>There seems to be a repeating pattern of using the silence of God (which is what the failure of His special messenger to directly correct a specific error would be) as justification for saying that an error, though rather obvious, cannot really be an error after all. Actually there is a lot of writing in favor of Waggoner's view from EGW. Waggoner's book, _Christ and His Righteousness_ was on his 1888 message. EGW supported this as a message from God. This is not an argument in silence, it is affirming of Waggoner's view, and it was not his alone.
"There is no rebuke of of Waggoner in GC493." -apl7 I believe that reference rebukes the idea of forcing a difference between the words "begotten", and, "created". Christ was never created---except His humanity. A human body was prepared for Him (Hebrews 10:5).
> @apl7 > Actually there is a lot of writing in favor of Waggoner's view from EGW. Waggoner's book, Christ and His Righteousness was on his 1888 message. EGW supported this as a message from God. This is not an argument in silence, it is affirming of Waggoner's view, and it was not his alone. The question is: Waggoner's view of what? Just because Ellen White supported a certain message being taught by Waggoner doesn't mean that she agreed with him on every point -- even from the beginning. She is on record as rebuking his panentheism, as well as his teachings on "spiritual affinities," and she definitely contradicted his views on the human nature of Christ.
Ron wrote, >She is on record as rebuking his panentheism... I have not seen any rebukes. I have read warnings about the danger of entanglement with Kellogg.
> @georgethe54th > I have not seen any rebukes. I guess you haven't read Whidden's biography of Waggoner after all.
I have read it and I don't recall any such rebukes. If you could show us what you are referring to, maybe that would help.
Or maybe it wouldn't help, George. If you saw something contrary to what you believe, would that change your mind?
Mark, the association or connection with feast keepers is unrelated and unnecessary. Also, as with most who attempt to critique this subject, you get it wrong on what non-trinitarians believe. First you assume that this is an erroneous teaching and then you yourself misstate what is believed. How is being a Father authoritarian in the negative sense you imply? It is scripture (1 Cor. 8:6) which clearly states that to us their is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, on this topic you are the one in the dark. www.theos.institute/godhead
The Trinity of the Godhead by Fruchtenbaum How Many Persons Are There? So far we have seen from the use of various plural words that there is plurality in the nature of the one true God. We have also looked at several passages where the names of God are applied to two quite different divine personalities. The question that therefore arises is: How many personalities exist in the Godhead? A reading of the Hebrew Scriptures shows that three, and only three distinct personalities are ever considered divine. They are: The Lord YHVH The Angel of YHVH The Spirit of God We will now consider each of these in turn. The Lord YHVH There are numerous places in Scripture where there is reference to the first of the three divine personalities. The usage of “the Lord YHVH” is so frequent that there is no need to devote further space to it; a great many Messianic prophecies already discussed serve as examples of this. The Angel of Jehovah The Expression Malach YHVH The second divine personality is the Angel of Jehovah – but who is He? The Angel of Jehovah is not to be taken as a title, but, following Hebrew grammar, it always functions as a proper name. This individual is always con sided distinct from all other angels and is unique. It never appears in the plural. Nowhere in Scripture are the phrases “the angels of Jehovah” or “the angels of God”, but rather there are three, and only three, expressions which are used, 1. the Angel of Jehovah – Malach YHVH, always singular. 2. the Angel of God – Malach Ha-Elohim, always singular with the definite article. 3. the angels of God – Malachei Elohim, plural, and is never used with a definite article. The third of these expressions is used in general terms of ordinary angles. The first two expressions are both used to describe a very special and distinct individual – the Angel of Jehovah. We can see this in Judges 6:20-21, where the same Person is described first, in verse 20, as “the Angel of the God” and then in verse 21, as “the Angel of Jehovah.” This is also brought out in Judges chapter 13; in verse 3, there is a reference to “the Angel of Jehovah” and later, in verse 9, this same individual is called “the Angel of the God”. Consistently, throughout the Hebrew text, there is a distinction mad between ordinary angels and this unique Person referred to as both “the Angel of YHVH” and “the Angel of the God.” The Angel of Jehovah is clearly revealed as being different in stature, nature, person, and essence from ordinary angels. The Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah What the Hebrew grammar is trying to show is that this unique individual is in fact God Himself. In virtually every context in which He appears, He is referred to as both the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah Himself. There are many examples which show this:
We shouldn't be afraid of using the word trinity in our understanding of the Godhead. There are various words that SDAs use in their biblical teachings that are not stated in the Bible but clearly understood anyway. For example, the word rapture is not used in the Bible but the words that Paul uses are the words "caught up" The word millennium is not used in the bible but the scriptures uses the words thousand years, a period in which the saints will be in glory but SDA's understand what that means anyway. The word cat is not used in the bible but we know that they were on the Ark. Your name and mine is not mentioned in the Bible but we can thank God for sending his Son to die for us anyway. The concept of the tri-unity of the Godhead is clear. Mrs. White calls it the Heavenly Trio. She makes it clear over and over that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost each maintain "All the fullness of the Godhead".
I appreciate that this conversation left off some time ago, but would like to renew this. I have been an Adventist for 18 years, and resisted any interest in studying the topic of the trinity and non-trinitarian view until late last year. I spent several months investigating what it is that the opposing view to the trinity actually entailed, and discovered a number of things. First, an intriguing parallel between many mainstream Christians who do not understand Adventist teaching and criticize from the perspective of misunderstanding, and many here who are doing the same from a misunderstanding of those who reject traditional trinitarian teaching. Due to the trinity teaching, it is believed by the majority of churches that Jesus Christ is not the literal begotten Son of God, but instead an equal, co-eternal God alongside the Father. The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son. Becaus e you are either a literal Father and Son, or you are just playing the roles. The Adventist Church along with most other churches have officially rejected the belief that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Take a look at the following official statement from the Adventist Biblical Research institute (which was also published in Adventist World magazine) "the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father ... The term 'Son' is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead." (Adventist Biblical Research Institute...Angel Rodriguez). So according to the Adventist church today, Jesus as the 'Son of God' is only a 'SYMBOLIC' application and He is not the literal Son of the Father. And yet the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church clearly taught that Jesus was the literal son of God. Take a look at the following quotes. "Christ is the only literal Son of God. The only begotten of the Father. John 1:14." (J.G. Matteson, Review and Herald, October 12, 1869) "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,--not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a son begotten in the express image of the Father's person." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895) "The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the first-born of heaven to save the sinner." (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 51) And what does the main authority, the Word of God have to say on this? Does the Bible suggest in any way that Jesus is just playing a role as the Son of God? Or is He the literal Son? Let us look at some Bible texts to see if we can get some understanding as to who Christ really is. John 3:16 ...'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' Romans 8:3 ...'God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.' John 16:27-28 ...'For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.' John 17:7-8 ...'Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from you, and they have believed that you did send me.' Proverbs 8:23-25 ...'I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.' Proverbs 30:4 ...'Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?' John 20:17 ...'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.' Remember, God is our 'Father' by adoption. God is Christ's Father by birth! 1 John 5:5 ...'Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?' Is John the apostle admonishing us to believe in a literal Son of God, or a metaphorical Son of God? Note also the confession of the Ethiopian when taught by Philip...Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Look up a search engine on an online Bible and see how many times the "Son of God" is mentioned. Metaphorical? How can that be?
brakelite, I am willing to chat with you on this topic if you are willing to do so using your real name. You may e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org
The heavenly trio is bible truth, but the trinity doctrine misrepresents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Adventist Pioneers were non-trinitarian. Be careful to not fight against the truth of God, God's Son and God's Spirit. — www.theos.institute/heavenly-trio/
We need not capitalize the word, "pioneers," like we capitalize the word, "God." The discovery of truth is a progressive process. The Holy Spirit guides the followers of Jesus into more and more truth. At the same time he convicts the church of error.
As an Adventist, the acceptance of the trinity concept concerns me more than if I were a member of another denomination, for two reasons other than directly theological. First, we Adventists are the only ones who are especially blessed with such a keen appreciation of truth within the historicist paradigm. We recognize the significance of the uprooting of the 3 horns by the little horn as a very unique pointer to identifying who the little horn is. The fact that the wars between those horns were primarily over doctrine...the trinity doctrine, is worth consideration. It disturbs me that the belief in the trinity was established through the shedding of much blood, and the complete destruction of 3 nations, all Christian, yet differing over the nature of the Godhead. That a counsel presided over by a semi-pagan pseudo-Christian Emperor who was using the occasion as a political ploy to unite his empire is hardly grounds for establishing Biblical truth. I feel somewhat uncomfortably involved in the affair in a way being so familiar with that prophecy, and my own church bein g almost party to the whole deal by agreeing to the trinity concept even though no doubt disagreeing on the war itself. The second reason I am concerned is the fact that the Roman church officially recognizes the trinity doctrine as being the foundation for all her other doctrines and teachings. It seems terribly incongruous that the root, the trinity, the foundation doctrine of the Antichrist, can be the base for all its other heretical teachings. How can a good root bring forth such evil fruit?
@doug matacio I emailed you the other day, it may very well be in your spam folder my email moniker being brakelite. Your filter may have thought I was pushing car parts.
I got it! Doing final grades now. Will get back to you soon.
The "Trinity" belief in the Catholic Church is not Bible based. We use the same verbiage....however, with different definitions. The Catholic belief is an "eastern religion" definition.....similar to the Hindus and Buddhists....one god (not a plural word as in the Bible) that divides himself into as many entities as he chooses.....Biblically, The God of Scripture "One GOD" (plural) GODHEAD of Three Separate Persons. The language of today and the past has been used and abused....changed and modified by definitions that.... we now live in Babylon...The "confusion" from the language being hijacked is fully functional "in and out" of the Christian Church as a whole. We are starting to "over-defining" to the point that the word Trinity itself "only" refers to the Catholic Church....This mindset is causing divisions...We are students of Scripture....God has provided The Holy Spirit that we can look beyond man's inadvertently accepting the devil's profound use of language.... and how he has built into our minds prejudices that lead to wrong thinking. In other words...we are making the simple complicated through "bigotry." Demonic agencies have brilliant minds....the use of language is a power they use well. Our minds have become toys to them...like putting mice in a maze ......
"There are many who deny the preexistence of Christ, and therefore deny his divinity; they do not accept him as a personal Saviour. This is a total denial of Christ. He was the only-begotten Son of God, who was one with the Father from the beginning. By him the worlds were made." — Signs of the Times, May 28, 1894, par. 1 • EGW
"And now God said to His Son, “Let us make man in our image.”" — Story of Redemption, p.20.2 • EGW