On progressiveadventism, there is an interview with Dr. Whiddon, a professor formerly of Andrews and now at Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies in the Philippines.

I think you will find it quite interesting. He talks about his views on EGW and then talks about historic Adventism, QOD and some problems the church had with understanding righteousness by faith and the atonement.

Enjoy!

http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/02/16/interlogue-18-woodrow-whidden/#more-257

Guibox,

I have had a monster weekend at the hospital, so I want to respond to both you and Glenn on the Revelation thread and get a chance to read the above.

Stan

Guibox, I read over the article and am surprised at the cheerful picture of Ellen White drawn by Woodrow Whidden.  Most disturbing, he seems to think it’s OK for a prophet of God to allow the arian heresy to continue without a “frontal assault,” dismissing this as Ellen White “erring on the side of mercy”.  He then goes on to indict anyone who did not heed her counsel and includes Canright, Kellogg, Ballenger, and others as examples of men who “neglected her counsels and insights at the peril of their ministry and influence”.  This statement is quite incredible because a major reason why Ballenger’s ministry and influence failed was due to Ellen White’s defamation of his character, and the same can be said for both Kellogg and Canright, although these latter men retained their credibility regardless.  It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Whidden believes Ellen White was perfectly justified in never correcting her anti-trinitarian brethren as long as they stayed with the flock, but the minute men such as Canright, Kellogg and Ballenger raised credible questions regarding her prophetic ministry and the sanctuary/IJ doctrines, her “frontal attack” was justified.

I am in basic agreement with Whidden on his very next paragraph, where he says the major problem with historic Adventism is their inability to see their own sin while pointing out the flaws in everyone else.  He is very astute to see this problem flowing out of their low view of Christ as primarily our Example rather than our Savior.

Later, he touches on Questions on Doctrine, saying “The authors of this book are certainly worthy of criticism on a number of counts” but he never really goes into any detail here.  He throws M.L. Andreason and the “fundamentalist evangelicals” together into the very next sentence as being the source of the problems with QOD, leading me to believe he isn’t happy with the influence of the “fundamentalist” Walter Martin in the writing of this book.  But again, we can’t be very sure, since he isn’t explicit about what he disagrees with.  He seems to hint that the problem is with the view of Christ’s humanity vs. his divinity, but he deflects the point by saying the authors were simply “headed in the right direction”.  This kind of imprecise language is not helpful because it further blurs the underlying issue.

Finally, I’d like to wholeheartedly agree with what J. David Newman said in one of the comments:

“We have made the Sabbath the defining mark of our church NOT Jesus. Jesus has given the defining mark when he said, ‘By this shall everyone know that you are my disciples [my church] by how you love one another’ (John 13:35). Because of how we have taught the Sabbath and many other doctrines we have too often become a judgmental and critical church toward others and toward ourselves. Paul in 1 Cor. 13 stresses again that it doesn’t matter what we do if genuine love is absent it is pointless.”

One wonders what the Adventist church would look like if more Adventists actually believed this....

Greg

Greg,

I figured you would have issues with his view on EGW but I am hoping that you and Stan and others could move on to the other things he said. I felt that he laid out his views on justification by faith, sin, the problems with the historic brethren and QOD.

Hmmmm…

What about what he said here in speaking of the historic brethren (bold or italics are mine)…

Their hatred of sin in the church is understandable, but their understanding of sin is woefully inadequate. It is understandable that they attack bad behavior (and there is plenty to skewer, but that is the easiest thing in the world to shoot at), but they themselves don’t seem to want to deal with their own sins. The heart of their theological failure is that “bad behavior” is the final, sum total of their definition of sin (usually supported with a woefully superficial interpretation of 1 John 3:4). But when one really hones in on the meaning of the atonement and the humanity of Christ, we see that sin mainly has to do with the profound derangement of sinful, the human depravity that we are all born with (Christ excepted) and our persistent faithlessness and lack of trust in the imputed merits of Christ .

Or his comments on the 1888 Message Study Committee and their findings…

But I fear that they have zeroed in on issues which were not a part of Ellen White’s emphasis on the meaning of 1888. Here I have special reference to their so-called doctrine of “universal legal justification,” the sinful human nature of Christ, a perfectionist emphasisthat seems undergirded by a mostly “behavioristic” definition of sin, final generation vindication of God and their misapplication of Ellen White support for Jones and Waggoner.

And concerning the writers of QOD:

Here is what I would say: they got it very right when it comes to the atonement and its implications for Andreasen’s final generation perfectionism. Andreasen was simply wrong and the QOD authors had the better part of the argument on the Atonement, from both the Bible and Ellen White perspectives.

We know that Andreasen represented the strict historic stance that many of the ultra conservatives today hold concerning justification and sinless perfection. Woodrow is disagreeing with Andreasen and supporting QOD.

I agree with Whiddon when he says that the dividing line between historic SDAs and the mainstream are these two points:

(Andreasen’s) defective views on the humanity of Christ was a defective view of the nature of sin.

It will be interesting to see what the 50th anniversary QOD committee says and discusses...of course, it would be out of the norm if the committee didn’t follow suit of other committees and bury the results so nobody else can see.

Guibox,

Here is a quote from that article that really troubles me:

“Are there any aspects of White the person or the author that continue to bug you?”

“Not really. I cannot say that her writings “bug” me. Yet there aspects which I struggle to understand better. But then, I have the same experience with the Bible. One thing that has always puzzled me is why she was not more forthright in correcting the errors of leading brethren. For instance, she greatly rebuked Uriah Smith for his terrible spirit of opposition to her and the ministry of Jones and Waggoner at and following Minneapolis in 1888. But though he changed his attitude very much, he did not substantively change his theology. Why didn’t she stay on his case about his semi-Arianism and legalism. Why didn’t she have more to say to Jones and Waggoner during the late 1890’s and early 1900s about the extreme directions that their theology and practice were taking? She does really write some startling letters to Waggoner about his affair with Edith Adams, but there is precious little that speaks to his growing mysticism and almost total neglect of the forensic aspects of justification. It appears to me that George Knight is correct in the broad sense of the word: she did not set herself up to be a theological watch-dog for the church in matters other than the doctrines of “present truth.” Furthermore, she was quite willing to allow room for the Spirit of God to move in many other matters (on the Trinity, for instance: she never made a frontal attack on any of her semi-Arian brethren). Yet she was quite willing to work redemptively for leading brethren who had fallen into sin, sometime even to what appears to be the borders of patient indulgence. But I guess that is how soul-burdened prophets are supposed to work–being willing to err on the side of mercy. Yet on the whole, there is very little in Ellen White that befuddles me. She is just so comprehensive and sound in her basic grasp of the larger issues of sin and salvation that I find her the most satisfying voice of God outside of Scripture. She was in the forefront of all that is worthy of keeping in Seventh-day Adventist theology, personal spirituality, health, and in missional and institutional developments (including church structures). Wow, What a ministry!”
----------------------------------------------------------

This is the BIGGEST reason I cannot accept Ellen White’s true prophetic gift. She did not try to correct SERIOUS doctrinal aberrancy. One of the marks of a non-Christian cult is a denial of the Trinity, and the denial of the full deity of Christ. You CANNOT be a Christian and deny these basic facts. So since legalism and Sabbath-keeping were her axe to grind, as separating out true Christians from false Christians, then she seriously misunderstood even the basics as to what was important to understanding the very basics of Christian doctrine.

How can Whiddon ultimately give her a pass on confronting blatant heresies like anti-Trinitarianism and Arianism?

Stan

Stan,

Why don’t you post this concern at progressiveadventism under the article. Whiddon responded to someone else’s quote and it might spur some good discussion.

Guibox, good idea.  I’ve posted my comments and Stan’s over there.

Greg

Wow Guibox!

You really started something on that progressive blog. The article and responses which follow over there are must reading.

I can’t understand how the basic doctrine of the deity of Christ can even be a matter of debate. I am still astounded by some of the reasoning over there, where they are even allowing for the fact that Mormons and JWs are probably Christians, even though they worship a diffrent Jesus!

Stan

Something is wrong over on progressiveadventist.com.  In response to the Woodrow Whiddon blog entry found here, Julius Nam and I were having a spirited discussion on whether we should expand the boundaries of Christianity to include those who deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ (as in the case of historic Adventism and Jehovah’s Witnesses), or those who consider Jesus the spirit brother of Lucifer (as in the case of Mormons).  Julius ultimately took exception to a large portion of one of my posts, without providing any specific response to what he was objecting to, and then said this:

[quote author="Julius"]
I don’t know where to go next in this conversation because my heart cries “Objection, your honor” to nearly every sentence you wrote in the two paragraphs that begin with “So are we” and “A. W. Tozer.” Yikes!

Without trying to tackle everything all at once (due to time and energy constraints), let me just ask you - playing a devil’s avocado (as my sons say; one of them hates avocados):

Let’s pretend I’m a complete ignoramus when it comes to the Trinity (I probably sound like one sometimes). Could you show me clearly from Scripture Christ’s co-equality, co-eternity, and consubtantiality with the Father and Spirit and how you explain Christ’s language of apparent subordination to the Father during the time of his incarnation and, if indeed that was subordination, why that subordination stopped at ascension? Can you show clearly from Scripture, without resorting to deduction or inference, the restoration of post-ascension co-equality (btw, Phil 2 is not enough in my mind)?

To which I replied:

[quote author="Greg"]
Julius, I understand your time constraints, as I also have them.  But instead of sending me on an assignment that will consume inordinate amounts of my time, why not just consider the creedal statement of your own church as found in the second fundamental belief?  Even more detail can be found in Seventh-day Adventists Believe… online here: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm

It’s mystifying how so many Adventists don’t endorse what their own church (now) affirms on the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ--but somehow I think that if the Sabbath doctrine were in question, the proof texts would emerge rather quickly.

Julius, if there are significant problems with what I wrote in my last post, I would like to hear them.  I will patiently wait for you to respond, as you have time--after American Idol, of course.

This post was not added to the conversation and attempts to send it again were rejected as duplicates.  Meanwhile, several other comments made it through from other individuals.  Either there is a technical glitch with Julius’ site, or he is now moderating (and ignoring) posts.

An email to Julius has so far gone unanswered.

Thoughts?

Greg

Update: apparently my message was considered spam by the blog software!  Maybe it knows something about theology the rest of us don’t…

Sorry, Greg, I don’t know. Julius has posted an additional comment.

Meanwhile, this thing with the Trinity is eating at me a bit. I tracked down a prior list of SDA fundamentals from the 1800’s (see link below).

http://www.seventh-day.org/beliefs.htm

I noticed no listing for the Holy Spirit and wonder if in prior Adventist problems with the Trinity doctrine, the issue was whether the Holy Spirit should be classified as God, and not necessarily a dispute over the eternal nature of Jesus as God.

Meanwhile the language of this earlier fundamentals list is a little murky about the status of Jesus related to God.  It could be interpreted as suggesting that Jesus was a little lower than God.

Not sure if this list of Fundamentals was a formal SDA one or not.

A few weeks ago you posted or linked to a post by a “concerned historic SDA” and this person in their letter to someone at the GC mentioned that the Trinity was a RC doctrine but didn’t elaborate. Wonder if what this person was referring to was a reference to the Holy Spirit’s role in the Godhead. 

Well I have just posted a stern reply to Julius, and the comment stands as written so far. So, let’s wait and see before I make any further comments. But, Greg, I am very suspicious. Let’s see how progressive they really are. Maybe you should try re-posting your comment. But probably like the liberals in American politics they want to squelch those who would make truly cogent arguments. Liberalism in politics and religion only want to tolerate their point of view.

All points of view are welcome on this web site.

Stan

Stan,

As it turns out, the blog software Julius uses tries to block spammers from submitting comments.  Apparently because I included a link in my comment, the software flagged it as spam.  Either that, or the software is tuned to reject specific theological positions!

Glenn, the early Adventists had problems with calling both Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-eternal and of one substance with the “big” Father God.  This belief was considered to be too close to the Roman Catholic trinitarian position, which they considered heresy.  James White went to his death believing Jesus was lower than God the Father, and this belief still persists in historic SDA circles today.  They believe Jesus came primarily to show how sinful man can “overcome” the flesh and live a perfect life.  As the reasoning goes, if Jesus by inheriting sinful flesh could live sinlessly, so can we.  But this assertion ignores the fact that Jesus is indeed God incarnate (without a sinful nature), and it completely misses the point that his purpose on earth was to save men from their sins by being our sin-bearer on the cross, satisfying the wrath of God as a propitiation for sin (Romans 3:21-26, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

This reluctance of Adventists to endorse the Trinity doctrine filtered down even into their hymnody.  For instance, the original line in the hymn “Holy Holy Holy” that reads “God in three persons, blessed Trinity” was rewritten as “God over all who rules eternally” until 1985, when it was finally reverted back to the original.

The more historic Adventists still deny the Trinity doctrine and many consider this the “omega apostasy” Ellen White said would herald the end of time.

On FAF, a very helpful post was made that points to several resources that explore the history of the Trinity debate from several different angles which I will link to here:

SDA AtIssue discussion of the history of the Trinity debate in Adventism

Biblical Research Institute paper by Gerhard Pfandl, also exploring the history of this doctrine in Adventism

The Trinity in Scripture, a PDF by Gerhard Pfandl

Historic Adventist response to the SDA AtIssue article, articulating the argument against the Trinity doctrine

SDA Reform Movement position against the Trinity doctrine

And here’s another one I found:

The Trinity Debate - Defending the Indefensible, a PDF by Brian S. Neumann, an evangelist with a group called “Amazing Discoveries” (I hadn’t heard of this group until now, I assume they are historic Adventists.)

I hope some of these links are helpful.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]James White went to his death believing Jesus was lower than God the Father, and this belief still persists in historic SDA circles today....The more historic Adventists still deny the Trinity doctrine and many consider this the “omega apostasy” Ellen White said would herald the end of time.

I wouldn’t be too quick to judge the historic/ultra conservatives on the trinity matter, Greg. On revivalsermons.org, there was one uber conservative I always clashed with. Both he and some of his other uber friends and I went head to head on the IJ, EGW and the standards of the church.

However, this person began preaching anti-Trinitarianism. Suddenly, all his friends who were insistent that consuming caffeine was a mortal sin, refuse to look at the revised 1911 Great Controversy and would like nothing better than to go back to pre-1888 SDAism, were on him like white on rice. I found out eventually that he was banned from Revival sermons for his anti-trinitarian stance. I heard much of the ‘omega apostasy’ talk left and right and none of it included the Trinity.

So on this matter, I wouldn’t say that this is a calling card of historic SDAs.

Guibox, I know who you are referring to (I spent many hours debating him as well), and you are right that not all SDAs consider the Trinity doctrine as heresy.  I’m not trying to broad brush any of them, rather, I’m illustrating what some segments of histroic Adventism have resorted to.  It is to their credit that many historic Adventists are vehemently opposed to their anti-trinitarian bretheren.

It’s interesting that some over on the progressive Adventist site would more readily extend the hand of fellowship to an anti-trinity historic Adventist than a trinity-affirming historic Adventist would.  What do you think about this?

Greg

Greg,

I think it is quite simple and a danger of the liberal mindset.

The historic SDAs cling to whatever they believe is true as if their salvation depended on it (and for some, they do indeed believe it). Hence, they are not willing to ‘rationalize’ or ‘compromise’ to the extent of closeminded stubborn irrationality.

The liberal/progressive mindset is more free thinking and willing to consider all options to re-evaluate whether there is any valdity in other faiths or unothrodox beliefs systems. In trying to distance themselves from the methodology of the conservatives and historics, they end up removing much of their platform of belief to rebuild it in the way that avoids the pitfalls of historic SDAism. It is like a smorgasbord of beliefs that they say, ‘Hmm...I haven’t really thought of that before or looked at that before.” Thus they are more susceptible to rationalize things more.

Thanks Greg for clarifying the situation with the web site.

There is still a stimulating conversation going on over there right now, and J. David Newman has given some good answers. But maybe he would like to come over here and explain why he isn’t really concerned about what people believe about the Trinity, but it is only if you believe you are saved by grace alone that counts.

I see the Trinity as foundational truth, and so have all true Christians through the ages, because the Bible clearly defines the God we worship as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as mentioned in Matthew 28:19.  In fact, Christ clearly taught the doctrine of the Triune God in the book of John when he affirmed that He was equal to God the Father, and He said, that He would send Another Comforter, The Holy Spirit. What could be clearer than this? He described Himself equal to God, and He said the Holy Spirit would take His place when He ascended to the Father.

I also appreciate the comments Pastor Newman made with regard to Greg’s blog.

Stan