WAS THERE A TRINITARIAN APOSTASY IN 1931 IN ADVENTISM?

gillespie9669

The First Trinitarian Statement by an Adventist General Conference Committee (in 1931)

After all I have said on this chat site re: The Trinity In Adventism, I now come to that very crucial year in Adventist history, 1931. Leroy Froom is said by detractors in Adventism to be the first person to inject Trinitarian type thinking among Adventists (in the 1902’s), when he used (for the first time, it is claimed) non-Adventist writings or literature on the Trinity, as he did a series of studies among Adventists on the personality of the Holy Spirit. By now you realize (if you raed my previous article under the name “gillespie9669”) that this assumption is far from true.
While it is true that Froom did use non-Adventist literature on the Holy Spirit, he was not the first, and he did not even go as far as Pacific Press did in 1892 to *PUBLISH a non-Adventist pro-Trinitarian tract, or reproduce it, unabridged, in a book form, as pioneer M.L. Anderson later did, AFTER he observed Mrs. White’s silence regarding the 1892 printing of Dr. Spear’s Trinitarian tract, and F.M. Wilcox’s 1913 Trinitarian belief statements on behalf of Adventists.
Now dear reader, lest one may take this lightly, it must be remembered that the 1892 tract spoke about the “Divine Trinity” as a * “Bible Doctrine” and it defended “Trinitarians” in saying they “are not tri-theists” even while believing in a “clear distinction between God, the Father and Christ” (and the personality of the Holy Spirit) who are, however, united by the singular “name” of the “One Spirit”, the “One Lord”, and the “One God and Father of all” (Matt, 28:19). Why should I point out again that this is basic trinitarianism Pacific Press published as a missionary tool (!!) and, in effect, declared itself supportive of in 1892, when it is self evident to he who will to his own self be true? Your conscience, dear reader, tells you that this event in Adventism, and Mrs. White’s silence on the trinity*after 1892 is a powerful argument. She only censored Dr. Kellogg because he mixed pantheism with trinitarianism. She, however, did not censor F.M. Wilcox for outrightly declaring Adventists Trinitarians before her death.
We now come to the period after Mrs. White died, that is, after 1915. Some declare that Leroy Froom influenced the General Conference towards trinitariansim in the 1920’s, because Mrs. White was now out of the way to arrest the so-called, “apostasy”. However, that too will fall by the wayside when the true facts are examined carefully by anyone interested in the historical facts; facts, which are as undeniable as the truth about the year in which Adventism first published Trinitarian teachings (1892).
In the General Conference “Minutes” of December 29,1930 are the following (easily proven) words (in verbatim):

“Statement of Faith For Year Book –
A request was presented by the African Division [not Leroy Froom] that a statement of what S.D.A’s. believe should be printed in the year book, since they felt that such a statement would help government officials and others to a better understanding of our work.
-Voted; that the chair [C.H. Watson, G.C. president] appoint a committee of which he shall be a member, to prepare such a statement for publication in the year book.
-Named: M.E. Kern, F.M. Wilcox, E.R. Palmer, C.H. Watson [G.C. president]”.
– General Conference Minutes, Dec. 29,1930, pg. 195

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

1. First of all, notice carefully that the above is the report of what a meeting of the world body of Adventists (the General Conference) not a clandestine group, voted on. A new statement was requested for the “Yearbook”; not for debate and putting to vote. Why did they not just ask for a reprint of the old statement, which existed from 1899?
A request of this nature (not from Froom of course) meant that for many years the last printed statements of belief of 1889 was not fully comprehensive, as it was appearing in the Adventist yearbook. Was this only happening after Mrs. White (the leading pioneer) died? The truth is, NO! Edson Rodgers became the G.C. statistician from 1903 (to 1941), and since that time, even while Mrs. White was alive, he was agitating for a *new statement of belief because much had changed in Adventist thinking since 1889. This again is self-evident. Remember the 1892 Trinitarian tract published by E.J. Waggoner (as editor of the Pacific Press), the gradual personalizing of the Holy Spirit after 1892 (the very key to trinitarianism), the F.M. Wilcox 1913 declaration, and the 1919 Bible Conferences accepting Trinitarianism?
It is also self-evident that because there was ongoing conflict about the new doctrinal changes in Adventism since 1888, it just so happened that the last statements of belief (written while Mrs. White was alive) did not take into account what developed in 1892 and after and were not always reprinted in the early 1900’s (even before 1915).

2. The official request from the African Division, headed by President J.F. Wright at the time, made the earlier unheeded requests of Edson Rodgers even more forceful, and thus led to final action. This just happened to be the series of events as they unfolded, not some ‘diabolical plot’ (as some would think) to wait until the old pioneers all died off to then change Adventist thinking. The facts will show hereafter that all the individuals involved were pioneers from the time of Mrs. White, and not a new generation of Adventists.

3. Notice, carefully, that Leroy Froom had nothing to do with the request for the Yearbook. He also had nothing to do with the G.C. committee of 1930-1931. He was not in the picture at all. He was only later responsible for reporting the facts as they took place, in his historical treatise on Adventism entitled, “Movement of Destiny” (1971). Of course he was just one among many Adventists at the time recognizing, as Pacific Press, Review and Herald, F.M. Wilcox, W.W. Prescott, and A.G. Daniells did before him (while Mrs. White was alive), that there was some validity to much of the Trinitarian type thinking, as it related to the “Eternal Godhead”, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit (even if not all explanations by original Trinitarians were valid).
He along with others before him recognized that because of the earlier ‘acidic’ anti-Trinitarian sentiments in Adventism, there was very little written in Adventism to recognize the personhood of the Holy Spirit, except for “priceless leads” in Mrs. White’s writings. He therefore drew on non-Adventist literature as a starting point (just as the Adventist Church did when it first accepted the true Christian Sabbath. Froom studied non-Adventist writings along with Mrs. White’s thoughts on the Holy Spirit, and then published his own book entitled, “The Coming of the Comforter”(1928), after Mrs. White died.
Notice too that Froom had nothing to do directly with the FRAMING of the 1931 statements of belief, as they appeared in the Adventist Yearbook of that same year. Four others (pioneers) were responsible. The committee of four were all top ranking men at the G.C. (who all knew Mrs. White personally).
Two of these men, F.M. Wilcox and E.R. Palmer, personally experienced
what happened in 1888 and 1892, but all four were fully aware of all the
doctrinal developments after 1892 (M.E. Kern and C.H. Watson became
Adventists in the early 1900’s while Mrs. White was alive). Were they a “new generation” of Adventists? Hardly!!
This writer has personally read one of F.M. Wilcox’s pioneering works on the life and teachings of Mrs. White entitled, “Testimony of Jesus” (1934), and I personally feel that he, more than any other, was the most suitable member of the committee. Why? He was (apart from being the then editor of the Review & Herald) also one of the original members of the E.G. White Publication Board of Trustees (or E.G. White Estate) who was selected for this role personally by Mrs. White herself before she died. It would therefore be difficult on my part to see him betraying the trust of Mrs. White, and after being declared as trustworthy and spiritual by Mrs. White, then help to frame statements contrary to her teachings he was entrusted with. No! No! I will believe Mrs. White had too much insight into his character to see him leading the church into apostasy.
Wilcox, along with E.R. Palmer, was there (as pioneers) in 1888 and 1892, and saw all the happenings (as described so far in this historical review) and thus fully conversant with their implications in Adventism. C.H. Watson (the G.C. President) and M.E. Kern (Associate Secretary of the G.C) were fully learnt in Adventist thinking from the early 1900’s (while Mrs. White was alive) and knew what Adventists had come to believe since 1888 and 1892, despite the resistance from the “old timers”, who were bent on holding tight to either the Arian type or semi-Arian type thinking. Semi-Arians would never affirm, as Waggoner did, Dr. Spear’s tract on the “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”, since even the word, “trinity” (a group of three persons), in its root meaning as a simple noun, they believe has no parallel in scripture. I wonder, where they found the parallel to “trio” (as used by Mrs. White) in scripture, upon which the Adventist ‘Trio-istic’ version of the Godhead is based? “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”

4. The committee of four were doctrinally competent to frame the statement *for the Yearbook! The statement was not to be framed for putting to the vote. This is self-evident to those willing to see the facts. Also, it is evident to the insightful that the four men were intelligent enough to realize that what was needed at the time was the publishing of a new statement, which would probably need sufficient time for gradual acceptance overtime, not an immediate vote by a representative few at the G.C. which would ‘force’ it upon the entire world church. So in 1931 they did just that.
An introduction of the word “trinity” (three Persons of the Eternal Godhead) into the official Adventist ‘creed’ (statement of belief), while it was really just an evident ‘repeat-affirmation’ of non-Adventist expressions (like Dr. Spears, in 1892) and was the just a logical summary of what started in 1892, however, this move in 1931 still needed gradual acceptance. So from 1931 to 1942, this new statement, as will be hereafter quoted, having, for the first time, the word, “trinity” in the sense of the “three persons” (or “Trio”) of the “Eternal Godhead”, was allowed to go un-voted for a few years.

Now notice carefully the wording of the 1931 Statement of Belief “No.2”; emphases in brackets supplied:

“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”.

Now dear reader, anyone is free to take issue with any, and all Adventist beliefs, but what no one can dispute is that this is the very same thing Pacific Press affirmed in the Dr. Spear’s pro-Trinitarian tract of 1892 WHILE MRS. WHITE WAS ALIVE!
Now it follows logically that affirmation is almost the same as a direct proclamation. Also, “silence means consent” (our wise grandparents would say), and since Mrs. White did not oppose or take issue with the 1892 tract, or with F.M Wilcox’s 1913 Trinitarian declaration then what are we to make of this? Her consent!
It stands to reason that since Mrs. White never directly defined her own use of the phrase “Eternal Godhead” to mean nothing more than what Waggoner affirmed in 1892, that is, a “trio” or “trinity” (three persons united) in the Godhead, then no honest thinking Adventist could say that this 1931 statement was contrary to what went before.
Also since E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones had set the stage from 1888 by personally declaring Jesus to be, “very God” (divine), and “of one substance”, “of one nature” (or essence) and “of one Spirit” with the Father, then no one can hardly say this was contrary to what went before Mrs. White died.
I am prepared to allow anyone to disagree with me on interpretation of scripture, but cannot find myself respecting someone who has clear *historical facts before him and endeavor to deny them or explain them away in order to deceive. That is what some in Adventism are doing today, and the fruit of their labor will prove itself in the end.
But in closing it must again be acknowledged that, yes, the 1931 Trinitarian statement was not officially voted until later. Yes it just started appearing in the Adventist Yearbook after 1931, but only in fulfillment of a direct General Conference mandate; but unwittingly it served as a stimulus to test the responses and reactions within Adventism. However only those unwilling to be objective enough to see the wisdom in this move (as just described) would feel that this was ‘underhanded’ and ‘demonically designed’ to be surreptitiously ‘passed off’ on the masses of Adventists. But notice now what then took place thereafter. And again I challenge any and all readers to disapprove if they can, the historical facts being presented here, upon which I am prepared to recant or retract publicly my statements as a writer. This writer is prepared, as many of the early pioneers were, to accept that truth is constantly unfolding, and one must be prepared to see truth triumph (at the personal expense of even your pride), and show a humility, low enough and willing enough, to admit that even when you think you knew it more than others, you can still be taught by others, and be prepared to say, “I had it wrong”.

The 1942, And 1950 General Conference Vote to Accept ‘A Trinity’ in Adventist Theology.

In 1942 (on January 14), as the “Minutes” show, the General Conference Committee then voted that, the new “trinity” statements from 1931, which had been appearing in the Yearbook since then (and the Church Manual since 1933), be made available in leaflet from, since by common consent it was agreed to by most, despite it met some, but not widespread resistance.
Then in 1950, as revealed by the General Conference Bulletin of July 23, 1950, page 230, the FULL General Conference body of world representatives officially voted in San Francisco (U.S.A.) that no change be made in the “Fundamental Beliefs” statement which had the word “trinity” to mean the Godhead Trio. This session of 1950 would have afforded the airing of the necessary objections by those opposing, but as is well known, the S.D.A. Church has always respected the DEMOCRATIC principle of ‘majority vote’. Not that truth is to be held hostage to a vote, but unity in doctrine must also subscribe to the organization of the church, else there would be utter confusion among the brethren, as some are “tossed to and fro” by “every wind of doctrine” (see Eph. 4:11-16 and Rom 16:17).

CONCLUSION:

The foregoing facts stand on record, and only when ALL or even MOST facts (here presented) can be discounted or successfully proven false, would this writer see the arguments of the detractors or ‘nay-sayers’ as valid. Today the Adventist Church is ‘Trinitarian’, if even it is so after many years of gradual development before 1931, and not the result of a ‘voted-by-a-few’, ‘overnight’, occurrence. Today the Adventist Church will remain ‘Trinitarian’, even if it is so in an ‘unorthodox’ way (as pointed out by the detractors). Historical events cannot be denied, even if doctrinal matters may be a matter of interpretation and is opposed by some. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Derrick,
Thank you for this well reasoned response to the nay sayers taken as it is from the various documents over such a period of time.

From the moment that the Papacy lost its grip on the minds of men, it was replaced by what is known as the rise of the cults. These people had the baleful tendency to throw out nearly everything believed by Rome, whether sensible or not, and it is from this destructive over-reaction that even today people are willing to seek and destroy without reason.

But the question I pose is this:- What does it matter what Sister White believed, said, did, or not even mention?

Our duty is to find out for ourselves what is truth.

Coming from the Anglican Church and moving into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it was important to me, to discern from the Bible the truthfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity. It took a long time for me to realise that had the Bible specifically taught the doctrine of the Trinity it would have been impossible for it to teach the ultimate truth since the arguments over the Trinity would have clouded the vision.

We do not need to be convinced that Jesus is only one of three persons so much as the solid fact taught in the Bible that, Jesus is God.

It is probably well known that, Christadelphians deny that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. Consider the plight of a young, bright, man who had been taught from his mother's knee that, the Bible never teaches that Jesus is God, when he sought to convince me that spurious idea. I merely asked him to turn to John chapter one, and read the first couple of verses - as if he really meant it.

He could hardly wait to get into it, and I was very proud of him for his effort. He then looked at me for further direction, and I merely asked him to forget whatever he thought I believed, and to put out of his mind anything others had insisted on him believing so that he could just tell me, "What those verses had just told us?"

He stood there stunned. Then began to almost chant, "It says Jesus is God!" When he had repeated it for the fifth time, I stopped him and he then began to say, "There must be some explanation." To which I replied, "Yes, there is." He said, "Thank Goodness, What is it?" I asked him if he was aware that Jesus had asked His disciples who they thought he was?" And Peter had replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." To which Jesus replied, "Blessed art though Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood hath not revealed that to thee, but my Father who is in heaven?" To this he answered "Yes." So I told him "join the Club." "You have just had the same experience.

It is the ministry of God the Holy Spirit on the mind of a devout Bible reader that the truth is revealed, not according to Church Counsels, nor a multitude of book writers. After all, anyone can put something in a book.

How impossible!! There stood a young man who had been fully and faithfully taught from his mothers knee, that the Bible never teaches that, Jesus is God, and that S.D.A.s were wrong, preaching to me that the Bible says that, Jesus is God!!

The Bible's focus is not so much on the Trinity for it testifies to Jesus who is God over all.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

alb · pseudo 7th-day Adventist Joined: 24 Oct 2003 Posts: 7

"and the Word was God."

He was in the form of God then was made in the form of man - 'a little lower than the angels' in which He will always be for all eternity. What sacrifice and what love?!

The quick 'history' of Trinitarianism in Adventism appearing in the late 1890's is not questionable.

The issue to be brought up here is this: Who is one's authority: EGW or Jesus?

For us professed believers in Christ, we must align our beliefs with His beliefs - the "faith of Jesus", in this sense.

Did our Master ever identify, teach, preach and practice that the Creator of heaven and earth, the one God is a Trinity?

Or did our Master identify that the one God, the "LORD thy God" is His God and Father?

If we have to look to a person, we would all do well if we look to Jesus ALONE. Let Him be the Author and Finisher of whatever beliefs or doctrines we hold.

If the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is His God, can do any better?

(The following is a portion of a letter written by Froom to Reuben Figuhr, the then president of the General Conference. This letter gives additional insight into the way some of our pioneersâ€™ writings were attacked by those who made the change, and also shows how strong was the opposition which they had to face when the change was being introduced.)

*****
Dear Brother Figuhr,

.... Perhaps I might give you a little background that would serve as a setting for some of these matters. In the first place, I was called to the General Conference in 1926 to be a junior associate to Elder A. C. Daniells. That, in itself, was enough to damn me for all times with a certain group. These were the men who fought Daniells tooth and nail, and finally got him out of presidential office because there had been conflict between Daniells and B. G. Wilkinson over his sensationalism and over numerous things that need not be put on paper.

Not long after coming to the General Conference I was unfortunately named chairman of a committee to examine and report upon the book that had been privately published, called Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," by B. G. Wilkinson. The committee did conscientious work, and we were unanimous in recommending to the officers that the book was unreliable, could serve no helpful purpose, was based on misinformation, and was totally unsound in its arguments and conclusions. It was in direct conflict with the writings of the Spirit of prophecy and the usages of the Spirit of prophecy in our denominational positions. Dr. B. G. was mightily stirred.

He brought a whole suitcase full of books, which Brother J. S. Washburn carried as his right-hand man, and laid out on the table before him to make an elaborate defence of his position. You see, the book was privately published, without authorization, without any protective reading committee, and was filled with wild statements.

The General Conference Committee and officers heard Dr. Wilkinson and voted to reaffirm their position asking him not to continue the sale of the book. However that was flagrantly flaunted. It continued to be sold as before.

This all stems back to a concept that the book Daniel and Revelation was virtually an inspired volume. It taught the old view of the daily. It taught the Arian view of the Godhead, and therefore denied the eternal pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ. And those who differed were enemies of the faith, subverters of the cause we love, and they felt bound before God to fight it to the utmost. They felt that the Union had been placed geographically to keep the Headquarters from going to perdition and leading the denomination after them.

Professor W. W. Prescott was a particular target because he taught the eternal pre-existence of the deity of Jesus Christ. He also taught the new view of the Daily, as did Daniells. And in their attempt to safeguard the denomination, they entered into these schemes that are perhaps somewhat well-known now.

When the revision of Daniel and Revelation was contemplated, I was named as chairman of the revision committee, but I immediately disqualified myself because I knew it would never do. There was too much prejudice against me because of other relationships, and so Professor Howell was named the chairman. The revision involved the elimination of all the allusions to the Arian view concerning Christ. Elder Detwiler was fearfully upset over this. His blood vessels stood out like whipcords on his neck and his face was red as a beet, and some people feared that he might have an attack of apoplexy. Elder Spicer was pretty warm also because of the charges made and the defences in behalf of the book. This was all in the spring meeting of the committee at the Woodstock Hotel, in New York City. It was there that Brother Spicer made a remark that was regrettable. He said that the book D&R; has done more harm than it had done good. I think that was not really his thought. I think he meant that so far as the deity position on Christ had been a terrible blow to us all through the years. And we have found in recent time that that is one of the chief reasons for placing (us) among the unChristian cults.

When my books began to appearâ€”the Prophetic Faith volumesâ€”there was a terrible furor on the part of this group Uriah Smith was the inventor or discoverer or expositor of all of our wonderful positions on truth. And for me to have the temerity to try to make out that anyone else had held those positions beforehand was blasphemy, Furthermore many of these men had elements of error, and I was repeating error, and the Spirit of prophecy says to never repeat error, when I exposed the fallacies of some of these expositors in the course of these volumes.

I was publicly denounced in the chapel at the Washington Missionary College by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson as the most dangerous man in this denomination. But the real campaign was the covered one, in which J S. Washburn was a front man, and Dr. B. G. was the hidden instigator. There was a never-ending barrage of letters from him, J. H. Wirtz, Claude Holmes, and others that could be named. These attacks were so violent that Elder McElhany and other leaders had to write in no uncertain terms, particularly to Washburn. Even Brother Detwiler warned him that if he didnâ€™t change his spirit, he would lose his own soul. I happen to have a copy of that letter, and I have knowledge of many more of the attempts by certain Columbia men to put Brother Washburn in an institution, and of many of the other features that Mrs. Tewalt touches upon, I have no knowledge and far less interest.

When I asked her if these charges and statements of hers were true, concerning her father and Dr. Wilkinson in their special relationship, she sent me these letters, which I have and which I shall retain. I think about the last thing that Dr. B. G. Wilkinson would want to have would be the public reading before some ecclesiastical tribunal of these letters with their attacks, not only upon me, but upon denominational leaders and institutions and godly men like M. E. Kern and others that could be named. I have not shown these letters to others and do not purpose to do so unless counselled otherwise. I do think that you could have access to letters of a more general character that were sent to your assistant treasurer, Brother Adair. They are on file. I have read some of them, for Brother Adair gave them to me to read.

It is to be remembered that these are the men that were the custodians of the orthodoxy concerning Christ as a created being, not eternal in His pre-existence and deity, and in related matters. The very fact that our relation to the deity of Christ, the completeness of the atonement of the cross, so far as the atoning sacrifice is concerned, our relationship to the transaction with the scapegoat, and particularly the nature of Christ during the incarnation are on every hand the criteria by which we have been adjudged and condemned as heretics and a cult that is not even Christian in its connotation,â€”these facts in contrast and confirmation of the Spirit of prophecy counsels, which are repeated and reiterated, telling us what we should emphasize and the fundamental importance of bearing a true and prominent message thereon,â€”all tie together to show that we are following the way of the Lord in our present attempt to correct these unfortunate misapprehensions. But in so doing, Elder Figuhr, we inevitably run into the last of the die-hards on the other view, who consider that they are the ones who are saving the day and preserving the faith.

It is a sad story, but conflict over these fundamentally variant views, I suppose, is inevitable.

Believe me to be,

Very sincerely in the Masterâ€™s service,

L.E. Froom
*****

This is the actual position of Prescott contrary to Froom's portrayal:

*****
W. W. Prescott 1855-1944

As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh, thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our experience may be the same, the human and the divine being joined in a life union. (W. W. Prescott, April 14, 1896, Review & Herald, page 232)
*****

One can exist in eternity yet still be the only-begotten Son of God, before any and everything was created.

To equate being a non-trinitarian to the denial of the Son of God's pre-human existence in eternity past is unfortunate.

Micah 5:2 is very clear that Christ's origins are from the "days of eternity". This, in no way, precludes His being begotten by the Father.

In the July 9, 1895 R&H; EGW wrote:

"The Eternal Father, the unchangeable One, gave His only begotten Son, tore from His bosom Him Who was made in the express image of His Person and sent Him down to earth to reveal how greatly He loved mankind."

Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895:

"There is but one way of escape for the sinner. There is but one agency whereby he may be cleansed from sin. He must accept the propitiation that has been made by the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. The shed blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

In conclusion, we must submit our beliefs and positions to whatever doctrines and teachings Christ holds. Surrend to the weight of evidence that our Creator, the one God of the all creation is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Listen to what the Spirit, undeniably and clearly our Lord Jesus Christ, what He says -

Rev 3:7-13
Rev 3:7-13
" 7"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; " 8"I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. " 9"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. " 10"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. " 11"Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. " 12"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. " 13"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
*****

errorblaster · pseudo 7th-day Adventist Joined: 29 Jan 2007 Posts: 16

6] Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
"I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:6