SDA Encyclopedia and our Pioneers - HeavenlySanctuary.com

	Forum Index > God, The Bible & Questions > Theology and Methodology
SDA Encyclopedia and our Pioneers

First | Previous | 1 2 | Next | Last

Printable Version

By: teresaq (offline) on January 24 2010 21:36 PM (Read 952 times)

teresaq

Quote by: Keith Gilbertson

The primary problem that the early SDA Church had regarding the trinity had to do with the heresy of Arianism. Some of its members including James White and Uriah Smith believed Christ to have been a created being who, therefore, was not fully God. The following information comes from the SDA Encyclopedia under the heading “Christology.”

Some of the earliest Seventh-day Adventists—for example, James White and Joseph Bates—had formerly been members of the “Christian Connection” (later part of the Congregational Christian Church, now merged into the United Church of Christ), a church that at that time held to a form of the Arian belief concerning Christ’s nature. These people did not deny that Christ was divine, the Creator of heaven and earth, Son of God, Lord, and Saviour; they mostly argued that the terms “Son” and “Father” indicated that the Son had a beginning, even though in the inconceivably remote past. Upon becoming SDAs they retained this belief, which found expression in their writings. But not all Seventh-day Adventists held this view, and it was not an essential part of the SDA doctrine. For nearly a half century, difference of opinion on this point persisted, but open controversy was avoided and the anti-Trinitarian view died a natural death. The two leading anti-Trinitarians, James White and Uriah Smith, changed their opinions considerably. James White, for instance, had at first rejected the “old trinitarian” idea “that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God” (Review and Herald 3:52, Aug. 5, 1852), although he believed in Christ’s divinity (ibid. 4:66, Sept. 8, 1853); he later wrote that SDAs “hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian” position that very little real difference existed (ibid. 48:116, Oct. 12, 1876), and that the Son “was equal with the Father in creation, in the institution of law, and in the government of created intelligences” (ibid. 56:56, July 15, 1880). Uriah Smith, in the first edition of his Thoughts on Revelation (1867, p. 59), called the preexistent Christ “the first created being.” But he soon came more nearly into harmony with his brethren by modifying this statement by the time the first combined edition of Daniel and the Revelation came out (1882), in which he explained (p. 488) that the Only-begotten of God could hardly be “any being created in the ordinary sense of that term.” He later spoke against degrading Christ to a created being (Looking Unto Jesus, [1898], p. 12). Other early Adventist leaders who showed Arian tendencies were J. H. Waggoner, his son, E. J. Waggoner, and W. W. Prescott, who, as late as 1896 (Review and Herald 73:232, Apr. 14, 1896), spoke of Christ as having had two births—one in eternity, and one in the flesh.
Early SDA anti-Trinitarians opposed the Trinitarian concept on the basis that such a belief was contrary to common sense and to NT statements indicating Christ’s subordination to the Father, that it was of pagan origin, and that it depreciated the personality of Christ and the importance of His vicarious death. It was largely through the writings of Ellen White that the Trinitarian view finally prevailed. Although never trained in the intricacies of theology, she carefully avoided, through the years, the pitfalls of the Christological controversies of past generations.
She apparently did not find it necessary to take issue with her close associates on Christology, but she repeatedly asserted Christ’s equality with God, as early as 1869, and increasingly in the 1870s and 1880s (1869: 2T 200; 1875: 3T 566; 1880: 4T 458; and many other statements). She described Christ as “the Majesty of heaven, . . . equal with God” (1883: 1SM 69); “Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father” (1888: GC 459); “of one substance, possessing the same attributes” with the Father (Signs of the Times 20:54, Nov. 27, 1893); “the only-begotten Son of God, who was with the Father from eternal ages” (1895: FE 382); “The Lord God . . . clothed with the habiliments of humanity” (1895: FE 379); “Infinite and omnipotent”; “the eternal, self-existent Son” (Ev 615). In her masterpiece The Desire of Ages (1898) she wrote: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530; also in an article of the year before, Signs of the Times 23:214, Apr. 8, 1897). Later, she said: “He did not cease to be God when He became man. . . . The Godhead was still His own” (1903: Ellen G. White, in SDACom 5:1129). In 1906 she wrote: “Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity,” “a distinct person, yet one with the Father” (Review and Herald 83:8, Apr. 5, 1906).
With reference to the relationship between the two natures, she declared that Christ “did not cease to be God when He became a man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human. . . . The two expressions . . . were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality” (Signs of the Times 25:2, May 10, 1899).
Overemphasis on the deity of Christ is sometimes pressed to the point that it obscures His real and true humanity, with the result that He ceases to be an example of how we in our humanity can, through Him, overcome as He overcame.
“It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity” (DA 49).
“Our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured” (ibid. 117).
Christ was tempted by Satan as we are tempted, but “on not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations” (Ellen G. White, in SDACom 5:1129).
“He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity” (ibid. 5:1128).
He was tempted “like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

humility is not to be confused for an empty vessel. humility does not parade its knowledge but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, never arriving, ever learning.

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +8

Status: offline

Registered: 02/29/08
Posts: 2196

By: teresaq (offline) on January 24 2010 22:49 PM

teresaq

i much prefer to read the pioneers positions myself, which i have, as well as the christian connexion own definition of themselves which was that they came out of other churches, deciding to start from scratch studying the scriptures for themselves and in so doing scrapped both the trinity doctrine and infant baptism among other doctrines they found unbiblical.

the encyclopedia kinda left that out for some reason. in fact

And finding as I did, every minister of the Christian connexion, so far as I could see and hear from them in New England, to have obtained the belief of Christ near, I was not surprised at the unanimous resolutions in your last paper of some thirty of those ministers the other day at Newtown, N. H. in favor of the doctrine, and spreading it abroad. {October 1, 1840 JVHe, HST 101.2}

it also left out ellen whites memories of how those pioneers studied, fasting and praying to know what the truth was, point by point. forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=47009

humility is not to be confused for an empty vessel. humility does not parade its knowledge but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, never arriving, ever learning.

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +8

Status: offline

Registered: 02/29/08
Posts: 2196

By: teresaq (offline) on January 24 2010 23:04 PM

teresaq

what i do not understand is why the "trinity" pushers of the church do not mention these points the pioneers took issue with. (and i mean "pusher" in the same sense as any "pusher" on the street. Frown )

we cant say they didnt "understand" the trinity because they came out of churches that were devout believers in the trinity doctrine. (there have been sdas who tried to tell me that. seems we are quite removed from reality, methinks. )

The Trinity

THE following articles are taken from the Discipline of the M. E. Church: {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.11}
"Art. 1. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons of one substance, power, and eternity;- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.12}
Query. How many personal Gods of one substance does it take, including the person of Christ, to make one God without body or parts? Ans. Three. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.13}

"Art. 4. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God." {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.16}
Query. How can the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son, if it is both the Father and the Son of itself? {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.17}
If it be said that the Spirit of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one Spirit, with this we all agree. But if it be said that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one person, making in all one God without body or parts, with an idea so inconsistent we cannot agree. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.18}
The oneness of Christ with the Father may be plainly seen by any one who will refer to John xvii,22. "That they (that believe) may be one, even as we are one." Who could believe that Christ prayed that his disciples should be one disciple? Yet this would be no more inconsistent than the idea of some that Christ and his Father are one person. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.19}
In accordance with the doctrine that three very and eternal Gods are but one God, how may we reconcile Matt.iii,16,17. Jesus was baptized, Spirit of God descended like a dove, and the Father's voice heard from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, etc. The Father in heaven, the Son on earth, the Spirit of God descending from one to the other. Who could ever suppose for a moment that these three were one person without body or parts, unless it was by early training. See other texts which appear equally absurd, if such doctrine be true. Matt.xxviii,18; Acts x,38. "How God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost," etc. First person takes the third person and anoints the second person with a person being at the same time one with himself. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.20}

That three are one, and one are three,
Is an idea that puzzles me;
By many a learned sage 'tis said
That three are one in the Godhead. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.21}

The Father then may be the Son,
For both together make but one;
The Son may likewise be the Father,
Without the smallest change of either. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.22}

Yea, and the blessed Spirit be
The Father, Son and trinity;
This is the creed of Christian folks,
Who style themselves true orthodox,
All which against plain common sense,
We must believe or give offense."
J. B. F. {March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.23}

"We must believe or give offense." given what i have experienced on these sda boards he got that right!!

humility is not to be confused for an empty vessel. humility does not parade its knowledge but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, never arriving, ever learning.

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +8

Status: offline

Registered: 02/29/08
Posts: 2196

By: Kevin H (offline) on January 25 2010 05:34 AM

Kevin H

But you have to remember that they did not have the knowlege we have in archaeology, history, understanding the difference between Greek Thought and Hebrew Thought that we get to study.

They did well studying what they had availble to them, and we do well studying the evidence they had avalible to them while ignoring what we have avalible to us.

And the fact that the pioneers were somewhat hesatent on this topic instead of boldly proclaiming this with the same furver as the Sabbath. That people like James White was willing to listen to both sides and make comments open to the trinity, and that trinitarians were allowed membership (althought not leadership) is quite telling.

"When we love the world as he [Jesus] has loved it then for us his mission is accomplished; we are fitted for heaven for we have heaven in our hearts" DA 641

Major Poster

Group Comfort
Level:: +10

Status: offline

Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 410
Upstate NY

By: Joe (offline) on January 25 2010 09:15 AM

Joe

The prophetic revelation is darker than the apostolic.

The teaching/scribe/academic revelation is darker than the prophetic.

The darker our revelation, the more intelligent and wise we feel.

Ahimaaz desired to run an tell King David the good news of the victory over Absalom. He could not tell the King the whole story of the death of his son. The old man, Cushi, ran with a heavy heart, but told the complete story.

Consider Jesus, the chief apostle and high priest, of our profession and the 12 he sent out in his name, how they taught, what authority they quoted.

Woe be to us when we consider ourselves wiser than our Lord and his appointed 12 apostles.

We are teachers/messengers. Our academics is much darker in understanding the things of God than even the prophets. It is to our shame that we strive about words, vainly puffed up in our fleshly minds, intruding into things which we have not seen, worshiping angels. The angels desire to understand the symbols that the holy Spirit gave through the prophets. The apostles were given to unfold the prophetic symbols of the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow.

We have turned things upside down with our supposed wisdom of earthly things. God could testify through the very stones. We do not create and control him. He created us and controls us. He sets the bounds of our habitation. We cannot bind him. Those who think they are the judge of God, their house will eventually be swept away in the flood. He will judge us righteously, by the man that he raised from the dead.

Joe

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +6

Status: offline

Registered: 07/29/08
Posts: 1810

By: Cherie (offline) on January 25 2010 12:16 PM

Cherie

Kevin H: But you have to remember that they did not have the knowlege we have in archaeology, history, understanding the difference between Greek Thought and Hebrew Thought that we get to study.

This is a very important point! I am often amazed by people who believe that the only version of the Bible that is worth reading is the KJV, while they deny the evidence of other versions and other archeological finds. If we really want to know God, then we must use all the tools we have--knowledge has been increased to spread the truth about God! Should we go back in time and ignore evidence because we want a warm fuzzy pioneer feeling? I doubt any here are of that mindset but that is what a lot of people do--they focus on the nostalgia of the 1800's and want to live then because they think things were happening back then, but I think things are happening right now and we will see it as long as we are in tune with God and keep our eyes open.

I truly believe that the cleansing of the sanctuary includes God cleansing our minds from Satan's lies. This was a process that was started in 1844 with a group of people who began to study about God and find the truth about so many of Satan's lies--the lies about ever burning hell, the lies about Sunday being the day of rest, the lies about what happens to the dead, the lies about why Jesus had to die. It took years to show EGW about the health message. I think was because there was so much for them to digest and learn and as they shared the truth they found more truth opened up. If God is infinite then we can hardly run out of information about Him. In the same way, I think they began to understand the truth about the Godhead.

God does not ask us to go by blind faith, but by faith based on evidence. Part of that evidence is our relationship with God and part of it is the Bible, and part of is it archeology and historical record. If we have the evidence that He is leading us in our lives then why should we fear being misled by archeology or history?

Cherie

www.myfatherinheavenisperfect.com

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +9

Status: offline

Registered: 11/01/07
Posts: 1763
Oregon Coast

By: teresaq (offline) on January 26 2010 22:28 PM

teresaq

Quote by: Kevin H

im not sure what that has to do with anything. if the seventh day sabbath was truth then, then it is truth now. if the state of the dead were the state of the dead then then it is the same now. the bible does not change.

God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it?--He has said that the dead are to speak. How?--Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced. And in the Signs of the Times let not the articles be long or the print fine. Do not try to crowd everything into one number of the paper. Let the print be good, and let earnest, living experiences be put into the paper. {CW 28.1} {17MR 345.1}

And the fact that the pioneers were somewhat hesatent on this topic instead of boldly proclaiming this with the same furver as the Sabbath.

im sorry, my brother. no matter how many times you say that i have not seen any "hesitancy" at all.

That people like James White was willing to listen to both sides and make comments open to the trinity, and that trinitarians were allowed membership (althought not leadership) is quite telling.

just how many statements are there available to that effect?

he later wrote that SDAs “hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian” position that very little real difference existed (ibid. 48:116, Oct. 12, 1876),

the pioneers had always held the divinity of Christ so that had never been a problem, nor had that ever been the issue with the trinity.

1869 review and herald THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
THIS has been a popular doctrine and regarded as orthodox ever since the bishop of Rome was elevatedto the popedom on the strength of it. It is accounted dangerous heresy to reject it,; but each person is permitted to explain the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must hold it, but each has perfect liberty to take his owu way to reconcile its contradictory propositions ; and hence a multitude of views are held concerning it by its friends, all of them orthodox, I suppose, as long as they nominally assent to the doctrine.
For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached against it. But I probably put as high an estimation on the Lord Jesus Christ as those who call themselves Trinitarians. This is the first time I have ever taken the pen to say anything concerning the doctrine....
But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it.....
Aad when Jesus says, " I and my Father are one," I believe it; ...
If I be asked how l believe the Father and Son are one, I reply, They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. If the "and" in the sentence means anything, the Father and the Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His language is, " that they may be one, even as we are one."

... The Father says to the Son,"Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever." Heb. i. The Son is called "The mighty God." Isa. ix, 6. And when he comes again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, "This is our God." Isa. xxv, 9. .....The Son is "the everlasting Father," not of himself, nor of his Father, but of his children. His language is, "I and the children which God hath given me." IIeb. ii, 33. R. F. COTTRELL.

humility is not to be confused for an empty vessel. humility does not parade its knowledge but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, never arriving, ever learning.

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +8

Status: offline

Registered: 02/29/08
Posts: 2196

By: Keith Gilbertson (offline) on January 27 2010 18:23 PM

Keith Gilbertson

Discussion forums are a very good thing, but in this matter I find it very difficult to use them to attempt to deal with issues that are as complex and multifaceted as the trinity. Many books have been devoted to the subject. The bible can be used to defend zillions of understandings on everything from Protestantism to Pentecostalism. It’s a matter of exegesis and hermeneutics.

One doctrine that is unique to the SDA faith is the great controversy theme (fundamental belief #8). It has to do with Jesus’ revealing the character of God through an infinite sacrifice. One reason that I am a Trinitarian is that it seems to me that it would be impossible to display God’s infinite love without having infinite love, and that one could not have infinite love without being God. Lucifer and one third of the angels of heaven are thought to have doubted God’s love, and through the infinite, eternal gift of joining Himself to the human race, He proved God’s love.

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?

Frequent Contributer

Group Comfort
Level:: +5

Status: offline

Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 106

By: Keith Gilbertson (offline) on January 27 2010 18:25 PM

Keith Gilbertson

Frequent Contributer

Group Comfort
Level:: +5

Status: offline

Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 106

By: teresaq (offline) on January 27 2010 20:12 PM

teresaq

Quote by: Keith Gilbertson

One doctrine that is unique to the SDA faith is the great controversy theme (fundamental belief #8). It has to do with Jesus’ revealing the character of God through an infinite sacrifice. One reason that I am a Trinitarian is that it seems to me that it would be impossible to display God’s infinite love without having infinite love, and that one could not have infinite love without being God.

well that leads me to ask what exactly you believe the pioneers of the sda church were teaching-hate? they werent teaching Christs infinite sacrifice? confused here.

humility is not to be confused for an empty vessel. humility does not parade its knowledge but rather sits at the feet of Jesus, never arriving, ever learning.

Resident

Group Comfort
Level:: +8

Status: offline

Registered: 02/29/08
Posts: 2196