The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Questions and conversation about religious beliefs, Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Creation 7th Day Adventism
David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby David Aguilar » August 26th, 2012, 12:29 pm

Introduction: The Trinity in Adventism

One of the most controverted doctrines within Adventism, even within the mainstream Church, involves the view of the Godhead with respect to labels and titles. Specifically, the question has been asked, in various ways over the years, “Is the Trinity a Biblical doctrine?”

The mainstream Adventist Church, in its modern manifestation, is overwhelmingly Trinitarian in its approach to the Godhead, going so far as to include it in its list of Fundamental Doctrines, which it generally uses as a creed in determining “orthodoxy” with regard to the Adventist movement. Independent ministries, offshoots and break-away groups have been less uniform in their approach. Freed from the obligatory constraints of a common baptismal vow, they have taken the opportunity to re-examine what had become the “traditional” view in Adventism, and many have come to the conclusion that the term “Trinity,” and the concept it represents, falls significantly short of capturing what the Bible reveals about the Godhead.

Creation Seventh Day Adventists, for example, have rejected the label “Trinity” as appropriate for referencing our Father, His Son, and their Holy Spirit. Some Adventist authors will say that there is a distinction between the Roman Catholic view of the Trinity (which most Adventists will see as reason enough to reject it out of hand) and the Adventist view. However, the distinctions are poorly defined, vary from author-to-author, and ultimately come across as an attempt to be seen as in harmony with a very popular Christian doctrine, while at the same time avoiding the stigma of adopting a “Roman Catholic” belief.

One of the factors that tends to stifle dialogue about the nature of the Godhead in this generation, particularly with regard to mainstream Adventists, is that most modern members of the mainstream Church are not even aware that there is another view than they have accepted. As far as they know, the SDA Church has always been Trinitarian, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd, if not outright heretical. The idea that the founding members of the Adventist Church were uniformly anti-Trinitarian is often greeted with incredulity, and the evidence that may be presented to them (for which much exists) is viewed with suspicion.

This is clearly not a healthy environment for discussion.

To their credit, the mainstream Adventist Church has begun to admit that their adoption of the Trinity doctrine (or some Adventist-modified version of it) is a relatively recent event. In the January 6th edition of The Adventist Review from 1994, it was stated, “The Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists. Even today, a few do not subscribe to it.” Other publications have come forward, providing specific information, including the formal adoption of the view in the 1930s-1940s, well after the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White had ended.

A number of articles on the CSDA website, including the following, address a number of issues related to the Trinity. The first is a Biblical examination of the doctrine and concept:

Where Two or Three Are Gathered

The second is a “survey” article, compiling the statements of Adventist pioneers, including the statements of Ellen G. White herself that make the argument that she accepted such an idea during her lifetime all but impossible to reasonably entertain:

Adventist Pioneers on The Trinity Doctrine

The Progressive Approach

Educated Adventists, who are aware of the history of the Trinity doctrine within the mainstream Church, but who agree with it themselves, (or are unwilling to part ways with the tradition) have developed an approach to the problem that attempts to deal with the facts comprehensively.

They will admit that the early Adventists were non-, or even anti-, Trinitarian. They will admit that Ellen White’s body of work never once utilized the term, nor did she at any point endorse its promotion. Some of them will even acknowledge that her statements about the “third person of the Godhead” are not definitive in light of her own use of the terms “person” and “personality,” and her positive statements that the Holy Spirit was equated with Christ, the Son, who “could not be in every place personally,” and therefore sent His Spirit “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.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page 23, paragraph 3]

What these individuals will say is that the revelation of the truth of the Trinity was a progressive one. They will say that, for all their sincerity, the Adventist pioneers, and Ellen White, were tasked specifically with developing the Three Angels Message, that unique form of the Gospel appropriate for the generation awaiting the return of Christ. As a result of this, they were not corrected by the Almighty in all things, and the “details” of the Godhead’s tri-une nature were left to later generations for formal acceptance. They will point out, and rightly, that “Ellen White didn’t know everything,” and that even though she was inspired, her counsels on health and other matters were influenced – necessarily – by the knowledge of her day, and that rather than destroying her reputation as a prophet, it instead emphasizes her humanity.

Creation Seventh Day Adventists are generally favorable to the basic concepts of the above statements. We teach, in fact, that one must read the Spirit of Prophecy writings for principle over specifics. Ellen White herself once wrote that, “Regarding the testimonies, [i.e., her writings] nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered.” [Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 57]

On the other hand, understanding that revelation IS progressive, and that we ARE responsible for more light now than were our pioneers, does not give modern scholars and theologians free reign to reinterpret and restructure doctrines according to the spiritual norms of the day. Indeed, we are to look critically at any proposed changes to doctrines, and to examine whether or not any such changes are truly the leading of the Almighty, or merely a shift in the opinions and sentiments of the constituency. This is the essence of what it means to be a fundamental, conservative, Adventist.

The above is not a minor point. The “majority rules” approach to the development of Church doctrine is one that does not have a positive history in the records of the Sacred Scriptures. When twelve spies were sent into Canaan, ten returned with a false report – and only two spoke in faith. When Israel encamped around Sinai, all the people fell into apostasy, but two (Moses and Joshua) kept themselves from the general defilement. When Judah fell into complacency within its Babylonian (and then Persian) captivity, two voices (those of Haggai and Zechariah) encouraged them to step forward in faith and rebuild the Temple of Yahweh. There seems to be a pattern of as few as “two witnesses” warning against danger, while the majority is easily led along the path of disobedience and error.

So, what shall we say in regard to the gradual acceptance, and then formal adoption, of the Trinity doctrine by the mainstream Adventist Church? Perhaps it would be useful to perform a bit of an experiment.

With the growth of the Internet, and the availability of information like never before, it may be a reasonable challenge to pinpoint the moment when the voice of inspiration, and the activity of the Holy Spirit, led to a collective shift in the Adventist consciousness toward acceptance of the Trinity. If we could do that, we might be able to make an argument for the Spirit-led, progressive advancement of this doctrine. I would submit, however, that no such event or specific incident can be found. Instead, what we see is a gradual absorption of the sentiments present within Sunday-keeping, Evangelical Christianity by the Adventist Church, of which being favorable toward the Trinity doctrine was but one element. Rather than making worldly, nominal Churches more like the faithful Advent movement, (Sabbath-keeping, diet-reforming, prophecy-believing, advent-awaiting, etc.) contact has unquestionably drawn the mainstream Adventist Church further away from its distinctive positions on these things, toward which it was once “true as steel to principle.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Seventeen, p. 298] Nowadays it is well-nigh indistinguishable from the world in many of its worldwide congregations.

The fact that the gradual acceptance of the Trinity paradigm within Adventism was eventually given a voice by one or two of the leading men, leading to the codification of the belief, reveals more about the reaction of the leaders to the people than it does about anything resembling Biblical leadership akin to that of Moses, Joshua or the Apostles.

The scholars who support the adoption of the Trinity doctrine would have us believe that, while the general spirituality of Adventism has been steadily downward, our understanding of the Godhead has improved, to the point that we can now admit “the majority of Christians had it right, or nearly-right, all along.” This appears to fly in the face of how advancing light actually works. But, for the record, and so that we may be sure we are properly viewing this matter, let us look at genuine examples of progressive revelation in the Bible, and see how the claim of modern Adventist authors, including such well-known SDA figures as the late Samuele Bacchiocci (who actively supported the “progressive revelation” view) holds up to the template.

Example 1: Judeo-Christian Justice

The concept of “justice” for a worshipper of Yahweh has certainly undergone a transition over time. The first act of wrongdoing by human beings (the eating of the fruit by Adam and Eve) resulted in exile from the Garden of Eden. The first murderer, Cain, was likewise punished with banishment from the human settlement. Both of these were administered directly by Yahweh, but when the responsibility for the punishment of crime was passed on to humanity in the Covanant made with Noah, the instruction from the Creator was “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” (Gen 9:6)

By the time of Moses, this principle was expanded into a general approach to justice, which may be summarized by the idea that “the punishment must fit the crime.” Specifically, we have the famous verses, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Exo 21:24, 25) A number of other verses, such as Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21, serve to emphasize this idea further.

Under the New Covenant, we have the teaching of the Messiah, who said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” (Matthew 5:38:42)

For the reasons relevant to the Old Testament society, the Almighty allowed justice to take a very direct and immediate form. We might mention here the doctrine of the “manslayer” described in Numbers 35, which provides for those who have killed another in a “legitimate” quest for revenge.

But Christ describes an approach to justice that is merciful and patient. It is not, contrary to a common understanding of Matthew 5, that Christ is contradicting Moses. The penalties for murder, stealing, etc., are exactly the same under both Covenants… but much of the execution of these penalties has been removed from the human instrument, and revenge in particular has been restored to the direct judgment of Yahweh. (Romans 12:19)

In other words, under Christ’s teaching the distinction between “justice” (which is the legitimate punishment of criminals and the protection of society from their misdeeds) and “revenge” (which is a personal and emotional reaction to having been wronged) is further developed. Yahweh’s perfect will for the approach of His children to being abused is made more explicit, while at the same time no previous teaching is cast aside.

Example 2: The Ministry of The Messiah

Speaking of Christ’s teachings, the ministry of the Savior is knowledge that was revealed to mankind over a period of thousands of years. The first mention of a “Son” who would overcome Satan was given, somewhat symbolically, right at the introduction of sin into the human consciousness. “And Yahweh Elohim said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.’” (Gen 3:14, 15)

Nothing was said about how this would be accomplished, and later prophets spoke of the Savior as a Conqueror in such places as, “Behold, the day of Yahweh cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

“Then shall Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” (Zech 14:1-4)

That there is an interesting switch from “I” to “He” in Zechariah’s prophetic utterances reveals that this is the Father (I) speaking of the Son (He) as the one who stands on the Mount of Olives in power and judgment. Over the generations that followed, the oppressed and persecuted Hebrews took comfort in the knowledge that one day the Almighty would send a Chosen One, who would destroy the “nations against Jerusalem,” and restore them to peace and safety.

Unfortunately, they did not factor in all the information that has been provided, nor did the Scriptures specifically tie the figure of the Conqueror to that of the Sacrifice which was revealed in such passages as Isaiah 15 and, interestingly, in the chapter of Zechariah directly preceding the one quoted above, which mentions the wounded hands of the Redeemer, and the sword that would awake against the faithful Shepherd.

When Daniel saw that the Messiah would be “cut off, but not for Himself,” (Dan 9:26) he was greatly troubled, and he was told that he would not be able to understand everything his vision revealed. That was specifically intended for those in the “time of the end,” and “a time appointed.” (Dan 11:35)

There was little indication that the Messiah would have more than one distinct period of operation upon the earth. First, He would appear as the “suffering Servant,” and then, after offering Himself as a sacrifice of Humanity, would return as the Conquering King. It was not until the earthly ministry of Christ Himself, during this first phase of this grand work that He explicitly said to His followers, “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28) He was not, as in the case above, contradicting the prophets that spoke of Him as a Conqueror, but rather He was explaining that, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) It was only after His death and resurrection that the promise would be fulfilled, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:26)

This was most certainly “new light,” so new that many – who were unwilling to surrender their traditions – rejected it. But some believed, even those in so desperate a situation as the thief who was crucified alongside Him. (Luke 23:39-43)

The Nature of The Covenant

For a final example of progressive revelation, we may point to the nature of the covenant between Yahweh and mankind. The understanding that His people have had of this divinely-inspired institution has certainly changed over the years.

By the time of Christ, it was the opinion that there was something particularly blessed about the bloodline of Abraham, particularly through his grandson Jacob. While others could certainly be saved by becoming a proselyte, a Gentile convert to Judaism, it was nevertheless on the merits of Abraham’s friendship with the Almighty that such individuals were incidentally included among the Chosen People.

This idea was so ingrained in the Jewish believers, even those who accepted Yahshua as the Messiah, that years after His ascension to Heaven there were disputes about what, exactly, constituted inclusion in the Covenant.

Some said that the Gentiles needed to adopt all the Jewish practices of the day. Others said that they needed to keep the ceremonial Law. Still others said that they needed to be circumcised, for this was THE sign of entrance into the Abrahamic arrangement. (Gen 17:10) It was “new light” indeed when Paul, a convert from Judaism, wrote to the Gentile believers, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” (Eph 2:11-13, emphases added)

This is so clear, so pure, so wonderful… it is the Blood of Christ that makes us members of “Israel,” not the agreement with Abraham, nor the outward signs of our acceptance of that agreement. “In time past,” as it is written, such distinctions as “Gentile” and “Israel” were significant; but Christ, by His death, has broken down that barrier between Jew and Gentile, and provided that One Way, that One Covenant, for atonement with the Father. And yet, amazingly, some who claim to be Christ’s people still do not accept this! Some claim that there is yet another “Israel” to arise in the future, separate from the Church, and consisting of those with Abraham’s blood to at least some degree.

And yet, “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29)

While this is a significantly different topic, it is sufficient to note that revelation continues to be progressive, and that the People of Yah will always have a work to do to teach that revelation to others.

The Way of The Spirit

It is clear that, in all the cases mentioned above, the progress of the light, and the guidance of the Spirit, has been ever-upward. Doctrines and teachings have become ever clearer with the passing of each faithful generation. As we come to know the character of our Father and His Son more clearly, “we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2Cor 3:18)

The way of the Spirit is “glory to glory,” not “glory, to error, to glory.” The path is ever upward, and this serves to show the faithful student of the Scriptures clearly when there is apostasy involved in the way that doctrines are changed. All we need to is look for genuine contradictions.

A number of movements have arisen in recent years claiming to bring to bear the argument of “progressive revelation” to elevate Christianity to a new level of light and understanding. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i.e., the Mormon Church) claims that revelations from Joseph Smith are “corrective” of the Bible, which they view as corrupted, incomplete and flawed. Likewise, the Baha’i faith seeks to incorporate many figures which they identify as prophets (including Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed) into one consistent flow of increasing knowledge of God.

The problem with both of these movements, as with all similar approaches, is that there are genuine contradictions involved, which set at naught the clear declarations and teachings that the Father has given to His people in the past. Without getting into specifics, in order to accept either of the two sets of doctrines provided by the groups mentioned above, one would have to read certain passages of the Bible and conclude, “This is not true, nor was it ever really true.”

That last part is the real problem; some practices may be acceptable for the believer for a time (such as polygamy, or animal sacrifices) but statements of what a thing IS, doctrinal statements revealing truths about our Father and His relationship to mankind, these are not subject to alteration at any point, for they are statements about the One who says of Himself, “I am Yahweh, I change not.” (Mal 3:6)

The Trinity doctrine is not a practice. It is an approach to describing the very Godhead, the very nature of the Everlasting Creator. If it is true now, this means it was always true. If it was false a hundred years ago, that means it is still false today.

Some may say, “The Sabbath was lost, due to the influence of Papal Rome, but Adventists and other groups were raised up to restore it.” That is very true. Some may say, “You Creation Seventh Day Adventists respect the annual Feast days, and keep the New Moons. Adventists don’t do that, so you believe you have restored something that was lost.” Again, that is very true. Practices may go into decline due to the apostasy of the people to whom those practices were entrusted. The concepts we are discussing here do not, in the slightest, invalidate the need at times for revival and reform within the Bride of Christ.

It may even be that we can think of some examples where knowledge was lost for a time. The belief in the soon return of Christ is not a practice, and yet it was strongly believed in the early days of the Church, generally suppressed during the “Dark Ages” of Romish influence, and restored by the Millerites in the 1800s. A legitimate case can be made that, at times, light can be suppressed by apostasy, and then restored at a later date.

The problem is, this argument cannot be applied to the doctrine of the Trinity by any who consider themselves to be faithful and consistent Adventists.

It is true that progressive revelation can suffer setbacks. It is quite true that the Father may present light to human beings, only to have it rejected for a time. But the reason for this rejection, the reason for this setback, is universally revealed to be due to unbelief, apostasy and rebellion. In any example that can possibly be cited, obstruction of the Spirit’s guidance was due to political or other worldly influences upon the would-be messengers of the Gospel, and therefore new reformers needed to be called in order to finish the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) before the return of the Master for a faithful and purified people… a people purified by the truth. (1Peter 1:22)

So, why is the argument of progressive revelation barred to faithful Adventists, who wish to make the claim that this is the mechanism by which the Trinity came to be accepted as a fundamental doctrine? It is because a faithful, consistent Adventist beliefs that the Pioneers, who founded and advanced the early movement, were Spirit-led, Bible-believing, honest-hearted citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The argument that the Trinity was not “given” to the Pioneers is not consistent with the facts of the early Advent movement. Those who came under the influence of William Miller, and his teachings about the soon return of Christ are the ones who eventually formed the primitive Seventh-day Adventist Church, and they came from such backgrounds as the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, and so on. They were Sunday-keeping Protestants, who had fully accepted the Trinitarian doctrine that was never discarded from Roman Catholicism.

Being aware of the Trinity, they could not be said to have been in ignorance of the teaching. Therefore, those who make the argument that progressive revelation is a legitimate vehicle by which Trinitarianism was introduced to the Adventist doctrines must accept the idea that the Pioneers of our faith, while being directly led by the Spirit, while praying day and night for revelation, while expecting the soon return of our Lord, deliberately rejected a true statement about the nature and personality of the Almighty, which was once said by Ellen White to be “everything to us as a people.” [Letter 300, emphasis added]

Simply put, progressive revelation does not work that way. There is no example in Biblical history, or any record of the Christian faith thereafter, which reveals faithful reformers, Bible-believing workers of the Gospel message, actively rejecting and denouncing a true doctrine, only for it to be restored by a later generation. The work of the Spirit, when it is leading a people, is ever upward, as the Scriptures themselves establish. Had any such thing begun to occur, the voice of the Spirit would be clearly heard by the pen of inspiration, either through Ellen White or some other faithful witness, as had so many (far lesser!) matters been corrected.

For the one who makes the Bible the foundation of his or her faith, the fact that the Spirit is revealed to be of a significantly different nature than the Father and Son is sufficient to reject, forever, the paradigm of a “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-une God.” As stated above, some will insist that the “Adventist Trinity” and the “Roman Catholic Trinity” have distinctions that render one true and the other false… and yet none of these distinctions, certainly not the key characteristics of these entities themselves, are found in the words of the Bible. The article given at the beginning of this document addresses the specifics of this assertion from a Biblical perspective.

Yet though the Bible is the foundation, there is much to be said about legitimate, Bible-inspired teachings, particularly from those coming out of the Adventist tradition. There is much light that can be gleaned by the study of good Biblical commentary, as long as one is careful and consistent in the approach.

From the perspective of the Adventist Christian, it is far too much of a contradiction to accept the idea that our pioneers, our forefathers in the faith, could be so wrong – and in such a unique way that the Bible gives no precedent for it – in rejecting a fundamentally true doctrine about such an all-important matter as the nature of the Creator. It is neither logical, nor reasonable to accept such an idea. The suggestion here is not that any human being, including the founders of Seventh-day Adventism, are infallible, or could not err. The suggestion is that such an error, of such a type, and to such a gross extent, is forbidden by the promises given to faithful Christians.

Our Father has told us, with no conditions or limitations, “But if from thence thou shalt seek Yahweh thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” (Deu 4:29)

Such promises form the very foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith. The personality of the Father and Son is nothing less than the saving truth about Themselves. (John 17:3) Anyone who has read the history of the Adventist Church must concede that these faithful brothers were dedicated seekers after the light of truth. Thus it would be, beyond merely irrational, an actual rejection of the principles of such promises to entertain the idea that the Spirit concealed such an important truth, one of which they were already fully aware, from those who had accepted these precious promises. Progressive revelation simply does not work that way, and has never worked that way. Therefore, it cannot be raised as a factor in the defense of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Let us forever put aside that argument, and the doctrine accepted as a result of it, that we may move forward into an ever-more-perfect understanding of Him whom we worship, and Him unto whom we are ever approaching in character through the miracle of the Holy Spirit.

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby Lucan » August 27th, 2012, 1:50 pm

Another revealing quote from an official Adventist publication is the following:

"Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. For Joseph Bates the Trinity was an unscriptural doctrine, for James White it was that "old Trinitarian absurdity," and for M. E. Cornell it was a fruit of the great apostasy, along with such false doctrines as Sunday-keeping and the immortality of the soul.

In like manner, most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would have trouble with fundamental belief number 4, which holds that Jesus is both eternal and truly God. For J. N. Andrews "the Son of God ... had God for His Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days." And E. J. Waggoner, of Minneapolis 1888 fame, penned in 1890 that "there was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God,... but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning."

Neither could most of the leading Adventists have agreed with fundamental belief number 5, which implies the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Uriah Smith, for example, not only was anti-Trinitarian and semi-Arian, like so many of his colleagues, but also like them pictured the Holy Spirit as "that divine, mysterious emanation through which They [the Father and the Son] carry forward their great and infinite work." On another occasion, Smith pictured the Holy Spirit as a "divine influence" and not a "person like the Father and the Son."" [George R. Knight, Ministry, October 1993]
- Lucan Chartier

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby JamesPrest » July 27th, 2013, 8:31 pm

These are honest questions. I'm wondering how CSDA's answers these statements from Ellen White:

#1: "In describing to His disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired His own heart. He rejoiced because of the abundant help He had provided for His church. The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church." {Desire of Ages, 671.2}

#2: "The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." {SpTA10 37.1}

The two above statements make it clear that the Holy Spirit is the "Third person of the Godhead." These statements are very plain that the Holy Spirit is a person, and is one of the three (3) that make up the Godhead.

The reason I find that little is mentioned in the Scriptures concerning the Holy Spirit is this:

"It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, 'the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.' It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, 'He shall not speak of Himself.' John 15:26; 16:13.
"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." {Acts of the Apostles, 51.3-52.1}

When it comes to Christ leaving His disciples on earth, promising to send them the Comforter, and then saying, "I will come to you." I understand it in light of this statement.

"The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high." {Desire of Ages, 669.2}

In other words, Jesus Christ is human, and will remain "the Son of man" throughout all eternity. "God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature." {DA 25.3} In becoming human, confined to flesh and blood, Christ lost His omnipresence. However, through the omnipresence of the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, Christ "would be accessible to all." Thus, in leaving the disciples, He wasn't to remain separate from them entirely. By means of the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit, He would be present with His disciples. Thus why the New Testament interlinks Christ and the Holy Spirit virtually inseparably, for without the Holy Spirit, Jesus cannot be with His disciples, for Christ is in the temple in heaven, confined so to speak, to flesh and blood, yet unconfined, by means of the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit.

Again, these are honest questions. I want to know how the CSDA's understand these statements that so specifically point out that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead.

Here is another statement that I would like answered. The question is obvious.

"We are to realize that if we work the works of Christ, we shall not unite with the world. The Holy Spirit will give us a clear, distinct message to the world. If we will come into close relation to Christ, we shall have a part to act in carrying forward the work of present truth for this time. We are to cooperate with the three highest powers in heaven,-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,--and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God. But when a man goes forth in human sufficiency, then the enemy comes in and inspires him, and he knows not what manner of spirit he is of. The Lord saw this, and instructed me that at the General Conference held in Oakland, I should hold no conversation with you." {SpTB07 51.1}

I have more statements and questions, but this should do for now. I look forward to comments. Thanks!

P.S. Just for sake of time, I wanted to address a statement in Patriarchs and Prophets. I talked to a non-Trinitarian before, and she quoted this in defense of her position:

"Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, "son of the morning," was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled." {Patriarchs and Prophets, 35.1}

Her point was that Lucifer, not the Holy Spirit, was next to Christ in honor, power, and glory among heaven's inhabitants. Thus, in her mind, the Father held the highest place, the Son held the 2nd highest place, and Lucifer (not a third person of the Godhead called the Holy Spirit) held the 3rd place.

I have no problem saying that Lucifer was next to Christ in honor, power, and glory. This is simply what the statement says. However, to my understanding, the claim that this lady was presenting would only prove true if we assume that the Father is the highest authority and that the Son is the second highest authority. Most Adventists who believe in a three person Godhead, would have the tendency to think that the Holy Spirit was the third highest authority, but I don't find thus. All three of them are God, and all three of them play different roles in the work of redemption.

"Of the Spirit Jesus said, 'He shall glorify Me.' The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of His love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing His grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people." {Desire of Ages, 671.3}

Christ's mission to the world was to glorify the Father by demonstrating His love. In the same way, the Holy Spirit was to glorify Christ. Question: Whose job was it to glorify the Holy Spirit?

Thus, in my understanding, the reason that we have come to believe that the Father is the highest in honor, power, and glory, is because Christ came to glorify Him. The reason that we have come to believe that the Son is the 2nd highest in honer, power, and glory, is because the Holy Spirit's mission was to glorify Him. The reason that most Adventist's would come to believe that the Holy Spirit would be the 3rd highest in honer, power, and glory, is because He is the least talked about. No one came to glorify Him. I personally believe and find that all three persons of the Godhead hold equal authority, and that if any of them has the first place, it is Christ, for thus said our Lord, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18. True, this power may have been given to Him after Lucifer fell, yet still, Christ shared the throne with the Father before the Fall and His position never changed. The only thing was that a public declaration of Christ's already established position had been made:

"The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--'ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands' (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love.

"The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son. But again he was filled with pride in his own glory. His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged. The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as God's special gift, and therefore, called forth no gratitude to his Creator. He gloried in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. 'Why,' questioned this mighty angel, 'should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?'" {Patriarchs and Prophets, 36.2, 3}

"There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions." {Patriarchs and Prophets, 38.1}

I only wanted to address this because I thought it might come up. Thanks again.
Last edited by JamesPrest on July 28th, 2013, 7:50 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby Lucan » July 27th, 2013, 9:26 pm

Hi James,

Thanks for the questions. :) Taking the quotes in order:

Desire of Ages, 671.2 wrote:"In describing to His disciples the office work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with the joy and hope that inspired His own heart. He rejoiced because of the abundant help He had provided for His church. The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people. The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of men to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church."


SpTA10 37.1 wrote:"The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit."


There are certainly other quotes as well that use this same language. While there have been some minor changes in the grammar (Manuscript Releases, for example, do not generally capitalize the word "person" in reference to the Spirit), I don't believe you will find a CSDA publication saying that "the Holy Spirit is not a person." What we do say is that the Holy Spirit is not a person in the same sense that the Father and the Son are. This is what Mrs. White's son Willie had to say about the matter when asked:

Willie White to H.W. Carr, April 30, 1935 wrote:"The statements and the arguments of some of our ministers in their effort to prove that the Holy Spirit was an individual as are God, the Father and Christ, the eternal Son, have perplexed me and sometimes they have made me sad. One popular teacher said "We may regard Him, (The Holy Spirit) as the fellow who is down here running things."

My perplexities were lessened a little when I learned from the dictionary that one of meanings of “personality” was “characteristics”. It is stated in such a way that I concluded that there might be personality without bodily form, which is possessed, by the Father and the Son.

There are many Scriptures which speak of the Father and the Son and the absence of Scripture making similar reference to the united work of the Father and the Holy Spirit or Christ and the Holy Spirit, has led me to believe that the spirit without individuality was the representative of the Father and the Son throughout the universe, and it was through the Holy Spirit that they dwell in our hearts and make us one with the Father and with the Son."


The difficulty with the word "person," as with the word "trinity," is that it means multiple things to multiple people; some of which are accurate, some of which are not. The Holy Spirit is a person in that it brings the person of the Father and the Son to us; it is the means by which they dwell in us. It is, essentially, their "personality," the person of the Father and the Son. For example, Mrs. White says the following:

14MR 23 wrote:"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."


This is in accordance with the Scriptures, which say that "The Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty." (1 Cor. 3:17)

You wrote the following:

AA 51-52 wrote:"It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, 'the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.' It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, 'He shall not speak of Himself.' John 15:26; 16:13.

"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."


This is where we find ourselves. We can describe the essential concept of the Spirit; the means by which the Father and Son share their presence and character with the universe. We know that it is "their Spirit," that it is Christ Himself separate from His humanity, that it is the means by which we are brought into unity with them and with each other. But as to "what it is," that is a mystery we cannot attempt to penetrate. Attempting to attribute the same qualities to the Spirit as we do to the Father and the Son is, by my reading of this passage, a folly. Yet, it is one that Trinitarianism makes on a regular basis.

While we cannot say exactly what the Spirit is, we can certainly say what it is not - it is not, for example, a "being." What does Mrs. White say?

PP 34 wrote:"The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate—a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God."


Note that Christ was the "only being" that could enter into the counsels of the Father. Where is the Spirit in this scenario? How is the Spirit able to reveal the counsels of God to us if it cannot enter into them? She continues:

PP 35 wrote:"There was one who perverted the freedom that God had granted to His creatures. Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, “son of the morning,” was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled. He stood in the presence of the great Creator, and the ceaseless beams of glory enshrouding the eternal God rested upon him."


"Next in honor to God's Son" is a phrase she uses of Lucifer in multiple sources. Signs of the Times, Jan. 9, 1879 has an entire article that is a very valuable read; she writes of the scene wherein the Father bestowed especial favor on the Son before the throngs of heavenly angels. It shows the Son seated next to the Father; the Father demonstrating His authority to ordain the Son; Lucifer as the one next to Christ in rank. The Spirit is conspicuously absent from this narrative for which all of heaven was gathered. The Scriptures also show this "Heavenly hierarchy":

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God." (1 Cor. 11:3)

The Spirit is nowhere indicated as a being or entity unto itself, and is unmentioned in the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations. Certainly, it is one of the "highest powers in heaven;" certainly, it is one of the "three persons of the Godhead" if "person" is used and understood properly. It is the very character and presence of the Father and Son, their "power," their personality. What it is not is a being, an intelligence, a sentience unto itself. This is why it does not "speak of itself." This is why it does not have a name, why it is sent and withdrawn by the Father and Son, why it is prayed for but never prayed to, why it is incapable of forgiveness, why it does not have a throne, and why Mrs. White and the Scriptures both list "Father, then Son, then created being" rather than "Father, then Son, then Spirit, then created being."

Essentially, everyone has a spirit. We say of one another, "that man has a fiery spirit," or "that woman has a strong spirit." The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father and Son the same as your spirit is the spirit of James. Because they are holy, their spirit is holy. How and why they are able to send and withdraw their spirit to others is a mechanism we may never understand; we simply know that this shared Spirit is how the Father and Son can be described as being "one," how we are "one" with them, and how we are "one" with one another. Says the prophet:

5BC 1148 wrote:"Christ is one with the Father, but Christ and God are two distinct personages. Read the prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of John, and you will find this point clearly brought out. How earnestly the Saviour prayed that His disciples might be one with Him as He is one with the Father. But the unity that is to exist between Christ and His followers does not destroy the personality of either. They are to be one with Him as He is one with the Father.

[John 17:20-23 quoted.] What a wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. In mind, in purpose, in character, they are one, but not in person. By partaking of the Spirit of God, conforming to the law of God, man becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ brings His disciples into a living union with Himself and with the Father. Through the working of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind, man is made complete in Christ Jesus. Unity with Christ establishes a bond of unity with one another. This unity is the most convincing proof to the world of the majesty and virtue of Christ, and of His power to take away sin."


I trust this answers your questions; if you have more, please don't hesitate to ask and one of us will get back to you as soon as possible.
- Lucan Chartier

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby JamesPrest » July 28th, 2013, 7:28 am

It was an afterthought of mine that the issue of Satan being "next in honor" to Christ might come up, so I added my understanding of that passage in a P.S. at the end of my original comment, which I probably added after you read the unedited version. Anyways... that is my explanation to that passage.

You quoted this:

“Christ is one with the Father, but Christ and God are two distinct personages. Read the prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of John, and you will find this point clearly brought out. How earnestly the Saviour prayed that His disciples might be one with Him as He is one with the Father. But the unity that is to exist between Christ and His followers does not destroy the personality of either. They are to be one with Him as He is one with the Father” (Review and Herald, June 1, 1905). {5BC 1148.2}

So, Christ and God are two distinct personages, with two distinct personalities. The Holy Spirit, “who is a person just as much as God is a person,” also has a personality:

“We have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.--Ms 66, 1899, p. 4. {Manuscript Releases, Volume 7, 299.2}

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man, which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.’--Ms 20, 1906.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 69.1}

But the Holy Spirit does not merely have a personality, but a “distinct” personality that is separate from Christ’s.

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 324.2}

From the statements that I have put forth in my comments, I find that there are 3 persons that make up the Godhead, each of these are distinct and separate persons with distinct and separate personalities. If I understand correctly, the CSDA does not quite agree. The clarification and answers that I would need are obvious.

Thanks!

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby JamesPrest » July 28th, 2013, 9:33 am

You posed a few questions that could be consider as fair and that I think should be addressed.

You said:

“The Spirit is nowhere indicated as a being or entity unto itself, and is unmentioned in the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations.”

This statement indicates otherwise:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 324.2}

You said:

“It is the very character and presence of the Father and Son, their ‘power,’ their personality.

This statement indicates otherwise:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 324.2}

You said:

“What it is not is a being, an intelligence, a sentience unto itself. This is why it does not ‘speak of itself.’”

I find this an assumption until I see written evidence for it. The reason that it does not speak of itself, so far as I see, is because of this:

"Of the Spirit Jesus said, 'He shall glorify Me.' The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of His love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing His grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people." {Desire of Ages, 671.3}

If the Son glorifies the Father, the and Spirit glorifies the Son, then the purpose of the Spirit is not to speak of himself, but of Christ.

You said:

“This is why it does not have a name, why it is sent and withdrawn by the Father and Son, why it is prayed for but never prayed to, why it is incapable of forgiveness, why it does not have a throne, and why Mrs. White and the Scriptures both list ‘Father, then Son, then created being’ rather than ‘Father, then Son, then Spirit, then created being.’”

This is a lot of points, but I desire to address them.

First off, the whole basis for all of these statements is that the Holy Spirit is not its own entity. That basis doesn’t stand up to this now oft repeated quote:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 324.2}

So the whole premise for these statements doesn’t stand, so far as I am able to see.

With the whole foundation for these statements being removed, none of them really stand up.

“This is why it does not have a name”

Is this speculation or is it written? It may not have a name, merely because no one ever named it. Maybe it does have a name, but we were just never told it. Maybe it never mentioned its name, because it “shall not speak of himself” through the prophetic pen.

“This is… why it is sent and withdrawn by the Father and Son”

Is this speculation, or is it written? A separate entity can be sent and withdrawn by the Father and the Son. To say that the reason that the Holy Spirit is sent and withdrawn by the Father and Son is because it is not a separate entity, doesn’t bear weight, because a separate entity can do this. The claim would only hold weight if a separate entity could not be sent and withdrawn by the Father and the Son and only an unseparate entity could.

“This is…why it is prayed for but never prayed to”

Is this speculation, or is it written? We are technically not supposed to pray to Jesus either, but to the Father in the name of Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus isn’t His own distinct and separate entity? Of course not.

“This is… why it is incapable of forgiveness”

Again, when the premise for the statement is removed, there is no longer a foundation for the statement. Here is a link to why I understand that it is "incapable of forgiveness" (I put that phrase in quotation marks because the Bible never says that the Holy Spirit is incapable of forgiveness, but rather that the individual is incapable of receiving forgiveness): http://answersforadventists.wordpress.c ... nable-sin/

“This is… why it does not have a throne”

Maybe it does have a throne, and maybe it doesn’t, but there isn’t much place to use the lack of mention of an extra seat to say the Holy Spirit isn’t its own entity. Maybe it just has no form and doesn’t need a seat? Maybe its distinct personality just doesn't want its own throne.

“This is… why Mrs. White and the Scriptures both list ‘Father, then Son, then created being’ rather than ‘Father, then Son, then Spirit, then created being.’”

To this, I would quote this statement and those other ones that I have that indicate three persons that make up the Godhead.

“The work is laid out before every soul that has acknowledged his faith in Jesus Christ by baptism, and has become a receiver of the pledge from the three persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” {6BC 1074.9}

I could just as easily question, “Why is it not two persons and an angel?”

I wanted to mention this because I don’t see it as being fair to say that a lack of information concerning the Holy Spirit must be because it is not its own entity. I’ve seen many people quote from the Bible, establishing what the Bible does say, and then use what the Bible didn’t say in that text, to prove anything they want.

Here is an example of a common one that is used against the Sabbath:

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:25.

The claim made is this: “You see, according to the Bible, it doesn’t matter which day we rest on.”

The secret to this trick is that they first established what the Bible says, and then used what the Bible didn’t say to prove whatever they wanted. So they used nothing at all as supposed evidence for the idea that it doesn’t matter which day we worship on. All the verse says is that different people esteem things differently (well that’s true) and that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own mind (that’s true too). This type of trick is the most convincing when the thing that they are establishing as fact closely resembles the topic of the Bible verse that is used. You can pull anything out of what the Bible doesn’t say, and promote that anything as evidence for anything. For instance, the Bible doesn’t say that Pontius Pilate’s underwear wasn’t blue, therefore it was blue. Using the same argument we could say that the Bible doesn’t say that Pontius Pilate’s underwear wasn’t blue, therefore it was red (or green, or purple).

The main problem here is that the foundation for the “evidence” to support their claim is based off of what the Bible does not say, what is not written. It is not based off of what the Bible actually says and what is written. This is the problem.

The Bible does not give a name for the Holy Spirit. To conclude, then, that the Holy Spirit has no name, is to make a conclusion based off of what the Bible does not say, what is not written. This is not making the foundation of one's faith "what is written," but, "what is written, and what is not written." Following this line of reasoning, many people come to unscriptural conclusions. Unscriptural, merely because they are not supported by what the Scriptures say, but by what they do not say.

Let me state another one of your claims backwards, just to help see if it doesn't appear rather odd when actually investigated.

'We are not to pray the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not its own entity.'

Lets amplify this a bit.

"Prayer is the opening of the heart to God as to a friend." Steps to Christ

"My father says that I shouldn't talk to my friend, therefore my friend is not not his own entity."

This is where I have a lot of difficulty with how people come to conclusions. Things seem great on the surface, but under close examination, things aren't very convincing.

I look forward to your thoughts. Please do not take any of this as coming from me in any derogatory sort of way. I am just as critical of my own works and writings. Blessings!

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby David Aguilar » July 28th, 2013, 5:27 pm

Hello James,

As you rightly said, that is a lot of statements to cover in a single post. Nevertheless, I consider it an important one, as the character of our Father is a central issue to us as His people. So central is it, in fact, that we would say that the "Revelation" of the Father and Son is of paramount importance to the most foundational aspects of our faith. We therefore believe that whatsoever the Father and Son have revealed are what is important for our understanding.

A key passage with regard to this matter is this verse: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) As it is revealed in this prayer of the Messiah, everlasting life comes from a knowledge of the Father and Son. Likewise, it is the Father and Son that dwell in the heart of the convert. (John 14:23) Of course, the Holy Spirit is the means by which this indwelling takes place, but the Scriptures themselves place a difference between the nature of the Father and Son (those who dwell within) and the Holy Spirit (the means by which this dwelling takes place). Thus, right from the Scriptures, there is a difference. The Ones to know are the Father and His only begotten Son. Their Holy Spirit is the manner by which this is accomplished. This does not rule out terms such as "personality" being applied to that Spirit, but as Bro. Luke pointed out, that word itself does not mean it is a distinct entity unto itself, and separate from the Divine Father and Son.

As Christ said, He "proceeded forth" and came from God, (John 8:42) while the Holy Spirit "proceedeth" from the Father (John 15:26) indicating a continuous action. The Son, being a wholly separate entity, "proceeded forth" from the Father in eternity; that is a completed action, resulting in two: the proceeder and the source. The Spirit continuously comes forth from the Father, according to John 15, which again indicates an essential difference between the Son and the Spirit with regard to the Father. None of these are assumptions, and these Scriptures do line up with how Willie White understood his mother's use of the term "person/personality."

I think that you have taken the position that one Scripture or quotation from Ellen White may be used to cancel or reduce the impact of another. For example:

[quoting Luke] “The Spirit is nowhere indicated as a being or entity unto itself, and is unmentioned in the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations.”

This statement indicates otherwise:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it a habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” {Manuscript Releases, Volume 20, 324.2}


That statement does not indicate otherwise. It does not address the Beings at the headship of Heaven at all, nor does it utilize the terms that Bro. Luke did. It merely points out the difference in the way "distinct personality," "being" and "entity" are being used. As Bro. Luke (and the rest of us) uses the term, an independent entity is a complete, self-sufficient being. The Holy Spirit is in no place understood in this sense. The fact that the word "Spirit" is used to indicate an entity by Bible students is actually an artificial structure placed on what the term "spirit" means, and of all people, Adventists know that a spirit is the living essence of an individual, not an independent living individual. Bro. Luke quoted a statement from Ellen White that sums up our understanding of this perfectly, that while the Spirit is a distinct personality in the sense that it may operate independently of the Person of Christ, and necessarily so with regard to its function, it is nevertheless not independent of Him (or the Father) the way that the Father and Son are independent of one another. The Spirit of Prophecy indicates that in Christ is "life unborrowed," while the Holy Spirit, as it is written, is in a continuous state of proceeding forth from the Almighty. This cannot mean anything but a continuous dependence on a Source, and that is not a distinction that can legitimately and honestly be ignored. The Holy Spirit is, in relation to Christ, "Himself," without the encumbrances of humanity. By definition, this is NOT a separate being if it is Christ "Himself," with "self" indicating the individual Person in question.

In fact, you take a statement that Bro. Luke has made (such as the listing of the Heavenly Hierarchy) and you say, "It cannot be this way, because [quote]." This is not how we practice our faith. Our understanding is that all inspired Scripture is true. We do, of course, submit Ellen White's writings to the greater authority of the Word (as I do several times even in this post) but I do not say that one thing is not true (e.g., the hierarchy as listed IS true) because another quote says something that you have read differently. We are to understand them as being in harmony, not contrary one to another. If Heaven was headed by the Father, then the Son, then the greatest of created beings, we accept this, and see the Holy Spirit (as a distinct personality, indeed) as NOT a being listed as being a ruler of the Heavenly realms. Here we have a consistent picture, which takes every quote into account (and I deal with a couple of the others you mentioned below).

The Bible relates the Holy Spirit to God in the same way that it relates our spirits to ourselves. (1Cor 2:11) Paul draws a parallel there, indicating that because our spirit is "in us" and of us, it knows what we think. This does not make our spirits a separate being, even though it may be spoken of in that way (as if it were another person to "know" my thoughts). Similarly, the Holy Spirit knows the things of God because it is "in" Him, and there is no Scriptural statement that gives us any understanding other than this. Ultimately, we have chosen to approach Ellen White's statements on this matter from the foundation of the Bible, rather than the other way around.

You say that you are not seeking to approach this in an derogatory way, nevertheless I think your initial skepticism may make that difficult; for example, you refer to the manner of exposition here as a "trick," while what Bro. Luke did was actually legitimate use of Biblical statements. You merely misunderstood his purpose, as I will explain shortly.

In one place you state, "the Bible never says that the Holy Spirit is incapable of forgiveness, but rather that the individual is incapable of receiving forgiveness." Actually, the Bible does indicate this. While it does not use the term "incapable" specifically - because, after all, the Holy Spirit is capable of whatever the Father is capable of, being HIS Holy Spirit, it states clearly that "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men," (Mat 12:31) and in the next verse, "it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." It does not say anything about men being capable of receiving this forgiveness; in fact, by mentioning "the world to come," where probation would be closed, the issue of reception would be a moot point anyway. But again, the point that this raises is that there IS a functional difference between the Father and Son (who forgive sin) and the Holy Spirit (which does not). If one blasphemes the means by which forgiveness reaches mankind, he cuts off the means for it even to be offered. Thus, it is not that God (the Persons of the Father and Son) is unwilling to forgive, but that there is simply no mechanism (the active presence of their Holy Spirit) to do so. It is the difference that is the point, not the capability.

You write: "The main problem here is that the foundation for the “evidence” to support their claim is based off of what the Bible does not say, what is not written. It is not based off of what the Bible actually says and what is written. This is the problem."

But if you would apply that to the traditional interpretation of the Godhead itself, you would be saying what WE are saying. Where did idea that the Holy Spirit was a third, co-equal, co-eternal person of the Godhead come from? It was not from the Bible. As Bro. Luke pointed out, it is not called God. It is not prayed to. It does not speak absent an agent. It is, in fact, called an "it," when the Father and Son are never referred to by this pronoun. As I said earlier, you seem to have misunderstood Bro. Luke's statements of these things as "proof" that the Spirit is not a person. Rather, they are pointing out that by their lack, no foundation can be found for the assertion that the Spirit IS a "person" - in the 2013 sense, as we use it, not the 1890s sense from which your quotations have been drawn. And even then, those quotes were explained as we explain it today by Mrs. White's own son, even "back then." Those quotations are no evidence in favor of the traditional Trinitarian view, even if they were to be held up to the same standard as Bible quotes (which, of course, we don't do).

This issue of doctrinal origins and the necessary burden of proof is a subtle point, and many miss it, but our pioneers in the faith understood it just this way: If we discard years and years of man-made tradition, and go with the Bible only with regard to what the Spirit is, we do not arrive at the traditional Trinity doctrine. In fact, the Trinity doctrine was not finalized at the Council of Nicea as most history books recorded. It was first forced upon various bishops at that council, many of whom returned to the Biblical view afterwards. It was only at later convenings, under the threat of punishment, that the majority of individuals signed on to it. Adventists once knew these things. Of course, the use of force to establish a doctrine (as shameful as that is) does not prove or disprove it; but the fact that the bishops of the then-faithful Church had received no such understanding from the Scriptures, just as early Adventists did not, ought to give pause to your view of "how people come to conclusions."

Ultimately, assumptions are going to be made with regard to what the Bible does not say. You have stated your own, which is (admittedly) in the majority of Christendom. You state:

>>From the statements that I have put forth in my comments, I find that there are 3 persons that make up the Godhead, each of these are distinct and separate persons with distinct and separate personalities. If I understand correctly, the CSDA does not quite agree. The clarification and answers that I would need are obvious.

We find nothing in the Bible to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person, therefore we have not made that assumption. We have found that, based on statements of Ellen White, it (being an "it") has a personality that enables it to act independently of Christ, who is forever encumbered with the limitations of humanity. This, however, only indicates its connection to the Father, from whom it proceeds forth, not that it is a separate person from the Ones that we are to know as a matter of everlasting life. This is also the reason why it is said in the Manuscript Release, "that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper." If you only take that one phrase, "is as much a person as God is a person," then it would seem as if there would be grounds for applying this to the traditional view. Yet, as she continues she says, "that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper," which is only repeating what the Scriptures have already told us. That by saying "another" Comforter would come to the disciples, (John 14:16) He is actually indicating (as He concludes), "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

It is Christ that is the Comforter. By His Holy Spirit, He would "represent Himself" (not another) to us, even though He is physically performing His duties in the Most Holy Place. Again, this is not an assumption. In conjunction with what Bro. Luke said with regard to Christ being the "only Being" that could enter into the counsels of the Father, which doesn't leave much room for interpretation or error, the Bible itself tells us something far more direct. It is written, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1Tim 2:5) The word "mediator" indicates precisely the role that the Holy Spirit plays; yet because "Christ Jesus" is indeed a "man" in the sense of His limitations, the Spirit is provided (from the Father) to allow this mediation to occur for all men at all times. This identifies the Son as the Comforter, as "that Spirit" and as that Person that is represented - not personified independently - through the Omnipresent. Thus, any reading of Ellen White must be understood in light of these Biblical passages, with no real interpretation, merely the simplest possible reading of the text.

This is how the early Christians understood it (knowing the Father and Son - John 17:3 - and knowing OF the Holy Spirit, that "there be" one - Acts 19:2). This is how the early Adventists understood it (as various early SDA publications dramatically indicate). This is how we understand it - not merely because of tradition, but because the arguments made by these forerunners in the faith are Biblically sound, and agree with what God has told us of Himself through all available avenues, from the Word, to the continuing spirit of prophecy.

How this works, of course, is a mystery. THAT it works this way is merely what has been revealed.

There is one other thing I wish to indicate about this doctrine. While CSDAs do hold to the (I would call it "traditional Adventist") view of the Godhead, considering it to be improperly represented by the Trinity paradigm, we have among ourselves agreed that the Bible does allow for individual interpretations. The Trinity issue is not, actually, a "test of fellowship" among us. As long as we agree on all that the Bible itself actually says, and do not believe anything contrary to the Word of God, then our individual views are considered to be between ourselves and our Father. We do, collectively, seem to agree with the position that Bro. Luke and I have set forth - we do not have any members now (or ever, if I recall) who were fully Trinitarian. Nevertheless, this is not something over which we would necessarily forbid baptism, which goes to a question you asked in an earlier communication with regard to whether or not an individual would be censured for teaching something contrary to the common position of the Church. If it is not contrary to a Biblical foundation, individual members are free to believe and teach as they will. After all, if something can only be supported from the Spirit of Prophecy writings (or, in this case, only apparently so to some people) we can hardly teach it as a foundational "Christian doctrine." All such will come directly from the Scriptures and, as I indicate in the initial post of this thread, "progressive revelation" does not go back-and-forth with regard to what truth is.

I have presented here our reasoning for our current position, and it does come up fairly often in our studies, but it is rarely something we "argue" with those who differ from us. Those who "know" the Father and Son will cease to commit sin. That is the proof of their knowledge, to a far more significant degree than how they are able to express their understanding of Their existence.

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby JamesPrest » July 28th, 2013, 6:46 pm

Some small clarifications

I believe that the Scriptures are all in harmony, but I do not honestly see that certain interpretations of Scripture are in harmony with the actual Scriptures themselves. When I state something, I am stating my honest view of the thing and why that is my honest view. I make my claim, and give my evidence, just as brother Luke did, and just as you have done. I’m not meaning, in any way, to state it to mean that one part of inspiration trumps the rest, nor that I am the definer of truth for another man. I am merely seeking to state my honest opinion and why. I apologize if what I have said did not come across that way. I’m certainly not infallible. I am an honest seeker for truth expressing the views that I have and why.

I do not hold Ellen White’s writings above the Bible, just as I do not hold Jeremiah’s, Zechariah’s, or John’s writings above the Bible. One true prophet can never trump the rest, nor can the rest trump the one, for “the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets.” While I do not place Ellen White’s writings above the Bible, I do hold her as a prophet, equal in authority and accuracy to the other prophets. With those who accept Ellen White as a prophet, I generally quote to them from Ellen White because they will not hear me if I quote the Bible. They tell me that it’s my interpretation of Old English, or that the Hebrew and/or Greek translation is flawed, or any number of things of this nature on any number of different topics and doctrines. Thus, I quote Ellen White to those that accept her as a prophet, one, because modern English doesn’t really need an interpreter (Old English doesn’t either, but it’s more difficult for some). It speaks very plainly. And two, because then I can bypass the translation objection.

When I quoted Luke (“The Spirit is nowhere indicated as a being or entity unto itself, and is unmentioned in the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations.”) I was referring to the part about the Spirit nowhere being indicated as an “entity of itself.” I showed why I cannot, as yet, honestly agree with this position because Ellen White says:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality.” {20MR 324.2}

I wasn’t meaning to address the part of his statement that referred to the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations. I apologize. I should have been more clear.

When it comes to whether or not the Holy Spirit is a “being” or not, I never addressed it, nor intended to. Can a Spirit be a being? I don’t know, and so I figured I would leave that alone.

You said the following which I wanted to address:

“You say that you are not seeking to approach this in an derogatory way, nevertheless I think your initial skepticism may make that difficult; for example, you refer to the manner of exposition here as a ‘trick,’ while what Bro. Luke did was actually legitimate Biblical opposition.”

Whether or not my “skepticism” makes it difficult, my motive and intention was not meant in a derogatory way. Luke has been bought and paid for by my Saviour’s blood, and as Christ dwells in me, He does not seek to abuse the purchase of his death. I wanted to make this clarification for all practical purposes. Thus I said that I wasn’t meaning to be derogatory towards brother Luke. The reason that I do not agree with the non-Trinitarian view, is because of my honest conclusions that I came to which I have expressed above.

When it comes to the matter of the unpardonable sin, I recommend clicking on the link and reading the short article that I wrote.

If you do not believe that the Holy Spirit has anything that makes it distinct of itself, my honest question to you is how then do you explain the second sentence in this statement:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality.” {20MR 324.2}

I do not quote this in the way that would mean or indicate that Ellen White’s works trump the Bible, but in the way that makes her a prophet just as much as Jeremiah or John. She doesn’t trump the inspired writings, but her works do make up part of the inspired writings. Do they not? To let the writings of John trump Ellen White’s, would be wrong just as much as letting Ellen White’s writings trump John’s. Ellen White was a lesser light, but she was still a light, and light and truth will never contradict themselves.

As for whether or not the proper understanding of the Holy Spirit is a salvational issue, I recently wrote the article (not too long) linked after the end of this paragraph. Based off of what is quoted in that article, I have a hard time believing that the proper understanding of the Holy Spirit is a salvational issue. It could be, granted, but inherently? I welcome any thoughts you may have concerning what I have said in that article. I know that you don’t know me too well, but when I am convinced against my previous understanding that I have been believing error, I will go back in my works, and my website, and make corrections. I cannot afford to teach error, so I request your thoughts and critique.

http://answersforadventists.wordpress.c ... es-vs-not/

Thank you for your thoughts brother. I look forward to more as time allows you opportunity.

P.S. I am glad to know that the view of non-Trinitarianism is not a test of fellowship in the church. I personally find that that would indicate, not only a creed other than the Bible, but a fully functional creed.

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby David Aguilar » July 28th, 2013, 7:16 pm

Hi James,

I will go over your article as I have time. I do think that your most recent post here clarifies a few things:

I’m not meaning, in any way, to state it to mean that one part of inspiration trumps the rest, nor that I am the definer of truth for another man. I am merely seeking to state my honest opinion and why. I apologize if what I have said did not come across that way. I’m certainly not infallible. I am an honest seeker for truth expressing the views that I have and why.


That is reasonable, and we are all free to do this. To be honest, it is not possible to know whether or not all our members believe every doctrine precisely the same way. All we can do is have general agreement, so that our "judgment" on spiritual matters will be the same (1Cor 1:10). That is the goal of fellowship, not to have identical thoughts.

With those who accept Ellen White as a prophet, I generally quote to them from Ellen White because they will not hear me if I quote the Bible. They tell me that it’s my interpretation of Old English, or that the Hebrew and/or Greek translation is flawed, or any number of things of this nature on any number of different topics and doctrines.


My practice is actually not to accept anything as "doctrine" unless it can be supported by "sola Scriptura." When Ellen White writes something that is not specifically found in the Bible, I generally discover that I can at least "support" it, and believe it, but we have never made anything a "test" that cannot be illustrated by direct chapter-and-verse. This is one of our reasons for the position on the Trinity. For my part, once I accepted the victory over sin, and became filled WITH that Holy Spirit, it became obvious to me from both a personal AND a doctrinal position that our pioneers had the right of it. But I am not going to attempt to force others to subscribe to my particular view. This does not mean (and there is a danger in this) that "truth" is an individual matter. I do believe that my position on it, as shared generally with my brethren, is the "correct" view objectively speaking, so that is what I teach when given the opportunity to do so.

I wasn’t meaning to address the part of his statement that referred to the hierarchy given us of Heavenly operations. I apologize. I should have been more clear.
When it comes to whether or not the Holy Spirit is a “being” or not, I never addressed it, nor intended to. Can a Spirit be a being? I don’t know, and so I figured I would leave that alone.


Well, this (for us) is really the heart of the matter. The Trinity paradigm makes the positive assertion that the Holy Spirit is a "being" in exactly the same sense as the Father and Son are beings. It uses the terms "person" and "being" interchangeably; any Catholic will tell you that, and they have prayers and songs of praise to the Holy Spirit just as readily as to the Father. This is where we tend to draw the line. If you do not know whether or not you believe the Holy Spirit can be a being at all, then you really cannot be a Trinitarian, at least not in the strict, Roman Catholic sense of the word. The fact that we "leave it alone" when the Catholic Trinity makes an assertion, this is the difference between us and the traditional "Christian" view. We are honest with regard to the limits of our knowledge.

Do they not? To let the writings of John trump Ellen White’s, would be wrong just as much as letting Ellen White’s writings trump John’s. Ellen White was a lesser light, but she was still a light, and light and truth will never contradict themselves.


Well, while I agree generally with this sentiment, I would wonder what it means to you, then, that Ellen White's writings were the "lesser" light. To me, this means that while they ARE in harmony, there may be statements that are apparently difficult to reconcile, and may remain so until faith becomes sight. In such cases, my "understanding" of the Biblical passage would trump my "understanding" of the S.O.P. statement. Note, that this is with regard to my understanding, and the beliefs I derive therefrom, not the authority of the texts themselves.

If you do not believe that the Holy Spirit has anything that makes it distinct of itself, my honest question to you is how then do you explain the second sentence in this statement:
“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality.” {20MR 324.2}


Let me clarify something in turn. I didn't state - because I do not believe - that the Holy Spirit does not have anything that makes it distinct of itself. The Spirit has much that makes it distinct. As I was saying above, we do not cast out anything that Ellen White wrote. The Holy Spirit IS "a distinct personality." Its function is not the function of the Father and Son. Its method of communication (through an - often human - agent) is not the methods employed by the Father, which is mostly hidden from us, or the Son, which is the way He spoke to us while on earth. The Holy Spirit can act upon a multitude of hearts at the same time in diverse locations, AND it can speak differently to different people. The "personality" of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, is as it functioned in the Apostle Paul, who was many things to many people, that he might by all means win some. To use an extremely crass example, some human beings appear to be afflicted by a condition that was once known as "multiple personality disorder." They were one being/person/entity, but they reacted differently based on various factors. The Holy Spirit, while representing the Person of Christ Jesus, may actually speak in one way to one person, and another to another... all while representing the same principles and divine character. Thus, it is not only distinct from the Father and Son, while still being Their Spirit and not a separate being/entity/person, but it may actually be distinct in the way it deals with individual persons... leading them, yes, to a perfect spiritual unity, but meeting them where they are in each case. Protestantism, while perhaps not using the same terminology I am employing now, has always believed this, which is why it places conscience above mere policy with regard to sin and righteousness.

I have a hard time believing that the proper understanding of the Holy Spirit is a salvational issue. It could be, granted, but inherently?


We do not consider it so, inherently. It is sufficient to believe that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, and that they cooperate to sanctify us unto everlasting life. It is sufficient to believe that the Father and Son abide in the believers, and that they are enthroned upon the human heart (as in Heaven) through the agency of their Holy Spirit. It is important to understand that to "know" them is everlasting life - not because they will slip us into Heaven through some divine nepotism, but because a true knowledge of who They are eliminates sin in the soul (amen!). We cannot say, "CSDAs are Trinitarian," because we virtually wholesale reject that paradigm, and for the very reason you yourself have stated - because we cannot find any evidence to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a Being in the sense that you and I are beings unto ourselves, in the sense that the Trinity doctrine asserts. We find that it comes forth from the Father, and we leave it right there at "It is written."

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: The Trinity and The Argument of Progressive Revelation

Postby JamesPrest » July 30th, 2013, 4:31 pm

Hmmm... Makes good sense. When it comes to the Bible and Ellen White's works, as I have stated before, I place her writings on equal level with any Bible prophet's writings. There is a tendency it seems, for Adventists to view a verse in the Bible as above a statement from Ellen White. The claim is that the Bible is the greater light and that Ellen White is the lesser. While this is true, the Adventist views the Bible verse as trumping Ellen White's statement because it is the Bible (greater light) next to Ellen White (lesser light). But in reality, it is not so. If I quote a verse from Jeremiah, and a statement from Ellen White, it is not a matter of the Bible next to Ellen White, but Jeremiah next to Ellen White. Question: Is Jeremiah a greater light than the Bible? I would personally say no. Jeremiah, as I believe, is a "lesser light" and the Bible is a "greater light," if for no other reason, than simply because Jeremiah doesn't contain anywhere near the light as does the rest of the Scriptures. Anyways... that is my take on it.

Your clarification concerning the Holy Spirit not necessarily being a “being,” is helpful. The question of how many beings, entities, spirits (…etc.) that make up the Godhead, really doesn’t seem of great relevance to me. If we understand how the Spirit in our hearts, then whether we call it a “being” a “person” an “entity” or anything else, to me, doesn’t really matter. I do however like studying things deeply and figuring out whatever can be found out.

When it comes to the Godhead, I find the number three (3) all over the place. What has confused me is how non-Trinitarians come up with the number (2). What has confused me even more is how non-Trinitarians come to conclude that the Holy Spirit is really just another part of Jesus. I know in part from whence they derive it, but am lost for something that convinces me, but far more lost on the emphasis and attention that the idea receives.

If there is no article of faith that I must agree to, saving for the Bible, and your only test of fellowship is a life without sin, then I am interested in joining the CSDA. If we can disagree in a Christian spirit so far as doctrine is concerned, without any unwanted repercussions, and I am freely allowed to share that which the Holy Spirit impresses, then all should be well. The difficultly that I’ve had with the SDA church is that they have sought to hinder God working through me, via the violation of this statement:

“The foundation of Christianity is Christ our righteousness. Men are individually accountable to God, and each must act as God moves upon him, not as he is moved by the mind of another; for if this manner of labor is pursued, souls cannot be impressed and directed by the Spirit of the great I am. They will be kept under a restraint which allows no freedom of action or of choice.” {Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5, 725.2}

The line was crossed when Adventists sought to hinder Christ through me by telling me what I must say and do. In this way, so far as I understand, they set themselves up as the judge and director of God, telling Him just how He must work and just what He must do and not do.

I look forward to hearing from you. Blessings!


Return to “Doctrine and Theology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests