Non Trinitarianism in Adventism

[Pickle]

Do you know that there were some folks (including adventists) who believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

More than some. The Trinitarian Baptist John Gill did too as did Matthew Henry. The idea appears in the 1599 Geneva Bible footnotes. Charles Spurgeon has statements along these lines too.

And the Bible is fairly clear on the point.

But since the question of Michael has nothing to do with non-trinitarianism in Adventism, this is the wrong thread for a discussion of this topic.

I have yet to meet anyone that denies that there are theophanies in the OT, where God appeared to people, where it was the Son who appeared, where the Son is called the Angel of the Lord. The question, then becomes whether Michael is a theophany or not.

I also haven't found anyone who denies that the "prince of the host" of Daniel 8 is Christ. The Hebrew for that phrase is also found in Joshua where the captain of the Lord's host appears to Joshua, and Joshua worships Him. That captain then talks to Joshua as if He Himself is God. I think there should be general agreement that this too is a theophany.

In the word "archangel," the word arche means first in time or palce, and is thus translated "beginning" and "ruler," depending on the context. Thus, "archangel" can simply mean "ruler of the angels." As such, it is functionally equivalent to the phrase "captain of the Lord's host," "prince of the host."

That is just one line of evidence, and there are several, that point to Michael the Archangel being the uncreated, divine, Son of God.

 

[mmksparbud]

What secret coming??---Never heard of that, it is not something we believe in. Every eye shall see Him, shouting and trumpets do not make for a secret coming. The book of Hebrews goes into a lot of discussion about Jesus Christ as our High Priest now in the presence of God interceding for us. Is this it???

 

[Pickle]

On this point, I am not aware of anyone else who shares the specific doctrine of a investigative judgment proceeding from a secret second coming.

Adventists don't believe in a secret second coming. They believe in a literal second coming in the future, and an investigative judgment that began in 1844.

Just as Charles Russell proposed that Christ came secretly when Christ did not come in 1874 as he had predicted, so there were some who taught that after Oct. 22, 1844, but Hiram Edson, James White, Ellen Harmon, and Joseph Bates were not among that number. Ellen travelled around opposing that teaching.

 

[Pickle]

What secret coming??---Never heard of that, it is not something we believe in. Every eye shall see Him, shouting and trumpets do not make for a secret coming. The book of Hebrews goes into a lot of discussion about Jesus Christ as our High Priest now in the presence of God interceding for us. Is this it???

I already pointed out his error earlier.

 

[BobRyan]

Now, I have been very curious about something--and don't know if this would require another thread. But I am interested to know what doctrines we have, that other denominations do not have, that are found only in the writings of EGW. I am saying that there are doctrines that other denominations share with us, but do not need to debate those as you can't blame EGW for other faiths who have the same believes. And I mean other than the health message, which is a whole other can of worms that can end up dominating the whole thing--we can get back to that. Though, even there, others share some of those, too.

Well first of all "doctrines" - are voted on by the denomination and affirmed or changed/edited whatever in the every-5-years general assembly - General Conference session. The last one was this year -- as I am sure you know.

None of the voted doctrines -- 28 beliefs state that they are derived "from something Ellen White said" -- they all stand or fall "sola scriptura".

"The Ellen G. White Estate today owns approximately 8,300 typed documents from Ellen White comprising about 50,000 pages of letters and manuscripts dating from 1845 to 1915. Many of these documents were used by her in publications during her lifetime. Others were private and family letters. Of the 50,000 pages approximately 30,000 were left to the Trustees named by Ellen White in her Last Will and Testament and their successors, for use in preparing compilations as well as for other future needs as they arose in the church. The other 20,000 pages consist of personal family letters and additional materials left by her in her Will to her son, William C. White. The entire 50,000-page collection is available for study and research at 23 White Estate offices worldwide."
http://www.whiteestate.org/estate/manuscriptbackground.asp

however it is true that there are a number of distinctive beliefs of SDAs.

1. The Investigative Judgment of Daniel 7 and 2Cor 5:10.
2. The role that the Ten Commandments and specifically the Sabbath commandment plays in Rev 14 end time events.
3. The work of Christ as our High Priest in God's sanctuary in heaven -- in Heb 8:1 and how that relates to the Lev 16 doctrine on atonement. This includes the Rev 15:8 event where the heavenly sanctuary service comes to a complete halt prior to the Rev 16 seven last plagues.
4. The millennium - of Rev 20 -- we believe in a true post trib, Pre-mill rapture of the saints to heaven - where Rev 20:4-6 describes the "first resurrection" - one where the 1Thes 4 "dead in Christ rise first" and are taken to heaven.
5. The state of the dead taught by Christ in John 11 and Matt 22 - also playing a key role in the Rev 13 discussion on signs and wonders at the end of time. Also a part of the 2Thess 2 -- end time signs and wonders.
6. Ellen White as being one of a number of examples of NT prophets with the 1Cor 12, 1Cor 14:1, 1Thess 5, Numbers 12:6 gift of prophecy.
7. Lev 11 laws against eating rats, cats, dogs, bats - as still being valid because in our doctrines - Christ did not die so that the saints could start eating rat-sandwiches. That was not the point of the Cross.

As for health - we teach that the vegetarian diet of Genesis 1 is the best diet for mankind - but i don't know that this is unique to our denomination.

 

[mmksparbud]

I already pointed out his error earlier.

Ooooopss!!

 

[mmksparbud]

Well first of all "doctrines" - are voted on by the denomination and affirmed or changed/edited whatever in the every-5-years general assembly - General Conference session. The last one was this year -- as I am sure you know.

None of the voted doctrines -- 28 beliefs state that they are derived "from something Ellen White said" -- they all stand or fall "sola scriptura".

"The Ellen G. White Estate today owns approximately 8,300 typed documents from Ellen White comprising about 50,000 pages of letters and manuscripts dating from 1845 to 1915. Many of these documents were used by her in publications during her lifetime. Others were private and family letters. Of the 50,000 pages approximately 30,000 were left to the Trustees named by Ellen White in her Last Will and Testament and their successors, for use in preparing compilations as well as for other future needs as they arose in the church. The other 20,000 pages consist of personal family letters and additional materials left by her in her Will to her son, William C. White. The entire 50,000-page collection is available for study and research at 23 White Estate offices worldwide."
http://www.whiteestate.org/estate/manuscriptbackground.asp

however it is true that there are a number of distinctive beliefs of SDAs.

1. The Investigative Judgment of Daniel 7 and 2Cor 5:10.
2. The role that the Ten Commandments and the specifically the Sabbath commandment plays in Rev 14 end time events.
3. The work of Christ as our High Priest in heaven -- in Heb 8:1 and how that relates to the Lev 16 doctrine on atonement.
4. The millennium - of Rev 20 -- we believe in a true post trib, Pre-mill rapture of the saints to heaven - where Rev 20:4-6 describes the "first resurrection" - one where the 1Thes 4 "dead in Christ rise first" and are taken to heaven.
5. The state of the dead taught by Christ in John 11 and Matt 22 - also playing a key role in the Rev 13 discussion on signs and wonders at the end of time. Also a part of the 2Thess 2 -- end time signs and wonders.
6. Ellen White as being one of a number of examples of NT prophets with the 1Cor 12, 1Cor 14:1, 1Thess 5, Numbers 12:6 gift of prophecy.
7. Lev 11 laws against eating rats, cats, dogs, bats - as still being valid because in our doctrines - Christ did not die so that the saints could start eating rat-sandwiches. That was not the point of the Cross.

As for health - we teach that the vegetarian diet of Genesis 1 is the best diet for mankind - but i don't know that this is unique to our denomination.

Yah--I'm asking them what they think it is we believe that only we believe in because EGW states it and no other denomination believes it as you can't blame EGW for their believes. Maybe I should but out as there may be too many answering and causing confusion.

 

[Wgw]

More than some. The Trinitarian Baptist John Gill did too as did Matthew Henry. The idea appears in the 1599 Geneva Bible footnotes. Charles Spurgeon has statements along these lines too.

And the Bible is fairly clear on the point.

But since the question of Michael has nothing to do with non-trinitarianism in Adventism, this is the wrong thread for a discussion of this topic.

I have yet to meet anyone that denies that there are theophanies in the OT, where God appeared to people, where it was the Son who appeared, where the Son is called the Angel of the Lord. The question, then becomes whether Michael is a theophany or not.

I also haven't found anyone who denies that the "prince of the host" of Daniel 8 is Christ. The Hebrew for that phrase is also found in Joshua where the captain of the Lord's host appears to Joshua, and Joshua worships Him. That captain then talks to Joshua as if He Himself is God. I think there should be general agreement that this too is a theophany.

In the word "archangel," the word arche means first in time or palce, and is thus translated "beginning" and "ruler," depending on the context. Thus, "archangel" can simply mean "ruler of the angels." As such, it is functionally equivalent to the phrase "captain of the Lord's host," "prince of the host."

That is just one line of evidence, and there are several, that point to Michael the Archangel being the uncreated, divine, Son of God.

I find that claim rather dubious. What is more, it fails to take into account the other archangels mentioned in Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

What about statements by Ellen White that are just now being confirmed.

look up the term "goldilocks zone" or "goldilocks planets" -

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...ved=0ahUKEwjI_qPGgOzJAhUIVz4KHfbqAN0Q9QEIIzAA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

PHIL -
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog

When I was taking physics at the university my professors assured me that "we have no evidence that there are any planets at all in the universe outside of our own solar system" - the idea was that the formation of planets and life are such a long list of "just so stories" that it was 'unlikely' that any other planets had formed at all - and certainly "no evidence of it". Also at the start of the 20th century our own galaxy was thought to be the "entire universe" -- no other galaxies until Hubble opened the door to show a much larger universe.

However long before that - Ellen White makes this statement about inhabited worlds that are close enough to see our sun as a star.

Book: "Desire of Ages" page 20

"Now sin has marred God’s perfect work, yet that handwriting remains. Even now all created things declare the glory of His excellence. There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. There is no leaf of the forest, or lowly blade of grass, but has its ministry. Every tree and shrub and leaf pours forth that element of life without which neither man nor animal could live; and man and animal, in turn, minister to the life of tree and shrub and leaf. The flowers breathe fragrance and unfold their beauty in blessing to the world. The sun sheds its light to gladden a thousand worlds. The ocean, itself the source of all our springs and fountains, receives the streams from every land, but takes to give. The mists ascending from its bosom fall in showers to water the earth, that it may bring forth and bud. {DA 20.2}"

So while our science is still not there yet - we have "turned a corner" so to speak when it comes to science advancement - and we now know that just from the PHIL project alone - we are expecting to find "neighbors" - not merely habitable but - life, within the vicinity of our solar system "neighborhood" within this galaxy.

 

[BobRyan]

I find that claim rather dubious. What is more, it fails to take into account the other archangels mentioned in Scripture.

Step 1 - deal in actual quotes from actual sources.

For example - feel free to provide all the named archangels in scripture - other than Michael.

Recall that simply "making stuff up" when it comes to accusations or what is supposed to have been in the Bible - is not the same has having the source document actually say it.

 

[BobRyan]

Yah--I'm asking them what they think it is we believe that only we believe in because EGW states it and no other denomination believes it as you can't blame EGW for their believes. Maybe I should but out as there may be too many answering and causing confusion.

Sorry I did not mean to convey that idea.

I am glad to have people here discussing the subject.

 

[Pickle]

I find that claim rather dubious. What is more, it fails to take into account the other archangels mentioned in Scripture.

Which claim? John Gill? Spurgeon? Matthew Henry? 1599 Geneva Bible? More lines of evidence? The line of evidence I presented?

There is no other archangel mentioned in the Bible than Michael. "Michael" in Hebrew is a question that means, "Who is like God?" You know the answer.

There are really only two choices. Either Christ and Michael are both archangels, since Christ is the prince of the host, or Christ and Michael are the same person.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I was astonished when these members refused to answer whether or not they agreed with doctrine of the Holy Trinity as described by the Nicene Creed, even when the question was couched in terms that should have been broadly acceptable to those who make the creedal statement "No creed but Christ" (there was an amusing video from Lutheran Satire showing how such statements are in fact creeds, but I digress).

Others, including you, are handling the official subject of this thread at least as well as I could so I'd like to circle back to this for a moment with the acknowledgement that what follows is only tangential to this thread's stated purpose.

While I've never seen that LS video concerning "No creed but Christ", the proposition that the statement is itself a creed is self-evident. The issue, as I see it, is their creed is simply much briefer and less comprehensive than our creed.

On paper, this "No creed but Christ" creed is intended to foster unity. If we define that as vast swaths of people agreeing to that statement in principle then I suppose it accomplishes precisely that. However, in actual practice this translates to theological chaos which words fail to adequately describe. Early in my Christian journey had occasion to visit a Disciples of Christ congregation. As I mentioned in a separate thread, the "pastor" thereof was a borderline Adoptionist. This, in fact, was my first major exposure to Adoptionist doctrine. An assistant pastor was fairly evangelical in his theology but with an affection for moderate levels of liturgy. Quite why he was in a DOC congregation when any Anglican would've loved to have him remains a mystery.

Thus you had two people who could not agree on essentially anything from orthodox Christianity apart from their shared belief that Our Lord is the Son of God serving an even more diverse (and divergent) parish. I fail to see how that much disagreement somehow results in unity. Sharing space at the same table is hardly unity.

But they won't follow any creed except Christ no matter how wide they have to open those doors!

"No creed but Christ". An admirable sentiment on paper but utterly unworkable in the real world.

 

[Pickle]

Yah--I'm asking them what they think it is we believe that only we believe in because EGW states it and no other denomination believes it as you can't blame EGW for their believes. Maybe I should but out as there may be too many answering and causing confusion.

No, don't butt out. And my pointing out that I had pointed out his error earlier was not in any way intended to be a rebuke of you.

 

[Pickle]

Others, including you, are handling the official subject of this thread at least as well as I could so I'd like to circle back to this for a moment with the acknowledgement that what follows is only tangential to this thread's stated purpose.

While I've never seen that LS video concerning "No creed but Christ", the proposition that the statement is itself a creed is self-evident. The issue, as I see it, is their creed is simply much briefer and less comprehensive than our creed.

On paper, this "No creed but Christ" creed is intended to foster unity. If we define that as vast swaths of people agreeing to that statement in principle then I suppose it accomplishes precisely that. However, in actual practice this translates to theological chaos which words fail to adequately describe. Early in my Christian journey had occasion to visit a Disciples of Christ congregation. As I mentioned in a separate thread, the "pastor" thereof was a borderline Adoptionist. This, in fact, was my first major exposure to Adoptionist doctrine. An assistant pastor was fairly evangelical in his theology but with an affection for moderate levels of liturgy. Quite why he was in a DOC congregation when any Anglican would've loved to have him remains a mystery.

Thus you had two people who could not agree on essentially anything from orthodox Christianity apart from their shared belief that Our Lord is the Son of God serving an even more diverse (and divergent) parish. I fail to see how that much disagreement somehow results in unity. Sharing space at the same table is hardly unity.

But they won't follow any creed except Christ no matter how wide they have to open those doors!

"No creed but Christ". An admirable sentiment on paper but utterly unworkable in the real world.

I think I agree with you. But wouldn't the Bible being one's creed be much more comprehensive?

 

[Wgw]

I would note two things by the way:

Firstly, @Pickle still has not assented to Nicea, whereas one could argue that @BobRyan and @mmksparkbud have sought to signal tacit acceptance of it.

Secondly, I have seen no one even bother to respond to the evidence I have presented of active anti-Trinitarian agitation in the SDA at present, and dominance of non-Trinitarian views in the 1850s-1880s.

 

[Wgw]

I think I agree with you. But wouldn't the Bible being one's creed be much more comprehensive?

Lots of non-Trinitarians ostensibly believe in the Bible; several members working with myself were able to extract admissions from the non-Trinitarian party in a thread I posted that they either explicitly or implicitly rejected such a belief, but this required effort to expose.

Even then, they claim to believe the Bible, but attempt to question the authenticity of verses they find inconvenient, like Matthew 28:19.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think I agree with you. But wouldn't the Bible being one's creed be much more comprehensive?

I shouldn't think so. If it was, there would scarcely be so much corporate division inherent to the Christian Church.

The purpose of a creed is to identify those most salient, non-negotiable points adherents of a given religion cling to most closely. The purpose (and beauty) of the Nicene Creed which I recite at Mass every Sunday is that the entire parish gives verbal assent to this fine distillation of Christian belief. Indeed one's beliefs can (and arguably should) go far beyond merely what's listed in a given creed.

No, the purpose is to establish non-negotiable points to which one must agree in order to accurately refer to oneself as a Christian. By defining, for example, the nature of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed, I can be sure that the other members of my parish (and larger Church) all understand and agree with me on this common definition.

Moreover, it permits diversity on truly irrelevant issues. In America, the two dominant parties are the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. A creed allows Republicans and Democrats both, people who perhaps have very different ideas about how the country ought to be governed, to be united on those things which matter the most without getting distracted by petty, divisive issues such as partisan politics.

It's worked quite splendidly for millennia.

 

[Pickle]

Secondly, I have seen no one even bother to respond to the evidence I have presented of active anti-Trinitarian agitation in the SDA at present, and dominance of non-Trinitarian views in the 1850s-1880s.

I don't know of any active Seventh-day Adventist members around here that would be called anti-trinitarian or non-trinitarian.

In my personal experience, there is a lot of confusion. A lot of the so-called anti-trinitarians prove their anti-trinitarianism by saying that they believe that Christ was begotten, seemingly unaware that that is part of the classic, Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

Some modern Protestants believe that "only begotten" means "unique," and thus these may not believe that Christ was begotten at all, other than 2000 years ago. I have met some who might think they are proving that they are trinitarian by denying that Jesus was begotten, not realizing that they are thus denying part of the classic doctrine of the Trinity.

As for the 1850's through 1880's, I do not see how some of the statements from back then really promote an anti-trinitarian or non-trinitarian position. For example, some other faith described the Godhead as consisting of one God without body and without parts, composed of three persons, the second of which has a body. So an early Adventist criticized this description of the Trinity doctrine. So sometimes an early writer might be reacting to someone else's formulation back then, and not to what we think of today when we think of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Pickle]

Lots of non-Trinitarians ostensibly believe in the Bible; several members working with myself were able to extract admissions from the non-Trinitarian party in a thread I posted that they either explicitly or implicitly rejected such a belief, but this required effort to expose.

Even then, they claim to believe the Bible, but attempt to question the authenticity of verses they find inconvenient, like Matthew 28:19.

If they reject what the Bible plainly teaches, then the Bible isn't really their creed.

The reason why historically we have held to the Bible being our only creed is that (a) creeds change, and (b) creeds tend to become elevated above the Bible.