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.
What a remarkable deception it is when people can’t differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian.
It certainly is quite easy to differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist and the invitation to become a trinitarian three-god worshiping Seventh-day Adventist as opposed to the biblical invitation to becoming a worshipper of the one and "only true God", who is the Father and knowing Him and His Son, Jesus Christ, whom the Father has sent. Now, it seems to me that the trinitarian - "plain old" or Adventist or otherwise, are the ones that are having the difficulty in differentiating between the true God of the bible and the false god of apostate christianity. Now that's remarkable!
Thank you for answering my question regarding if the Father is the "only true God". I read your link and you assert that the Father is the "only true God" and you cite the words of Jesus in John 17:3, you rightly cite 1 Corinthians 8:6, and you rightly cite Timothy 1:17. Now, if you don't mind, please answer me this:
If the Father is the "only true God' (which He is, and you assent to it), then is it not wrong and heretical to refer to God's Son as "God the Son" and to the Holy Spirit as "God the Spirit"? If so, why? And if not, why not?
What a remarkable deception it is when people are asked to differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian and they respond saying that they have made the distinction, when they haven’t.
Then they want to sidestep the issue.
Mickey,
Your question to me (27 Aug 2002 05:09 pm) is off-topic.
What a remarkable deception it is when people are asked to differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian and they respond saying that they have made the distinction, when they haven’t
.
Whether the invitation is to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist or a three-god worshiping Seventh-day Adventist trinitarian tri-theist - there's really no distinction to be made as both of those theological viewpoints are errors, falsehoods, abberations, distortions and heresies. The real distinction is between the above two heresies as opposed to the biblical invitation call to worship the Father, the "only true God" - to know Him and His Son Jesus Christ - this is life eternal. That distinction - the only one that's needful has been made. There was no sidestepping here at all.
Quote:
Mickey,
Your question to me (27 Aug 2002 05:09 pm) is off-topic.
Eugene,
Now, this is sidestepping the issue. The question is quite pertinent to the discussion of the Omega apostasy in which we believe is embodied in the doctrine of the trinity. The issue of the discussion is not in making a distinction between two heresies, namely Kellogg's pantheism and modern Adventism's trinitarianism. As stated above, there's no distinction to be made - they both fall into the category of heresy therefore making them kindred teachings - for the father of both of those teachings are satan. And I would imagine that you would agree with me as you've stated your disapproval of modern Adventism's inclusion of the trinity into its fundamental beliefs. Certainly you would not disapprove of a truth, therefore it is logical for me to conclude that you believe the trinitarian position that the Adventist church has embraced as a part of its fundamental beliefs to be a falsehood. Therefore, continuing with that logic, I will reiterate my question:
Since you reject the trinity doctrine, would you consider it wrong and heretical to refer to the "heavenly trio" as "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Spirit"? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
The contrast between the testimonies of John Harvey Kellogg and Ellen G. White clearly says that those seduced by the remarkable deception of the alpha can’t differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian.
Mickey wrote:
Proof was provided that the PIONEERS were ALARMED by Kellogg's aberrant teachings regarding the Holy Spirit as a THIRD deity in a three-god godhead. That was the crux of the entire controversy and Kellogg admitted such. What further proof is needed?
Eugene wrote:
What a remarkable deception it is when people are asked to differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian and they respond saying that they have made the distinction, when they haven’t.
Mickey wrote:
The issue of the discussion is not in making a distinction between two heresies, namely Kellogg's pantheism and modern Adventism's trinitarianism. As stated above, there's no distinction to be made.
Why the evasion and obfuscation of an extremely pertinent question? Obviously Kellogg and his progeny can’t answer.
I have a thesis. I propose that the reemergence of the alpha deception is evident in those posters whose rank is “pseudo 7th-day Adventist.”
I propose that the reemergence of the alpha deception is evident in those posters whose rank is “pseudo 7th-day Adventist.”
We have posted our belief in the Father and His Son and that they dwell in us by the Holy Spirit. How is this in anyway close to "theories akin to pantheism"???
The religious world believes that all the commandments are true and binding with the exception of the 4th which says the seventh day is the Sabbath. The Adventist church believes in the fundamental doctrines set forth by our pioneers with the exception of the belief regarding the personality of God. Therefore that is the only one that has been changed since the formation of the GC in 1863. And with this you don't see any possible way that there could possibly be at least some element of the omega apostasy in this change?
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:23 pm Post subject: I’ve isolated the essential characteristic of the alpha
Just as Kellogg and his followers couldn’t differentiate between the invitation to become a tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist as opposed to a plain old Trinitarian, their progeny have the same problem. That’s all I’m saying.
I do understand the difference as I have stated in previous post and I have acknowledged your information regarding the alpha. So, from there I have gone to the similarities. do you see that there are similarities?
And because we have taken the time to point out the similarities you have misconstrued that to mean that we don't understand the differences.
Why the evasion and obfuscation of an extremely pertinent question? Obviously Kellogg and his progeny can’t answer.
I have a thesis. I propose that the reemergence of the alpha deception is evident in those posters whose rank is “pseudo 7th-day Adventist.”
Eugene,
There really was not any evasion and obfuscation being done here. I never said that there was no difference between the alpha and the omega. What I was attempting to get across was that the omega is the full-blown maturation of what Kellogg started in the alpha. And the distinction between those two are not the core issue for both the tree-worshiping Seventh-day Adventist pantheist and the three-god worshiping Seventh-day Adventist tri-theist are BOTH in apostasy and when viewed from that perspective they are similar for they are both heresies devised by satan who has had great success in effecting deception thereby and especially so with the trinitarian omega for this deception has taken in virtually the entire denomination! But please allow me to interject at this point that I'm NOT saying that all Seventh-day Adventists are in apostasy because they assent to the trinity. That's not the case - for many just accept what they are taught and assume its truth without taking the Berean attitude and verifiying for themselves what is truth through the personal study of the scriptures and prayer. This was my situation as a trinitarian Seventh-day Adventist as well. We are all singularly accountable to God and must take it upon OURSELVES to study God's word and show ourselves approved of rightly dividiing the word of truth. And I believe that many sincere christian Seventh-day Adventists have yet to see the true light on this subject and when they do, just like the many other christians of different persuasions who haven't yet seen the true light on the Sabbath question, will take their stand with the truths of God's word that was blessed of God through the Adventist pioneers. And as far as the alpha and omega are concerned, I remember stating that the tie that binds these two poles of this heretical spectrum is the erroneous view of the personality and presence of God and the Holy Spirit as being a separate, individual deity along with the Father and the Son, making up THREE GODS in the trinitarian pantheon.
Our position in no wise constitutes the re-emergence of the alpha deception. The alpha had its day. The omega is in full swing currently.
Now you claim that you are not trinitarian. OK, then you shouldn't have any problems answering my question. Your answer will either validate or invalidate your statement. So, here goes again:
Since you reject the doctrine of the trinity and assent to its falsity and since you yourself stated your disapproval of the Adventist church incorporating the trinity doctrine as a part of its fundamental beliefs, then would you consider it wrong and heretical to identify the "heavenly trio" as "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Spirit"? If so, why? If not, why not?
If one is a trinitarian, its an easy question to answer. If one is not a trinitarian, its also an easy question to answer. If one claims to be not a trinitarian yet assents to trinitarian theories, then it becomes a very difficult question to answer and evasion and obfuscation is the only recourse.
I don’t see any essential difference between Trinitarian omnipresence and non-Trinitarian omnipresence. However, I do understand Kellogg’s affirmation that his concept was nothing more than omnipresence. —“An Authentic Interview Between Elder G. W. Amadon, Elder A. C. Bourdeau, and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg in Battle Creek, Michigan, on October 7, 1907,” pp. 14, 94, 95.
In my compilation Question 2: Exactly what did Ellen White mean by “the presence and personality of God”?, Ellen White is clearly refuting Kellogg’s idea of an impersonal influence pervading all nature. Do you believe that Kellogg modifying his idea from the Holy Spirit as a force and a power to a divine Person is a substantial change to his pantheism?
I’m asking for proof in terms of a direct quote that someone in Kellogg’s day was alarmed by the trinitarianism of the pseudo Adventist pantheists. If no evidence exists, please explain why. Why should trinitarianism within Adventism be so alarming and horribly evil today if there is no record of anyone being alarmed by the trinitarianism that existed within the Adventism of Kellogg’s day? When G. I. Butler read Kellogg’s letter where Kellogg asserted, in his defense of the Living Temple, that the Holy Ghost a person, quoting Ellen White, how did this conference president react?
My resources are limited as far as direct quotes from the pioneers so I don’t have in my possession any quotes from anyone regarding Trinitarian Adventist specifically of Kellogg’s day. I have some regarding how the pioneers spoke against Trinitarianism in general (and they were totally against it).
Elder Butler talked to Kellogg regarding the Holy Spirit and how it was “not a person walking around on foot, or flying, as a literal being in any such sense as Christ and the Father…” (Letter from G.I. Butler to J.H. Kellogg April 5, 1904). My thought however, is not so much that Kellogg became Trinitarian but that he pointed out the similarities of his views with Trinitarianism. Without this seed the other fallacies I believe would not have taken root. The Catholic Church points out that the doctrine of the Trinity is the basis of all its other doctrines. (The Catholic Encyclopedia: The Blessed Trinity). If this doctrine in the Catholic church has lead to multitudes of error why can’t the same doctrine in the SDA church lead to erroneous theories (such as the one apartment sanctuary, the idea that God will not punish sin, Sunday worship, etc.) The point is I believe it has lead to the development of other theories and these other theories are just as much a part of the omega apostasy as error begets error.
I do believe that someone spoke to Kellogg or said something regarding Trinitarianism by what he said in this interview:
“Now, I thought I had cut out entirely the theological side of questions of the trinity and all that sort of things. I didn't mean to put it in at all, and I took pains to state in the preface that I did not.I never dreamed of such a thing as any theological question being brought into it.I only wanted to show that the heart does not beat of its own motion but that it is the power of God that keeps it going.” (Interview between Elder G. W. Amadon, Elder A. C. Bourdeau, and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg)
It’s true that Ellen White refuted Kellogg’s ideas about the Father as an impersonal essence:
“He [Christ] represented God not as an essence that pervaded nature, but as a God who has a personality.” S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, page 921, paragraph 9.
"You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself." E.G. White Letter 300 1903 to J.H. Kellogg
I don’t see any essential difference between Trinitarian omnipresence and non-Trinitarian omnipresence.
In a sense this is true. However I believe the difference lies in the origin. For example if a person is taught that Sunday is the Sabbath and he believes in keeping it holy how does he differ from the seventh day Sabbath keeper? The origin of the doctrine is the difference. In one God is the originator in the other, man is the originator. Now, more to the point, omnipresence is omnipresence and means being everywhere present but in the Trinitarian view God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all possess omnipresence individually. However in the Biblical view God is everywhere presence BY is Spirit. (Ps 139:7)
"And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the lord, that he did for Israel...And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel." Judges 2:7,10.
This describes what happened in the Adventist church. When the most of the prominent founders had died then Kellogg tried to spread his teachings. But Ellen White was still alive to stand the gap. In addition to her words spoken in direct opposition to Kellogg's teachings, she also said that "we are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work." (Ellen White, Review & Herald, May 5, 1905)
Joseph Bates died 1872
James White died 1881
J. N. Andrews died 1883
J. H. Waggoner died 1889
R. F. Cottrell died 1892
Uriah Smith died 1903
"I have had presentations regarding the deceptions that Satan is bringing in at this time. I have been instructed that we should make prominent the testimony of some of the old workers who are now dead....The history of the early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly ingenuity of Satan's deceptions." Letter 99, 1905
Ellen White died 1915
E. J. Waggoner died 1916
David Paulson died 1916
S. N. Haskell died 1922
A. T. Jones died 1923
J. N. Loughborough died 1924
Now there were few if any of the first generation of SDA's when in 1928 Leroy Froom published his landmark book The Coming of the Comforter in which he teaches the Trinity doctrine of which all of the above pioneers were opposed. In writing this book Leroy Froom says: "I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside our faith." (Movement of Destiny, p. 322) Also in 1931 the statement of beliefs there was a change. The addition of a statement regarding the Trinity. This is the only official change in our beliefs since the formation of the GC in 1863. (This change was not made official by vote until 1980!)
Again Ellen White says: "The history of the early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly ingenuity of Satan's deceptions." Letter 99, 1905
Since this is a change from our original beliefs would this not constitute apostasy? Just like in the days of the Judges.
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
