Mrs. White and The Apostolic Trinity

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:00 pm Post subject:

Hi Derrick,

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not going to protest anything that you've said because I don't want to give the impression that we disagree about anything substantial.

I like the fact that you highlighted the great divide between papal Trinitarianism and the true Trinitarianism of early Christian writings and of Ellen G. White.

While I've always appreciated thoughtfulness and attention to theological precision, I sense that our difference so far is essentially just semantics. Wouldn't you agree that current Adventism believes in papal Trinitarianism and not true Christian Trinitarianism?
I'm referring to the so-called "statement of 27 fundamental beliefs."

I look forward to reading Part 2 of your article.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:27 am Post subject:

ANALYZING THE SDA “TRINITY” STATEMENT OF BELIEF

As I stated in my last post, the Trinitarian teachings of Adventism long pre-dated the death of its chief pioneer, Mrs. E.G. White (in 1915), as the historical evidence clearly shows. So trinitarianism was not a departure from E.G. White's Adventism, but a pre-1915 departure from the early restricted views of the earliest pioneers, many of whom died before the later and longer-living pioneers themselves effected the change DURING MRS. WHITE'S LIFETIME, but without putting it in the official Statements of Belief in our yearbook or Church Manual UNTIL 1931. In 1931 this official Statement was made (ANOTHER FASCINATING BUT EYE-OPENING STORY INDEED), building on what went before. In 1931 this official trinitarian statement read:

“FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS [1931]

2. That the GODHEAD, or * TRINITY consists [notice] of the Eternal Father, a Personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; [secondly] the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; [and thirdly] the third person of the Godhead, the Great regenerating Power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28:19.
That Jesus is very God, being OF the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining his divine nature took upon himself the nature of the human family…”
Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1931 Yearbook, page 377
N.B. Please notice the word “of” coming before the words, “the same nature and essence”.

The Adventist Statement of Belief, regarding the “trinity” [unity of three Persons] in the “Godhead”, has since 1931, undergone some changes in terms of the wording:

“Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists [1981]

2. The Trinity [the Trio of Personalities in the Godhead]
There is *one God [one divine specie, or divinity]: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal [each existing from all eternity] Persons. God [the divine specie] is immortal, all-powerful [that is, omnipotent], all knowing [omniscient], above all [sovereign], and ever present [omnipresent]. He [all of divinity] is infinite and beyond human comprehension [transcendent], yet known through his self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service [or veneration] by the whole creation… [Notice that the “He” here is collective; similar to the “he” for all mankind]?
3. The Father
God the Eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation…the qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father…
4. The Son
God the Eternal son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God [divine], He became as truly man [human], Jesus the Christ…
5. The Holy Spirit
God the Eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and [our] redemption… sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children…”

-Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs, Adventist Yearbook, 1981, pg. 5

*N.B. Original (pre- papal, pre- Nicene) Trinitarians had already declared, “We worship One God [one divinity or divine specie] in trinity [three persons] and trinity [three persons] in unity [in union]”

Evidently the foregoing was the same doctrine, at least in basic terms, which Pacific Press fist affirmed in 1892, by publishing Dr. Samuel Spear’s, “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”, long before 1931. But be that as it may, one is probably moved to ask the following honest questions, when one reads the foregoing Adventist statements of belief, especially Belief No. 2:

1. Does the foregoing latter statement make sense; is it intelligible?

2. According to this statement, is God a person (or is He personal), or just a “unity”, a group entity? And how can more than one person be called a “he”?

3. Does that not mean that three persons are one person?

4. Would you say that the statement is Biblical, to see God as a unity of persons or group of persons?

5. And doesn’t the Bible refer to the “one God”, our “personal God”, as the Father only?

In response I say, compare the following E.G. White quote (representing true Adventism), and then ask the same type of questions about the persons involved.

“The existence of A [singular] PERSONAL GOD, the UNITY [oneness] of Christ with His Father lies at the foundation of all true science.”
-E.G. White, Manuscript 30, October 29, 1904

The foregoing statement, just like the one before it, makes perfect sense (whether two or three Persons of the Godhead are in focus), if the full truth of the Bible is considered, and not turned against itself by ‘human wisdom’ (Cor. 2:5-7) to produce nonsense.
The statements are intelligible to those who make intelligent summary of spiritual things, which can only be “spiritually discerned”, by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13,14), not scientific with the spiritual.
Science will not always explain that which is transcendent, infinite, mysterious, and divine; which is what the “Eternal Godhead” is. Sometimes logic is helpful, but other times not. Sometimes, only by looking at the simple illustrations of certain spiritual things on earth, are we then able to capture a glimpse of the complex nature of eternal things in Heaven. Notice the following very helpful illustration, also from Mrs. White’s writings, which proves this point:

“Man [collective] came from the hands of the Creator, perfect in organization and beautiful in form. The fact that HE [collective] has for six thousand years withstood the ever increasing weight of disease and crime is conclusive proof of the power and endurance with which HE [collective] was first endowed.”
– E. G. White, SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, pg. 1082

Now does the foregoing statement make sense? Is it intelligible? Is “Man” a person, a group entity, or specie? How can more than one human person, male *and female, be called “he”? Does that mean that all humanity is one person? And would you say that the foregoing statement about “man” is Biblical? The answers are all obvious.
The truth is that *CONTEXT of language is all that matters, in order not to turn the simple and intelligible meaning (within a certain context) into complex nonsense.
Firstly, notice that the word “is”(not “are”) always comes after the word “man”, despite the word is, at times, collective in nature. Thus in the same way the word “Man” is a collective noun for all persons of humanity, properly referred to as “he”, while at the same time it functions as a singular noun, the same is true of the word “God”, meaning all Persons of divinity within the Godhead. The word “God” is both a collective and a singular noun describing all persons of the “Eternal Godhead”, properly referred to as “He”, whether in collective or in singular, while it also refers specifically to the Father of all, Jehovah Himself. So “God” for the Christian is, firstly, the Father, but also Jesus His Son, and the Holy Spirit (“the third Person of the Godhead”), their Representative. To deny this is to deny the full teaching of the Scriptures (e.g. John 1:1; John 20:28,29; and Acts 5:3-5).
“Man” (meaning all humanity) *is an earthly being (reality, or existence) or specie, who is mortal, finite, limited and is not worthy of veneration, unlike “God” (meaning all the Persons of divinity), who is forever immortal, infinite and transcendent. The meaning in context is clear, at least to this writer.

COMPARING GOD’S NATURE WITH MAN’S

So far I have just looked at context of language. Let us now compare “spiritual things with spiritual”, in order to get a deeper insight.
At creation God made only one human race; not different species of “Neanderthal”, “Homo-erectus”, or “Cro-Magnon” human-like beasts (Acts 17:26) All humanity is “of one blood” (or of one substance- Acts 17:26), of one nature, of one specie or order of being.
At creation only one specie of “Man” was created, but notice that two persons of humanity, both of one substance, and forever more truly human, were together called “Adam” (Gen. 5:1,2) or “man”, but as far as distinction goes are male and female serving different functions. “Man’s” own nature reflects God’s own image (see Acts 17:28).
Today, with billions on the planet, all persons are still together called “Man”, and properly speaking called “he”, and on the spiritual level the male and female united form “one flesh”. Notice, Man (collective) in his billions, male and female, is the creature of God. Is there any difficulty here? Evidently, NO!
There is no difficulty, for instance, in understanding that God drove “the man” or “him” out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:22-24), but in fact drove a plurality of persons out – two individuals!
There is no difficulty in understanding that, in the spiritual sense, the male and female united produce, spiritually, “one flesh”, and hence the reason why the Bible called both (of one substance) “Adam”.
There is no difficulty in understanding that, spiritually, the male of the specie is the “head” of the wife, but each are still absolutely equal (co-equal), even if the woman came from the male. Simply, by reason of being of one substance (flesh), of one nature (essence), and should be of one purpose, as a specie acting together, they are co-equal.
God made “man” (plural) “in his own image” to be a plurality of persons, who would exist together, whether as male or female, or even as all humanity, *IN UNITY, to reflect His own nature within the Godhead. That is seen as perfectly understandable and logical, but the idea of “God” speaking as an “US”, that is, the Father speaking about Himself and His Son (see Gen. 1:26/Gen 3:22/Gen 11:7/Isa. 6:8), and thus are revealed as a specie of divine Persons – the Father, revealed in the Son, and present everywhere by the Holy Spirit – is an idea that is seen as ridiculous.
I put it to you dear reader, for contemplation, that “all that is called God, or that is worshipped” [2 Thess. 2:4], as far as divinity is concerned, is NOT one Person, in just the same way that “Man”, as far as humanity is concerned, is not one person.
The Bible, while distinguishing them as personalities, also clearly describes and identifies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as “God”. And they are rightly so, “in the highest sense” Mrs. White declares, but the Father is the “head” of Christ (the man), His “equal in all respects”, just like Adam was to Eve, his equal in all respects.
The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are each “of one [the same type] substance”, having “the same attributes”, and thus, being of the same kind of specie, or same order of being, are therefore each fully “God”, and each possess the “fullness of the Godhead”! I put it to you that they are not one Person, but three – thus a “trio” or “trinity”, as the various dictionaries prove the two simple nouns to mean the same thing.

CAN MONOTHEISM AND TRINITARIANISM RECONCILE?

Lest one forget, it was J.H. Waggoner (a pioneer) who declared this dictionary meaning of the simple noun “trinity”, that is, “three persons”. Why should the word “trio” be any different? If only he knew (at the time) that his church, would come to acknowledge this in 1892, 1900, and 1913 respectively, that is, in the truest meaning of the word, not the faulty explanation given by some.If only he knew that Mrs. White would affirm monotheism, or belief in “the existence of a personal God”, to be more than one divine Person in “unity”. The truth is that Christianity is the only monotheistic religion which uses the conjunctive “AND” (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6) when talking about the Person called God, because “God” as a Person, and “God” as a specie, was truly “manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16) in the human Personage of Jesus Christ. Thus “God”, as a Person, and as a specie, is both divine and, by way of Christ, also human. But the Father and Son are truly distinct.
Muslims (monotheists) say, “there is no God but Allah”, full stop. Why? God, they believe, cannot have a Son, or share his glory and supremacy, or cannot exist as a specie of divine persons (according to the Koran).
Jews, without accepting the unfolded truths of the New Testament, say there is no God but Yahweh, the Person of the Father; “He reigned alone” (as quoted from the Jewish hymn, “Lord of the World”). Why? This is because they, like the Muslims, reject Jesus, and never accept the “us” of Genesis to mean more than one divine Person described as “God”.
Christianity, however says (according to the Bible):

1. There is but “one God the Father *AND (notice the conjunctive) one Lord Jesus Christ” [the man]-1 Cor 8:6. Interestingly, the portion of the text SOME endeavor to omit begins “and one Lord Jesus Christ”. Notice that in the verse before, Paul shows that the word “God” and “Lord” was meant to convey the same meaning of divine supremacy or deity. Thus Jesus was also seen as the Christian’s “Lord” and “God”, as testified to by Thomas (John 20:28,29 compared with Isaiah 25:8,9) without making of non-effect Ex. 20:3. Thomas was not just recognizing ‘divineness’ in Jesus, but His supremacy equal to the Father. This can only be denied by twisting Scripture.
Now here is where many get into difficulty. If Jesus only is the “one Lord”, then is the Father not our Lord, (but see Jude 4,5/Acts 17:24) and if only the Father is supposed to be our God, (the “one God”) what was Thomas saying, in John 20:28, calling Jesus *his God and Lord (with Jesus endorsing his words in verse 29)? Also, what was Mrs. White really saying in her letter, titled, “Letter 97”, in 1898? She clearly said:

“Christ lived and died as a man, that he might be *God both of the living and of the dead”
[Here He is not just seen as ‘divine’, but Supremely “God” just like the Father, yet some of the “living” in Adventism refuse Him as their God, despite the existing clear evidence]
-E.G. White, Letter 97, 1898
Did God not say “My glory will I not share with another”, and “There is none other like me”?
The only explanation for this seeming difficulty is in the spiritual (not numeric)“oneness” of the Father and Son, who are represented by the Holy Spirit, the “third person of the Godhead”. They were together “from all eternity”, forming the one “Eternal Godhead” They are our God, and our Lord, our “personal God” in “unity” (said Mrs. White), but as separate personalities. But what about the Holy Spirit? The word “representative” has no relevance or meaning if the Holy Spirit (and the Son) were not distinct personalities from the Father. Their presence was not the actual, but representative presence of the Father. Why? This is because they are exactly like the Father in nature and authority, that is, fully “God”, and in the highest sense. As a man Jesus is pictured as inferior to the Father, but as God if Jesus is equal to the Father, then is there only one Supreme Person in Heaven? NO! Yet there is only “one God”, the Bible says. He is, however, distinctly called “the Father”, but He makes Himself known in a way inseparable from Jesus, who is “completely and intrinsically one of the constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead”. Who am I to question why it is so? I simply accept it by faith.

2. Luke, along with the Apostolic Church, testified to the Divine presence of the “third person of the Godhead” (the Holy Spirit) and they distinctly recognized him as “God”- Acts 5:3,4 and Acts 13:2

3. John testified that anyone that has God has both the Father and the Son, obviously by way of having the Holy Spirit (2 John 9). And we all know we will have to greet both the Father and the Son on the final day as “King of Kings” and saying to both “this is our God we have long waited for Him”[we will not say, 'these are our Gods'] – Is. 25:8,9. That is unity of acceptance.

4. Today, many directly or indirectly “deny the only Lord God AND Jesus Christ” (Jude 4,5). How? It cannot be denied by an honest Adventist, exposed to all the facts, that the Father is not the only Person in the Godhead called “Lord” or “God”, or “Jehovah”, or “I AM”, or “Everlasting Father”, or “Mighty God”, or “Sovereign” (the Supreme One), or “First and Last”, or “King of Kings” or “the High and Lofty One who Inhabiteth Eternity”, or “the Deity”, or “God essentially and in the highest sense” – because Jesus is all of the above, “equal with the Father in all respects”. That is what “co-equal” means in the 1981 statement of belief. Denying this denies the Father’s own words in Hebrews 1:8,10.
So a belief in the “one God” of the Bible (monotheism) does not conflict with these truths, since it is the same God who declares them to be true. Faith in what He reveals about His “Eternal Godhead” is all this one true God asks for, not a seeking to fully explain all things about Him.

THE REVEALED NATURE OF THE “ETERNAL GODHEAD”

The Father is clearly the ‘Leader’ of the Godhead, a Godhead consisting of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, but the Son and Holy Spirit are not inferior to the Father. Despite Jesus was “begotten” of the Father, He is no less eternal or less supreme than He, likewise the Holy Spirit “sent” by both the Father and Son.
Only as a man did Jesus worship God! Jesus was “begotten” of the Father, but, in an “incomprehensible” way (according to Mrs. White)He is “from all eternity” as a “distinct person”; not just because His Father’s substance is eternal, but because He Himself is from the “dateless ages” of “all eternity”. That is what “co-eternal” means; each existing “from all eternity”!
A man is 100 years old, not by virtue of the age of his father’s substance, but by his own existence as a distinct or separate person. Thus Jesus is “eternal” by reason of his own distinct or separate existence “from all eternity”, just like the Father from whom he was “begotten”. Incomprehensible? Yes! Mysterious? Yes! But that is official Adventism, as confirmed in the confessions of Mrs. White. That is why she described him as “leaving the courts of Heaven”, where he is the “Lord of the temple”, as seen by Isaiah in Is. 6:1-5, and declared Himself the
“I AM” to Moses (see again under “Landmark No. 3”, or Chapter 3). Yet in declaring Himself such, He was simply manifesting what the Father is also. That is why He is the Godhead’s Mouthpiece, Representative (just like the Holy Spirit), and the “Word of God” (John 1:1).

IS THE GODHEAD JUST ACTING OUT ROLES?

Some declare that Jesus should not be called “God, the Son” because it reduces Him to an Actor, and does not portray Him as a true Son. That limited view is based on simple lack of insight. Jesus is both the “Son of God” and “God, the Son”, based on context of usage.
If Jesus, as the “Son of God”, is Himself “God”, and He takes the names of the Father (whether that name is “God Almighty” from “El Sheddai”, or “LORD” from “Yahweh”, or “Jehovah”, or “I AM”) then when He is called “God”, or “LORD”, or “Yahweh”, or “Lord God”, then the words “the Son” seem logical as a means of differentiation.
Thus, in just the same way that a human father and son share the name “Gillespie”, and to differentiate between them it is appropriate to say “Gillespie, the son” or “Gillespie, the father”, since both are titled “Mr.”, the same is true with the members of the Godhead.
It was “I AM”, the Son (that is) who spoke to Abraham, to Moses and Jacob, and it was “God”, the Son (that is) who Isaiah saw “high and lifted up”. It was however, “God”, the Father (that is) who declared, “this is my beloved Son of whom I am well pleased”, and “God”, the Spirit (that is) who revealed to Peter the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3,4 – the sin of lying to the Holy Spirit, who is also called “God”.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD, BUT IS HE A SEPARATE, AND THIRD PERSON?

Adventist (like many other Christians) spend so much time on the subject of Jesus as “the Deity”, simply because historically He is tangibly known as a man, but can only, by faith in the Scriptures, be believed to be in a rightful position of being truly “equal with the Father in authority, dignity and divine perfection”, and is “God essentially and in the highest sense” (as stated by Mrs. White in 1895 and 1906). However, I submit to you dear reader that it may come as a surprise, but it is probably easier to establish the Holy Spirit’s place as “God”, in substance, in eternity, and Creatorship, and as One whom we must “serve”, than even Jesus; at least it can be done in less words.
The Bible says, “THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT” (2 Cor. 3:17,18), and the Spirit is the God of Israel (2 Samuels 23:2,3). Notice that the Holy Spirit is called “He” all over the Old Testament, and has a personality, as seen in Ez. 8:1-5. Notice however that despite the Bible says God is the Spirit, Mrs. White confessed that “He must *also be A divine Person”, and thus she could only logically see Him as the “third Person of the Godhead”. This seems perfectly logical and natural since, as “God”, He is “sent” to “speak what He hears” (John 16:13), obviously from both Father and Son. But the point is, God is not a ‘thing’ or ‘force’, and since “the Lord is the Spirit”, how dare anyone reduce the Spirit to a personified force or influence. Only a person can represent the other Godhead Persons as the Spirit does.
The Bible also says that the Spirit is “eternal”, as part of the “Eternal Godhead” (Hebrews 9:14), and because the Spirit is never presented as “begotten”, then there should be no controversy regarding His eternity, or Him being “of one substance with the Father”. Why?
Well, since God Himself is the Spirit, and is Himself Spirit, and He (God) is eternal, then why should the Holy Spirit be less than “co-eternal” with God, as His eternal “Representative” all over the universe?
Everything God did in creation was as a Spirit, and by way of the Spirit (Ps. 104:30), that is, while the Father and Son conferred with each other in the courts of Heaven (Gen. 1:26). Thus the Holy Spirit is our Creator (Job 33:4), who did the work on behalf of the Father and the Son; not as just a force or power, but as the “third Person of the Godhead”, one of the “Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries” (as Mrs. White so delicately phrased it in Adventist literature, after 1892). That is plain personal distinction, which is supported in Scripture (Is. 48:16).

HOW DO YOU SERVE GOD WITHOUT SERVING HIS SPIRIT?

In closing it could be asked, how do you serve God who is “a Spirit” (John 4:24), and
“is the Spirit”, without serving His Spirit? To talk of the Father is to talk of the Eternal Spirit automatically. How do you sing to, pray to, worship and obey a spirit Father without worshipping His Spirit present in Church, that is, what He is entirely composed of? The Bible never told us to worship the Spirit because clearly it is simply not necessary to state the obvious; that worshipping God automatically results in that reality. It told us to worship Jesus, because of the fact that Jesus was only known tangibly as a Man. Now, back to my main point. How is our spirit Father and the Holy Spirit not composed “of one substance”? Talk about nonsense to believe otherwise!!
The real crux of the Christian religion is: “Whom do you serve?” in a spiritual sense, after you have accepted Christ? Is it only the Father that Jesus was seemingly instructing the Devil to worship in Matt. 4:10? See Heb. 1:6,8,10 for the Father’s own answer.
Notice the same unity of service, in the following statement of Mrs. White, as she captured the truth in words so clear, even a child would understand why pioneer G.C. Tenny, in 1896, said even the Holy Spirit too is “an object of veneration”:

“When we have accepted Christ, and in the name [singular] of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [Joshua 24:14,15] God, the Father, Christ AND [thirdly] the Holy Spirit – the Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven – pledge themselves that even facility will be given us if we carry out our... vows”.
-E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

I find it absolutely ridiculous to believe that I must “serve” only One who is truly called “God” (as Joshua 24 declares), and yet fail to see Jesus and the Holy Spirit as truly “God”, worthy of being “an object of veneration”, in the above E.G. White quote. Thus, rightly understood, the profound truth of the Bible is this –

There is one God, the Father Almighty, but He cannot be known, and has not been made known apart from His Eternal Son, and Eternal Spirit. Only by way of and through the Son can He be worshipped or served, and only by the ‘unction’ of, and through the Holy Spirit can we accept Him and “serve” him. In serving the Father it automatically means you MUST serve the Son, who is God (divine) equally, and obviously you are automatically serving the Holy Spirit, who is God (divine) also. However, the unity does not destroy the Personality of neither, because “there are three living [literal] personalities of the Heavenly Trio”, said the leading pioneer in Adventism, Mrs. White (who sheds clear light on the Word of God).

CONCLUSION?

The basic premises of the Trinitarian thinking are correct, but who is to say that the ‘unorthodox’ version of the doctrine, as taught by Adventism since 1892, is not the real truth rescued from Papal contamination (despite certain RECENT weaknesses in explanation about the “begetting” of Christ)? God knows! Here, However, is what this writer knows, without any shadow of doubt or intent of turning –
***Every man must be convinced in his own mind, for “we must all [individually] appear before the judgment seat of Christ”. Each man should, to God, and his own self be true. That is all he can do. Amen
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (Mr)

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:46 pm Post subject:

Now I know where we disagree.

gillespie9669

Dear Eugene,
I have no problem with you diasgreeing with me, as that can only foster healthy discussion. I also have no problem with you questioning my hermeneutics, however I FAIL TO SEE THE POTENCY OF YOUR RESPONSE, WHICH WOULD SERVE TO DISCOUNT THE VERACITY OF WHAT I HAVE SAID IN MY EARLIER POSTS.

1. Your 1904 (Ms. 30) quote from Mrs. White would help your cause if she had identified the trinity as one of the errors coming into the Church. Of course you can 'read' that into it, because of your adgenda or personal beliefs, but that would be only speculation on your part, and you would lack direct confirmation from Mrs. White that she opposed the trinity in 1904, when it was already being taught UNCENSORED in Adventism since 1892. That even you cannot disprove. I have historical facts at my disposal which no one can effectively discount.

2. You have not proven otherwise that "divinity" is a collective term for a group of divine Personalities, just like the term "humanity". You CANNOT disprove that divinity is confined only to THREE Persons of the Godhead, AND NO MORE, who are all Biblically descrided as God, while on the other hand humanity consists of inumerable billions of persons since Creation. And you cannot disprove that it is BIBLICALLY CORRECT to describe and identify (label with a title) the Father, the Son, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT as God.

3. Your statistical analysis that most Scriptures referring directly to God as a Person is in all cases not in reference to a Trio, or a trinity, but rather to the Father is absolutely correct!! I take no issue with that! However the original Apostolic, and sub-Apostolic understanding of the trinity is not built upon the premise that it is otherwise. The Apostolic understanding of the Trinity is based upon the affirmation that the One true God, the Father, is inseparably united with two other Divine Persons (a Trio) in the Eternal Godhead, and that He has never revealed Himself in isolation from them. That you cannot disprove because even Mrs. White's thesis agrees with that. The Apostolic Trinity or Trio is the Godhead unity of three living Personalities (of course not the later Papal understanding) that are collectively called "the Deity", or divinity, or "all that is called God" or TRULY described as TRULY God (in nature -2 Thess. 2:4); with the Son and the Spirit directly related to the One true God, the Father (THE PERSON WHO IS BY INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY, GOD).

CHOICE QUOTE FROM MY LAST POST:

"Thus, rightly understood, the profound truth of the Bible is this –

There is one God, the Father Almighty, but He cannot be known, and has not been made known apart from His Eternal Son, and Eternal Spirit. Only by way of and through the Son can He be worshipped or served, and only by the ‘unction’ of, and through the Holy Spirit can we accept Him and “serve” him. In serving the Father it automatically means you MUST serve the Son, who is God (divine) equally, and obviously you are automatically serving the Holy Spirit, who is God (divine) also. However, the unity does not destroy the Personality of neither, because “there are three living [literal] personalities of the Heavenly Trio”, said the leading pioneer in Adventism, Mrs. White (who sheds clear light on the Word of God)."
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (Mr)

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:11 am Post subject:

1. I respect the Adventist 1931 statement on the Trinity as completely Biblical and the 1981 statement as being papist.

2. I'm saying that if 1267 occurrences of the word God in the New Testament is never a reference to the Trinity, then we shouldn't misuse the word God and say God equals the Trinity. The 1981 statement of beliefs, which you support, does indeed abuse Scripture in this way.

3. I believe that the One true God, the Father, is inseparably united with two other Divine Persons (a Trinity) in the Eternal Godhead.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:58 am Post subject:

Dear Eugene,
I think I kind of see where your logic is coming from, concerning the 1981 SDA "trinity" Statement of Belief using the word "God" to mean the "Trio" or "Trinity" in the Godhead. I am, however, seeing the issue from another vantage point, and thus cannot agree with you for a number of reasons:

1. Explanation of concept MUST TAKE PRECEDANCE OVER JUST WORDING, and in order for the 1981 Statement of Belief to be really "Papist" you would have to prove that the OFFICIAL SDA EXPLANATION of it has accepted the "one substance INDIVISIBLE" clause of the Athanasian Creed, for instance. You would have to also prove that the EXPLANATION declares that the three Persons descrided by the title, "God", are not seen as three separate individuals (as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains), BUT ARE THREE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE ONE INDIVISIBLE SUBSTANCE. THE SDA CHURCH HAS NEVER ACCEPTED THIS EXPLANATION. Remember, if "Man" or "Adam" in the beginning could mean a plurality of separate persons (Gen 5:1,2), then I fail to see why you cannot use the power of deduction to see the collective use of the word "God" without a seeing a destruction of the individual personalities in the Godhead.

2. You cannot effectively support that this 1981 wording is "papist", WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT PRE-PAPAL , SUB-APOSTOLIC TRINITARIAN EXPRESSIONS USED VERY SIMILAR WORDING WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY TEACHING THE INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS:

180 A.D.
“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 2

N.B. *This is quite similar to the 1904 admission of Mrs. E.G. White (Ms. 30), WHICH YOU DECLARED TO BE "ANOMALOUS", AND "UNPUBLISHED", AS IF TO SAY THAT HER NOT PUBLISHING IT HERSELF WOULD LESSEN THE INSPIRATION OF IT. That view is neither consistent with your acceptance of the inspiration of Mrs. White's writings, nor insightful regarding the system of logic called DEDUCTION. Please see what I mean regarding this last point (re:"deduction") below. But now notice:

190 A.D.
“For both [Father and Son] are one- that is, one God. For He has said, ‘In the beginning… the Word was God’ ”- Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 8

200 A.D.
“Beside Him [God] there was nothing [before the beginning]; but He [God] while existing alone, yet existed in plurality” – Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Part 10

NOTE- Keep in mind this last quote was from Hippolytus, who (in 200 A.D.) was aggressively opposed to God being seen as three persons in one person (modalism), thus if he used “He” to refer to God in the collective sense, then his meaning is clear that, in just the same way all humanity (“what is man?” – Ps. 8) can be collectively called “him”, then all of divinity can also be called “He”, collectively, without confusion of the individual persons. And this understanding was long before the Papacy contaminated the truth with Creeds (e.g.the Athanasian Creed)

3. I have seen where your posts FULLY SUPPORT Mrs. White's view on the Eternal Godhead being "three living persons/personalities" of the "heavenly Trio", or "three Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries". However, WHERE IN THE BIBLE'S USE OF THE WORD "GODHEAD" (USED ONLY THREE TIMES) DO YOU SEE A CLEAR INDICATION OF A "TRIO"? IS THE WORD "TRIO" EVEN IN THE BIBLE? So what have you Biblically used to come to the conclusion that Mrs. White is correct in using all these above phrases and expressions, which were never once stated in the Bible? Clearly, if you will be honest, you will admit that you evidently recognized her use of DEDUCTION (not just her visionary insights), since all three Persons are BIBLICALLY proven, in their individuality, to be described as "God", and thus must be PART OF THE "ETERNAL GODHEAD" (Romans 1:20). If you will be honest to admit this, then your eyes will be opened to see why the 1981 Statement of Belief is likewise based upon the use of the principle of DEDUCTION. You cannot have our cake and eat it. You cannot support the use of DEDUCTION in the "Trio" being the "Eternal Godhead", and then reject the pre-Papal understanding that CHRIST TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER, REPRESENTED EVERYWHERE BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, IS THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE, JUST LIKE WHAT MRS. WHITE ADMITS:

"The existence of a personal God, [is] THE UNITY of Christ with His Father..." - Manuscript 30, 1904. This was published by the Ellen White Estate board of trustees in "The Upward Look" Morning Watch Commentary, IN FULFILLMENT OF HER DYING WISH THAT HER UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS IN MANUSCRIPTS BE PUBLISHED OVER TIME. Thus her manuscripts have the backing of inspiration as well.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (Mr)

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:22 pm Post subject:

1. I freely acknowledge that exceptional anomalies can be the basis for doctrines using the science of deduction. However, it's obvious that true SDA recognize the superiority of induction over deduction, i.e., the process of deriving general principles from a multitude of specifics verses beginning with a single fact or a very limited number of facts, blindly presuming that some presupposition is foundational and then drawing conclusions.

The superiority of induction over deduction is clearly illustrated in the history of the SDA controversy over the meaning of the "daily" in Daniel 8. As you know, a single, seemingly clear and straightforward Ellen G. White statement was appealed to in Early Writings pp. 74,75 to prove that the advocates of the old view of the "daily" were right. The deductionists were certain that the wording of the statement placed Heaven's endorsement on the identification of the "daily" held by Miller. They were wrong according to Sister White in a later clarification.

2. Your method of interpretation clearly diminishes the importance of God's word. True Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Bible contains all essential, fundamental and the most important SDA doctrines. "But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms." The Great Controversy, page 595.

3. The Bible's definition of God must take precedence over the most ancient and cherished opinions of uninspired writers.

4. My thesis on the Godhead is clearly Biblical. It reveals what's prominent, normative and highly visible in Scripture. Your view exalts the historic opinions deemed tolerable by papists and is only remotely connected to Scripture through the scanty, peripheral anomalies and irregularities that you've used to build your own doctrine. Do you see the difference?

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:08 am Post subject:

Dear Eugene,
I will make this my last response in the series related to the 1981 SDA "Trinity" Statement of Belief. I respect your opinions on the matter, but guess what? I don't see the preponderance of evidence you have brought to the table to discount the veracity of my theology. Sure, you have made sweeping statements in describing my last posts which do not exactly match with your theology. But that is fine by me, as that is your privilege. However, you have not made serious inroads into my approach to the Trinity for me to do any serious re-consideration of my multi-faceted approach. My multi-pronged approach includes:

(a) a historical look at the bare facts in both Adventism and general Church history in order to understand the nature of the controversy over the trinity issue
(b) a responsible use of the understanding and mode of thought of Christians who lived nearest to the Biblical Apostles (pre-Papal, that is), in order to see how the earliest Christians understood the Bible, and to have a contextual background against which modern Christian thought is compared
(c) a comparison of such historic (but pre-papal) modes of thought with (according to SDA belief) "inspired" E.G. White understanding
(d) And THEN subjecting all modes of thought, past and present, inspired and uninspired, TO THE ULTIMATE TEST OF THE WORD OF GOD (THE BIBLE), THE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH. ONLY THEN ARE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN, USING BOTH INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION.

You seem to just search for, in order to critique, small areas of my approach, which do not conform to your thesis and, and discount, it would seem, the "bigger picture". You continue to laud your website "thesis on the Godhead", but while many things therein are on target, it is neither fully correct nor fully comprehensive in its approach. For instance, your "thesis" proclaims that the Father is "A God Above” and "Greater" Than Jesus!! Such an expression reeks with polytheistic undertones (the Father being "a God above" and "greater" than Jesus), and on the surface seems to deny the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy truth that Jesus, as God (in nature) IS EQUAL WITH THE FATHER IN ALL RESPECTS, despite his human nature forced Him (while on earth) to proclaim the Father "greater". This was perfectly understandable because only then was He "made lower" than even angels, and, by retaining His humanity, He is in this sense only, "lesser" than the Father. However, responsible, and comprehensive hermeneutics would ever strive to balance that truth with the paradox that Jesus, AS "GOD IN THE HIGHEST SENSE", is still EQUAL IN EVERY "IOTA" WITH THE FATHER (John 20:28,29;Phill. 2:6; Heb. 1:8, 10). He is "My Lord and My God", and not just God in His nature as the Son of God. I fail to see this EMPHATICALLY affirmed in your "thesis" (at least on the web page your link led me to). I also fail to see the affirmation that only as a man did the Scriptures present the Father as Jesus' "God" , whom he actively worships as we do (e.g. Heb. 2:11-14); BUT NEVER IN HIS PRE-EXISTENCE. I also fail to see the affirmation that, upon the basis of Biblical summary, the Father's Deity is NEVER presented in isolation from that of the equal Deity of His Son, or His Spirit- THUS THE TRI-UNE NATURE OF NOT JUST THE "ETERNAL GODHEAD" (Romans 1:20), BUT EVEN THE WORD "GOD" WHEN USED IN THE HIGHEST SENSE.
However, despite our differences, I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST, AND HOPE WE WILL SEE EACH OTHER IN THE KINGDOM. I hope that your ministry is not based upon searching out and finding reason to "accuse the brethren" (I AM NOT SAYING IT IS), but it will always be open to correction and amicable dialogue. Thanks for organizing this forum for wholesome discussion and self expression. God bless you. Love you dear sister.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (Mr)