A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2002 8:58 pm Post subject: Trinity
Why is it that the pioneers of our Church were anti-trinitarian? J.H. Waggoner, J. N. Andrews, James White, Joseph Bates just to name a few. They all felt that the Trinitarian doctrine was a Catholic invention. So, why did we change?
Why were the so many of the early SDA's anti-Trinitarian?
Good question:
Why were the Millerites all Sunday keepers?
Why didn't God tell Luther to preach about the Sabbath? Why did He allow Luther to actually preach against the Sabbath?
The "anti-trinitarian stanze was not something the SDA pioneers originated, it was not at all unique to them. They came into Adventism with this belief--
It was the standard UNITARIARN belief which they held BEFORE they became Adventists!
God works with men where they are at ,and leads them step by step.
Here's a bit of history.
In America, after the revolution, there was a rise in religious circles against creeds, as well as an optimistic concept of the potential of man, with a strong trend to humanistic values. The Unitarian and Universalist movements played an important part in the religious paridigm of early 19th century. The attack on the Trinity came mainly from the Unitarian movement and grew rather strong in the New England area. There were influential thinkers who led the way, like Anglican Samuel Clarke, and the Unitarian Richard Price. They began to take the position that Christ, though less than God, was more than man--a pre-existent divine being. One phase of Unitarianism went further to the "Humanitarian" or Socinism, view that Jesus was a man with a special divine mission, but this was NOT the original view in the attack on the Trinity.
There was considerable controversy -- the "Unitarian Controversy" centering at Harvard college. One of the prominent ministers, William Channing, wrote:
"Let them learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We all believe in these....But, the trinitarian believes that the ONE God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is truely God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction." (Religious History of the American People, Syndney Ahlstrom)
Over the next 50 years (late 1700-early 1800) several scholars wrote books on "Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of the Trinitarians."
The Unitarian movement was influential in shaping the thought patterns of the people. Their doctrines were Armenian, they studied the Bible, they taught that the Holy Spirit was a divine influence, that while Jesus was a teacher and Redeemer and possessing Divinity, yet God the Father, was the only supreme God. There were shape disagreements among them just what role Christ held.
Unitarianism, in later years, split into two factions, one holding on to essential Christianity, the other abandoning any specifically Christian orientation in favor of an ethical humanism or some "general" religious view that betters the life of the individual and society.(See Protestant Christianity, John Dillenberger)
Early Adventists
We must remember that prior to 1860 there was no such thing as the “Seventh-day Adventist Church”, nor was there a “set of doctrines” or beliefs outlined. The group who were to become Seventh-day Adventists were people from the Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Unitarian, and Congregationist, etc. churches. They were actually opposed to any organization or creeds. They were held together by their common experience. They had accepted the Advent message of Miller, suffered through the great disappointment, found the answer to their disappointment in the study of the heavenly sanctuary. They held Sabbath conferences where they convened and discussed and studied the doctrines of the Sabbath and the sanctuary..
In leaving their former churches they did not automatically cast aside all their former beliefs. They came with a great diversity of views.
They were strong personalities, not disposed to go along with any “crowd”. That’s what gave them the strength to stand up for the doctrines they had discovered-- the Sabbath, the Sanctuary, the second Advent, in spite of popular opposition.
Several of them came with the supposition that the Trinity was purely a papal idea, so they opposed it with the same vigour used in calling people out of Babylon. It is rather interesting that their ideas and arguments very much match the ideas put forth by William Channing, the Unitarian Leader, and are often based on nothing more than finite reasoning limiting God to the earthly father and son relationships, rather than looking at the whole concept in the scriptures and the fact that God uses human language (another example: the church as bride, God as husband) to portray eternal things.
It must also be remember that NO MAJOR DOCTRINAL TRUTH OR PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ADVENT FAITH WAS INITIALLY INTRODUCED AMONG US THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY--that is, through the instrumentality of Ellen White.” The doctrines were all founded on Bible study. For all our doctrines came from Bible study-- NOT through visions-- until the "brethren" could see it from the Bible, God did not impose it on them through visions. The question we need to ask is this:
Does Ellen White ever concur with the attacks against the TRINITY. We know she says much against many false doctrines. She writes page after page on the danger of SUNDAY substitution, and the danger of accepting the doctrine of the immortal soul.
If the Trinity is, as some have said, a great heresy of the Catholic Church, would EGW not a strongly condemn it as she does the change of Sabbath to Sunday for instance.
Yet, not once does she join them in their attacks against the Trinity, she never seems to even mentions the word, Trinity or Trinitarianism. In reading her writings one comes to see that she does not OUTRIGHT tell them they are wrong in condemning the Trinity, but she, using “different words” consistently upholds the concept of the TRINITY.
During those first 10 years, many were strongly embedded in the Channing’s Unitarian style, Arian belief. To counter attack would have caused strong resistance. So she simply wrote the truth about Christ's eternal existance and equality with God, “using other words,“ not using the word TRINITY, yet upholding it’s basic premise. It could be too, that the many controversies over the understanding of the Trinity have added implications to the term that are not favourable and she found it better to just uphold the truth in the concepts rather than the “label”.
Now just look at this quote from R.J Cottrell, July 6, 1869 in the RH
"That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, Is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. …The doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has Himself implanted in us, Such a doctrine He does not ask us to believe.”
Now look at this statement from a Christian historian, John Dillenburg, in “Protestant Christianity” p. 202
“In Channing (a leader in the Unitarian movement) we see a strong intellectualistic and rationalistic strain…Orthodoxy was to be rejected primarily because it seemed incompatible with the dictates of reason and rational morality”
Is this BIBLICAL reasoning or is this the higher critizism that seeks to destroy truth?
It is pretty plain what philosophy Cortrell is appealing to-- the unitarian belief in rationalistic thinking that throws out anything incompatible to finite reason.
In 1888 we start to see the change.
Then, after Kelloggs dip into Pantheism we see Ellen White make strong statements supporting the concepts we now hold in our trinity understanding.
Signs of Change
James White wrote some pretty strong statements against the trinity in the early years, however in 1876 he wrote in the Review, "SDAdventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians, that we apprehend no trial here." A year later, even though he still didn't like the word "trinity" he wrote, that making making Christ inferior to the Father is worse.
In 1888
The truth of the full divinity of Christ was specially emphasized by E.J Waggoner as well as the doctrine of Righteousness by Faith.
He wrote:
Quote:
In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead; He is equal with the Father in every attribute. Consequently the redemption that is in Him--the ability to buy back lost man--is infinite. Man's rebellion is against the Son as much as against the Father, since both are one. Therefore, when Christ "gave Himself for our sins," it was the King suffering for the rebellious subjects-the One injured passing by, overlooking the offense of the offender. ...He vindicates the integrity of His law, by submitting in His own Person to the penalty which was due the sinner. "But the innocent suffered for the guilty." The innocent Sufferer "gave HIMSELF" voluntarily, in order that He might in justice to His government do what His love prompted, namely, pass by the injury done to Himself as the Ruler of the universe." p. 63 (Christ our Righteousness)
About this aspect EGW wrote:
Quote:
RH.1890-05-27.006
The third angel's message will not be comprehended, the light which will lighten the earth with its glory will be called a false light, by those who refuse to walk in its advancing glory. The work that might have been done, will be left undone by the rejecters of truth, because of their unbelief. We entreat of you who oppose the light of truth, to stand out of the way of God's people. Let Heaven-sent light shine forth upon them in clear and steady rays. God holds you to whom this light has come, responsible for the use you make of it. Those who will not hear will be held responsible; for the truth has been brought within their reach, but they despised their opportunities and privileges. Messages bearing the divine credentials have been sent to God's people; the glory, the majesty, the righteousness of Christ, full of goodness and truth, have been presented; the fullness of the Godhead in Jesus Christ has been set forth among us with beauty and loveliness, to charm all whose hearts were not closed with prejudice. We know that God has wrought among us.
But it was not until Kellogg's apostacy that EGW came out with her strongest
Mr. Kellogg wrote a book called the 'Living Temple', which taught a spurious doctrine concerning the Spirit of God.
Basically the book taught that God was in everything (trees, rocks, flowers, etc.); this doctrine of course would of lead to the worship of the creature, instead of the Creator. Ellen called this doctrine the Alpha of heresies and warned of the soon coming Omega.
Quote:
"In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies.
The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to
heed the warning God has given (page 200,par 1). Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little
while; and I trembled for our people. (Selected Messages book 1, page 203).
If the pioneers had understood the true position of the Holy Spirit as a Person, would pantheisism (the spirit of God within everything) have taken hold as it did?
From here on EGW plainly states that the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD!
Quote:
The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. {SpTB07 62.3}
The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father. {SpTB07 63.1}
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-- those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. . . . {SpTB07 63.2}
Quote:
SW.1905-11-28.002
It must be worthy of his greatness and his royalty. He determined to give his representative, the third person of the Godhead.
RH.1904-05-19.003
The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power.
RH.1908-11-19.006
Of the Spirit, Jesus said, "He shall glorify me." The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of his love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing his grace to the world.
SPTA10.025.002
Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing.
Here we see that the Third Person of the Godhead meets and fights the evil spirit (satan)
SPTA10.037.001
The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.
Ellen White also speaks on the eternal nature and equality of Christ with the FATHER.
Quote:
DA.530.003
Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.
RH.1914-08-06.001
From Jesus is our life derived. In him is life that is original,--unborrowed, underived life. In him is the fountain of life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life.
YI.1900-06-21.002
Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "Whom shall I send?" he could reply, "Here am I; send me."
MS.1893-04-26.005
"The fallen race could be restored only through the merit of Him who was equal with God. "
RH.1892-06-28.003
"It was to save the transgressor from ruin that He who was co-equal with God, offered up his life on Calvary. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
RH.1906-04-05.
"The world was made by him, "and without him was not anything made that was made." If Christ made all things, he existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore."
RH.1906-04-05.007
"The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father.'
Basically we see the pioneers moving from
--believing Christ was created to
--believing He somehow "came out of God" was born before creation
--believing He is everlasting God.
I really appreciate your answers. Thank you! This has helped quite a lot. Also if possible could you tell me some of the other previous denominations of some of the other pioneers? I know Ellen White and her family was from the Methodist Church, but what about Bates, Andrews, Waggoner or others you may know?
You mentioned 1888 in your reply. Is it true that the message given by Jones and Waggoner at that General Conference was rejected by most of the delegates?
Why are those whose background is the Christian Connection also listed as Arian? It is held that the Arian belief is that Christ is a created being and none of these gentleman have that belief. (at least according to the works I have read.)
Is it not true that the concept of Sabbath-keeping came with the Seventh day Baptist?Then, why is it a problem to have taken from the Christian Connection the understanding of the singleness of God and the concept that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore has all the power and attributes of God? Especially if it can be substanciated by careful Bible study.
Many of the early pioneers did believe Christ was created.
Then the concept of his "being born" came in.
Then the full understanding that Christ is equal and eternal and fully God, One with the Father.
The Bible is very clear there is ONLY ONE GOD AND NONE BESIDE HIM
The Bible is very clear that we are to WORSHIP ONLY that ONE GOD, and none else.
If Christ is not that ONE GOD with the FATHER then we have no right to worship HIM.
But the Bible says HE IS GOD, AND HE IS TO BE WORSHIPPED.
HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER.
We have ONE GOD, comprised of three persons,.
This does not mean they are one person divided into three persons as some assume.
ONE DEITY--
Christ is that Deity
God the Father is that Deity
The Spirit is that Deity.
EGW never once denounced the true understanding of the trinity.
She is the one who lead the church into the true understanding.
Our belief was solid that's why EGW said in response to the Kellogg apostasy that the way God had led and the pillars establish over 50 years should not be discounted.
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:10 am Post subject: What are the pillars?
What are the pillars? There is a discussion of this in Counsels to Writers and Editors by Ellen G. White. The chapter title is The Foundations, Pillars, and Landmarks.
Quote:
The Landmarks Defined.--In Minneapolis God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new settings. This light from heaven by some was rejected with all the stubbornness the Jews manifested in rejecting Christ, and there was much talk about standing by the old landmarks. But there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks were. There was evidence and there was reasoning from the word that commended itself to the conscience; but the minds of men were fixed, sealed against the entrance of light, because they had decided it was a dangerous error removing the "old landmarks" when it was not moving a peg of the old landmarks, but they had perverted ideas of what constituted the old landmarks.
The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary. —Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 30-31.
You say our beliefs were solid. In another chapter of the same book (chapter title: Attitude to New Light), Ellen White wrote the following:
Quote:
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. —Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 37.
I’m sure that if you took the time to read that whole chapter that you would find plenty of testimonies where Ellen White admonishes Seventh-day Adventists to dig deep in God’s word and to expect a clearer and clearer understanding of the Bible. “The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.” Proverbs 4:18.
If you want clarity on Trinitarian beliefs, go to the Trinity or non-Trinity? thread. If you want to know the degree of motivation for the SDA church to adopt Trinitarianism because of their desire to conform to the worldly creeds of Christendom and not for a clearer statement of Bible doctrine, then I suggest that you forget about it and ask an easier question.
The pioneers of this church maintained a view that was neither Arian or Trinitarian and to this Ellen White never took issue.
"He (J. H. Waggoner), James White, John Loughborough and others held a view apart from both Unitarians and Trinitarians. Urian Smith in the beginning seems to be Arian, but he modified this view as the years went on." Letter to Elder H. C. Lacy from Elder A. W. Spalding June 2, 1947.
To discount the beliefs of our pioneers, the which were held even up to the death of Ellen White, as error is in itself a grave error.
It was in the context of the Kellogg crisis, that Ellen White in 1906 wrote a statement that fully endorsed our present understanding of the "trinity".
Quote:
The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father.
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. BT 1906-03
Uriah Smith said-- "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. " R&H Oct. 28, 1890
Ellen White says--Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. DA 671
It must be worthy of his greatness and his royalty. He determined to give his representative, the third person of the Godhead.SW.1905-11-28.002
Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead SPTA10.025.002
Manuscript Release 7:290
"We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.:
The concept Uriah Smith held, was what opened the door to Kellogg's pantheism-- God's spirit-- not a person-- but a pravading power --It was in the context OF THIS CRISIS that she made many statements saying THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON, the third person in the GODHEAD.
For Biblical support that the Holy Spirit is A PERSON in the Godhead click on
The Holy Spirit
D.W. Hull wrote in Nov, 10,1859 edition of the Review and Herald:
"Because, says the trinitarian, the Father and Son are one person. Will the reader, .....
Now wait a minute here-- that is not trinitarian belief at all--
That is “Monarchianism” Monarchianism was a belief in only one God, who manifested Himself in different forms.
This is not our TRINITY belief:
It was also declared "heretical" way back in the early Christian era
Monarchianism-- Patripassianism
Taught that God is One Person manifested in different forms. Thus the Father himself descended into the virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered; in fact that he himself was Jesus Christ, and is the Holy Spirit.
Monarchianism-- Sabellianism
This version taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same being, in the sense that three names are attached to one substance. According to this school, God has “three modes” of self-manifestation. Used the analogy of body, soul and spirit of man. The body is as it were the Father, the soul is the Son; while the Spirit is to the Godhead as his spirit is to a man. Used the analogy of the sun, it is one substance, but it has three manifestations, light, heat, and the orb itself. The heat is analogous to the Spirit; the light to the Son; while the Father himself is represented by the actual substance. The Son was at one time emitted, like a ray of light; he accomplished in the world all that pertained to the dispensation of the Gospel and man’s salvation, and was then taken back into heaven, as a ray is emitted by the sun and then withdrawn again into the sun. The Holy Spirit is still being sent forth into world.
Again Hull says: "It would be meaningless for Christ to pray to himself."
Again he is arguing against Monarcharism-- not trinitarianism.
We believe in ONE GOD, ONE DEITY, a unity of three persons.
Not one person, manifested in three person.
Now let's look at J.M Stephenson's remarks in the Nov. 14,1854 Review and Herald.
"To say that the Son is as old as his Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son....The idea of an eternal Son is a self-contradiction. He must, therefore have an origin."
But look at what Ellen White says:
AA.038.003
Christ's ascension to heaven ... He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity.
RH.1906-04-05.006
The world was made by him, "and without him was not anything made that was made." ...Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.
RH.1906-04-05.007
The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God.
ST.1900-08-29.015
"In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13Next
Page 1 of 13
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
