gillespie9669
surmises great evil
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 136
Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Light Fox wrote: | Greetings! :)
Well, it was certainly a surprise to see a thread asking about us on here <chuckles.>
We are not Trinitarian, much like the Adventist pioneers before Mrs. White's death ...Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. :)
Yours in Yahshua |
In response I ask you to consider carefully the following facts about the pioneering SDA Church, and prove all things. Be honest with yourself about your ignorance of some of the facts:
THE TRINITY ACCEPTED IN
ADVENTISM BEFORE 1915-
The Clearest Evidence from the
Pioneers’ Own Words!
It is now common knowledge that before 1892, the prevailing view on the Godhead among Adventist pioneers was an anti-Trinitarian one. However, here are some crucial quotes from certain official Adventist articles, showing conclusively that among some pioneers there were gradually changed attitudes to the trinity doctrine, its terminology and its teachings, long (15-25 years) before the death of Mrs. White in 1915, and before the first official “Trinity” statement of belief of 1931. This proves that the change was not started by a new generation of Adventists after the death of Mrs. White. Note carefully the years of the quotes and the titles of the articles. Emphases in brackets supplied.
“[The Holy Spirit is] one with and sent by the Father and the Son… He [the Holy Spirit] would make us know His personality, but ever in living connection with Christ…Let Him [the Spirit] make you know, beloved, how surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of [now notice carefully] our *TRIUNE GOD (!!), manifested by the personal presence of the Holy
Ghost”.
-The Kings Messenger, *“Blended Personalities”, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, April 3, *1900, pg. 210
“It seems strange to me now [in 1898], that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work He does”. -R.A. Underwood – “The Holy Spirit a Person”,
Review and Herald, Vol. 75, May 17, *1898, pg. 310
“He [the Holy Spirit] is more than an emanation from the mind of God…He is included in the apostolic benediction [alongside the Father and Son- 2 Cor. 13:14], and is spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an independent and personal capacity [John 16:13, 14 - thus is not just the Person of the Father] as Teacher, Guide, and [‘ another’] Comforter. He [the Holy Spirit] is an object of veneration [from Latin, ‘venerari’- to worship] and is a heavenly intelligence [singular] everywhere present and is always present”.
-G. C. Tenny, “To Correspondents”, Review and Herald, Vol. 73, June 9, 1896, pg. 362
[*Notice Tenny’s ‘openness’, as a pioneer, with “Correspondents”, during this period of doctrinal transition in Adventism, now even ‘doubting’ Adventism’s earlier anti-Trinitarian position on the Holy Spirit, even at a time when he still was evidently anti-Trinitarian at that point.]
MRS. WHITE’S RESPONSE
“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person [not just a ‘split-personality’] as [in same way that] God is a Person (!!) is walking through these grounds…He hears every word we utter, and knows every thought of every mind” [Remember God’s personality was never in question, or at issue in Adventism, but only the Holy Spirit’s, as a “third” personality].
-E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale College)
“There are three living [literal] Personalities of the Heavenly Trio…” [Notice the now full doctrinal transition in Mrs. White’s own words; a clear advancement of pioneering thought, compared to the expressions of some pioneers from 1846-1888, and even after]
E.G. White – Evangelism, pg. 615 (from a*1905 Manuscript)
WHY THE CHANGE?
Now notice carefully that by *1900 there was now an acceptance of the term “TRIUNE GOD” (!!) by the Review and Herald, in referring to the “blended Personalities” of the Godhead. This was a clear similarity, in meaning, to the earlier published Trinitarian pamphlet (of the non-Adventist, Dr Samuel T. Spear) in 1892, a tract that stated and supported the basic tenets of Trinitarianism, with just some amount of critiquing done. The tract, among other things, stated that:
“This doctrine [‘The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity’]… is NOT a system of tri-theism [belief in three Gods], but is the doctrine of one God [one divinity or Divine nature] subsisting and acting in three Persons [thus a tri-unity], with the qualification that the term ‘person’, though perhaps the best that can be used, is not, when used in this relation, to be understood in any sense that would make it inconsistent with the unity of the Godhead, and hence not to be understood in the ordinary sense when applied to man.”
Pamphlet No. 90 – “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”, Pacific Press, March 1892 (A reprint, by permission, of Dr Samuel T. Spear’s article of 1889, and included in the 1892 Bible Student Library series, as a *missionary tool)
* N.B. - see S.D.A. Encyclopaedia on “Bible Student Library Series”
There is no getting around this reality of the church publishing basic trinitarianism at this point, despite the resistance of some. While, admittedly, the tract critiqued the theory of the “eternal generation” of Christ as being, at best, just “mystical speculation”, and proposed Jesus as being “subordinate” to the Father, both in His “divine as well as human nature” (pages 3, 7, 11 and 12), to focus only on this aspect of it, is to ‘bury one’s head in the sand’ regarding the ‘bigger picture’ of it’s Trinitarian teachings. It was the same article that stated that Jesus is “truly divine and truly God in the absolute [highest] sense” (page 3).
Its statements about Jesus being “subordinate” or, in one context of the word, ‘accountable to and led by’ (the Father), are probably best understood in light of the following considerations:
(a) Mrs. White too saw Jesus as “God in the highest [not just delegated] sense”, and “equal with the Father in all respects” [and would never contradict herself], but still saw “the Father working above, and through all” (see Steps to Christ, 1892, pgs. 20-21). All modes of operation demand leadership, even among true equals (just like Adam and Eve). Eve, the wife, even came from her husband, but was still equal to Adam, despite being led by him.
(b) Orthodox Trinitarians still accept, in a certain context, the “primacy” of the Father, that is, His leadership in the “Eternal Godhead”, despite the “absolute” co-equality of Christ with Him as “Head”; with the Holy Spirit also being one with, and representing them as a Person, that is, as the “third Person [of a trio] of the Godhead”.
THE EFFECTS OF THE 1892 TRINITARIAN TRACT
What is critical here is that the Spear article laid out the basic Trinitarian viewpoints that Adventism was now gradually leaning towards, after years of anti-Trinitarianism in Adventist literature. After this 1892 article, reprinted for the church’s use, the change in Adventist thinking was gradual, but took on momentum after Mrs. White’s 1898 “Desire of Ages” publication, which came, notice, six years after 1892). Now we can clearly see why Mrs. White for the first time (in 1898) referred to the Holy Spirit as the “Third Person of the Godhead” in this book. She clearly supported the earlier publication of 1892, which came long before her death in 1915, and before the “Trinity” statement of belief 1931(despite opposing views were still being expressed by some).
Mrs. White *never once (after 1888) wrote against her colleagues now accepting the Holy Spirit as a Person, or using terms such as “God the Son” (in 1890), or “our Triune God” (in 1900). Notice however that she named and spoke against the “pantheistic teachings” of the Dr Kellogg “heresies” which came later. Interesting!!
Now where is the evidence that Adventist pioneers started using the expression “God the Son” before the death of Mrs. White? Notice carefully again; in the pioneers’ own words:
“Although we [Adventists] claim to be believers in, and worshippers of one God, I have thought that there are as many gods among us as there are conceptions of the Deity. And how many there are of these, and how limited are most of them. Rather, how limited are all of them!
We do not half study the character of God the Father and [now notice very carefully] *God the Son (!!), and the result is we make Christ such beings as ourselves” [that is, having a beginning, and being limited as “God”, by being the Son of God]
-D.T. Bordeau – Review and Herald, Vol. 67, Nov. 18, *1890, pg. 707
THE EFFECTS OF THE “1888” CONTROVERSIES
Why did the Review and Herald publish this expression? This was simply because the truths of the “Godhead” controversies at the 1888 Conference had begun to take effect. Notice it was just two years after 1888 that brother Bordeau was expressing that Jesus was “God the Son”, and just two years after that (in 1892) that trinitarianism was then published, clearly indicating that only trinitarianism was seen as placing Jesus in a rightful and natural place of being fully eternal, and fully “God in the highest sense”, without the resultant teaching of an “Almighty God”, and a lower, separate, and just “Mighty” Son of God, that is, two Gods!! That is why the brethren started to use the expression “our Triune God”, that is, one Godhead, but a Trio of Personalities.
And if this evidence is not enough, here now is the final “bombshell’ for all those who are very limited in their command of the facts, having a zeal for ‘restoring’ Adventist heritage,
but not armed with all the knowledge of the true facts:
“WE [ many Adventists] BELIEVED A *LONG TIME THAT CHRIST WAS A CREATED BEING, in spite of what the Scripture says. I say this, that, passing over the experience I have passed over myself [my limited views] in this matter – this accommodating use of terms which makes Deity without eternity, is not my conception now [in 1919]of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls short of the whole idea expressed in the Scriptures…the Deity[of Christ] involves [full] eternity. The very expression involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of
Deity without eternity”.
-W.W. Prescott, The 1919 [S.D.A.] Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6, 1919, pg. 62
This quote effectively shatters the arguments of some anti-trinitarians in Adventism today, who say that the pioneers were not for “a long time” Arians. Who should we believe; those who were there on the scene, as pioneers, and reported ‘firsthand’, or those who today (not being pioneers)
deny the obvious, EVEN THE WORDS OF THE PIONEERS, because they refuse to see the truth, or accept all that happened before 1915, not just some things?
W.W. Prescott was at the controversial “1888” General Conference, where E.J. Waggoner attacked Arianism (the doctrine of a “created” Christ) in Adventism. See pages 19-22 in E.J Waggoner’s book, “Christ and His Righteousness” (1890), in which he distinctly attacked Arianism among Adventists in 1888. He was alive in 1892, when the doctrinal transition was clearly beginning, and alive even after the death of Mrs. White, when the transition was not yet complete. Who better to speak on what the church (and himself) once taught? No one can cover up or distort the truth for too long; truth which will just simply refuse to be imprisoned. After this, the most crucial truth of all hammered out before 1915 is, in the words of our pioneers, who eventually accepted the Trinitarian type approach to the “Eternal Godhead”:
WHO JESUS REALLY IS
“…Moses stood in the presence of the Eternal One [Christ], and he was not afraid; for his soul was in harmony with the will of his Maker…The Deity [Christ] proclaimed *Himself, ‘THE LORD [I AM], THE LORD GOD, merciful and gracious…” [See John 1:18 and John 5:37]
- E.G. White- Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 329
“It was Christ who spoke the Law on Mount Sinai” [See Exodus 20:1]
-E.G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, pgs. 237, 238
“However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our Shepherd; He is our ‘Everlasting Father’.” [He is not just our ‘Father’ because He was, as the Messiah, “given” children redeemed by His Father, Heb 2:11-14, but because Jesus Himself was originally our Creator also- Isaiah 9:6]
E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pg. 483
“Our Lord Jesus Christ is to His people an Eternal Father, because He is *ETERNALLY ‘the same yesterday, and today, and forever” [that is, “God over all , blessed forevermore”, and “God essentially and in the highest sense”, as Mrs. White earlier testified, on April 5, 1906].
J.M. Cole, “The Everlasting Father”, Review and Herald, Oct. 31, 1929, pg. 3
The cornerstone of the Trinitarian doctrine is that Jesus is “essentially” God “in the highest sense” along with the Father, and is “of one substance” with Him, with both being represented by the “third Person of the Godhead”, the Holy Spirit. “How surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of our Triune God?” as stated by Review and Herald in 1900!
What more evidence is needed? The blindest person is he who will not see!!
It was Mrs. White who said, regarding those who refused the truths about Jesus in 1888:
“All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with them and they tell others the doctrine is not true, and afterward when they see as light, evidence they were so forward to condemn, they have too much pride to say I was wrong…”
-Manuscript 15, 1888
How apt is this statement today. May God help us all to be honest with ourselves in this matter.
CONCLUSION:
The charge of the detractors that it was a new generation of “philosophers”, who knew nothing about the beliefs of the pioneers, that led the church to “abandon” what ALL pre-1915 pioneers held to firmly until Mrs. White’s death (1915), is a spurious charge, and is based on either ignorance of all the facts, or the inability to be objective despite personal opinion. ‘Tailored’ Trinitarianism showed its head in Adventism from as early as 1892, long before 1931 and was never condemned by Mrs. White until her death in 1915. For example, the following 1913 declaration by pioneer F.M. Wilcox appeared in an article in the Review and Herald just next to some of Mrs. White’s writings before her death (on the same page in the magazine!!). Should we think that she did NOT see it? Or did she, but then still appointed its author (a supposed heretic by some today) as one of the first members of the E.G. White Estate to guard and publish her works upon her death? Certainly not!
WILCOX HAD DISTINCTLY DECLARED IN 1913:
“Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY. This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father… the Lord Jesus Christ…[and] the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead” -F. M. Wilcox (editor of Review and Herald), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913
Mrs. White completely refused to name and speak out against basic Trinitarianism, in all of her writings, and Now, even after F.M. Wilcox’s 1913 Trinitarian statement of belief (in Review and Herald, Oct. 9, 1913), for example, she still appointed him as one member of the first board of governors of the E.G. White Estate, entrusted with preserving and publishing her writings. Clearly he was not an “apostate”, if Mrs. White willed him (without recanting) to be placed in such a position of trust after her death. He was suitable because he was a pioneer on the scene before 1888, and up to 1915, and knew all that took place in Adventism before, up to and after the change in Adventist thinking
Also Mrs. White never saw trinitarianism as, the “mother of all heresies”, because, apart from clearly Showing another issue (abandoning the Ten Commandments) to be the chief “heresy”, she never once even spoke against the Trinity, not even mentioning the word in order to condemn it! That too is indisputable!
QUESTIONS TO PONDER AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE:
1. If while Mrs. White was away in Australia she was able to keep abreast of happenings in the Adventist church in the U.S., even regarding Dr Kellogg’s “pantheistic teachings” (according to Mrs. White), upon which she could, in her absence, directly name, label, and describe it, and warn about the danger of this “alpha [beginning] of apostasy”, then is it reasonable to see her not knowing about the Trinity articles and expressions published, not independently, but by the main publishing houses of the church *between 1892 and 1915, that is, with some even coming before Dr Kellogg’s independent publications?
2. If the trinity publications and expressions came years before the pantheistic teachings of Dr Kellogg, in his book, “The Living Temple” (1903), is it logical to see Mrs. White seeing the new Trinity teachings and publications in Adventism as the “omega [closing] heresy” to “come shortly”, that is, after 1915 when she died? Why did she not name directly “Trinitarian teachings”, just as she did regarding Dr Kellogg’s “pantheistic teachings”, if this was such a danger? Would this be like her, as the prophet of God, to ignore this issue, and remain so silent on an issue being published twenty-three (23) years (1892-1915) before her death? Or did the “omega heresy” begin to operate within the church before the “alpha heresy” came on the scene, but ‘slipped’ by Mrs. White (the chief “watchman on the walls of Zion”) all this time? Is this logical reasoning? What do you honestly think?
For a full discussion of these historical facts in Adventism, please request my recently concluded research entitled:
“Indisputable Facts About The Trinity Doctrine in Adventism” (2002), AND SEE ALL MY POSTS ON THIS SITE (under the name "gillespie9669")
For more: (e.g. a fresh perspective on the “Omega Heresy” related to the Godhead doctrine)-
Call (876) 634-2987 or 317-2526
E-mail: derricgillespie955@hotmail.com, or
Write: Derrick Gillespie, Munro College, St Elizabeth, Jamaica, West Indies
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?) |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
