This is truth, and
truth for our times.
Just as J.N. Andrews
spoke of the marks of those who needed to come out of Babylon in His day, we
need to add on a continuation to those- NOT replacing them- but ADDING to them
all that is appropriate for those who need to come out of the apostatized church
that is Babylon today right along with the others already spoken of.
'BELIEVING THAT THE
FALL OF BABYLON IS A MORAL FALL, AND THAT IT DENOTES HER REJECTION, AS A BODY,
OF GOD.' J.N. Andrews Three Messages of
Revelation 14
A moral fall. God has a true people, a true church. There is a false church and that is Babylon,
holding false concepts and truly people need to come out of the false church if
they would be a part of God's true church.
Why is the corporate
SDA Church today apostate? Why do those who would be God's need to come out of
the false church? Here are a few reasons… all TRUTH!
*******
THE GODHEAD
STATEMENT
1872 - 1914 - 1931 -
1980
Editor's Preface
In this issue
of WWN we carefully compare the major doctrinal statements which the
Seventh-day Adventist Church issued from 1872 to 1980 in the area of one
doctrine only; that is, the doctrine of God.
This study and
comparison has been most enlightening and stimulating to the editor, and we
pray that you will find it likewise challenging. There are some unanswered
questions. How could the unchanged statement on God from 1872 through
1914 be written as it was, and "thought" leaders -
editors, theologians and writers - during the same period express
concepts concerning God which did not harmonize with the Statement?
Furthermore the
concept held as to the "origin" of the pre-existent Christ by
"many" changed from the belief that He was the first of the creation
of God to the concept that in the remote eternity of the past He proceeded
forth from the Father. Yet there is no reflection of this original
concept nor the changed perception, expressed in the wording of the
Statements of Belief during this period.
"Some of the
earliest SDA's - for example James White and Joseph Bates - had formerly been
members of the "Christian Connection," a church that at that time
held to a form of the Arian belief concerning Christ's nature .... Upon
becoming SDA's they retained this belief, which found expression in their
writings." (SDA Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pp. 286, 287: 1976
ed.) Thus these earlier concepts cannot be considered as
"pillars" of the Adventist faith, because they never ORIGINATED with
Adventism such as the sanctuary teaching and the Three Angels' Messages.
Technically, it
could be stated using Adventist terminology that these concepts came from
"Babylon," the same as the Trinitarian teaching expressed in the
Nicene Creed and made a part of the 1980 Statement.
We are hearing much
about what the "Pioneers" taught. The word is misapplied. In a
published booklet there are omissions which, had they been included, would have
altered the deduction drawn. We would be hesitant to judge this
as intentional, rather it represents a "zeal without
knowledge."
THE GODHEAD
STATEMENT 1872 - 1914 - 1931 - 1980
(((My interjection-
From Truth to Apostasy))))
In comparing these
statements certain factors must govern our thinking.
Changes made from a
previous statement do not necessarily make the new statement apostate; it could
be a reflection of a deeper insight into truth. However, such changes could
reflect apostasy from truth.
Any given statement
is not the ultimate enunciation of truth of a doctrinal position; the Holy
Scriptures must remain the final word.
A Statement of
Beliefs is what a group of people perceive truth to be at a given time in their
corporate experience.
There is NO QUESTION
but that the 1980 Statement on the subject of God is not saying the same thing
that the 1872 Statement did.
Further, it will be
observed that ALL statements, official and unofficial, from 1872 through 1914
did say the same thing in the same way concerning God.
This data also means
that during the lifetime of Ellen G. White, the stated position of the Church
not only on the doctrine of God, but in all other major areas of doctrinal
thought, remained constant.
This is not saying
that sincere men, devoted to the work of the Church were saying the same things
on the subject of God. They were not. From Uriah Smith, theologian, prophetic
writer and editor of the Review & Herald, who stated that Christ was
the first of all created beings, to Dr. E. J. Waggoner, who perceived of Christ
as having proceeded forth from the Father so far back "in the ages of
eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man," these men
reflected beliefs NOT stated in the published statements of the Church.
In fact the
authorship of the 1914 Statement is assigned to Uriah Smith. The tragedy of
this present anti-Trinitarian agitation is that men are selecting from among
the "pioneers" those who wrote what they want to believe, and present
these "pioneer" positions as the basis for belief. The fact remains
you cannot find in any Statement of Beliefs from 1872 through 1914 a position
on Christ's origin which stated what either Uriah Smith or E. J. Waggoner
taught.
Would it not be the
point of wisdom just to take the TWO STATEMENTS defining the Godhead which DID
NOT VARY in any published statement from 1872 to 1914, and read these carefully
to find out what the Church said it believed at that time?
When the 1872
Statement was published in Battle Creek, the preface read that it was not being
"put forth as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to
secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is it brief statement
of what is, and has been, with great unanimity held by them"
Two years later when
James White launched the Signs of the Times, his first editorial was the
1872 Statement with the same preface note.
When the, 1914
Statement of Beliefs credited to Uriah Smith first appeared in the 1889 Year
Book, it was prefaced by the assertion that "the following propositions
may be taken as a summary of the principle features of [the Church's] religious
faith, upon which there is, so far as is known, entire unanimity throughout the
body."
It is interesting to
NOTE that from the 1872 Statement, thought to be largely the work of James
White, to the 1889 Statement, the work of Uriah Smith, the phrase was changed
from "GREAT UNANIMITY" to "ENTIRE UNANIMITY" as far as the
acceptance of the stated beliefs "throughout the body."
What did the two
statements on God actually state?
Article #
I reads:
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.
Article #2 as it
states the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Godhead reads:
That there is one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created
all things, and by whom they do consist. ...
What is NOT stated
is as consequential as what IS stated.
The eternal Deity of
Christ is not affirmed.
Either
Christ was innately divine, the I AM, or His was a derived divinity.
The statement
affirms that He was before all creation for by Him "God created all
things."
Jesus is declared to
be "the Son of the Eternal Father" which would infer that at some
point in eternity, He was derived. It does not say, "the Eternal Son
of God." The "how" is left unstated. The word, "birthed,"
used by the neo anti-Trinitarians is not used, neither the word,
“generated."
In setting forth the
Word as Lord and the Father As "one God" there was Biblical
precedence (Eph. 4:5-6). However, the word, "God" and the word,
"Lord" as used in the Scriptures are synonyms. The issue turns on
worship.
"Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke
4:8).
Yet, "the Lord
thy God" whom Jesus referenced in this verse, commanded the angels at His
birth to worship Him (Heb. 1:6).
In this 1872
Statement, the Holy Spirit is defined as the "representative" of the
"one God."
The word,
"representative" does not mean "force," "power,"
nor "influence," nor is it a synonym of any of these words.
In Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (2nd Edition) the word
is defined:
1. a person
or thing enough like the others in its class or kind to serve as an example or
type of the class or kind.
2. a person duly
authorized to act or speak for another or others; agent, delegate,
deputy, etc. ...
A group of synonyms
are, given:
Syn. - agent,
commissioner, proxy, deputy, substitute, embodiment, personation,
delegate, vicar, vicegerent, principal.
An analytical
reading of the 1872 number one statement on God reveals that of the three
attributes usually assigned to Deity - omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience
(all-knowing) are ascribed to "the one God," while omnipresence
("everywhere present") is manifest in a "representative, the
Holy Spirit."
Two decades later
this same dichotomy would be used by Ellen White to describe the relationship
between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. She wrote:
Cumbered with
humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was
altogether for [the disciples] 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. (Letter 119, 1895)
Some of the
"pioneers" were very specific in what they believed relative to the
Holy Spirit.
For example, Uriah
Smith, in answer to the question from a reader of the Review and Herald,
who asked, "Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same
as the Father and the Son?" replied:
This Spirit is the
Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it
is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this Spirit, the
Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a
person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence
from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they
have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not
personally present. (October 28, 1890, p. 664)
Here we have a
CONDUNDRUM. The 1872 Statement on God declared the Holy Spirit to be "HIS
REPRESENTATIVE," yet in his answer Smith uses terms - "medium"
and "influence," which are neither synonyms nor definitions of the
word, "representative."
Besides this, in the
Statement of Beliefs which first appeared in 1889 and continued intermittently
till 1914 authored byhimself, Smith retained without changes the statement on
God as in the 1872 Statement.
The, conundrums do
not end with Smith in 1890. This same question was basic in the controversy
which developed over the book, The Living Temple, which J. H. Kellogg
published in 1903. ln a letter which he wrote to George I.
Butler on October 28 of that year, Kellogg plainly stated - "As far as I
can fathom, the difficulty which is found in Living Temple, the whole
thing may be simmered down to this question: Is the Holy Spirit a person?"
Kellogg's solution, if' A. G. Daniell's interpretation of a letter
sent to him the same day by Kellogg can be relied upon,
was that"it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father that
filled all living space." (Letter from Daniells to W. C. White, October
29, 1903)
This same
distinction is found in the 1872 Statement. Omnipotence and
omniscience are attributed to the “one God," while
omnipresence Is assigned to His "representative, the Holy
Spirit."
According to
Daniells, Kellogg in his letter opted for the Trinity doctrine, and used
Trinitarian terminology, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy
Ghost."
Earlier in 1903
(March 16), Ellen White had written to Kellogg and cautioned him - "You
are definitely NOT clear on the personality of God." (Letter 300)
Late in 1905, she
would cite "spiritualistic representations" which those of the
"medical fraternity" were using to define God. While condemning these
representations by stating that "God cannot be compared with the things
His hand have made," she emphatically wrote - "There are THREE LIVING
PERSONS OF THE HEAVENLY TRIO." (Special Testimonies, Series B, #7, p. 62)
In plain English,
this is what the 1872 Statement and the succeeding statements from 1889 through
1914 said about God - there is "one God," and "Lord Jesus
Christ." These with the "Representative, the Holy Spirit," make
a Trio and are declared to be "living persons."
It is true that the
"pioneers" did not perceive of the Holy Spirit as a
"person" even though they used the word "representative" to
define His work in the Statement of Beliefs. Neither did they profess the
eternal Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This they declared by omission.
Does this then make
the writings of these "pioneers" the basis of our faith, and what
Ellen White wrote on this point, error?
Keep in mind that
she used the word, "trio," not "trinity" nor "triune
God." There is a difference.
What Makes a
Statement Official?
As we pass to the
consideration of the 1914 Statement, which in reality first appeared in 1889,
the question is raised as to whether it was an official Statement of Beliefs.
(We used the 1914 Statement, because it was the final year that it appeared in
a Church publication, and thus the 1872 Statement and the 1914 Statements
covered the lifespan of Ellen White with the Church)
There are some
variations between the two statements, but on the Statements concerning God,
they are identical.
As noted above the
1872 Statement was prefaced with the fact that the beliefs set forth were held
"with great unanimity" by them, while the Statement first appearing
in 1889 was prefaced with the assertion that there was " entire unanimity"
in regard to the stated beliefs.
The litmus test for
being official is now stated to be the action of the Church in general session.
However, this criterion was NOT set until the 1946 General Conference session
when it was voted that "no revision of this [1931] Statement of Fundamental
Beliefs as it now appears in the Manual shall be made at any time
except at a General Conference session." (GC Bulletin, June 14, 1946, p.
197) Because of this action, some have concluded that the only
"official" doctrinal pronouncement by the Church is the 1980 Dallas
Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. This conclusion CANNOT be sustained.
In December 1882,
the General Conference Committee voted to publish a Yearbook. When,
published it contained "the statistics of [the] denomination, the
proceedings of [the] General Conference, T & M [Tract and Missionary]
Society, and other associations, the financial condition of [the Church's]
institutions, [the] General Conference Constitutions, and a good calendar, and
full directories of all Conference and various societies throughout the
country." (Quoted in the SDA Encyclopedia , Vol. 11,
p. 595)
Such made
the Yearbook an authoritative voice of the Church's position and
standing.
In
this Yearbook of 1889 was placed the Statement of Beliefs which
appeared again in 1905, 1907-1914 and which were authored by Uriah Smith. It
was as official as any Statement could be until a new criterion was set as in
1946. In fact the 1931 Statement was prepared for publication in
the Yearbook. "It, was not until 1932 that an official
Adventist Church Manual appeared issued by the General
Conference."
A Change in Wording
– 1931
By a request from
the African Division, the General Conference Committee authorized on December
29, 1930, the preparation of a Statement of Beliefs for inclusion in
the Yearbook. On the subject of the Godhead, a change was made. The new
Statement read:
That the Godhead, or
Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being,
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were
created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be
accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great
regenerating power in the work of redemption.
That Jesus Christ is
very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. ...
There can be no
question but that the change of wording of the Statement on the doctrine of God
also was a substantive change. Not only are the attributes of God - omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omniscient - consigned to the Eternal Father, but also while the
Holy Spirit is declared to be a "person" it is defined as a
"power."
Jesus Christ is
declared to be "very God" thus eternally co-existent with "the
Eternal Father."
There is NO
suggestion of "there is one God" as in both the 1872 and 1980
Statement.
Being "very
God," is amplified to mean "of the same nature and essence" as
God.
In this there is an
echo from the Nicene Creed which states of Jesus Christ, "
being of one substance [essence] with the Father." (Creeds of
Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 58; the word, "essence" being a substitution
for the word, "substance," in the Western text)
Was this Statement
to be coconsidered an official Statement? The answer is clearly,
"Yes."
It was placed in
the Yearbook, and as noted above the 1946 General Conference took an
action which affirmed the Statement. It read: - "No revision of this
Statement of Fundamental Beliefs as it now appears in
the Manual shall be made at any time except at a General Conference
session. (GC Bulletin, June 14, 1946, #8, p. 197)
How was this 1931
Statement on the Godhead understood in Adventism? We know of NO specific
analysis, but we do have a current illustration.
In 1979, one year
prior to the adoption of the current Statements of Belief, the Southern
Publishing Association released a book, Knowing God, by Dr. Edwin R.
Thiele. This book was used as the basis of the Adult Sabbath School Lessons for
the last quarter of 1998. The lessons reflected what Dr. Thiele had written,
except for one chapter, "The .Triune God" (Third Lesson). Some editor
for the Sabbath School Department of the General Conference wrote a substitute
lesson differing from Thiele's presentation knowing that
what Thlele had written which reflected the 1931 Statement did NOT
harmonize with the current 1980 Statement.
Dr. Thiele
summarized his understanding of the Godhead in the final paragraphs of the
chapter on "The Triune God." He wrote:
Each member of the
Trinity of Heaven is a divine personage in His own right and is worthy of our
homage and petitions. ...
If any of the Three
Personages of the Holy Triad were not divine, it would not be proper to
recognize Him as holy or to pay homage to Him. As God is holy, so also is
Christ, and likewise the Holy Spirit. All three being divine and holy,
each must receive recognition for the part He plays, and to each we must accord
the deference and veneration that is His due. (pp. 33, 34)
Observe that
Dr. Thlele perceived the Godhead as composed of "Persons"
even as we are individually persons.
It is over this
point, that we can deduct from the Sabbath School Lesson "Study
Guide" how the 1931 Statement about God was understood. In the third
lesson was found this explanatory note:
The word persons
used in the title of today's lesson must be understood in a theological sense.
If we equate human personality with God, we would say that three
persons means three individuals. But then we would have three Gods,
or tritheism. But historic Christianity has given to the word person, when
used of God, a special meaning: a personal self-distinction, which gives
distinctiveness in the Persons of the Godhead without destroying the concept of
oneness. (p. 24)
Thiele’s
understanding of the 1931 Statement which he expressed in his book as,
"Three Personages of the Holy Triad," was seen
as Tritheism and not in agreement with the
NiceneCredal summation - "one God, Father., Son and Holy,
Spirit."
The 1980 Statement
The statement as
voted at Dallas, Texas in 1980 is lengthy compared with all previous
statements. Not only is there a general statement which embodies the Nicene
Creed summary concept, but a paragraph is devoted to each of the "three
co-eternal Persons," but “persons" used in a theological sense, as
noted above.
The
general statement, captioned "The Trinity,"' reads:
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.
This is a triune -
three in one - concept of God, never before expressed officially in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. All previous Statement of Belief perceived of'
the Godhead as individual Persons.
To what is this
Statement actually confessing? ln a book prepared by the Faith and
Order Commission of the WCC - Confessing the One Faith - with a
subtitle, "An Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as it is
Confessed in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (381)," it is stated:
The Nicene Creed as
a confession of faith belongs to the one, holy, CATHOLIC, apostolic Church.
In the Nicene Creed
the individual joins all the baptized gathered in each and every place, now and
throughout the ages, in the Church's proclamation of faith: "we believe
in." The confession "we believe in" articulates not only the trust
of the individuals in God's grace, but it also affirms the trust of the whole
Church in God. There is a bond of communion among those who join together in
making common confession of their faith. (p. 15)
The Nicene Creed
begins with "We believe in" in contrast with the Apostolic Creed,
"I believe in." The individual who confesses, "I believe
in," then unites in fellowship with those who confess,
"we believe in." This is the step the Seventh-day Adventist
Church TOOK in 1980 in making the Nicene Creed a part of their Statement of
Beliefs.
When the curtains
are pulled on the final drama on the stage of time, there will not be much
difference between "the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church" and
what is now called, "the holy Roman Catholic Church."
The current
"unity in diversity" theme now promoted on the basis of the Nicene
Creed doctrine of the Trinity will tolerate very little "diversity."
It will be "one" Church as it is declared to be "one"
God.
The Nicene Creed as
written into the 1980 Statement declares, "There is one God," even as
the 1872 and 1914 Statements of Belief also declared. What is the difference?
Interestingly, the
WCC's Faith and Order Paper (#153) just referenced above explains how three can
equal one.
In discussing the
second section of the Creed - "We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ" -
is found this observation:
The most difficult
and controversial expression in this section of the [Nicene] Creed is
the homoousios - "of one being with the Father." The main
point behind the use of this word was to exclude any idea that the Son was a
different kind of reality from the Father, contingent and created. On the
contrary, the Son, though dependent on the Father, is inseparable from the life
of the Father: ... As later Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus)
were to put it, the word "God" means nothing other than the life
which is actively shared by Father, Son and Spirit. (pp. 44-45)
On this point, the
difference between all previous statements and the 1980 Statement on the
subject of God is that the 1892, 1889-1914, and 1931 Statements contained this
phrase describing God - "a personal, spiritual Being." The 1980
Statement OMITS this concept.
The current problem
involving the neo-antiTrinitarianism being propagated today is twofold:
their rejection of 1) The Eternal Deityship of the Word, and 2) The Holy Spirit
as One of "the Heavenly Trio."
In the light of the
above "Explication" of the Nicene Creed, to follow “the truth as it
is in Jesus" one cannot be a Trinitarian.
The real answer is
to find "the truth as it is in Jesus" - the emphasis being placed on
"Jesus," as the God-man.
Two Suggested
Statements of Belief
(Neither Trinitarian
nor non-Trinitarian)
We believe in the
oneness of God (Deut. 6:4) as manifest in the "counsel of peace"
which was between the Two of Them (Zech. 6:13, Heb). That counsel defined the
Father-Son relationship (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5), and outlined the conditions
incumbent upon the Son so as to provide for the redemption of man. In the
outworking of that plan, the Holy Spirit was manifest to make effective, in the
lives of all who believe, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. In
the oneness of God is manifest omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnipresence. From that oneness flows to all created beings life, truth, love
and grace.
We believe that
Jesus Christ, who in His pre-existence was eternally and fully God (John
1:1-2), emptied Himself so as to become truly man (Phil 2:6-7). While retaining
His divine Identity, He took upon Himself the fallen nature of man (Rom. 1:3),
so as to condemn sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3-4), thus becoming our Example, and
to die a sacrifice for the redemption of those who accept him as their
Substitute. Resurrected from the dead, declared to be the Son of God with power
(Rom. 1:4), He carried into highest Heaven a glorified humanity to be
incorporated in Himself into the Godhead thus revealing God's purposes for the
redeemed. In Christ, God and man remain eternally One.
"Pioneers"?
In the present
agitation fostered by the neo-antiTrinitarians in the community of
Adventism, much is being made of what the "pioneers" taught on the
subject. I have before me a booklet which contains "Quotes from Adventist
Pioneers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity" with the question asked -
"Did They Believe in the Trinity?"
By definition a
"pioneer" is "a person or group that originates or helps open a
new line of thought" (Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).
In reading the
material compiled from various Adventist writers in the early decades of the
Movement, I fail to find any "new line of thought."
It is all
anti-Trinitarian in emphasis, the religious thinking they brought with them
into the Advent Movement. If the compilation had been on the sanctuary
doctrine, a true pillar of our faith, then the term "pioneers" would
have been appropriate. As it stands in the usage by the author of the booklet,
it is deceptive.
Actually, the
booklet is an attempt to justify the position held by these
neo-antiTrnitarians so as to make it appear that they are in harmony with
the earliest leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the doctrine of the
Godhead. This compilation has glossed over certain positions, held by some of
these "pioneers" by omission. One leading voice in early Adventism
was Uriah Smith. He taught in the first edition of Thoughts on Revelation,
in commenting on 3:14, that the pre-existent Christ was "the first created
being" (p. 59). This is not found in the booklet. Why? If this
"pioneer" view were accepted, it would classify the
neo-antiTrinitarians as Arians.
The booklet does
quote James White as writing in 1852 of "the
old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal
God" (p. 5, col. 1).
Yet in 1876, in
writing of the differences between Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day
Adventists, White would state that "S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of
Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians that we apprehend no trial [problem]
here" (R&H Oct. 12, p. 116). This was omitted from the compilation.
What is observable in the booklet is the change in thinking on the part of
Uriah Smith who was not alone in holding that Christ was "the first
created being." This belief was held by "many" early Adventists.
One finds E. J. Waggoner openly challenging this teaching. He wrote of "an
opinion that is honestly held by many ... who through this opinion do actually
deny [Christ's] divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being."
(See p. 28, col. 2) Waggoner gives his view:
There was a time
when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father,
but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite
comprehension it is practically without beginning. (p. 29, col. 1)
By 1898, Uriah Smith
had come around to the same view. See Booklet, p. 15, col. 2. This was
practically a complete turn around from his original belief along
with "many" others of the early Adventists.
Thus by omissions,
an important point is missed. The church's earliest "thought" leaders
changed from their first position, to that adopted by the second generation of
thinkers. (E. J. Waggoner was a second generation Adventist minister, his father
being, J. H. Waggoner) Because of this change in position, White could
justifiably write that "S.D. Adventists hold (the position on) the
divinity of Christ" nearly with the Trinitarians.
The fact remains
that so long as Christ is presumed as "begotten" at some point in the
eternity of the past, just so long will the concept of God held by the
neo-antiTrinitarians reflect the Nicene Creed. The Creed reads "And
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before
all worlds ... begotten, not made." This is exactly the step from Smith's
first position, to E. J. Waggoner's formulation.
The simple
conclusion to be drawn is that the booklet does not give an accurate picture of
what took place from the beginnings of Adventism to 1900. It is deceptive by
omission and by an incorrect association of the data, the work of a novice.
One segment of the
neo-antiTrinitarians appear to have latched on to the statements of
A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott, and proclaim that they have "new
light." These declare that prior to Bethlehem, sometime in the
remote past, Christ was "birthed," even as Abraham begat
Isaac, which infers the involvement of a direct divine action. Jones had
written that Jesus "came from heaven, God's first-born, to the earth and
was born again." (Pioneers, op. cit., p. 6, col. 2) Prescott had worded
the same thought a bit differently: "As Christ was twice born, once in
eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh ...
" (ibid., p, 2, col. 2).
It would be much
simpler just to accept the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-2, 14), and seek
to understand the effect that the Word becoming flesh had on the Godhead. The
Godhead paid a price for man's redemption that the human mind can but vaguely perceive.
One could then
understand why Ellen G. White was inspired to write - "the Heavenly
Trio." Add to this the "second Adam" motif for the enlightened
heavenly viewpoint as to why the designation, "Son of God" was given
to the Lord Jesus Christ and you will see why Gabriel told the truth when He
said that the One born to Mary "shall be called the Son of God."
*******
Apostasy-
'Apostasy ('a
defection or revolt') is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or
renunciation of a religion by a person. One who commits apostasy (or who
apostatises) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists
to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former
religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.
The SDA church in
1980 abandoned the TRUTH by accepting the Catholic inspired creed!
They also did the
following--
"An Adventist
leader placed the Seventh-day Adventist Church in symbolism into the hands of
the Pope. It didn't happen overnight. But it did happen! On May 18, 1977, Dr.
B. B. Beach, then Secretary of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, along with other representatives of the religious bodies
which form the Conference of Secretaries of the World Confessional Families
(Churches), had an audience with Pope Paul VI. The Pope welcomed these men as
"representatives of a considerable portion of Christian people" and
sent through them the greetings of the Papacy to their "confessional
families." (See RNS, May 19, 1977, Appendix A) Elder W. Duncan Eva, then a
General Conference vice president, reported that during the audience, Dr. Beach
presented the Pope with a medallion which was "a gold-covered symbol of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (Review & Herald, August 11, 1977,
p. 23; see Appendix B)"
Go here-
And READ it all!
These are facts, this is truth, this is history!
The SDA church wants
to deceive everyone because they've deceived themselves! They were called to
repentance and they decided to remain blind instead!
Please, pray and
read God's word, find His truth and ONLY His truth. Man has toyed with God's
truth and made subtle lies turning what was supposed to be His people into
apostates. We can't hold fast to
something we like when we are face to face with the truth that it has gone bad!
Bite into the most beautiful apple only to discover it's rotten from the inside
and you spit it out, you don't patch it up and try to just enjoy the way it
looks on the outside. Are you disheartened over what you thought would be a
magnificent apple through and through? Yes. But you throw it away! You don't
keep it! We cannot keep aligned with a
false church, a Babylon, that has gone astray, to do so means losing out on the
truth of God, losing out on eternity with HIM, our SAVIOR.
Please, LORD, help
us to know the truth! Help us to realize the state of the corporate SDA church
and its apostasy before it's too late. Help us to be YOURS, solely and wholly
YOURS and no others!
In YOUR love! Only
YOUR love!
No comments:
Post a Comment