs teach apollinarianism? This would be such an obvious error for some apologist who would want to fry Adventism--and there are plenty out there who would love to outright call Adventism a cult, that I don't see how this was missed. You may have discovered something that no one else sees. Contact the Christian Research institute, or call Hank Hanegraaf tomorrow. If you are right, Jeremy, then Adventism is just as bad as JW. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3816 Registered: 12-2003 |
A few years ago I taught the daughter of a Christian physician who came to Loma Linda to do a fellowship program. Just before Christmas my student told me she was leaving after the holidays. I was shocked; she was an excellent and creative student. I met her mother in the hallway and began asking questionsóand she soon was plying me with questions. Emotional, she asked if she could call me. We ended up talking on the phone once or twice and then entertaining the whole family of 5 for lunch before they left. The story was this: When the family did research for a place to do the fellowship, they believed they were coming to a Christian hospital. They did their research; they went online, read the NAD page of the GC website, read about Loma Linda, read about Adventism on the Adventist web services, and satisfied themselves that they were coming to a Christian place. To cap it off, when they drove into town, they saw the gold cross at the top of the front wall of the hospital and KNEW they had come to a true Christian hospital. From then on they felt as if they had fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole. They could not understand the aloof attitudes of the other doctors and their wives with whom they associated. He could not understand why, when a tumor patient died post-surgically, he called for a chaplain (on the weekend) and waited in the patient's room with the family for several hours with no chaplain showing upóand finally conducted a prayer service with them himselfóto name only two puzzlements. Finally, he could not understand why new cases were being assigned to others but not to him. His wife was a pastor from an old, honored evangelical church in the Reformed tradition who was not then employed, and she began spending hours at a local religious retreat house, praying to understand what was going on and feeling, she told me, that they were in a severe spiritual battle the shape of which they could not discern. That afternoon when I met her, she began to understand what was happening. The treatment her husband was receiving was similar to that which other non-SDA Christian physicians I know have experienced at Loma Linda. She began asking me qustions about Adventism, and as I answered, she was overwhelmed. She realized that the oh-so-proper wording on the websites had deceived them, and learning the truth began to make her and her husband feel less "crazy". They kept talking about how they had researched LLU and Adventism and had been led to believe it was "orthodox". Over and over they said that finally learning the truth about Adventism was sent to them from God and was more of a relief than they could express. They moved to another state where he completed his fellowship and where he still practices. Words do mean things, and when they are used intentionally to convey their particular meanings while simultaneously hiding the real way the church understands them, they are deceptive. They inflict terrible harm on people who believe they mean what they say. Those who never get close enough to experience the church first-hand will never know many of those words actually mean something quite different from the way they sound. Often those who have been part of the church, like Dale, do not spend their time on the doctrines which are more subtle because those are not the overt heresies that are easily identified as unbiblical and cultic. Also, the intial "reformers" or "whistle blowers" tend to focus on the worst and most obvious problems. Subsequent "generations" are able to point out successive layers of trouble. The trail-blazers' focus on the more overtly troublesome doctrines does not negate the sinister nature of the other problems which reveal themselves more gradually. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1582 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, The story you described is called anecdotal evidence. I know of a Christian pediatrician who is not SDA, but I wonder if he would make the same statements you are making Colleen. I was a medical student and a resident for over six years at Loma Linda University. I am proud of my school in so many ways. Yes, I told my story in Proclamation about how most of what I found was out and out non-Christian liberalism. I stand behind my story. However, I have to say, there were some wonderful Christian people, including a Pediatrician who does attend Trinity EV Free, and other true Christian chaplains there who truly loved the Lord, and believed in the Triune God. I went to the strictest of cultic SDA schools, but I am going on record right now--I WAS TAUGHT TRINITARIANISM! I'm sorry, Colleen, you do have me upset right now. I just have to say what was true in my experience. This doesn't diminish the cultic doctrine of SDA. I support FAF 100% when it comes to exposing Adventism. Stan | ||
| Jwd Registered user Username: Jwd Post Number: 203 Registered: 4-2005  |
Adrian, You included this statement in your post near the top: < All the same, I suppose I have to come to the conclusion that we are saved by having a relationship with God through Christ and not by having perfect theology. > Once more semantics cover virtually every post here; each reading and "hearing" things that may or may not be the writer's intent; thus the need for further clarification. So I am not clear on your full meaning of us being "saved by having a relationship with God." I would only offer for your consideration my understanding which is deepening on an on-going basis; that it is God and God's sovereign grace ALONE that does the saving; not the degree of dedication of my relationship with Him. If your understanding includes this, then we are in agreement. I just question whether any merit is assigned to a relationship with God. However this does not dimnish the importance and absolute necessity of having a relationship with God. For how can we be one of His sheep and not relate to Him as our sovereign Shepherd? It seems clear to me that in John 6:44, John is saying that saving faith, or coming to Christ must be preceded by some measure of transformation in the heart to take away the inborn hatred of spiritual light. John Piper says, "Faith is not the mere affirmation that Christ is infinitely precious; faith is embracing Christ as precious because the light of Christ is loved and not hated." The essence of saving faith is being satisfied with all that God is FOR US in Jesus. And isn't that relationship? I think so. May God grant us all an ever deepening relationship with Him; while always knowing that He and His life is the Source of and Cause of this relationship (Cp? Jn 15). Jn 8:45-48; Jn 3:8; 1:12,13 - - We cannot even hear the Word of God (in a compliant way) if we are not "of God" that is, not born anew by the free-blowing Spirit of God. Therefore faith is not a self-wrought work, but a fruit of God's work in the soul. (Again referring to John Piper's comments). Jess | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3818 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Stanóthere are many wonderful Christians at LLUóboth Adventist and non-Adventist. I absolutely agreeóand I also agree that because of the basic doctrinal premises I was taught regarding the Trinity and the authority of the Bible, I had enough faith in those actual teachings to trust the Bible enough to begin to see the errors of the denomination. It was, ironically enough, my having been taught the the Bible was the bottom line authority (although that actually meant the Bible as interpreted by Ellen) that gave me the confidence to actually turn to the Bible, praying for God to teach me. In no way do I mean to cast doubt on your having heard enough about about Jesus and the the gospel to actually recognize Him when He came to you and awoke your desire to read the Bible. I believe many of us here can say the same thingsóGod used what we were taught in Adventism to awaken a desire to know Him completely. Without doubt. All I am saying is this: the denominationónot specific individualsóbears the mark of the founding deception, and the organization functions deceptively. People are deceived and confused and led astray by the deception. One of the things I think I have struggled to understand is that pretty much no person or organization is either "all bad" or "all good". All human endeavors and all humans are a mix of helpful, good impulses and innate evil. Only in Christ is a human delivered from this divided heart. And once we are delivered from the controlling power of the divided heart, we are left with a living spirit which must consciously choose to walk in the light instead of defaulting to the flesh. The Adventist church is founded on deceptive teachings. This fact does not negate that it does much humanitarian good. But humanitarian good does not equal, necessarily, righteous behavioróeven on the part of an institution. It does not remove its culpability in perpetrating deception and in continuing to indulge in less-than-honorable business practices. I, too, have met countless wonderful people within the Adventist system, many of them following Jesus as well as they knew how. These people, however, do not counterbalance the church's deliberate public deception that confuses or even tricks people on the outside into believing it is a mainline Christian church. One of the statements the family mentioned above found on the NAD website was that the SDA church was a "mainline protestant church". I believe we all know that is simply not a true statement. My story above was not intended to cast aspersions on any department or individuals. For that matter, I do know that many non-Adventists come to Loma Linda and graduate successfully from their various programs. My point was to demonstrate that the coprorate deception, practiced from the GC down through its organizational ranks, results in confusion at the personal level. Of course, there were likely other details about this family's story which I do not know. Still, their confusion at expecting a certain type of environment because the church advertised itself as a mainline protestant church, etc., set them up for confusion. They came here not understanding how the culture "worked", and that confusion was because the culture they walked into was Adventist primarilyónot "mainline Christian". Stan, I sympathize completely with your having received excellent training at Loma Linda. Without doubt you did; your professional expertise now bears witness to that fact. Again, I was not trying to say anything about individuals or specific departments. I was merely (rather badly, I fear!) trying to point out that the continuing corporate deception has hurt and confused a great many people. I'm sorry for having having offended you. Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 205 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dear Colleen, Thanks ever so much for your explanation about the Holy Spirit. It is very helpful. It seems then that both JWs and SDAs have this aversion to the work of the Holy Spirit. It's a bit strange, because SDAs believe in a prophet who was inspired by the Holy Spirit and JWs in a Spirit inspired organisation, so why should the concept be a problem? Maybe the Holy Spirit is OK, so long as he stays at a safe distance and doesn't interfere too much in their lives. Is that just me being cynical? Just a couple more anecdotes: Mr. John Reisinger (the Hungarian one, president of Christian Advent Fellowship) used to have a TV programme on one of the satelite channels. It was about Biblical prophecy (what else?) but he also answered questions sent in by viewers. Once he was asked if the Bible said anything about speaking in tongues, and he said no! So he's either a useless Bible scholar, or he lied. Is that logical? I have also heard through G·bor, the CAF pastor we know from SzÈkesfehÈrv·r, that some of these apparent traditional Adventists actually speak in tongues. It is officially frowned on, and G·bor really thinks it is out of order, but the Hungarians being Hungarians just ignore them and do it anyway. They still stay in the church, which is officially anti-charismatic. Does anyone know of any Charismatic Adventists in America, who have stayed in the church? Or do such things only happen in Eastern Europe :-) God bless, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 206 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Jess, The comment I made about a relationship with God was meant to indicate that as I, or any others here, have a relationship with God right now, then we are saved. Many verses show the inportance of knowing God, which would certainly indicate a relationship, e.g John 17:3 - Now this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Also Phil 3: 7-8, 1 John 2: 12-14. I did not wish to make any comment at the time about how that relationship came into being, just that it exists. Present assurance of a relationship with God, I believe, is given by the Holy Spirit. See Romans 8: 15-16 - For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. We can go into the mechanisms later, but it's late right now. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3821 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adrian, the Hungarian Reisinger is probably both a "useless Bible scholar" and wellóavoiding truth. First, Adventists DO teach that the Bible teaches the gift of tongues, but they carefully explain that the Biblical gift is ONLY languages necessary when needing to communicate the gospel to people of another culture. Not knowing exactly how the question to Reisinger was worded, I can say two things. First, he did not respond with authentic Adventist doctrine. In saying "no", he denied even languages. Second, if he felt the question was directed at "prayer-language" toungues, he probably felt justified in just sayng "no" because, he reasoned, the Bible doesn't teach that. The fact that 1 Corinthians can be understood to mention tonuges apart from known languages would be irrelevant. If he believed such a gift was not Biblical, he would likely feel justified to simply deny it was there without trying to explain. This could have been an example of eisegesis: Reisinger's understanding through his Adventist "filter" would convince him the Bible supported himóthus, he could confidently say the Bible didn't teach tongues. Make sense?! (Unfortunately, I understand how he might have reasoned...) Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1583 Registered: 3-2005 |
There are so many doctrines that SDAs teach that are legitimate targets to attack. Certainly, not speaking in tongues, is not a doctrine I choose to attack. And I know that I was a Trinitarian all through school. When I became saved, I didn't have to relearn Christianity. The basic doctrines of the Christian faith were taught in my home and school. The best way to show another SDA, that traditional SDA doctrine is incompatible with the true gospel is to point to the very foundation that SDA is founded on, and that is 1844, sanctuary, and IJ. (That is why I thought the Spurgeon sermon was so interesting, because of how different it is from what Ellen White taught). If you can show an SDA that this foundational doctrine is wrong--and it can be shown very easily from the book of Hebrews alone--then it usually follows that Ellen White, and the Sabbath can be discredited. I believe former SDAs lose their credibility when they go on record saying that SDAs deny the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. It just won't wash--even with the cult experts and former SDA pastors. You are on very subjective ground, that can't really be proven objectively. I think the best approach is to admit that on paper SDAs do appear orthodox. The 28 fundamentals regarding the Trinity and Christ are solid. Then, if you want to prove that at least some of the SDAs are deceptive on those points, then fine. I have to say that the SDA fudamentals doctrine on the Trinity is very orthodox when you compare it to the blatant Trinity-denying doctrine of T.D. Jakes--who is one of the most "influential evangelicals" and endorsed by the editor of Christianity Today--another former SDA, David Neff. Also Rick Warren endorses Jakes. Oneness Pentecostalism, or modalism, is now accepted as orthodox by the apostate magazine CT. The basic doctrine of Justification by faith alone, which is the heart of the gospel is also denied by SDAs and RCC, and a growing number of so-called evangelicals, is another very legitimate area of discussion. As Ric_b said on another thread earlier today, the doctrine of the IJ, and the uncertainty of salvation, with the doctrine of Christ presented as an example of perfection to live up to, rather than our substitute also denies the gospel. There is so much wrong with Adventism, that is so easy to prove--the legalism etc etc These are reasons enough to discredit SDA. But venturing on the ground that is very technical and hard to prove--such as the denial of the Trinity--just to me doesn't seem helpful. And casting apersions on the SDA medical work, and medical school won't win many friends or influence many people. Now, I have been critical of SDAs liberal abortion policies--that is legitimate and extremely important area to hold them accountable on. Stan | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 474 Registered: 1-2003  |
Stan you said, "There is so much wrong with Adventism, that is so easy to prove--the legalism etc etc These are reasons enough to discredit SDA. But venturing on the ground that is very technical and hard to prove--such as the denial of the Trinity--just to me doesn't seem helpful. " I agree with you. Sometimes it seems that just because an Adventist believes something it must be wrong. This does not lend credence to very valid points which I feel need to be questioned and yes called error when examining SDA beliefs. It's like crying wolf to many times. We all need to stay on the main things and not pharse every word that is said. No one can hold up under that type of examination. Assumptions are made about what others mean in their words which may or may not be valid. We can not always understand what is ment by a persons use of words, including those on this forum. I am deeply blessed by what I read from others here and want to say thanks to all of you. Stan I agree with you and your reactions to the SDA liberal abortion policies. I was astonished and saddened when I learned about them a few years ago. In His hands, richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 486 Registered: 8-2004  |
Here are various sites discussing what SDAs believe on the nature of God: Trinity in Adventism From sdanet.org "At Issue" A list of various short articles regarding the trinity (affirming that SDAs are in fact trinitarian) The Doctrine of the Trinity among Adventists by Gerhard Pfandl, from the Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD (discussing the different views of Adventists throughout their history) The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Phandl, from the Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD An Anti-trinitarian answer to the 'At Issue' site, from Ron Beaulieu, a self professed 'messenger to the church and the world' Considerations about the Godhead by A. Balbach, A SDARM perspective (the SDARM indorses 'the Heavenly Trio as a more fitting description of the Godhead than the 'Trinity', which they call a Catholic doctrine) And here, incidentally, is a list of what at least one Adventist considers to be the 'issues' that SDAs are currently grappling with: The Ten Big Ones (Message edited by helovesme2 on April 25, 2006) | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 475 Registered: 1-2003 |
Adrain said, "Does anyone know of any Charismatic Adventists in America, who have stayed in the church? Or do such things only happen in Eastern Europe :-)" The short answer is "yes" there are SDAs who speak in tongues as defined in Scripture and who remain in the SDA church. I know a number of them is several SDA churches. In Christ, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 675 Registered: 4-2000  |
Stan, The official statement from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (www.adventist.org) on the Godhead is as follows: "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." [The foregoing statement really describes a FAMILY of divine "Persons" united in purpose--a Tritheism. Please notice the capitalized "P" to describe three different Gods or Beings. Ellen White referred to the Godhead as "a heavenly trio" among other unique descriptions.] In contrast, here is the official statement on the Godhead from my church, the Evangelical Free Church of America (www.efca.org): "In one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." [also check out www.lcms.org for an excellent, biblical affirmation of the Trinity doctrine.] With a belief system created by their Arian pioneers, Adventism still does not clearly understand Trinitarianism. Furthermore, their hymnody and doctrinal "pillars" reflect this misunderstanding as well. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1584 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, Adventism is in so many ways so very cult-like. I think it is accurate to say that it is sociologically like the other major cults. Because of SDA, my childhood was very repressive, because my Dad believed everything Ellen had to say. The family anger that was expressed when I left SDA was very cultic, and if I were still going through that process, there would be no way that I could be objective about anything SDA. When I see the terrible stories on this web site about how hostile family members can be, I perfectly understand that it would be hard to look at anything SDA and have any positive feelings about it. I am not saying that is the case with you Dennis, because, as you know, we agree with just about everything else doctrinally, but we do disagree on this issue. Dennis, I have looked at both the SDA statement and your churches' EV free statement, and I just can't see it. Look at the SDA statement you posted above: "THERE IS ONE GOD: Father, Son, and holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons" I think of that beautiful hymn "God in three persons, blessed Trinity" What is possibly wrong with that SDA statement. The EV free statement is almost identical, Dennis. Someone, please show me the difference. I don't see how this criticism of SDA is remotely fair. I have been around apologists for years, who have no love for the SDA church, and in fact, they want to label it a cult, because they see the realities most of us see about it's uniquely cultic doctrines. But objectivity and credibility is extremely important in cult apologetics, or you lose your witness. We know how SDAs understand all doctrine through the filters and veil of EGW. However, I think that sometimes we formers may just read everything through our anti-SDA filters, and thereby lose objectivity. However, even former SDA pastors who have had everything evil hurled at them by the cultists in SDA, being called the very anti-christ (we saw that spirit on Revival Sermons), yet even a pastor like that can still forgive his brethren, and still be objective that SDA indeed is orthodox on the Trinity and nature of Christ, and not call SDA a cult in the same sense as JW, LDS, etc. So, I for one, respect those kind of role models. But at the same time, we should never diminish our view that basic SDA doctrine is based on deception, and a false vision related by EGW, that we know did not come from God. I actually think she was manipulated by her husband and church leaders to come up with any kind of vision to suit their purposes. SDA leadership is cultic, and needs to be exposed. We need to deal gently with the people in Adventism, and in a Christ-like manner show them the beauty and joy of the gospel of justification by faith alone. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1199 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, It seems to me like you're making some serious personal accusations here. Please don't judge us and say that we just have anti-SDA filters on and that we have no objectivity.  These are my heartfelt convictions, based upon all the evidence I've seen. I have spent hours researching this. Please don't just dismiss my opinions as bitterness or something. That's not what it is at all--it's all about truth. Really.  I would be glad to share some more evidence with you, if you really want to examine it. But I don't want to post quote after quote, evidence after evidence, just to be told that I am just wanting to attack SDAs. Just to let you know, this post is not written in anger at all. And I probably shouldn't take your comments so personally. Anyway, let me know if you really do want me to share my own personal research. I completely agree with you that we need to "deal gently with the people in Adventism." And I also think we need to deal gently with Mormons and JWs. But we do need to examine doctrines and see what they really teach. I do not claim that all SDAs believe in Tritheism. And you said that your experience was that you were taught Trinitarianism growing up SDA. But the personal experiences of myself and others on this forum is that we were taught Tritheism growing up in the SDA church. And there is evidence that it is a foundational, official, and widespread Adventist teaching. God bless, Jeremy | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 185 Registered: 7-2005  |
Some time ago, I read a dialogue about trinity with a mormon, who definitely believed in tritheism. The link was given by Jeremy, and I believe it's very interesting. I'll quote some parts perhaps it will be useful:
What's interesting, without digging in the conversation, the mormon declaration "we believe there is only on God" seems Trinitarian. But after you go in detail, you discover that this is not so.
Separate is a key word in this dialogue, because it reveals what is behind the supposed trinitarian belief.
And after these exchanges, Matt explains what is the real situation. I believe his comments are very important:
In this situation, we have a case of double talk. God as individual, and God as an office, as a family. The same person uses both cases. Regarding adventism, I believe that the official statement given by EFCA is clear, because speaks about God as individual "One God, Creator of all things eternally existing in three persons" God = Creator, definitely God as individual. The adventist statement, after declaring that God is one, said: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." God = unity, not God = Creator, as the EFCA statement. Unity can means an office, a family, not an individual. This statement leaves room for tritheism. The EFCA excludes this possibiliy, equating God with Creator, an individual. Basing our evaluation only on these statements, we can say only that the adventists statement of faith is ambiguous, it can be read as trinitarian or tritheist. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 676 Registered: 4-2000 |
Stan, The well-known hymn we sang growing up, entitled "Holy, Holy, Holy," did NOT not say "God in three persons, blessed Trinity." Admittedly, they finally changed it in the 1985 SDA hymnal. This is just one example in their faulty hymnody. We grew up thinking we were actually singing the great hymns of the Christian faith. About the official SDA statement on the Godhead, it starts out well but ends wrongly. Interestingly, the Worldwide Church of God states almost the same thing as the SDA view of the Godhead. As you know, both groups have an Arian history. Unfortunately, both statements are only partially true. Indeed, cults cannot be truly reformed. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 488 Registered: 8-2004 |
I think the place where the regular rendering reads "God in three persons, blessed Trinity" the rendering in the 'old' SDA Hymnal is God over all who rules eternally". |
