[By the way, regarding our discussion above about the Local Churches, Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes have written an article entitled “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” available online here: http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdfJeremy
I am interested to hear your take on their Trinitarian views. I fail to see anything different here that the SDA church does not believe. For example, I continually referred to the fact that Jesus was praying to someone separate from Him in person (something you still have not answered fully ) to show that the Trinity is not as clear cut as you make it out to be in your criticisms of the SDA church.
On page 9 on disputing the LC’s referral to Isaiah 6:9 to show that the Father and Son are the same person:
First, when used of the
First Person of the Trinity, the term “Father” is a distinctly New Testament term. That
fact alone ought to clue the reader in that the term “eternal Father” in the Old Testament
is being used in a different, unique sense of the Second Person of the Trinity (Isaiah 9:6).
Moreover, in the New Testament, we must not forget that the Father is considered by
Jesus as someone other than Himself over 200 times in the New Testament. And over 50
times in the New Testament the Father and Son are seen to be distinct within the same
verse (see, for example, Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:4; Gal. 1:2-3; Phil. 2:10-11; 1 John 2:1; and
2 John 3).....Again,however, the verse does not give justification for saying that the Son (the Second Person
of the Trinity) is the Father (the First Person of the Trinity).
Appealing to “The Lord is the Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:17
Nor is there any real support for saying the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity)
is also the Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) from 2 Corinthians 3:17
Geisler/ Rhodes are saying that the Spirit and the Father are not the Son. Something SDAs have believed since they moved to a Trinitarian stance. Throughout this entire article, Geisler is trying to prove that all the references that the Trinity is distinct...just as I and the SDA church have been saying all along. He makes it plain that God in three persons means the Godhead is made up of 3 distinct persons. This is what FBs # 2-5 state. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Not God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the power of God, the Holy Spirit.
You can nitpick on the minute details all you want, Jeremy but there is nothing that Geisler/Rhodes has said on the Trinity that I or any SDA I know of would not be nodding our heads with or that disagree with the FBs.
My reasons for coming to this conclusion are numerous and are similar to what has been expressed in the past by many on here. But the theological problems stemming from elevating EGW to the level of scripture are too numerous to state. Then you add the corruption on top of it which is not just isolated circumstances, but permeating the whole system.
Can you unpack a little more your statement above? Is the moral corruption about which you talk in itself the decisive proof that the SDA Church is not a true church, or is this corruption a sign that the leaders can’t be trusted regarding their true theological position?
Moral corruption is insufficient to disqualify a church, which can still proclaim the true gospel.
Moral corruption can be a signal that the leadership of the respective church can’t be trusted in regard to being open and honest regarding their true theological position. That’s the question. In the particular case of the SDA Church, the question is if the apparent movement of the leadership in the right direction, toward an affirmation of the orthodox beliefs is a real movement or just a makeup.
I know very well how corruption runs at the superior levels of the church. Due to its heavily hierarchical structure and a lack of checks and balances there is a lack of accountability in the organized SDA Church. Consequently, due to the evident corruption and lack of transparency, an evaluation of the theological position should be made with the assumption that the leaders need to be made responsible for what they affirm, not taken at their word. If the facts don’t match the claims, there is no reason for them to receive a free ride.
The SDA Church, in my opinion, had received too easily a ticked for a free ride. Walter Martin believed too much that the leaders of the SDA Church had told him the truth about their theological position, in spite of many signals that told a different story.
My conviction that the SDA Church is not a true church is not based in a large measure on my knowledge regarding the moral corruption within the hierarchy, but on my conclusion that, at close scrutiny, the moral corruption shows itself in the domain of theological position: publicly the leadership take positions that sound in harmony with the gospel while they prove in fact that they distance themselves from those individuals who are preaching the forensic justification gospel message of the reformation.
As Sproul said about the Roman Catholic Church, we deal with a studied ambiguity adopted by those corrupt leaders in order to gain sympathy. The central core teachings of the SDA Chruch had remained intact, and George Knight proves this in the new QOD, as the other theologians confirm at the QOD meeting. Moral corruption is important, but as a means to an end, as a proof that the adventists have the whitest fleeces when it comes to doctrine.
I am interested to hear your take on their Trinitarian views. I fail to see anything different here that the SDA church does not believe. For example, I continually referred to the fact that Jesus was praying to someone separate from Him in person (something you still have not answered fully ) to show that the Trinity is not as clear cut as you make it out to be in your criticisms of the SDA church.
Distinction and separation are two different things. While by definition separation includes distinction, the reverse is not true. Your insistence to bring an example that proves distinction between Father and Son as a proof that they are separate betrays either your ignorance of the subject or your intention to manipulate the biblical data for the sake of covering heretical teachings by implying that Jeremy’s definition of Trinity is not recognizing the distinction between persons.
guibox - 06 February 2010 02:21 PM
Geisler/ Rhodes are saying that the Spirit and the Father are not the Son. Something SDAs have believed since they moved to a Trinitarian stance.
They believed that the Father is not the Son even when they were Arian. That position implies more than a denial of the eternity of the Son or the personality of the Holy Spirit, it implies a separation between the Father and the Son and their separate existence as two beings. In order to make a transition toward Trinity there are three necessary steps that must be made in order to arrive there:
1. affirmation of Christ’s full deity
2. affirmation of the Holy Spirit personality
3. affirmation of their unity at the level of being
While Adventism took steps toward resolving the first two points, they failed to pay adequate attention to the third. At the same time, the number 1 statement depends on the affirmation of the 3. Jesus is not a third part of deity, he is fully God in the sense that in Him the Father is found in His fullness, there is nothing outside of Christ. In him all the fullness of the deity lives bodily. As long as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate, affirmation 1 means only that Jesus is made of the same stuff as the Father, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. etc.
While somebody can compare statements before adopting “trinity” and after adopting it in order to show that at some time adventists moved from believing that Jesus had a beginning in time to an affirmation of his eternity, or that the Holy Spirit is no longer an “it” but a “He”, in vain somebody will search for affirmations that will prove that the Father and the Son are no longer separate beings as they were before, when arian and semi-arian views were rampant. There are no evidences for modifications regarding this point.
guibox - 06 February 2010 02:21 PM
You can nitpick on the minute details all you want, Jeremy but there is nothing that Geisler/Rhodes has said on the Trinity that I or any SDA I know of would not be nodding our heads with or that disagree with the FBs.
And anybody who is not a modalist will node his head, even an arian. This nodding does not qualify an arian as a trinitarian.
[By the way, regarding our discussion above about the Local Churches, Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes have written an article entitled “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” available online here: http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdfJeremy
I am interested to hear your take on their Trinitarian views. I fail to see anything different here that the SDA church does not believe. For example, I continually referred to the fact that Jesus was praying to someone separate from Him in person (something you still have not answered fully ) to show that the Trinity is not as clear cut as you make it out to be in your criticisms of the SDA church.
Gabriel made excellent points in his post, so I’ll just add a couple of things.
First of all, you shouldn’t fail to see anything different. In fact, this one is easy, as they explicitly deny in their article what you affirm in your above statement: “I continually referred to the fact that Jesus was praying to someone separate from Him in person”
Geisler and Rhodes write on page 3:
Statement # 4
“The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods;
they are one God, one reality, one person” (emphasis added). Note: While the three
persons in the Godhead are not “separate” but rather distinct persons, nonetheless, they
certainly are not “one person” as the LC declares.
And again, in the footnote on page 11, they contradict the SDA Church’s theology when they write:
“Of course, like most analogies, this is not a perfect one since, as human beings, we are
not only distinct persons, but we are also separate beings from each other. [...]” (Emphasis in original. http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdf)
The point they are making is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not “separate beings” (as Adventism teaches).
guibox - 06 February 2010 02:21 PM
On page 9 on disputing the LC’s referral to Isaiah 6:9 to show that the Father and Son are the same person:
First, when used of the
First Person of the Trinity, the term “Father” is a distinctly New Testament term. That
fact alone ought to clue the reader in that the term “eternal Father” in the Old Testament
is being used in a different, unique sense of the Second Person of the Trinity (Isaiah 9:6).
Moreover, in the New Testament, we must not forget that the Father is considered by
Jesus as someone other than Himself over 200 times in the New Testament. And over 50
times in the New Testament the Father and Son are seen to be distinct within the same
verse (see, for example, Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:4; Gal. 1:2-3; Phil. 2:10-11; 1 John 2:1; and
2 John 3).....Again,however, the verse does not give justification for saying that the Son (the Second Person
of the Trinity) is the Father (the First Person of the Trinity).
Appealing to “The Lord is the Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:17
Nor is there any real support for saying the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity)
is also the Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) from 2 Corinthians 3:17
Geisler/ Rhodes are saying that the Spirit and the Father are not the Son. Something SDAs have believed since they moved to a Trinitarian stance. Throughout this entire article, Geisler is trying to prove that all the references that the Trinity is distinct...just as I and the SDA church have been saying all along. He makes it plain that God in three persons means the Godhead is made up of 3 distinct persons. This is what FBs # 2-5 state. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Not God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the power of God, the Holy Spirit.
You can nitpick on the minute details all you want, Jeremy but there is nothing that Geisler/Rhodes has said on the Trinity that I or any SDA I know of would not be nodding our heads with or that disagree with the FBs.
They are writing against modalism for goodness’ sake! Of course there probably wouldn’t be too much in an article like that that Tritheists would disagree with! It’s not like they were writing a detailed explanation of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity or of monotheism in particular--(nevertheless, as I showed above, they do make statements that refute the tritheistic SDA “Godhead")--they were simply addressing the specific heresy of modalism.
I also have to wonder if you noticed that Dr. Norman Geisler also refuted the false SDA “Godhead” in his review of The Shack (which has many teachings identical to Adventism in it), which I quoted earlier in this thread, in this post: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewreply/7733/ In that review, Geisler is addressing Tritheism specifically.
Here is a brief definition of the Trinity by Dr. James R. White, with a helpful chart near the bottom, showing the different heresies with regard to the Trinity: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html
I was sent a new book in the mail by Adventist Today called “Fatal Accounts” written by David Dennis and published by AT.
This book is one of the most shocking books ever on the scandals within the SDA church.
Unbelievably shocking!
I can no longer consider the SDA church a true Christian church. It truly belongs in the apostate category with RCC. I am now thoroughly convinced of this. The whole system, theologically and ethically is totally corrupt just like the RCC. A lot of this corruption has gone on at my alma mater med school LLU, and I am very disappointed.
There are still many fine Christians in SDA, but to call it a genuine Christian church is doing a disservice.
I know I have wavered on this in the past, but no longer. The evidence is astounding. There is no evidence that this corruption is being corrected.
If the book of Hebrews is true, then an event of redemptive significance in 1844 never happened, and the whole reason for existence of the church is false.
My reasons for coming to this conclusion are numerous and are similar to what has been expressed in the past by many on here. But the theological problems stemming from elevating EGW to the level of scripture are too numerous to state. Then you add the corruption on top of it which is not just isolated circumstances, but permeating the whole system. The book mentioned above was my final tipping point. I believe it is time for all true Christians to come out of the corrupt churches wherever they exist, and they are many. There are also many good churches. Harold Camping mentioned above says all the churches are this way, but i certainly don’t agree with him.
I am still thankful for the benefits and opportunities being an SDA provided, and I will always cherish the Christian influence of my mother and dad, as well as my grandfather and many others. There were actually camp meetings where the true gospel was presented, but those who preached this gospel-- some were later driven out of the church. I always heard a different gospel from the SDA school than I heard at the camp. I am also thankful for my medical education from LLU, even if the school has had bad leadership at times.
I am thankful that God allowed me the opportunity to grow up SDA so I could see the beauty of the gospel of grace more clearly.
Stan
Hi Stan,
I am glad to hear that you have changed your position on Adventism. As far as corruption/scandals go, you are right that it is not just isolated incidents, but permeates the whole system, which is another sign that it is not a Christian church.
By the way, regarding our discussion above about the Local Churches, Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes have written an article entitled “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” available online here: http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdf
Dr. Geisler even says that he personally pleaded with Hank in his own living room not to go down the route he’s taken, with regard to the Local Church. But Hank even ignored the advice of his friend Norman Geisler, who I believe he has had on the Bible Answer Man broadcast before.
Jeremy
Hey Jeremy,
Thanks for posting the response to CRI. The LC statements on the Trinity are clearly unorthodox and heretical. If CRI believes that LC is orthodox, then they will never change their views on SDA. Certainly the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA statements. The SDA views have problems, but compared to the LC, SDA appears orthodox.
Hank Haanegraf has lost credibility with a large part of the Christian community. He also runs a corrupt organization and has come under fire for a lot of financial misdealings. He is known to have a foul mouth. By their fruits we shall know them.
My reasons for coming to this conclusion are numerous and are similar to what has been expressed in the past by many on here. But the theological problems stemming from elevating EGW to the level of scripture are too numerous to state. Then you add the corruption on top of it which is not just isolated circumstances, but permeating the whole system.
Can you unpack a little more your statement above? Is the moral corruption about which you talk in itself the decisive proof that the SDA Church is not a true church, or is this corruption a sign that the leaders can’t be trusted regarding their true theological position?
Moral corruption is insufficient to disqualify a church, which can still proclaim the true gospel.
Moral corruption can be a signal that the leadership of the respective church can’t be trusted in regard to being open and honest regarding their true theological position. That’s the question. In the particular case of the SDA Church, the question is if the apparent movement of the leadership in the right direction, toward an affirmation of the orthodox beliefs is a real movement or just a makeup.
I know very well how corruption runs at the superior levels of the church. Due to its heavily hierarchical structure and a lack of checks and balances there is a lack of accountability in the organized SDA Church. Consequently, due to the evident corruption and lack of transparency, an evaluation of the theological position should be made with the assumption that the leaders need to be made responsible for what they affirm, not taken at their word. If the facts don’t match the claims, there is no reason for them to receive a free ride.
The SDA Church, in my opinion, had received too easily a ticked for a free ride. Walter Martin believed too much that the leaders of the SDA Church had told him the truth about their theological position, in spite of many signals that told a different story.
My conviction that the SDA Church is not a true church is not based in a large measure on my knowledge regarding the moral corruption within the hierarchy, but on my conclusion that, at close scrutiny, the moral corruption shows itself in the domain of theological position: publicly the leadership take positions that sound in harmony with the gospel while they prove in fact that they distance themselves from those individuals who are preaching the forensic justification gospel message of the reformation.
As Sproul said about the Roman Catholic Church, we deal with a studied ambiguity adopted by those corrupt leaders in order to gain sympathy. The central core teachings of the SDA Chruch had remained intact, and George Knight proves this in the new QOD, as the other theologians confirm at the QOD meeting. Moral corruption is important, but as a means to an end, as a proof that the adventists have the whitest fleeces when it comes to doctrine.
Gabriel
Gabriel,
You sound skeptical that I really changed my view (big smiley!)
Gabriel, I mentioned the theological system based on 1844 and EGW are thoroughly unbiblical. I am just admitting that there are many fine Christians in SDA still, but they are leaving quickly.
But by their fruits we will know them. You would have to read the book to understand how bad the leadership is. You can point to one GC president after the other from Robert Pierson to Jan Paulsen, (although less of the latter). Pierson, Wilson, and Folkenberg were all blatantly corrupt. Folkenberg is a proven embezzler of funds. Paulsen has continued to approve a healthy retirement payoff to Folkenberg, but David Dennis was thoroughly cut off.
The SDA church actually defended one pastor caught in an affair by using the Bill Clinton defense! Remember Monica?
And remember how Bill Clinton defended himself by saying that he did not have sex with that woman? Well the SDA church actually said the same thing about one of their pastors saying that oral sex is not really an affair, and they transferred him to another church directly as a senior pastor even though this affair had gone on for over one year.
But the wasting of millions of dollars of tithe funds which included the Ponzi scheme of Davenport, and the paying of high priced lawyers to protect their empire is abominable. So if a church conducts themselves like this on a consistent basis. then they are truly “Babylon” and are just like the corrupt system of Rome. Both Rome and SDA also deny the gospel of justificiation by faith alone--another reason to call them apostate.
So Gabriel, my brother and friend, what else would you like me to say? (smiley)
Stan
PS Here is a link to the letters that David Dennis wrote to different leaders:
I am glad to hear that you have changed your position on Adventism. As far as corruption/scandals go, you are right that it is not just isolated incidents, but permeates the whole system, which is another sign that it is not a Christian church.
By the way, regarding our discussion above about the Local Churches, Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes have written an article entitled “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” available online here: http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdf
Dr. Geisler even says that he personally pleaded with Hank in his own living room not to go down the route he’s taken, with regard to the Local Church. But Hank even ignored the advice of his friend Norman Geisler, who I believe he has had on the Bible Answer Man broadcast before.
Jeremy
Hey Jeremy,
Thanks for posting the response to CRI. The LC statements on the Trinity are clearly unorthodox and heretical. If CRI believes that LC is orthodox, then they will never change their views on SDA. Certainly the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA statements. The SDA views have problems, but compared to the LC, SDA appears orthodox.
Stan,
What do you mean by “the SDA statements”? As for the LC statements, most of those quotes from the LC are from books and articles, mainly by their founder Witness Lee, and not from their public statement of faith. If you want to make an objective comparison, you would need to compare those heretical quotes by Lee to heretical quotes by EGW (which can found here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/#EGW). Can you really tell me that those EGW quotes appear orthodox compared to Witness Lee’s quotes? Or even compare the LC quotes to current SDA quotes.
Remember, the LC even has good, orthodox-sounding quotes, as admitted by Dr. Geisler and Dr. Rhodes. The ones they are quoting are the worst of the worst. I don’t see how you can say that the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA’s, or that in comparison, the SDA appears orthodox.
Does this quote (that I posted before in the other thread) appear orthodox?
You sound skeptical that I really changed my view (big smiley!)
Gabriel, I mentioned the theological system based on 1844 and EGW are thoroughly unbiblical. I am just admitting that there are many fine Christians in SDA still, but they are leaving quickly.
But by their fruits we will know them. You would have to read the book to understand how bad the leadership is. You can point to one GC president after the other from Robert Pierson to Jan Paulsen, (although less of the latter). Pierson, Wilson, and Folkenberg were all blatantly corrupt. Folkenberg is a proven embezzler of funds. Paulsen has continued to approve a healthy retirement payoff to Folkenberg, but David Dennis was thoroughly cut off.
The SDA church actually defended one pastor caught in an affair by using the Bill Clinton defense! Remember Monica?
And remember how Bill Clinton defended himself by saying that he did not have sex with that woman? Well the SDA church actually said the same thing about one of their pastors saying that oral sex is not really an affair, and they transferred him to another church directly as a senior pastor even though this affair had gone on for over one year.
But the wasting of millions of dollars of tithe funds which included the Ponzi scheme of Davenport, and the paying of high priced lawyers to protect their empire is abominable. So if a church conducts themselves like this on a consistent basis. then they are truly “Babylon” and are just like the corrupt system of Rome. Both Rome and SDA also deny the gospel of justificiation by faith alone--another reason to call them apostate.
So Gabriel, my brother and friend, what else would you like me to say? (smiley)
With a similar smile, Stan, I don’t question your decision, I’m puzzled why the theological message was not sufficient for you to arrive at this conclusion. The impression given is that apart from the corruption existent at the highest level, the church and its message can pass as a defective, still true church. I mean, if the corruption in the next years will be less than it is today, you will change your mind again and give the church a semi-free pass.
I am glad to hear that you have changed your position on Adventism. As far as corruption/scandals go, you are right that it is not just isolated incidents, but permeates the whole system, which is another sign that it is not a Christian church.
By the way, regarding our discussion above about the Local Churches, Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes have written an article entitled “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” available online here: http://veritasseminary.com/edu/media/CRIlcrev9.pdf
Dr. Geisler even says that he personally pleaded with Hank in his own living room not to go down the route he’s taken, with regard to the Local Church. But Hank even ignored the advice of his friend Norman Geisler, who I believe he has had on the Bible Answer Man broadcast before.
Jeremy
Hey Jeremy,
Thanks for posting the response to CRI. The LC statements on the Trinity are clearly unorthodox and heretical. If CRI believes that LC is orthodox, then they will never change their views on SDA. Certainly the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA statements. The SDA views have problems, but compared to the LC, SDA appears orthodox.
Stan,
What do you mean by “the SDA statements”? As for the LC statements, most of those quotes from the LC are from books and articles, mainly by their founder Witness Lee, and not from their public statement of faith. If you want to make an objective comparison, you would need to compare those heretical quotes by Lee to heretical quotes by EGW (which can found here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/#EGW). Can you really tell me that those EGW quotes appear orthodox compared to Witness Lee’s quotes? Or even compare the LC quotes to current SDA quotes.
Remember, the LC even has good, orthodox-sounding quotes, as admitted by Dr. Geisler and Dr. Rhodes. The ones they are quoting are the worst of the worst. I don’t see how you can say that the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA’s, or that in comparison, the SDA appears orthodox.
Does this quote (that I posted before in the other thread) appear orthodox?
What do you mean by “the SDA statements”? As for the LC statements, most of those quotes from the LC are from books and articles, mainly by their founder Witness Lee, and not from their public statement of faith. If you want to make an objective comparison, you would need to compare those heretical quotes by Lee to heretical quotes by EGW (which can found here: http://www.cultorchristian.com/#EGW). Can you really tell me that those EGW quotes appear orthodox compared to Witness Lee’s quotes? Or even compare the LC quotes to current SDA quotes.
Remember, the LC even has good, orthodox-sounding quotes, as admitted by Dr. Geisler and Dr. Rhodes. The ones they are quoting are the worst of the worst. I don’t see how you can say that the LC statements are more heretical than the SDA’s, or that in comparison, the SDA appears orthodox.
Does this quote (that I posted before in the other thread) appear orthodox?
Does this article come anywhere close to orthodoxy?
Stan
Hi Stan,
Did you notice that the quote I gave you above is from an article by Norman Gulley? In fact, it looks like much of the new Adventist World article is actually adapted from the article I linked to above.
Norman Gulley has some of the worst quotes that I’ve found on the Trinity, and he is a very cultic, historical, EGW-worshipping SDA. And this latest article has statements in it that are dead giveaways that he does not believe in monotheism.
First of all, even the title of the article, “1+1+1=One” is a false and illogical formula (but it shows that Adventism actually means “a group of three” who are not actually “one"). Quite often non-Trinitarians will ask, “How can 1+1+1=1?”? The Trinitarian response is usually an acknowledgment that that would not be a mathematical or logical formula, but that 1x1x1 does = 1.
Near the beginning of the article, Gulley writes:
What do we forfeit if God is only one Person? For one, Christ could not be our Savior. It took the Holy Spirit to bring Christ to Mary. It took the Father to answer Christ’s prayers and give Him needed help. That’s how important the Trinity is to us. Our eternal life depends upon this truth.
Notice that he has one god “needing help” from a separate god. If Jesus Christ is the Sovereign God of the Universe, how could He ever need “help” from some other, separate, god?!
Then Gulley says:
So why did God say, “The Lord our God is one”? In the ancient Near East there were numerous deities that surrounded and imperiled Israel. God knew His people would be attracted to these gods, and abandon Him. In that context He said, “I alone am God” (“there is no other,” Deut. 4:39). That’s why the prologue of the Ten Commandments states, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt…. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2, 3). Only the true God could save in the mighty rescue at the Red Sea! The word “one” focuses on God’s uniqueness, not on His being alone.
The English word “one” is used to translate two words in biblical Hebrew: yāhîd (unique, only son, Gen. 22:2) and ’ehād (those united in marriage “become one flesh,” Gen. 2:24). “The Lord our God is one” translates ’ehād, and means God is not solitary, even though He is unique. It suggests that God is united, or more than one Person. [...]
Here Gulley uses the tired old SDA argument that “one” does not actually mean “one.” For my refutation of the SDA argument about ‘echad and yachiyd, and also some of Gulley’s other claims, see my comments following the SDA quotes here and here.
Next, Gulley goes on to say that “God is more than one” and then writes:
While focusing on one God to keep His people from many gods, He allowed them to glimpse that one God is more than one Person. This is really about a different dimension. If God was only one Person, who would have ruled the universe when Christ was on earth, and where would God have been when Christ was in the tomb?
”While focusing on one God to keep His people from many gods...”???!! What kind of admission is that? Focusing on “one God,” as opposed to what?! The three gods?? That’s what he’s saying--that they had to focus on the “united” aspect of the three gods. For more of my comments on a similar statement by Gulley in his other article, again see my comments after his quotes right here.
But, oh my, that last sentence in the quote above leaves me speechless!! Look at what he actually says: “If God was only one Person, who would have ruled the universe when Christ was on earth, and where would God have been when Christ was in the tomb?”
There is so much terrible, blasphemous heresy in that one sentence, I don’t know if I can even unpack it all!
First, notice that He is saying that Christ did not rule the universe for a period of 33 years, and that He was not able to!!! In addition to denying Christ’s omnipotence and Sovereign Lordship of the universe, he is also denying the omnipresence of Jesus. If Jesus Christ did not rule the universe, then He was not God. It is a denial of the deity of Christ. Period. Heresy does not get any worse than this! Except maybe for the second half of his sentence! Wow. He goes on to say:
“where would God have been when Christ was in the tomb?”
Excuse me, Mr. Gulley?! I thought you SDAs were supposed to believe that Christ is God? What a complete farce and joke.
Look at his second question again. This is absolutely incredible. His question is sooo far outside the paradigm of Christianity, that it’s impossible to even answer it!
First of all, he is saying that Christ (both in his humanity and deity) ceased to exist completely when He died. And his “Christ” is obviously not God, or else he couldn’t ask the question “where would God have been?”! The truth is that Jesus Christ is God, and God never changed. He was still the omnipresent God of the universe, one infinite, invisible and indivisible spirit Being, outside of space and time and matter, ruling over the universe! Of course, as Gulley has made clear elsewhere (and even in this article, when he speaks of his three gods: “their inner history"), he denies that God is outside of time and space and matter, and actually ridicules such a God and says that SDAs don’t believe in a “timeless God,” admitting that they believe in a different god than Christians do (for an example of this, see the shocking quotes right here).
Also, it’s pretty obvious that by “Person,” Gulley means “Being” (Adventism uses these two words interchangeably). And by the way, Gulley’s obvious answer to his own qestion is: “There would have been no God!” Incredible. He is saying that one god ceased to exist, but another god (or gods) kept existing in heaven and running the universe. This is nothing but pure, pagan polytheism. And it would also mean that “God the Son” had to be re-created after 3 days (or 33 years?). In other words, the “Christ” who died on the cross no longer exists, and their “Christ” they now worship is a created being, who is only 1,980 years old (much younger than the Mormon “Christ” or Arius’s “Christ”!).
I have never seen such a clear denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and monotheism (one God).
And remember that this is not just some SDA guy writing this. Dr. Norman Gulley is one of Adventism’s top scholars/theologians, a theology professor and author of many books and articles published by the SDA Church and has also been the author of four Sabbath School quarterlies, a pastor, a missionary, and the president of the Adventist Theological Society. Also, notice that this is in Adventist World‘s series on the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church, and they even quote FB #2 in the article in a sidebar. In other words, this is the SDA Church’s current official explanation of their Fundamental Belief statement on the Trinity.
So, in answer to your question Stan, no, this article does not “come anywhere close to orthodoxy”!
And remember, this is the same man who actually wrote (and spoke it at the 2006 “Trinity Symposium” presentation of his article, as you can hear on my MP3 audio compilation) the following words: “We noted that there are several OT texts indicating a plurality in God, as one God addresses another God.”
Thanks for alerting me to this latest article, Stan, as it proves all by itself that the SDA Church is anti-Trinitarian. There is no difference between this and the Mormon “Godhead.”
Thanks Jeremy for that ringing endorsement of Gulley’s article! (Smiley}
I have to wonder though, if you showed this article to even great apologists such as Robert Bowman, whether he would say that Adventists deny the Trinity, or are heretical on this. I sure wish I could get their take on this. On the surface, it seems that Gulley is defending the doctrine of the Trinity form attack, and even admits that the SDA pioneers had it wrong.
But I think you make good technical arguments. I just know that there are many Christians in many different denominations who could not articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, and are functionally Tri-theistic, even though many of them are likely saved.
Thanks Jeremy for that ringing endorsement of Gulley’s article! (Smiley}
I have to wonder though, if you showed this article to even great apologists such as Robert Bowman, whether he would say that Adventists deny the Trinity, or are heretical on this. I sure wish I could get their take on this.
Well, Stan, here is Robert Bowman’s email address, you can ask him about it if you like:
Stan Ermshar - 11 February 2010 11:45 PM
On the surface, it seems that Gulley is defending the doctrine of the Trinity form attack, and even admits that the SDA pioneers had it wrong.
Of course he is defending the doctrine of “the Trinity.” The only problem is that he’s defending the SDA “Trinity,” and is against the orthodox Trinity. This is no different than if a Mormon defends the LDS “Trinity” against modalism or JW Arianism.
As far as corruption/scandals go, you are right that it is not just isolated incidents, but permeates the whole system, which is another sign that it is not a Christian church.
In fact, it looks like much of the new Adventist World article is actually adapted from the article I linked to above.
