Trinity

Date: Aug 14, 2006

Trinity

Date: Aug 15, 2006

Jesus is God in the flesh.

The doctrine of the "Trinity" as taught in the 19th century, was that the Godhead was some kind of morphing mixture - now Father, now Son, and now Holy Spirit. This was rightly rejected by our SDA forefathers.

However, the doctrine of "Trinity" as normally taught today, is that there are 3 separate beings in the Godhead. This is truth.

Unfortunately, the name "Trinity" has stayed the same, so people get terribly confused about this, and many are leaving the true faith as found in inspired word - that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and that we must baptize new converts in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Date: Aug 16, 2006

webmaster wrote:

However, the doctrine of "Trinity" as normally taught today, is that there are 3 separate beings in the Godhead. This is truth.

Daniel,

Usually people back up there claims of truth with Bible texts... Maybe you haven't decided on which one(s) you would like to post?

I would be curious to know where I could find them...

Date: Aug 16, 2006

Yes Will, your study has certainly borne fruit. So easy to accept the standard church terms and traditions. I never questioned the Trinity (of course I could never explain it either) until I opened the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy to verify these standard church terms: 'God the Father', 'God the Son', 'God the Spirit'. Printed on the church bulletin. Heard every Sabbath. But only the first term 'God the Father' is found in the Bible. 'God the Son' & 'God the Spirit are man-made terms, but they certainly cause much confusion. They misrepresent the Truth. Yes the early SDAs (for the first fifty years - at least) rejected the Trinity, recognizing it as the central doctrine of Roman Catholic faith. In fact they wrote very strongly against it because it speaks directly against the sanctuary doctrine, the central pillar of SDA faith. It confuses the office of Jesus as mediator between God and man. The Trinity vs. Godhead issue may be the critical midterm exam before the final Sabbath test. Perhaps you have seen the DVD presentation 'The Omega of Deadly Heresies' with David Clayton. If not contact me and I will forward you a copy. xxxxxx Gordon

Date: Aug 18, 2006

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

We have been there before Dennis. This anti-trinity doctrine is not from God as it always demotes Jesus Christ to something less than eternal God.

Gordon, edited your email address out.

Date: Aug 19, 2006

Daniel,

So then why does Ellen White have this to say to our young people:

"The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted." {YI, July 7, 1898 par. 2}

Did she forget that the Holy Spirit was this "third being?"

And why did the believers in the book of Acts get baptized only in Jesus' name and not after the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28? Did they forget these supposed words of Jesus?

D.W.

Date: Aug 19, 2006

"If we turn from the testimony of God's Word, because our fathers taught them, we fall under the and accept false doctrines condemnation pronounced upon Babylon; we are drinking of the wine of her abominations." -Great Controversy88 536.3

R.F.COTTRELL

"That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them": But the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has himself implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creation. But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it. This our friend thinks objectionable... "But to hold the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I would now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought... "Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could 'make justice of injustice,' nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference between the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it." Review and Herald, July 6, 1869.

Date: Aug 19, 2006

I would prefer using the term Godhead. I think to accept the word coined by the RC church is to add to confusion and people thinking we accept the RC version.

Go back and read the early stuff that EGW wrote. Like 1858 GC and SG vol. 1-4. I think when you read carefully, you will see how she treats this subject.

Date: Aug 20, 2006

Amen newbie.

Let us not pick and choose among the Bible texts which we wish to believe, and which we wish to disbelieve. Enough evidence is given for all those who wish to follow the truth.

Date: Oct 20, 2006

Dennis,

I'm interested in how you would interpret these texts:

John 14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Date: Oct 21, 2006

Newbie,

I would use another Bible text to flesh out what is being said here:

"I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you"

I believe that the texts being used to qualify that the Holy Spirit is some third person are texts misapplied. The holy spirit is the mind, will, character, habits, ways, power and influence of The Father and the Son. Is this agreeable?

Dennis

Date: Oct 22, 2006

Dennis,

I'm just trying to understand the mindset here.....

When it says comforter, HE, I can see how it applies to the heart and mind of Jesus.

When it says Spirit of Truth does this refer to the Father? or the Holy Spirit? The HE that is used later in the text refers back to Spirit of Truth. So it is crucial to know this information or we might be misapplying. It says that "it -- meaning the world" seeith HIM not. Is the HIM the Father???? or the Holy spirit?

The other "HE"s I can see how they can refer to the Spirit of Jesus or the Father as the comforter.

Thanks for your time....newbie

Date: Oct 25, 2006

Newbie,

You gotta be careful who you reason with and talk to on this. I would like to refer to a text from Ellen White to explain things better:

Ellen White, MSR# 1084 – 7; MS 5a, (1895)

“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally

therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to

His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy

Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent

thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit,

as the Omnipresent.”

I don't like to go into the Greek to explain things it only serves to confuse further. But in some cases it helps to look at the Greek. This text is one of those cases. Have you read this work:

Identifying the Unknown God, By Sherlene Turner?

If not go and download it here:

www.themeofthebible.com

Look on pages 353 onwad and it gives a great explanation of this difficulty. You will never think like a Trinitarian again. And praise the Lord for that!!

D.W.

Date: Dec 17, 2006

The anti-Trinity movement is usually supported by totally sincere, dedicated Adventists who are tired of all of the worldliness in the church and who really do want to go home. Because we are still here, we turn to things that we think must be the cause of God's delay. Thus the issues of "new light" or "rediscovered light" that become the new "test for the end" replacing the Sabbath/Sunday issue.

There are basically four areas that have become controversial in conservative circles (again, this is because Satan knows that he cannot entice most conservatives into jewelry, rock music in church, breaking the Sabbath or other such things): These are: 1) Anti-Trinity; 2) Feast Days; 3) "Sacred Name" theology; and 4) Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. Needless to say, these seem to always become "testing truth" for the remnant and we are told that if we don't go along with these discoveries we are of course going to be lost with those who pass Sunday laws. Just a few quick points regarding that:

1) Why did Ellen White somehow neglect to point any of these "testing truths" out to us, declaring that "Sunday sacredness and the immortality of the soul" were the two "great errors" of Babylon? Strange that she didn't mention the "pagan" teaching of the Trinity.

2) These issues DO accomplish one thing: they divert time and effort away from winning souls for Christ and ONTO having to answer these questions, explaining things that have been explained for decades.

Again, let me say that these are SINCERE, GOD LOVING Adventists who are promoting such things.

The only answer is always that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy were changed, to which I say this could be said of ANY doctrine. Those who promote rock music in the worship service could easily say that her condemnation of such things (describing them as "just before the close of probation" -- you all know the quote) was simply ADDED by the church. We could say this about jewelry or eating pork or even Sunday sacredness if we wanted to. No, God has not gotten sloppy in His watchcare over His word or the S.O.P.

Although the phrase "God the Son" does not exist in the Bible, one has to question the point of those who bring this up. Are they saying that Jesus is NOT God? This is clearly denying the divinity of Christ, to which Ellen White says such ones cannot be reasoned with; they will not accept the evidence regardless of how clear it is. Christ is described as "God" in more than one place, as Daniel has pointed out. Also John 16:13 shows us that the Spirit reveals what He "hears."

Why is it that there is a huge problem accepting three "persons" of the Godhead but not two? As Daniel said, eventually the logic moves over to where there must be only ONE and thus Christ Himself must be relegated to a lower position (which is just fine with Satan who was quite jealous of the Son).

For those who are confused on the issue and just want the truth, I recommend the book "The Trinity" by Pacific Press (available at Orion Publishing or your local ABC):

http://www.orion-publishing.org/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=492

And I recommend Dennis Priebe's examination of this subject at his website, dennispriebe.com. Here is the link to the article (scroll down to get to the "Trinity" subject):

http://www.dennispriebe.com/documents/New%20Light%20For%20Adventists.html

And finally I recommend the following advice from the Pen of Inspiration:

"The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden." {AA 52.1}

Why not just rest in the fact that Christ said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, along with the fact that EGW repeatedly called Him the "Third Person of the Godhead" and "just as much a person as God is a person." To go any deeper than these simple truths is to disregard God's counsel to us in the above statement.

Let's put aside the debates over this issue and move forward as ONE. Hey, if we never use the word "Trinity" again and stick with "Godhead" that's fine. No need to fight for a word. In light of the Papacy and it's teaching on the matter, perhaps we SHOULD stop using "Trinity;" after all, Ellen White never used the word (and it doesn't appear in the Bible).

Beloved, REST in the simple truths that we DO know about the Holy Spirit and go no further. God will bless you beyond what you believe.

Sincerely,

Visitor

Date: Dec 25, 2006

Excellent Visitor, regarding what you wrote on the Trinity. All this bruha over this issue is diverting our energies from spreading the Three Angels' Messages, because that is what Satan hates.

Many of the prophecies in Revelation DO have a future interpretation for their final fulfillment. For example, it is not possible, here in 2006, that the 7 trumpets could have sounded yet, as they do not sound until AFTER the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads. That sealing has not taken place yet, until all people are on two sides - receiving Satan's seal or God's.

Date: Dec 25, 2006

Could it be, even as a longshot, that Satan has so blinded the denominational, doctrinal watchdogs that even with the light blazing in their faces, they still cannot see? Yes I believe that there are good people who defend the trinity even though they keep all the other points of historic SDA doctrine in tact. It is a very sad thing when people like Dennis Priebe go along with the others on this issue. The reason Ellen White did not go into this is because Trinity was rejected at that point and was well exposed as to its origin by both her husband and many other pioneers. Yes it is an interesting point that she calls out TWO great errors being the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, but during the Kellogg controversy, she certainly outlines pantheism and the alpha and omega of deadly heresies, which were neither of those TWO great errors. Why were they called deadly if they werent as GREAT as those TWO? Something to consider also before you think you can call something truth just because "conservative" orthodox SDA's call it such...

D.W.

Date: Dec 25, 2006

*CORRECTION*

Above I stated that MANY pioneers rejected the trinity when it should state that ALL of them did so..

*END CORRECTION*

Date: Dec 29, 2006

Regarding the ongoing discussion on the trinity, I think four points are very interesting:

the Roman Catholic Church states that the doctrine of the trinity is SUPER important to their religion

Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p 11

“The Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic Faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church.”

that the Roman Catholic Church itself accepts that the SDA version of the trinity is 'valid' according to the authority of its theologians.

"By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity, Seventh-Say Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

that in order to be accepted into the World Council of Churches, the only doctrine that any religion must adhere to, is the doctrine of the trinity. It does not appear to matter which version of the trinity (or triune godhead doctrine) that one adheres to. (As you probably know, there are three main version of the doctrine of the trinity as outlined below):

the orthodox trinity - (one divine being who is made up of 3 parts/hypostases- one 'being' made up of 3 parts of a being - called persons, but not in the sense that each part can have independent existence from the other two members of the one being (one god composed of three parts) eg Roman Catholicism

tritheism - (one god who consists of three separate beings - 3 gods - 3 independent beings or persons who think the same way and are therefore 'called' one god); It is the doctrine of the triune godhead which term SDA's appear to be more comfortable using, however the truine god or 'the godhead' is the same doctrine as expressed by the term tritheism.

modalism - (“Jesus only” & Sabellianism) - one god who manifests in three consecutive modes as three different personalities) eg some independent Protestant groups .

The movement seen in current SDA theology is seen to be in unison with the worldwide movement for unity - based on the doctrine of the trinity/triune god/godhead.This is an alarming situation and one spurred me into doing further research into the doctrine of the trinity and into writing a book on the subject of the trinity called "Identifying the Unknown God." (free pdf download available from www.themeofthebible.com)

that in order to be eligible to become a member of the World Council of Churches, a church must express agreement with one of the versions of the trinity doctrine - which means they also accept eucharist fellowship.

The WCC states: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, "so that the world may believe" (John 17:21)

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html

This is serious! I'm not interested in bad-mouthing the church, but facts supported by evidence such as the following, might produce serious consequences.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church claims that it is not officially a full member of the World Council of Churches, but it is accepted as being represented in a personal capacity - as is only one other church - the Roman Catholic Church, as an observer-consultant. However, this arrangement conceals the fact that the SDA General Conference has a voting representative in the WCC in Pastor Bert Beverly Beach.

“BB Beach has been the General Conference representative to the WCC since 1967—the same year that Pope Paul VI appointed its first Vatican representative to the WCC. The SDA General Conference appointed Bert Beach as a voting "personal representative" to this key WCC interfaith Faith and Order Commission, especially set up for the purpose of cooperating with the Vatican II objective of sending representatives to the other churches and to the WCC, but not joining the WCC. http://www.sdadefend.com/assisi.htm

As part of the WCC, the SDA church has represented itself with the other members who worship the trinity – “God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit” and who desire “eucharistic fellowship” with the churches of the world.

Historically, Seventh-day Adventists did not aspire to worship “God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” neither did they originally desire to have “eucharistic fellowship” – which is of course, based on the doctrine of the trinity. However, the religion of the Seventh-day Adventist organisation has changed. I suggest this was because, the organisation changed gods (Jer 2:11) (EG White, October 1903 1 SM 203, 204).

“At the World Council of Churches, the Seventh-day Adventists accept the fundamental articles of the Christian faith as they were created by the three ancient symbols of the Church (apostolic symbols, of Nicaea-Constantinople, of Athanasius). http://www.tagnet.org/qcconf/A/Historical.html

Surprising as it might be for some to see and SDA minister and a Roman Catholic official to write a book together, Dr B.B. Beach (SDA past General Conference president) and Dr. Lukas Vischer – (Faith and Order Secretariat) published the following statement:

“The member churches of the World Council of Churches and Seventh-Day Adventists are in agreement on the fundamental articles of the Christian faith as set forth in the three ancient symbols (Apostolicum, Nicaeno-Constantinopolitum, Athanasium). This agreement finds expression in unqualified acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Two-Natures.” Constitution: World Council of Churches, quoted in So Much in Common, p. 40, 107 (1973). Co-authored by Dr B.B. Beach (SDA past General Conference president) and Dr. Lukas Vischer – Faith and Order Secretariat.

Sadly, the modern SDA church's involvement in the ecumenical movement - based on the doctrine of the trinity - is condemned in its own publication.

SDA Encyclopedia, Volume 10 of the Bible Commentary Reference Series, p 410-411, (section heading ECUMENISM)

"The capstone of the ecumenical effort came with the creation of the World Council of Churches....On the basis of Bible prophecy and the writings of Ellen G. White, SDA's anticipate the eventual success of the ecumenical movement both in eliminating the divisions of Protestantism and in reuniting Christendom by bridging the gulf that separates non-Catholic communions from Rome. The ecumenical movement will then become a concerted effort to unite the world and to secure universal peace and security by enlisting the power of the civil government in a universal religio-political crusade to eliminate all dissent. SDA's envision this crusade as the great apostasy to which John the revelator refers as 'Babylon the great.' They understand, also, that God's last message of mercy to the world prior to the return of Christ in power and glory will consist of a warning against this great apostate movement, and a call to all who choose to remain loyal to Him to leave the churches connected with it."

I have no desire to upset people by presenting evidence that challenges their faith, however challenging times are ahead of us and we have be exhorted by the apostles to examine our faith to see how well it is established. Is our belief in the trinity (also known as the godhead doctrine by SDA's) grounded on 'thus saith the Lord' or on the sands of religious tradition?

I have appreciated reading the discussions on this page. Thanks.

Sherle

www.themeofthebible.com

Date: Dec 29, 2006

Hi, I'm just adding my comments (which are in bold type) between the previous visitor's comments for brevity.
The anti-Trinity movement is usually supported by totally sincere, dedicated Adventists who are tired of all of the worldliness in the church and who really do want to go home. Because we are still here, we turn to things that we think must be the cause of God's delay. Thus the issues of "new light" or "rediscovered light" that become the new "test for the end" replacing the Sabbath/Sunday issue. (Sherle's comment: The Sabbath is a sign of which God we worship and to which God we give our allegiance. The god of the trinity is worshipped on Sunday. The Creator God is worshipped on the seventh-day Sabbath.

From the Douay Catechism (Roman Catholic) p 143, we read:

Q What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general?

A. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honour of the most holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c. and therefore is called the Lord's Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/DouayCat.htm

There are basically four areas that have become controversial in conservative circles (again, this is because Satan knows that he cannot entice most conservatives into jewelry, rock music in church, breaking the Sabbath or other such things): These are: 1) Anti-Trinity; 2) Feast Days; 3) "Sacred Name" theology; and 4) Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. Needless to say, these seem to always become "testing truth" for the remnant and we are told that if we don't go along with these discoveries we are of course going to be lost with those who pass Sunday laws. Just a few quick points regarding that:

1) Why did Ellen White somehow neglect to point any of these "testing truths" out to us, declaring that "Sunday sacredness and the immortality of the soul" were the two "great errors" of Babylon? Strange that she didn't mention the "pagan" teaching of the Trinity. (Sherle's comment: Ellen White, MS 760, p 9,10 - To Build Upon the Foundation “Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” Ellen White wrote voluminous testimonies on the concept of who God is and the dangers of fanciful interpretations, especially in the 1903 period.    It was just at this time that Dr JH Kellogg suddenly converted from being a pantheistic adherent to become a trinitarian. In vision, just prior to his conversion to trinitarianism, Ellen White was shown that evil angels were directing Kellogg. Would evil angels be directing Kellogg into the 'truth' of trinitarianism? I don't think so. The Adventist Pioneer Library has at least 20 sermons and articles that were delivered by early different SDA ministers and lay persons that actively preach against the trinity doctrine and its effects on the doctrine of the One True God. These sermons and many others, just haven't been circulated by the church in recent times, but can be found at the general conference archives if you look for them or on the APL CD).

2) These issues DO accomplish one thing: they divert time and effort away from winning souls for Christ and ONTO having to answer these questions, explaining things that have been explained for decades.

Again, let me say that these are SINCERE, GOD LOVING Adventists who are promoting such things.

The only answer is always that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy were changed, to which I say this could be said of ANY doctrine. (Sherle's comment: The Bible and SOP simply are not understood as they were written and there is NO doubt that these writings have been altered by editors. Ellen White herself states this, so does AT Jones, Le Roy Froom (SDA church historian) and modern day Graeme Bradford, SDA author of Prophets are Human. Furthermore if you compare the original testimonies in old books, with more recent issues, the evidence is overwhelming). Those who promote rock music in the worship service could easily say that her condemnation of such things (describing them as "just before the close of probation" -- you all know the quote) was simply ADDED by the church. We could say this about jewelry or eating pork or even Sunday sacredness if we wanted to. No, God has not gotten sloppy in His watchcare over His word or the S.O.P.

Although the phrase "God the Son" does not exist in the Bible, one has to question the point of those who bring this up. Are they saying that Jesus is NOT God? (Sherle's comment: No! We are saying that 'God' is a term which refers to the nature of a being. A divine being is called 'god' while a different type of being is called angelic. A man is called a human being. Jesus was always divine being - a God-being. Rather than denying the divinity of Christ, the doctrine that God the Father brought forth a divine Son John 3:17, certifies that Christ was indeed as fully as divine as was His Father. Just as a human being brings forth or generates a son who is fully human, so the Father brought forth a Son who was fully divine).   This is clearly denying the divinity of Christ, to which Ellen White says such ones cannot be reasoned with; they will not accept the evidence regardless of how clear it is. Christ is described as "God" in more than one place, as Daniel has pointed out. Also John 16:13 shows us that the Spirit reveals what He "hears."

Why is it that there is a huge problem accepting three "persons" of the Godhead but not two? As Daniel said, eventually the logic moves over to where there must be only ONE and thus Christ Himself must be relegated to a lower position (which is just fine with Satan who was quite jealous of the Son). (Sherle's comment: The Son of God is never designated to a position of lower divinity than the Father. The Son of God Himself stated that the Father is greater than He is but this refers not to His divine nature or attributes, but to His voluntary position of authority. Christ has, according to the 5th commandment, submitted His authority to that of His Father (1 Cor 15: 47, 48). As Dennis stated previously on this board, Ellen White states in Patriarchs and Prophets that Christ was second in authority in heaven and that Lucifer was third highest).

For those who are confused on the issue and just want the truth, I recommend the book "The Trinity" by Pacific Press (available at Orion Publishing or your local ABC):

http://www.orion-publishing.org/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=492

And I recommend Dennis Priebe's examination of this subject at his website, dennispriebe.com. Here is the link to the article (scroll down to get to the "Trinity" subject):

http://www.dennispriebe.com/documents/New%20Light%20For%20Adventists.html

And finally I recommend the following advice from the Pen of Inspiration:

"The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden." {AA 52.1} (Sherle's comment: Ellen White's quote has been changed as it appears in Acts of the Apostles. The original document appears below, but is quite lengthy. I have underlined the sections which have been adjusted by the editors.

This quotation (A.A. 51,52) was originally written in 1891, 19 years after the church’s first denominated principles of faith were published. The letter was a personal rebuke to a Brother Chapman, who was teaching that the Holy Spirit was a separate being other than the Father and Son. Brother Chapman was teaching that the Holy Spirit was the angel Gabriel. A.T. Robinson (Conference President) and the leading brethren at the time believed in the SDA church’s published, denominated principles of faith which declared that the Father, though a personal divine Being, existed with body and spirit (mind). The pioneers recognised that the term “the Holy Spirit” referred to the representative mind/thoughts of Christ Himself communicated by angels i.e. the means by which Divinity was present in all places at all times. The leading brethren taught that the Comforter was the spirit (mind, thoughts) of Christ Himself ministered to humanity through angels. Ellen White was pleading with Brother Chapman to accept this position held by the majority of the leading brethren at that time. In this letter she makes a definitive statement regarding her understanding of the Holy Spirit, calling the Comforter, “the omnipresence of the spirit of Christ.” Unfortunately, the editors who compiled Acts of the Apostles did not include these other statements, which make it clear “Who” the Holy Spirit is.

A full copy of her letter to Brother Chapman follows.

Ellen White, in Petoskey, Michigan, to Brother Chapman on 11 June, 1891.

“I have received yours dated June 3. In this letter you speak in these words: ‘Elder Robinson does not want me to leave, but urges that I enter the canvassing field until such time as the conference can afford to employ me in some other capacity, but states positively that I cannot be sent out to present the truth to others until some points held by me are changed or modified in order that the views regarded by us as a people should be properly set forth.  My idea in reference to the Holy Ghost’s not being the Spirit of God, which is Christ, but the angel Gabriel, and my belief that the 144,000 will be Jews who will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. On all fundamental points I am in perfect harmony with our people; but when I try to show what seems to me to be new light on the truth, those in authority, none of whom have seemingly ever made a personal investigation of the matter, refuse to look into the Bible, but brand me as a fellow with queer ideas of the Bible….’

“Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together Scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct. The expositions by which you sustain your position are not sound. You may lead some to accept your explanations, but you do them no good, nor are they, through accepting your views, enabled to do others good.

It is not essential for you to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, ‘the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in My name.’ ‘I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:16, 17). This refers to the omnipresence of the spirit of Christ, called the Comforter….

"There are many mysteries, which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me and too high for you. On some of these points silence is golden…I hope that you will seek to be in harmony with the body…you make the mistake that many others have made, of thinking that you have new light, when it is only a new phase of error. You need to come into harmony with your brethren.… It is your duty to come as near to the people as you can…. Now, my brother, it is truth that we want and must have, but do not introduce error as new truth.” MR 1107. end quote and comment by Sherle)

Why not just rest in the fact that Christ said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, (Sherle's comment: Did the disciples interpret Christ's words in the way that the doctrine of the trinity is today interpreted? Obviously not, since in no instance in the Bible, did the disciples EVER baptise ANYONE into the trinitarian formula, but ALWAYS into the name of Jesus. Were the disciples being disobedient to Christ's command? Of course not, but they understood His command to mean something very different than that which trinitarians believe today.) along with the fact that EGW repeatedly called Him the "Third Person of the Godhead" and "just as much a person as God is a person." (Sherle's comment: If you want to do a deeper study on the "three persons of the Godhead" statements, please feel free to download Identifying the Unknown God" at www.themeofthebible.com where many of EGW's statements are examined from the original sources and unedited handwriting). To go any deeper than these simple truths is to disregard God's counsel to us in the above statement.

Let's put aside the debates over this issue and move forward as ONE. Hey, if we never use the word "Trinity" again and stick with "Godhead" that's fine. (Sherle's comment: The doctrine of the Godhead, as understood by SDA's is the doctrine of the trithiestic trinity - a doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church has accepted as being a valid version of the trinity.) No need to fight for a word. In light of the Papacy and it's teaching on the matter, perhaps we SHOULD stop using "Trinity;" after all, Ellen White never used the word (and it doesn't appear in the Bible).

Beloved, REST in the simple truths that we DO know about the Holy Spirit and go no further. God will bless you beyond what you believe. (Sherle's comment: Very true, and He has promised to give us His spirit and to lead us into truth. May He remain with you closely too as you study more about this vital subject. Thank you for writing down your thoughts. I have appreciated reading them).

Sincerely,

Visitor

Date: Dec 31, 2006

Hello Sherlene,

Nice to see you posting here now... One thing we can easily get hung up on while considering what is truth on this topic is the issue of diminishing returns and whether or not saying Christ is not the One True God makes Him in any way "lesser" in importance, magnitude, or whatever to us as His created beings. We, given intelligence and reasoning faculties by Jesus, should not think that just because Christ said "My Father is greater than I" He somehow becomes a "lesser God" <---Trinitarian reasoning... This has never been the claim of anyone reasoning against trinity from a scriptural basis in my experience.

There is also a tendency for non-trinitarians to become discouraged because discussing their truth with the easy, popular side brings quickly diminishing returns. Each time the topic is brought up, and the views are brought into the forefront, the easy side takes great pains to bring the non-t views into disrepute, in order to justify the easy, popular side's easy, popular theology.

...Yes, the non-trinitarian thought will never be easy, nor popular, thus the law of diminishing returns is demonstrated in the human struggle against error. So few will get on the ark... The final struggle against error, will reveal the evil one who has so long cloaked himself in angel robes and has sheltered himself with the opinions of popular historic philosophers and bootstrap rulers, megalomaniacs and worldly wise-men. God's true people will not take sides with Babylon on important topics like: WHO HE IS AND HOW HE RESIDES...

D.W.

Date: Jan 7, 2007

Visitor wrote:

The anti-Trinity movement is usually supported by totally sincere, dedicated
Adventists who are tired of all of the worldliness in the church and who really
do want to go home. Because we are still here, we turn to things that we
think must be the cause of God's delay. Thus the issues of "new light" or
"rediscovered light" that become the new "test for the end" replacing the
Sabbath/Sunday issue.

I have met and heard of people who support various versions of the anit-trinitarian movement who are not as you would describe them... (ie: sincere, dedicated, Adventists) So don't make the assumption that all anti-trinitarians want to see historic Adventism restored to its former glory... And there are reasons for God's delay and if you believe there arent, you must not either read or comprehend the SOP on this issue. It has never been my, or the others I tend to associate with online, goal to direct attention away from the Sabbath/Sunday issue. It is certainly one if not THE greatest reason people are to be called out of babylon. But if investigation of the trinitarian issue is discouraged because of the Sabbath/Sunday issue, then it is not the spirit of Christ at work, who guides us into ALL truth.

Visitor wrote:

There are basically four areas that have become controversial in conservative
circles (again, this is because Satan knows that he cannot entice most
conservatives into jewelry, rock music in church, breaking the Sabbath or other
such things): These are: 1) Anti-Trinity; 2) Feast Days; 3) "Sacred Name"
theology; and 4) Futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. Needless to
say, these seem to always become "testing truth" for the remnant and we are told
that if we don't go along with these discoveries we are of course going to be
lost with those who pass Sunday laws. Just a few quick points regarding
that:

Firstly, I feel you are making a grave mistake in taking a liberal/conservative side in determining what truth is. Truth and error do not make a distinction whether to attach themselves to these, why should we make the mistake of the ages in doing such? Secondly, I must caution you on your attitude about what Satan does and does not know. I fear that we are presumptuous when we do such. Thirdly, temptation to sin does not distinguish between conservative and liberal either, so, saying that there are only four areas of controversy is like saying there are only four ants in the insect population.

And lastly and most important of all, the very fact that you class the trinity with the issues of: feast days, sacred name theology and futurism, reveals that you don't really care about it or havent considered it deeply enough. If you think the trinity is NOT a testing truth, just try to oppose trinitarians for a time and you will see whether or not this is an unnecessary distraction from the Sabbath/Sunday issue. But in the end the question still remains, whether you oppose trinity or not, what do the scriptures testify of the Father and the Son, and their spirit? And, like Pilate, we must ask, "What is Truth?" And this must be done before arriving at any false conclusion as to what constitutes the truth reality we assemble before us. In this case it could be that we fall on the side of trinity, which destroys the Father/Son relationship and in turn "crucifies the Son of God afresh." You don't want to do this... Now which is worse, going from being a Sabbath worshipper to Sunday, or doing as Pilate did, acknowledge truth, but treat the giver of truth shamefully, and hand Him over to infidels to do what he did not have the courage to do? both are unjust...

Visitor wrote:

1) Why did Ellen White somehow neglect to point any of these "testing truths"
out to us, declaring that "Sunday sacredness and the immortality of the soul"
were the two "great errors" of Babylon? Strange that she didn't mention
the "pagan" teaching of the Trinity.

Sherle did a wonderful job of meeting these crude assumptions previously.

Visitor wrote:

2) These issues DO accomplish one thing: they divert time and effort away
from winning souls for Christ and ONTO having to answer these questions,
explaining things that have been explained for decades.

Again, let me say that these are SINCERE, GOD LOVING Adventists who are
promoting such things.

Well... We might need to know who Christ is before we go out expending our time and effort to win souls to Him don't you agree?

Visitor wrote:

The only answer is always that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy were
changed, to which I say this could be said of ANY doctrine. Those who
promote rock music in the worship service could easily say that her condemnation
of such things (describing them as "just before the close of probation" --
you all know the quote) was simply ADDED by the church. We could say this
about jewelry or eating pork or even Sunday sacredness if we wanted to.
No, God has not gotten sloppy in His watchcare over His word or the S.O.P.

But here again our zeal for defnending the "watchcare" of God over His Word and the S.O.P. has seemingly erased any need to investigate what is the truth in the matter. And until this is overcome, can we be classed anything except hypocrites (ie: rejecting the unscriptural Sunday but loving the unscriptural Athanasian creed) and unbelievers? I think not.

Visitor wrote:

Although the phrase "God the Son" does not exist in the Bible, one has to
question the point of those who bring this up. Are they saying that Jesus
is NOT God? This is clearly denying the divinity of Christ, to which Ellen
White says such ones cannot be reasoned with; they will not accept the evidence
regardless of how clear it is. Christ is described as "God" in more than
one place, as Daniel has pointed out. Also John 16:13 shows us that the
Spirit reveals what He "hears."

It is an honest concern wouldnt you say? If God the Son does not appear in the Bible, and Trinity does not appear in the Bible nor the SOP, then what right do we have asserting these teachings? And just because a person advocates contrary to these misleading and error laiden tems does not mean that they reject Christ's birthright.

Visitor wrote:

Why is it that there is a huge problem accepting three "persons" of the
Godhead but not two? As Daniel said, eventually the logic moves over to
where there must be only ONE and thus Christ Himself must be relegated to a
lower position (which is just fine with Satan who was quite jealous of the
Son).

Well, do the scriptures say there is only but One God? If the scriptures said that God is a Trinity, would there be any controversy to the contrary? I hope your logic affords you this much?

Visitor wrote:

For those who are confused on the issue and just want the truth, I recommend
the book "The Trinity" by Pacific Press (available at Orion Publishing or your
local ABC):

So do all other SDA trinitarians... No surprise to me...

D.W.

Date: Jan 8, 2007

D.W. Do you believe Jesus Christ is God?

Date: Jan 8, 2007

Daniel,

Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

D.W.

Date: Jan 9, 2007

Mrs. White said that there are some things that we just haven't been given clear light on and that if we delve into them too deep it will just separate us rather than uniting us. She said that some things are better just left alone for now until God reveals more on the subject. The mystery of the Holy spirit of God and the incarnation of Jesus are certainly two of these subjects.

Date: Jan 9, 2007

Newbie,

Jesus' divinity and His sonship are not mysteries...

Date: Jan 11, 2007

Yes, but how it all happened is a mystery.

Date: Jan 11, 2007

So...

If I am understanding you correctly, the fact that there is mystery affords us the opportunity to promote and enforce a doctrine that claims there are three different gods and not one, which is unscriptural?

o.k.

Date: Jan 11, 2007

Answer the question please, D.W.

Date: Jan 12, 2007

?You can't answer mine? Why not?

D.W.

Date: Jan 14, 2007

No D.W. that does not make it okay to go and do something without the evidence. I do believe that the people that did these things did so with what they thought was scriptural evidence.

Read Story of Redemption chapter 1 carefully both parts. I think that explains things as far as I will go.