Here is a quote from Colleen in the Proclamation article:

“Although Adventism publicly declares words about Jesus and the Trinity that sound orthodox, in practice those words have different meanings than they have for most Christians. Ellen White’s persistent Arianism and non-Trinitarian teaching permeate Adventist theology, and functionally Adventists are tritheists with a weak Jesus whom God exalted (to Satan’s chagrin)– a Jesus who could have failed in His mission to earth and who may not have existed eternally as the Mighty God.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Now, here is Colleen on the FAF website:

“Jeremy, your research into the SDA Trinity has been so interesting. Last Friday Richard attended his weekly leadership/theology class at Trinity church. He mentioned to Gary Inrig who was teaching that the Adventist church believes in a tritheism rather than the true Trinity. He gave as an example Ellen’s assertion that Jesus had to go before the Father three times and plead to be allowed to come to earth a the sacrifice for sin. The Father relented after the third plea.

Of course, this flies in the face of the Biblical statements that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world., etc. Gary was surprised and said that indeed this teaching not biblical (uh...true!). He then said an interesting thing; he said that MANY CHRISTIANS are “functional tritheists”. (He was not defending this functional tritheism–he was rather exposing it.) The misapprehension of God being Three Beings, apparently, is prevalent in many places. No wonder the Adventist heresy on this matter is not perceived in general.”
-------------------------------------------------------
So, this represents the false dichotomy. Colleen’s pastor, Gary Inrig, says that many Christians are functional Tri-theists, and Colleen is asserting that this is mostly an Adventist problem. Hello! The misunderstanding of the Trinity is an evangelical church problem.

When Rick Warren and Billy Graham embrace a T.D.Jakes as a brother in Christ, they may not know it, but they are endorsing a totally non-Christian and a true Cultist (as Walter Martin would define it--I know, because I heard Martin rail against the Oneness Pentecostals).

It is clear that the authors of the Proclamation! article present a totally biased viewpoint, and it is quite clear that they have an agenda as evidenced by the “research assistance” Jeremy’s statement that “the SDA Jesus is a demon.”

Now, you be the judge based on the evidence above whether Adventism is really any different from the rest of Christendom on the Trinity issue and the deity of Christ.

Stan

Stan,

It seems in reading the FAF OP by Jeremy that the ‘Jesus is a demon’ comment comes from the quotes of EGW being ‘guided’ seeing a ‘glow’ and being ‘visited by Jesus’. Even if this were to put EGW in her time in a negative light, I can’t fathom how one can come to the conclusion that SDAs today have an unorthodox idea of the Trinity and follow a demon based on the FBs alone.

I suppose if one wants to judge today’s standards by the pioneer’s semi-Arian beliefs of 150 years ago (despite the fact that it was EGW who moved the church away from that...goodness, don’t people allow for theological growth in a new denomination??) you could. That, however, is a desperate attempt to disparage a church for no apparent reason but one needs to have as much fodder as one can to portray the SDA church in a negative light. What sad ‘witch-hunting’ that needn’t go on.

Colleen et. al are reflecting the spirit of fundamentalist fringe Adventism. When one starts to criticize, a frenzy kicks in where one track thinking and a biased agenda are pushed, harped upon and made to be truth with a fervor that would be best spent elsewhere.

Again, I wonder how Colleen would answer the simple questions: Who was Jesus praying to in the garden? Who was Jesus crying out to on the cross? Who did Peter say resurrected Jesus? I could go on and on but no answers would be forthcoming.

I wonder if it would be prudent to analyze the Trinty doctrine of the rest of Christendom’s faiths and see just exactly where the major differences are from SDAism that Colleen seems to think exist?

One wonders why this is not settled once and for all by just proclaiming (in “Proclamation!") that Adventists worship a demon.  If this is promoted and tolerated on the FAF website, why don’t the administrators of this website have the courage to publish these conclusions in their magazine?  If this is the crux of the matter, why beat around the bush with lengthy explanations of how Adventists differ from orthodox Christianity on the Trinity doctrine?  Maybe I’m jumping the gun and this will be the topic of the next issue.  I can’t wait to see the cover art on that one....

More later,

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Rick (aka ric_b)

Perhaps I am alone and everyone will disagree with me. The more theological discussions in which I engage with SDAs the more I am becoming convinced that SDA doctrine on the Trinity is weak, and not just among lay people. It is certainly true that many lay members in Christian churches would struggle to explain the Trinity accurately. It is also true that there are worse problems in Trinitarian theology in Christianity than the mixed views of SDAism. I recently had a Mormon co-worker explain the Divinity of Christ in terms that any SDA could accept. And I posted the SDA Summary of Beliefs for Baptismal Candidates from the Church Manual on a Mormon discussion board, and heard from Mormons that they could agree with the statements.

If Blanco watered down the Sabbath or the Investigative Judgment in the same manner that he waters down Christ’s eternal Divinity in the Clear Word, it would have never been published in SDA circles and he would have been promptly removed from teaching theology. SDAs accept that the Trinity may be correct, but they do not demand that their teachers and leaders accurately present it. They are weak on this doctrine.

I think this is another reason to be concerned about SDA theology. I do not believe that this means that many SDAs are not Christian. I think it is simply the case of not being instructed in solid doctrine in this matter. I think that Ellen White’s writings send mixed messages on the subject, and those SDAs who rely heavily on her words as their source of understanding are hindered in accepting true Trinitarianism. I think there are plenty of other SDAs who are more widely read, and more Scripturally based, who have a much more accurate understanding of the Trinity.

We can not make blanket statements about individual SDAs in this regard, but there is reason to be concerned about the details of SDA church teachings regarding the Godhead. 

Posted anonymously by: Sheryl Barker

I find it very interesting that the “Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs” that are specifically for the purpose of instructing baptismal candidates are as follows:

1. The true and living God, the first person of the Godhead, is our heavenly Father, and He, by His Son, Christ Jesus, created all things. (Matt. 28:18, 19; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6; Eph. 3:9; Jer. 10:10-12; Heb. 1:1-3; Acts 17:22-29; Col. 1:16-18.)
2. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour from sin; and man’s salvation is by grace through faith in Him. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John 3:16; Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:21; 2:5, 6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11, 12; Eph. 1:9-15; 2:4-8; Rom. 3:23-26.)
3. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is Christ’s representative on earth, and leads sinners to repentance and to obedience of all God’s requirements. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Rom. 8:1-10; Eph. 4:30.)

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf

This wording is identical on my 1975 baptismal certificate as well as in the current 2005 edition of the church manual referenced above. The church manual edition does have one change compared to my 1975 baptismal certificate in that it added one statement about marriage and sexual purity. So it’s not like they just didn’t think about updating it.

If I remember correctly from previous research, one of the changes specifically addressed in the SDA Fundamental Beliefs in 1980 was to make the statement on the Godhead more orthodox by saying “one God”, “Trinity”, and “co-eternal”:

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.)

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

I just have to wonder why even as late as 2005, no one has bothered to update the Summary of Beliefs for instructing baptismal candidates to the more orthodox-sounding public face of the SDA church that has been in the Fundamental Beliefs since 1980. I don’t know if it means anything, but to me, that is very strange.

Hi Rick and welcome.

I agree with your post entirely. However, if the article in question we are discussing had said what you just said, then I would not be posting in the way that I did above.

I am concerned about the lack of charitableness and outright irresponsible statements made in the article and on the FAF web site.

I agree that because of the early pioneers that Adventism like the World Wide Church of God, may never be able to break with their early history and truly become an evangelical church.

The WWCG’s video was openly promoted at the first FAF reunion, (and Pastor Inrig was not thrilled with that action)) as the WWCG still holds on to Armstrong’s doctrine that most people get saved and are given second chances after they die to become saved. Also, I wonder how the WWCG’s official statement on the Trinity is worded. I do know that the WWCG had a meeting to discuss how to word their statement so as to become acceptable to evangelicals. It is kind of ironic that the FAF reunion would be going “ga-ga” over how the WWCG came from non-Trinitarian to a more Trinitarian position, yet somehow miss the fact that Adventism also came from the same cultic roots, and it appears that Ellen White may have been at least partially responsible in at least promoting a more Trinitarian (though not perfect and flawed) version of it. However, the DA statement quoted above is quite good evidence that Ellen White gave up her Arian views and at least believed that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father, yet Herbert Armstrong remained totally Arian and anti-trinitarian.

Kenneth Samples (who has done more research than most scholars on Adventism) and who wrote the forward to Dale Ratzlaff’s book “Cultic Doctrine” answered back personally in a recent email that he believed, despite all of Ellen’s many flaws, she was responsible for leading the SDA church to a more responsible and more closely Biblical view of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

Again, I am not trying to defend Adventism, but isn’t there a better way to try to reach Adventists by at least trying to be objective, and presenting both sides of the story in a magazine that is going to be read critically by many educated Adventist people, who can see through some of the faulty logic and reasoning presented in that article?

Again, it pains me to write about this, as I was one of the most ardent supporters of FAF and Proclamation! and still believe that it was a magazine to be proud of until the last two issues including the present one. I just don’t like to see some of the troubling trends, both on FAF forum and in the magazine.

Concentrating on where Adventism distorts and perverts the gospel is where the emphasis should be, but I would have no objection to the article on the Trinity, if it was done in the style my friend Rick stated on his last post.

Stan

Also, I want to welcome Sheryl--excellent points!

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Rick (aka ric_b)

I don’t agree with everything that Colleen writes. But I won’t vilify her either. She has been a great service to the SDA/Former SDA community.

Some people choose a more confrontational approach to exposing the errors of SDAism. Others a more cooperational. I think that God makes use of both sets of people. Personally, I would rather err on the side of credibility than on any other side. I have taken some heat for that view at times.

I also think that it is important to stay focused on the errors and misrepresentation of the Gospel within SDAism. When our energies become directed at squabbles between various critics of SDAism, we are allowing those errors to grow unchecked.

I am highly sympathetic to your concerns on this subject, but I also concerned that the focus stays squarely where it needs to be, proclaiming the True Gospel in order to dispell the false.

I hesitate to comment in this discussion as I don’t feel I have much to bring to the table. But then again that has not stopped me before.

I share the same concerns of many of you, in that negativity, and the demonization of a denomination, its founding mother, or its understanding of Jesus is not the way I want to witness and share the Good News of the Gospel.

One of the main problems I see with Ellen White is that she was all over the board theologically. With the amount of writing...original and other...she did, you can make and support almost any argument on any topic. You could use her to, no doubt support both sides of any discussion.

Many Adventist apologists will say that we need to consider progressive revelation, or present truth, and we need to use her writings in there historical context, and somehow discern what she meant in many instances.

I am sure she said some wonderful theologically orthodox statements. The problem lies in that we all know what the church’s position is regarding her writing....we have been over the whole “continung and authoritative source of truth” before.(sorry Guibox) Until the Adventist Church officially acknowledges the obvious limitations of EGW’s function, and that she cannot, and should never have been considered a source of truth, we will continue to have extreme statements and opinions regarding her, and also the church that considers her as a source of truth.

As much as we say that it is heresy to make the claims the church does about her writings and gift(and I think it is heresy), the heirarchy of the church really needs to at some point come clean regarding her limitations. This will never, never happen, as it is the fear(in effect mind(set) control) in her writings that controls the way most Adventists view themselves, their salvation, and all other Christians. To let her go as the cornerstone of Adventist theology would decimate the church membership and ultimately its revenue. It will never happen.

I could go on, but to what end.

Peace all,

Randy

Hi Stan,

Don’t be very upset with this issue. If we want to be very strict and technical, the article points well the weak points of the way adventists conceptualize the Trinity. If we want to be very strict in our definition, we will agree at least partially with the view presented in the article from Proclamation. But this is only IF we adhere to a very strict and precise definition of Trinity, and demand high precision from believers before we will consider them trinitarians. As pastor Inrig said, a lot of his members are not clear about Trinity, and for the sake of consistency, if adventists are to be condemned for being tritheists, those other christians will be stamped with the label “tritheists”. But if those fine christians can still have an imperfect view of Trinity and still be consider christians and trinitarians, adventists deserve to be recognized as trinitarians in their beliefs. And I think that this is a safe position, if we cling to the essential affirmations of the trinitarian creed, and don’t demand a highly technical view from believers.

The problem with the article is that it’s goal is to demonstrate that adventists worship another Jesus, a foreign deity, being polytheists because they worship three gods, and of course, Jesus is a demon. As others on this forum, I have a big problem when I look back in my experience with Jesus in the SDA church. I have a hard time to believe that I was a polytheist at that time and I worshiped a demon.

If I will believe that I was a polytheist as adventist and worshiped a demon, I will certainly be under the obligation to be re-baptized, because I was baptized in the SDa church “in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, the second being certainly a demon, and all being three false gods!

I will also demand from every former adventist who will believe that adventists are worshiping a demon, to be re-baptized, because their adventist baptism was nothing more than a pagan baptism, in the name of three demons (maybe not three, but just one is sufficient to compromise the situation).

As far as I know, many former adventists are not seeing the need for re-baptism. As long as they will consider their baptism as having value, this is a tacit recognition that their baptism was a christian baptism in a christian church , since only a christian church can administer a christian baptism. This is a tacit recognition that the SDA church is still a christian church, and not a full cult.

In the last month I suffered an entire paradigm shift, since I was fully convinced that the SDA church is at the same level as JW or the Mormon. Ironically what changed my view was when I saw how bad treatment Dennis Fisher received from former adventists on FAF for his views regarding the use of the Law.

I progressively came to the realization that this opposition to the Law on FAF has its source in the way the formers adventists were abused by a unlawfully use of the law in the SDA church. They came to the position of seeing nothing of value in the Law, and, since I shared the same view for a long time, I asked myself if I am not also in the mood of seeing nothing good in adventism because of the abuse I suffered in adventism.

There are other points which needs to be said, but another time.

Gabriel

Hi Gabriel,

I agree with this quote of yours:

“Don’t be very upset with this issue. If we want to be very strict and technical, the article points well the weak points of the way adventists conceptualize the Trinity.”
----------------------------------------------------------

I agree Gabriel, and I will have some positive things to say about the article as well, because it is not all bad, and there is a lot I agree with. There just seems to be a better way to present the SDA evidence of a weak Trinitarian position by just being a little more charitable.

It would have been great for the authors to show why even the official statement on the Trinity might be weak, but they didn’t bother to quote any of the official SDA statements on this. Then, they could show evidence from both sides why there is so much confusion in Adventism, and then they could have mentioned the horrific problems within the current evangelical church. Modalism (a la TD Jakes) makes the weak Trinitarian position of Adventism look good, as Modalism is a non-Christian belief system, but the issues with tri-theism are more difficult, because I hear this careless terminolgy also in circles outside of Adventism.

So, it would have been great for the authors to be just a little more sympathetic, that this problem is very serious in the evangelical church at large, Instead they choose to take the lower road of villifying Adventism and strongly imply that Adventists worship a different Jesus, when this may be quite unfair to many Adventists. I know to many Adventists who I know for sure know the true Jesus.

Stan

[quote author="ric_b"]
I think this is another reason to be concerned about SDA theology. I do not believe that this means that many SDAs are not Christian. [...]

We can not make blanket statements about individual SDAs in this regard, but there is reason to be concerned about the details of SDA church teachings regarding the Godhead.

Hi Rick, thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts (and you too, Sheryl!).  I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment above and I think you raise the crux of the issue: Does the inability to formulate a perfectly orthodox-sounding statement on the Trinity mean that someone is not Christian or is worshiping a “different Jesus?” For Colleen Tinker and Jeremy Graham, the answer is “Yes”.  But they would not stop there and would push the point further, asserting that the Adventist Jesus is really a demon.  It is curious that they stopped short of drawing these conclusions in their Proclamation article.

I do not want to split Colleen into “good vs. evil”.  This is a tired debate tactic that needs to be put to rest.  I believe I can simultaneously acknowledge Colleen’s gifts while expressing significant reservations about some of her teachings–teachings that I believe are false.  Eventually, however, we reach a point of diminishing returns where the bad outweighs the good, and this is what Stan and I are concerned about.  When the statements we’ve highlighted above proceed unchecked, we have a problem.  None of us is perfect–certainly not Stan nor myself.  But if someone disagrees with us on a theological point, we discuss the issue–we don’t solve the problem by silencing them.

When any group of individuals exist in isolation–in this case, whether it is a group of current or former Adventists–that group is at risk for following doctrinal rabbit trails.  When the group has a leader who makes unfounded claims (such as Adventists not worshiping the true Jesus) without demonstrating willingness to hear and coexist with others who disagree, this should at least raise a red flag.

As for focusing on the positive in the ministry of the Tinkers and FAF, I’d be more inclined to do this if they would not have banned Stan and me from their forum without warning, and if they would have given us the Christian courtesy to meet with them personally.  I am deeply troubled that they have not been forthcoming with us when it came to our personal interactions, and combined with this latest issue of Proclamation, I’m not quick to ignore the red flags in favor of focusing on the “good”.  If we’re unwilling to submit to each other as Christians and discuss our differences openly, we’re really just re-creating the same environment we claim to have left in the Adventist church.

Greg

[quote author="Gabriel"]
If I will believe that I was a polytheist as adventist and worshiped a demon, I will certainly be under the obligation to be re-baptized, because I was baptized in the SDa church “in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, the second being certainly a demon, and all being three false gods!

I will also demand from every former adventist who will believe that adventists are worshiping a demon, to be re-baptized, because their adventist baptism was nothing more than a pagan baptism, in the name of three demons (maybe not three, but just one is sufficient to compromise the situation).

As far as I know, many former adventists are not seeing the need for re-baptism. As long as they will consider their baptism as having value, this is a tacit recognition that their baptism was a christian baptism in a christian church , since only a christian church can administer a christian baptism. This is a tacit recognition that the SDA church is still a christian church, and not a full cult.

Gabriel, these are very good points.  To be consistent, those who claim Adventists worship a “different Jesus” must insist upon a new baptism when leaving the church.

Greg

Ah, ric_b, my old nemesis from CARM. How are you doing?

[quote author="Rick (aka ric_b)"]
I also think that it is important to stay focused on the errors and misrepresentation of the Gospel within SDAism. When our energies become directed at squabbles between various critics of SDAism, we are allowing those errors to grow unchecked.

This smacks of an ‘us and against them’ mentality. I fail to see how the ‘quit squabbling amongst ourselves and lets fight the real enemy’ helps anyone. Stan and Greg’s points that got them banned are that one can disagree with the theology, but one should disagree rationally, with proof, logic and common sense. If you’re going to ‘fight’ and be ‘confrontational’, then please do it fairly.

There is nothing wrong with this methodology.

It also behooves you to make sure that you yourself aren’t producing ‘errors’ and perhaps ‘check’ those before you go gung-ho to ‘check’ that of SDAism.

[quote author="Rick (aka ric_b)"]I am highly sympathetic to your concerns on this subject, but I also concerned that the focus stays squarely where it needs to be, proclaiming the True Gospel in order to dispell the false.

And I fail to see how making a straw man out of the Trinity doctrine and saying ‘the SDA Jesus is a demon’ is really proclaiming the true gospel’. This is what Greg and Stan are talking about. What is going on at FAF is not ‘proclaiming the true gospel’. it is a ‘let’s find whatever we can to disparage the SDA church and everyone in it, and make up and exaggerate the rest. And we’ll do it simply to hear ourselves gripe and complain about that which we claim to have been freed of’.

That ain’t proclaiming the gospel.

From Greg
If we’re unwilling to submit to each other as Christians and discuss our differences openly, we’re really just re-creating the same environment we claim to have left in the Adventist church.

And this is what I have been saying for the last few years. The only difference I found from posting on Revival Sermons and reading clap-trap like that found at sdadefend, and lurking on FAF was that it was basically the same thing. The only difference was in the theology.

Posted anonymously by: Rick (aka ric_b)

[quote author="guibox"]Ah, ric_b, my old nemesis from CARM. How are you doing?

Is that old nemesis, old friend, or both? I am good. Thanks for asking. Miss having you there,

[quote author="Rick (aka ric_b)"]
I also think that it is important to stay focused on the errors and misrepresentation of the Gospel within SDAism. When our energies become directed at squabbles between various critics of SDAism, we are allowing those errors to grow unchecked.

This smacks of an ‘us and against them’ mentality. I fail to see how the ‘quit squabbling amongst ourselves and lets fight the real enemy’ helps anyone.

I believe that the real enemy is the false gospel. And that is an ‘us vs them”, but I do not mean as formers vs currents. Whether teaching of false gospel are battled from within the SDA church or from outside, I think the goal is the same.

Stan and Greg’s points that got them banned are that one can disagree with the theology, but one should disagree rationally, with proof, logic and common sense. If you’re going to ‘fight’ and be ‘confrontational’, then please do it fairly.

I actually got in trouble before Stan and Greg for that same point. I prefer to do my confrontation on CARM. There are plenty of people there who will make every effort to assure that my comments are fair. It is easy to claim anything you want when you don’t have to worry about someone posting a rebuttal. On a board like CARM, you can end up looking very foolish if you don’t have any basis for your comments.

[quote author="Rick (aka ric_b)"]I am highly sympathetic to your concerns on this subject, but I also concerned that the focus stays squarely where it needs to be, proclaiming the True Gospel in order to dispell the false.

And I fail to see how making a straw man out of the Trinity doctrine and saying ‘the SDA Jesus is a demon’ is really proclaiming the true gospel’. This is what Greg and Stan are talking about. What is going on at FAF is not ‘proclaiming the true gospel’. it is a ‘let’s find whatever we can to disparage the SDA church and everyone in it, and make up and exaggerate the rest. And we’ll do it simply to hear ourselves gripe and complain about that which we claim to have been freed of’.

That ain’t proclaiming the gospel.

I understand your perspective on FAF. I don’t post there that much, but I try to be just a little different than that. Perhaps I don’t succeed as much as I would hope, but my goals there are simple, to encourage those who are struggling with some aspect of their departure. I can understand how it helps people to put a voice to their anger at the deception they experienced in SDAism. But I understand the concern that the expressions of these emotions can be labelled as bitterness and hatred by SDAs that read the threads. I would like to see formers display more of their diversity of beliefs on the board, Formers are not monolithic in their positions, but I don’t think that is sufficiently encouraged. I fear that the FAF board ends up attracting a specific subset of SDAs, particularly those who still hold considerable anger about some of their experiences. I can also understand that experiencing rejection and shouts of damnation from friends and relatives can leave a person feeling a little that way. And facing that in an ongoing situation could not be easy. So I can not judge the motives of any person posting on that board. But it is my prayer that every person resolves that anger over time and experiences true peace.

I agree. Expressions of anger are rarely presenting the Gospel. But, as I was plainly told, the purpose of FAF is not to proclaim the Gospel, but an on-line support group for formers. I think Stan and Greg will tell you that this explanation was a key factor in the development of this board. You might notice my sig line on CARM links to this board rather than to FAF. The reason is simple, I think the best way to combat the false gospel is to focus on the true Gospel.