FACTS CERTAIN SDA DISSIDENTS IGNORE!!

gillespie9669

[PART 1]

L. BEACHY (an SDA ant-Trinitarian) SAID (IN SUMMARY) IN HIS BOOK, “The Formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity” :(http://www.present-truth.net/)

“The testimony of the early church writers [e.g. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Novatian, Tertullian, etc] makes it clear that the concept of the Trinity was foreign to Christianity until it was adopted at the Council of Nicaea. Since that time the doctrine has undergone some alterations until it stands today as the central doctrine of the Catholic faith…Many people would like you to believe that the Trinity doctrine has always been a part of Christian teaching. However, it is clear that this teaching [only] was adopted by the Catholic Church long after the death of Christ and His apostles. It is also clear that the early Christians did not hold to this doctrine.”

He was quoted largely from A.T. Jones’ book, The Two Republics, 1891. Here are some brief facts on A.T. Jones.

A.T. Jones - died in 1923. He helped Waggoner in 1888, to establish that the Law cannot save (despite obedience is inseparable), and that Jesus and the Father are “of one substance”, are “equal in all respects”, and that they are united, by having the “same Spirit” as “constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead”. Thus his writings in the book, “The Consecrated Way” (1905), expounding on the 1888 issues should never be divorced from Waggoner’s 1890 recording of his views on the same issue, in “Christ and His Righteousness”. This some forget.
A.T. Jones was at first opposed to the Trinity (as taught by the Papacy), but is not on record opposing Adventism’s 1892 first Trinitarian tract, or F.M. Wilcox’s 1913 first Trinitarian declaration of belief on behalf of Adventists. He is, however, on record only mentioning the trinity after 1892, as he compared the Papacy, in past history, forcing the people (by state law) to believe in the “inspiration of the Holy Scriptures”, the doctrine of “the trinity”, and Christianity in general, with the U.S. presenting a similar threat to liberty of conscience by forcing politicians to be “religious” or “belong to a religious denomination”, to be qualified “for office under the United Sates” (see his books,” Ecclesiastical Empire”, 1901, pgs. 837-838, and “The Two Republics”, 1891, pages 590 and 801). This could hardly be seen as him opposing trinitarian ideology, since he also spoke against forcing anyone (by state law) to accept the “Holy Scriptures”, “a religious denomination”, and Christianity “professed by almost the whole community”. He even mentions the belief in the “communion” of saints and the “resurrection of the dead” as part of the Christian faith that Roman state religion, in the past, forced upon people. His subject was “religious liberty” as against “religious test” (as seen by the U.S. Constitution), NOT the trinity!

WHAT BEACHY FAILED TO HIGLIGHT ABOUT JONE’S BOOK

“In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them [Arians and Trinitarians] wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and “all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace [quoted from Socrates]…

There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity; it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father”

-A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333

*THIS ALONE, SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING PROVE THAT BEACHY FAILS TO READ CAREFULLY, AND IS FURTHER WOEFULLY LACKING IN CERTAIN HISTORICAL DATA, OR HE IS BEING SPECIOUS, WITH A VIEW TO DECEIVE. WAS A TRINITY KNOWN AND TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS? WELL…

180 A.D.

“The THREE days [separate entities], which were before the luminaries [the fourth day Creation of sun, moon, etc.], are types [symbols] of the *Trinity [‘triavdo’- Greek], of God [the Father], and His Word [Jesus], and His Wisdom [Spirit]. And the fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light…”

- Theophilus of Antioch, Chapter 15,Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15

NOTE- Clearly the word “Trinity” was not new in 180 A.D., since Theophilus just mentions it in passing, without even stopping to define it, THUS HIS READER MUST HAVE BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH IT. Also, it is clear the word means three separate entities that are related, because “three days” are three separate things, but belong to the one and the same week, having the same properties of 24 hours. His use of this symbol is very clear, as he applied it to the Persons of the “Eternal Godhead”. The following quotes, from other second century Christian writers, show clearly how the word was understood, and proves again its evidently common use in Greek.

190 A.D.

“I understand nothing else than the Holy *TRINITY [‘triavdo’] to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father [the first Person]”.

-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14

200 A.D.

“See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they [Sabellian ‘modalists’] have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born… But this is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus [a ‘modalist’ heretic] is of a different mind from them [the Scriptures]… For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the number and disposition of [three] persons in the *TRINITY [‘triavdo’]”- Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus

NOTE- Clearly, Hippolytus was defending “orthodox” Christianity, in using not just the word “Trinity” in Greek, but also pointing out how ‘orthodox’ Christians are supposed to use the word. This defence of ‘orthodoxy’ is seen in his account regarding the banishing of Sabellius from the Church by Callistus, before 200 A.D. Hippolytus clearly said:

“ Thus after the death of Zephyrinus… he [Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as NOT ENTERTAINING *ORTHODOX OPINIONS”. –Hippolytus, Refutation of all Hersies, 9:7

COMMENTS:

Thus it is clear that the earliest use of the word “Trinity” by Christian writers was in the sense of a Trio, or THREE numerically distinct Personalities in the Godhead, and any ‘modalistic’ interpretation, of one individual substance of the Godhead being indivisible, was seen as heresy, or as being against orthodoxy. THIS IS WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS OF THE SECOND CENTURY TAUGHT. THUS IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY THE PAPAL VERSION OF THE TRINITY, AS SEEN IN THE ATHANASIAN CREED, THOUGH NOT BEING OUTRIGHT MODALISM, IS STILL INHERENTLY FAULTY, AND WHY THE FOLLOWING TEACHING BY MRS. WHITE IS CLOSER TO THE ‘APOSTOLIC’ TEACHING OF EARLY CHRISTIANS (sometimes mistakenly called tri-theism].

“There are three living Personalities of the Heavenly Trio… Three Great Powers- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”- E.G White, Evangelism, pg. 615 (from *1905 Manuscript)

“When you gave yourself to Christ, you made a pledge in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit- the Three Great Personal Dignitaries of Heaven”

–E.G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, pg. 959

“The work is laid out before every soul that has acknowledged his faith in Jesus Christ by baptism, and has become a receiver of the pledge from the three Persons- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” –E.G White, *1900, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, pg. 1074

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is [by nature] truly God in the infinity [transcendent and absolute sense], but not [the Father] in Personality” - E.G. White, Manuscript 116, Dec. 19, *1905

NOTE- to be truly numerically distinct, and self-willed, the persons cannot be of one substance “indivisible” with only one center of consciousness, as taught by the Papacy. Even though the “Trio” are all truly “of one substance” (as even Mrs. White agrees), that is, they are similar or exactly alike in substance, they are, however, not indivisible as a substance, but are *inseparable (better word), as a Divine love unit operating in the Godhead. This is what Justin Martyr, and most early Christians testified to.

150 A.D

“[the Father in Creation] conversed with Someone [the pre-incarnate Jesus] *numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational being…” - Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 62

“Both Him [the Father], and the Son… AND the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore”- Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 17

AGAIN IT IS CLEAR THAT MRS. WHITE, AND THE ADVENTIST CHURCH TODAY AGREE WITH THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND EARLIEST CHURCH FATHERS REGARDING THE NUMERIC DISTINCTION OF THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD. BUT THIS NOW RAISES THE QUESTION OF THREE GODS (TRI-THEISM). IS THIS WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS TAUGHT?

ARE THE GODHEAD PERSONS, TOGETHER, ALL CALLED GOD, OR GODS?

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 [*the same Irenaus brother Beachy quoted, as if to convey the contrary idea that he believed anti-Trinitarianism]

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. The same is true of the following quotes from Tertullian, who is credited for first using the term “Trinity” in the Latin form (“trinitas”). While not all things he said are correct, or consistent, note again the common threads of truth in his writings, which compares with other Christian writers before him.

200 A.D.

“All Scriptures give clear proof of the *Trinity [‘trinitas’- Latin], and it is from these that our principle is deduced… the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed” - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 11 [*the same Tertullian Beachy said knew nothing of a trinity!!]

“That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit, God… [but] when Christ would come, He might be acknowledged as God, and be called Lord, because He is the Son of Him who is both God and Lord” - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13:6

Now let us compare the teaching of Mrs. White, and, by extension, what the Adventist Church is supposed to teach according to this paradigm.

“The existence of a personal God [singular] the unity of Christ with His Father lies at the foundation of all true science… We see the working of His power, and his wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension”

-E.G White, Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904

“The great Teacher [Jesus] held in His hand the entire map of truth… The question of the essence of God was a subject on which He maintained a wise reserve, for their [the disciples’] entanglements and specifications would bring in science [LOGIC], which could not be dwelt upon by unsanctified minds without confusion [thus it is a complex topic]. In regard to God, and in regard to His personality the Lord Jesus said… ‘he that has seen me has seen the Father’… In the place of devoting your powers to theorizing… Go throughout the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost… the name of the threefold Powers in the Heavenly world…the ETERNAL GODHEAD” – E.G. White, “That they all May be One”, Manuscript 45, May 14, 1904

“When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [worship and obey] God the Father, Christ, and [thirdly], the Holy Spirit, the Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven pledge Themselves that every facility will be given us if we carry out our… vows”- E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

NOTE- It is clear that Mrs. White, like Hippolytus, felt that: “Who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity)”- Hippolyutus, 200 A.D., Against Noetus. Note again, carefully, the title of Mrs. White’s Manuscript 45, of 1904 (above)- *“That They All May be One”. It is interesting that when she wanted to define our “personal God”, and the “essence of God” she endeavored to speak of a “unity”, and an “Eternal Godhead” of more than one Divine Person, and yet, just like Hippolytus, and Irenaeus, she believed in one God, the Father, not three Gods. She rightly understood that the matter was complex, just like Jesus Himself who recognized this, and thus, she said, after stating certain basic truths, He “maintained a wise reserve”. The Roman Catholics have moved beyond the simple stating of truths about the Godhead, to a systematic attempt to explain God, even at the psychological and almost atomic level. That is what makes their Creedal version of the Godhead doctrine faulty, because while built on solid foundation of certain basic truths, it is still a deceptive mixture of pagan philosophy (human devising) and Scripture. THIS IS WHAT MANY PEOPLE ARE RIGHTLY FIGHTING AGAINST, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT “THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BABY WATER”, AS ERROR IS OPPOSED. THE “ONENESS” OF THE GODHEAD IS FIXED TRUTH.

[END OF PART 1]

Derrick Gillespie (Mr.)
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)