Moderator note: moved from another thread.

Stan,

Thanks for responding to my post.

I think that it is Dale Ratzlaff on the forum. If you look at his posts, you can see that his picture is Ratzlaff’s.

Could you respond to my second post, as well, please? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!

My second post:

By the way, Andrews University SDA Seminary Professor Dr. Jerry Moon admits that Adventism teaches a different trinity doctrine than the traditional Christian doctrine.

Are you going to argue with their own admission??????????????????????

I understand that you trust Hoekema, Samples, Martin, etc. about this.

But what do you do with the SDA Professor’s own admission above? (you can click on the link above to read his paper that was published in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society)

Hi Anonymous,

Welcome to 4TG and thanks for sharing your question with us.  You are free to openly express your ideas here.

In the article you linked, one of Dr. Moon’s major conclusions was:

The only method by which the scriptural elements in the doctrine could be separated from the nonscriptural elements was to simply set aside the traditional doctrine and seek to understand God on the basis of Scripture alone. In so doing, Adventists eventually became convinced that the basic concept of one God in three eternal persons was indeed found in Scripture. In their progress toward that conclusion, they temporarily held some of the heterodox views that the larger church had wrestled with during the early centuries of the Christian era. By discarding tradition, however, and building a doctrine of God on Scripture alone, Adventists came eventually to a view of the Trinity that they believe is truly biblical. (p. 158-159)

Moon acknowledges that Adventists held a heterodox doctrine of the Trinity, but he also says they moved past this.  I don’t find support for the assertion you made, but I may have missed it.

Interestingly, I had an “evangelical” pastor recently tell me that he believed few of his members could formulate a perfectly orthodox statement of the Trinity without sounding like functional tritheists.  I suggest we use caution when leveling claims based on the inherent difficulty of expressing a concept that is utterly foreign to human understanding or language.

You may be interested in another thread where we discussed some of these issues.  Maybe you’ve already seen this.

Again, your thoughts are valued and you have the freedom to disagree with us here.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Greg,

I believe you did miss some things in that article.

Some of the places in Moon’s article that I was referencing include the following (I will add emphasis to some of the quotes):

The title itself:

“The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine”

And the following quotes:

Ellen White agreed with some aspects, but not with every aspect of the antitrinitarian views of other early Adventists. (2) Ellen White’s view did change–she was raised trinitarian, came to doubt some aspects of the trinitarianism she was raised on, and eventually came to a different trinitarian view from the traditional one.

In her earliest writings she differed from some aspects of traditional trinitarianism and in her latest writings she still strongly opposed some aspects of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. (4) It appears, therefore, that the trinitarian teaching of Ellen White’s later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected.11 Rather, her writings describe two contrasting forms of trinitarian belief, one of which she always opposed, and another that she eventually endorsed.

The purpose of the present article is to clarify more fully the similarities and differences between Ellen White’s view of the ‘heavenly trio’ and the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in order to discover her position in relation to the current debate among Adventists.

Two Different Concepts of the Trinity

The conceptual key that unlocks the puzzle of Ellen White’s developmental process regarding the Godhead is the discovery that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief, one based on Scripture alone, and one based on Scripture as interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy–the same hermeneutic that brought the immortality of the soul into Christian theology. The concept of God that is explicit in her later writings portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three eternal Persons of intellect, will, and emotions who are united in character, purpose, and love. There is no conflict among them, no working at cross-purposes, no competition, not even disagreement. Thus, they are not three gods (as in polytheism or tritheism), but One. Furthermore, their unity is not a mathematical paradox, but a relational unity, analogous to the unity seen in a good marriage, where husband and wife are united in an ever-growing oneness, but without negating their individuality.

Her concept of the ‘heavenly trio’ differs from the traditional Trinity in that it is based on simple biblical reasoning and biblical presuppositions.

Thus her visions confirmed what her husband had written in 1846, that the Father and the Son are ‘two distinct, literal, tangible persons.’32 The visions also disproved, to her mind, the claim of the Methodist creed that God is ‘without body or parts.’ Thus, these early visions steered her developing view of God away from creedal trinitarianism, though they offered nothing directly contradictory to her later statements of what I have called biblical trinitarianism.

Further, Ellen White claimed that in Kellogg’s heresy she ‘recognized the very sentiments’ she had opposed among spiritualizing ex- Millerites in 1845 and 1846.66 The implication is that the spiritualizing of the post-disappointment fanatics, the creedal teaching that God is formless and intangible (’without body or parts’), and Kellogg’s impersonal concepts of God were all associated in her mind under the general heading of ‘spiritualistic theories.’67

The change from Adventist rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity to acceptance of a biblical trinitarian doctrine was not a simple reversal. When James White denounced creedal trinitarianism in 1846, Ellen White agreed with both his positive point–that ‘the Father and the Son’ are ‘two distinct, litteral [sic], tangible persons’–and his negative point–that the philosophical trinitarianism held by many did ‘spiritualize away’ the personal reality of the Father and the Son.72

Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father have bodily form–rejecting the teaching of one trinitarian creed that God is ‘without body or parts.’

Since Ellen White clearly held the basic formula of one God in three persons, it can hardly be denied that her view is essentially trinitarian. However, her view differs from traditional trinitarianism in the following important respects.

1. She rejected at least three of the philosophical presuppositions undergirding traditional trinitarianism: (a) the radical dualism of spirit and matter, which concluded that God could not have a visible form; (b) the notion of impassibility, which held that God had no passions, feelings, or emotions, hence could have no interest in, or sympathy with, humans76; and (c) the dualism of time and timelessness, which led to the notions of ‘eternal generation’ and ‘eternal procession.’77 Her rejection of all these concepts constitutes a radical departure from the medieval dogma of the Trinity.

2. She described the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in relational rather than ontological terms. While the traditional doctrine defined the divine unity in terms of ‘being’ or ‘substance,’ she focused on the volitional and relational dimensions of Their unity, a unity of ‘purpose, mind, and character.’78 In this sense her concept of the ‘heavenly trio’ is a more humble concept than the traditional Trinity doctrine.

[...]

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

So, Stan and Greg, can I please get an answer to my original question?

By the way, Andrews University SDA Seminary Professor Dr. Jerry Moon admits that Adventism teaches a different trinity doctrine than the traditional Christian doctrine.

Are you going to argue with their own admission??????????????????????

Thanks! I do appreciate the responses!

Anonymous,

You are welcome to post here any time, but would you like to tell us who you are? Why do you need to be anonymous?

Just curious.

Stan

Anonymous, those quotes are not what I would call “smoking gun” evidence.  What they show is that Ellen White was not a scholar, and in her isolation, she arrived at a different creedal formulation of the Trinity than orthodox Christianity.  For a movement that prided itself on having “no creed but the Bible”, it’s easy to see how this insulated doctrinal view would develop.

What we need to ask ourselves, however, is this.  Is the inability to agree on precise theological terms about the Trinity doctrine “proof” of something nefarious, or is it “proof” that without careful scholarship, theological errors will arise?  One might conclude that similar doctrinal isolation exists on certain forums where only a few people are allowed to participate.

Furthermore, if Ellen White asserted something 100 years ago and the church now believes something different, is there really a controversy?  We see the same situation with the Worldwide Church of God in moving to more orthodox positions over time.  I can simultaneously assert that Herbert Armstrong taught heresy while acknowledging that the modern church has moved away from it (albeit probably not completely).  I’m not apologizing for Ellen White, but does she get any credit for moving the Adventist church away from the Trinity-denying view of her husband?  Do modern Adventists get any credit for moving to a doctrinal formulation that no reputable scholar has ever seriously questioned?

When you are comfortable, feel free to use your name, and again, welcome.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

As one who is inside looking out, I place no importance in slight improvements to erroneous theology.
Modifying a causal effect does not address the source, and to question the source would be to question the base on which the denomination rests. This will never take place, so the circle will continue. The next wave of theologians might well reverse any gains made today.

JonVil

Hi John, I understand what you’re saying.  I voted with my feet already and now I’m on the outside looking in.  The Trinity doctrine had no bearing on my decision to leave–the lack of hearing the basic gospel message was my motivation.  I found a church where “Christ and Him crucified” is preached with regularity, and I hope my Adventist friends will see that this is the “bottom line” of Christianity.

But back to the point of this thread.  John, do you see problems with the way your church has formulated its doctrinal statement of the Trinity?  Here’s the official statement:

2. Trinity:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

Source here.

Greg

I agree with Greg in that none of us will ever be able to understand the concept of the Trinity. It behooves us not to judge other groups that believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, when the language in the bible is so ambiguous.

No cult watcher has an issue with the SDA church’s FB as Greg has stated above. Did SDAs write the hymn ‘Holy, Holy, Holy,’? What does it say, ‘God in three persons, blessed Trinity’

Why do people have an issue with the view that there are three persons in one? This is not Tri-theism.

If some would use this against us I will ask them a few simple questions.

- Was Jesus praying to himself in the garden?
- Was Jesus basically saying, ‘If you’ve seen the Father which is me, you have seen me’
- Was Jesus pitifully asking Himself why He had abandoned Himself on the cross?

If people have a problem with the SDA view on the Trinity, I will ask them to denounce the hymn and answer these questions.

Good points Greg and Guibox.

Trying to hone definitions too fine is not what cult experts do. Walter Martin took at face value that SDAs believe in One God, and Three persons.

Anonymous, I have even heard a pastor like Chuck Smith use terminology that is not entirely orthodox according to the technical orthodox definitions of the creeds of the church. Even Colleen admitted that her pastor Gary Inrig has said that most of the Christian church is functioning tri-theists in their views of the Trinity.

I personally believe that it is important to be as accurate as possible, so I am not defending Ellen’s view, but what is a far worse view in the Christian church today is the acceptance of the Modalism of TD Jakes. His theology cannot be Christian at all. Modalism denies the three distinct persons of the one God existing at the same time.

Folks, I have just come home from a heart wrenching experience of having to put down our 8 month old new puppy, who was born with renal dysplasia. I was driving around doing some other errands, and I happened to catch the Sabbath graduation church service of Loma Linda univ. medical school, my alma mater. I tell you, I was proud of my school today. While fighting back tears from losing my dog, I heard graduating medical students testify of their love for Christ, and I even heard one very evangelical gospel appeal to come to Christ by one of the women students, and you could just sense in your spirit that these folks are Christians. Do they have some bad theology? Yes, and I won’t defend it. But are they a “Satanic Cult”? Is their Jesus a demon?” Just those thoughts made me sick when I heard these students’ testimony.

Wow, just the thought of what the FAF forum has fostered at times by allowing such inflammatory rhetoric to go unchecked, in light of what I heard today, confirmed more in my mind that I needed to speak out about the problems with FAF the way I did.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Greg, you wrote:

Furthermore, if Ellen White asserted something 100 years ago and the church now believes something different, is there really a controversy?

Where did you get that from? The whole point of Moon’s article is that the EGW view he describes IS the current view of the SDA church. How you could think that Moon is disagreeing with even EGW’s latest writings is beyond me. He is saying that her “heavenly trio” view (which he clearly says over a dozen times is a different trinity doctrine than the traditional one) is the current SDA view--and the point of his article is to defend this view against the historical Adventists that want to return to the early view. He is even saying that Adventism still holds to the corporeal (body and parts) “god” that EGW taught, “based on visions” (his words).

He also very clearly says: “the trinitarian teaching of Ellen White’s later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected.”

He admits that it is “not the same doctrine”! You can’t get any clear than that--"not the same doctrine”!

Also, he says: “Her rejection of all these concepts constitutes a radical departure from the medieval dogma of the Trinity.”

A “radical departure”!

He clearly says: “...her later statements of what I have called biblical trinitarianism.”

He is agreeing with her statements (calling them biblical!)--not disagreeing. Her view is the current SDA view, according to Jerry Moon. He is not saying that Adventism now accepts what EGW rejected her whole life--the “traditional” doctrine of the Trinity. He is saying the opposite--that the SDA church still rejects the “traditional” doctrine in favor of what he calls a “biblical” view. Moon’s whole article is a contrast between what he poses as being two contrary views--the “traditional doctine” and what he calls the “biblical” view. There is no way to honestly get something different out of Moon’s article.

Perhaps you didn’t read the whole article?

I do not wish to press this issue any further, however. I think I’ve made my original point as well as I can, and I never intended to get into a debate on the issue, I just wanted to ask my original question about Moon’s article.

Thanks to everyone for your responses!

P.S. It does not matter who I am--I didn’t post here for personal reasons. All that matters are the facts presented.

Anonymous, I’m following your logic and thanks for stepping me through it.

I’m not denying that many people are mixed up when it comes to articulating the doctrine of the Trinity.  But the arguments you’ve made seem to imply that if the sentences used by Adventists to express their belief in the Trinity don’t match up to some standard you employ (and you haven’t said what that standard is), they must not be Christian.  This is what is very difficult to swallow and what stretches the bounds of credibility.  For example, by your implied argument, most of Gary Inrig’s church is not even Christian, because by his own admission, most of them are “functional tritheists”.  I know two individuals who attend there that might be uncomfortable by such a conclusion.

I was just flipping through the re-released Questions on Doctrine and I found, under Question 1, the following statement:

1. In Common With Conservative Christians and the Historic Protestant Creeds, We Believe–

1. That God is the sovereign Creator, upholder, and ruler of the universe, and that He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

2. That the Godhead, the Trinity, comprises God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. That the Scriptures are the inspired revelation of God to men; and that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice.

4. That Jesus Christ is very God, and that He has existed with the Father from all eternity.

5. That the Holy spirit is a personal being, sharing the attributes of deity with the Father and the Son.

etc.  (pp. 22-23)

Anonymous, do you disagree with these statements?  Are they, as you say, indicative of a denomination that denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity?

Regarding my reference to Adventists believing something different today than 100 years ago, this footnote from the re-released Questions on Doctrine clarifies what I wrote:

...most early Seventh-day Adventists did not accept the Trinity, the eternal pre-existence of Christ, or the personhood of the Holy Spirit as being biblical.  Those positions would not even begin to change until the 1890s, and trinitarian perspectives would be a point of controversy up into the 1940s. (p. 28)

Also, I’d like to point out that an exhaustive search of those who have critically studied Adventist teachings failed to yield even one scholar who concluded that Adventists espoused an unorthodox doctrine of the Trinity (see here).  Anonymous, it would greatly help your cause if you would identify yourself, because there are credible people who are willing to name themselves who don’t share your conclusions.  Don’t worry, we won’t bite.

Finally, I’d like to re-post something I wrote the last time we had this discussion.

Let’s keep in mind that we aren’t saved by the depth of our theological understanding, but by a God who--despite our flawed words and understanding--saves us “while we were yet sinners”. He saves us from our sin and hopefully also from our ignorance.

The Trinity doctrine is tremendously important to the Christian faith and a major point of being a Christian is to help others see Christ more clearly and be faithful followers of him. It is with this spirit that I hope we can graciously discuss these important issues.

“...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect...” (1 Peter 3:15)

Greg

And here’s one more footnote from the re-released Questions on Doctrine that should be taken into consideration given the above discussion:

The valid points in Questions on Doctrine’s discussion of the topic of Adventism’s historic position on the Godhead are that (1) it is true that “speculation on the nature of the Godhead played no important part” in the Millerite movement, (2) the Christian Connexion (from which Joseph Bates and James White came into Adventism) was largely an anti-Trinitarian movement, (3) in the mid 1950s it was undoubtedly true that “probably only a minute portion of our membership has ever heard of any dispute as to whether Christ once had a beginning in the unmeasured aeons of the past,” and (4) it was Ellen White who eventually directed the denomination to Bible study that ultimately led to affirmation of the Trinity, the full deity of Christ, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White was one of the very few among the earliest Adventist leaders who was not aggressively anti-Trinitarian.  While that is true, it is also true that her early statements are not clear as to what she did believe.  But after the 1888 General Conference session, with its emphasis on Christ and salvation in Him, she became explicitly clear on the Trinitarian viewpoint.  That was especially clear in her Desire of Ages (1898), where she wrote that “in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (p. 530).  That statement and others proved to be quite controversial and drove Adventist scholars back to their Bibles, where they came to a fuller understanding of topics related to the Godhead. (pp. 45-46)

Well now we know who Anonymous is above--The mystery is solved. See this link:

http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2007_MayJun.pdf

and go to page 10 and this person is named as a Research assistant. I am curious why the magazine didn’t give any bio information on Mr. Graham? Wouldn’t it be fair to at least give the research credentials of Mr. Anonymous (aka as Jeremy Graham posting above on this site,) and the one assisting in very important research alleging that Adventists worship a different Jesus? And what about the theological training in the cults and church history of both Colleen and Jeremy? I am not aware they have any formal training in this area.

I have just downloaded the entire article authored by Mrs. Tinker and Mr.Graham. Wow, there is so much to talk about here, and right now I have so little time. But, we have a lot to dissect and discuss regarding this latest issue of Proclamation, and especially this article. It is interesting to note that Rick Langer may be invoked as one of their pastoral authorities, as it is implied that as a result of another separate article on page 6 of the magazine, Langer gives a general outline of the roots and branches of Christendom, but when talking about aberrant groups Langer mentions JW’s and Mormons, but does not mention Adventism. I think it would be interesting to contact Rick Langer and ask him if he believes Adventists worship a different Jesus?

It is a very serious charge to imply what is being implied in the article. If they are correct, they have discovered something different than most all recognized scholars over the last 50 years have seen with Adventism. These folks have discovered what Walter Martin, Anthony Hoekema, and Ken Samples looked for, but didn’t find, and that is they never accused Adventists of worshipping a different Jesus, at least mainstream SDAs.

I am not sure that the article is actually SAYING that SDAs worship a different Jesus, but I am in the process of re-reading it. One thing is for certain, it is Jeremy Graham (the research assistant) who authored this blatantly offensive and inaccurate post and thread on FAF: “The SDA Jesus is a Demon” at this link:

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5462.html?1177938150

Here is just a small portion of the “research assistant” in the article from Proclamation, Jeremy:

“The SDA “Jesus” is a demon.
I came to this realization more fully a couple of weeks ago. The conclusion is inescapable and it is beyond me how anyone can claim that the SDAs don’t have a different Jesus.” (Jeremy Graham)

So right off the bat, red flags go off in my head about the credibility of Proclamation! using this young man as a research assistant. What kind of objectivity can this person have? And what does this say about the real motives of the authors? Is it really to get the truth, and be fair to SDAs?

This is not the way to win Adventists to the truth of the gospel. Like myself, when I was transitioning out of Adventism, I knew I was taught that there is One God in three persons--Blessed Trinity as the hymn says, and I knew Adventism taught that Jesus was fully God and man. Most Adventists can articulate this concept.

I only wish the editors of Proclamation would keep their magazine on the quality of the earlier issues. This has been a good magazine, and I fully supported the publishing of Proclamation! and even wrote an article on my wife and me. This is why I am quite perplexed right now, as the credibility of their magazine really takes a hit on this article.

Of course the publishers and Dale Razlaff have been quoted as saying that this article will generate more nasty letters than ever from current SDAs. But, I think thoughtful former SDAs will also be protesting, and this post is one of the first to this effect.

More to Come,

Stan

I know I am going to sound like an apologist for Ellen White and Adventism.

But this Proclamation article is very disappointing. It is very one-sided and quotes very selectively from the worst of Ellen White.

For example, here are some quite orthodox Ellen White quotes that were conveniently left out of the article:

“In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” (The Desire of Ages, page 530, paragraph 3.)

“His name shall be called Immanuel, . . . God with us.’ ‘The light of the knowledge of the glory of God’ is seen ‘in the face of Jesus Christ.’ From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was ‘the image of God,’ the image of His greatness and majesty, ‘the outshining of His glory.’ It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world. To this sin-darkened earth He came to reveal the light of God’s love,--to be ‘God with us.’ Therefore it was prophesied of Him, ‘His name shall be called Immanuel.’” (The Desire of Ages, page 19, paragraph 1.)

“Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, ‘whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.’ Micah 5:2,
margin.” (The Desire of Ages, page 469, paragraph 5.)

“These are wonderfully solemn and significant statements. It was the Source of all mercy and pardon, peace and grace, the self-existent, eternal, unchangeable One, who visited His exiled servant on the isle that is called Patmos (MS 81, 1900).” S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, page 955, paragraph 11.)

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father.” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 04-05-1906, paragraph 7.)

“No one of the angels could become a substitute and surety for the human race, for their life is God’s; they could not surrender it. On Christ alone the human family depended for their existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had come. When God asked, ‘whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’ Christ alone of the angelic host could reply, ‘Here am I; send Me.’ He alone had covenanted before the foundation of the world to become a surety for man. He could say that which not the highest angel could say--’I have power over My own life. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again’ [see John 10:18].” (Manuscript Releases, Volume Twelve, page 395, paragraph 3.)
----------------------------------------------------------

And then, how does one write an article about the Adventist view of God without at least quoting from their official belief statement?  Here goes:

“2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)
--------------------------------------------------------

How can someone say that the SDA Jesus is a demon after reading the above statement on the Son? This is simply not credible. What I read today in the Proclamation article doesn’t sound anything like the Ellen White quotes above, or the official belief statement.

Proclamation! should concentrate their efforts on emphasizing the great truths of the Reformers such as Calvin, Luther, and how Adventism differs from the Reformation gospel. To make erroneous charges about Adventism, that no reputable Bible scholar who has studied Adventism would agree with is indeed dangerous ground.

Stan

Here is the complete quote from Desire of Ages page 530:

“Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. “He that believeth in Me,” said Jesus, “though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?” Christ here looks forward to the time of His second coming. Then the righteous dead shall be raised incorruptible, and the living righteous shall be translated to heaven without seeing death. The miracle which Christ was about to perform, in raising Lazarus from the dead, would represent the resurrection of all the righteous dead. By His word and His works He declared Himself the Author of the resurrection. He who Himself was soon to die upon the cross stood with the keys of death, a conqueror of the grave, and asserted His right and power to give eternal life.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Notice especially this portion of the above:

“The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. “He that believeth in Me,” said Jesus, “though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?”
----------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm…

This doesn’t add up to what I read this afternoon either. I wonder if I happened to read the wrong article? I will have to look for the particular quotes from the article and come back on later.

Stan