Significant Semi-Arian within Traditional Adventism

[RC_NewProtestants]

In another thread I made a comment about there being a large amount of Traditional SDA’s who hold to semi-arian views. While saying large and or very large is a pretty indefinite amount and it is further clouded by being a portion of another subsection of Adventism, namely traditional Adventists, I am going to offer some documentation of my statement. Whether small or large it is a significant amount.

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 125–139.
Article copyright © 2006 by Merlin D. Burt.

History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity
http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=240&journal=1&type=pdf

Merlin D. Burt

The last decade has seen an increased anti-Trinitarian agitation within the Seventh-dayAdventistChurch. Though this agitation is significant, it has remained on the margins of the movement. There are perhaps many reasons for the increased interest in the Trinity. I will mention three. (1) The availability of information through the Internet has provided
a platform to disseminate anti-Trinitarian perspectives more effectively. (2) Several other Adventist groups that emerged from the Millerite movement have continued to hold to an anti-Trinitarian perspective. Examples include the Church of God, Seventh Day (Marion Party); the now defunct World-wideChurch of God; and the Church of God, Atlanta, Georgia (formerly Oregon, Illinois, or the “Age to Come” Adventists). It should be noted that the Advent Christians, like Seventh-day Adventists, have embraced the Trinitarian view. (3) Perhaps most significant, over the last few decades some Seventh-day Adventists have thought to return to a historical Adventist faith or what might be called neo-restorationism. They argue that historic Adventism was a purer faith and that current Adventism has been drifting towards Roman Catholicism or at least away from Scripture. Part of the problem is that they do not recognize the dynamic nature of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Adventists have always sought a clearer understanding of Bible truth.

Throughout their history, their doctrines have grown from their original distinctive core of the Three Angel’s Message and kindred concepts. A small though significant and growing segment of “historic” Adventists are advocating a return to an anti-Trinitarian stance.

His conclusion is interesting for some of the other issues taking place on the Adventist forum:

Conclusion
So what can we learn from the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist church?
First, we must acknowledge that the development of Adventist biblical theology has usually been progressive and corrective. This is clearly illustrated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The leading of the Holy Spirit is dynamic and not static. Other doctrinal concepts, such as the time to begin the Sabbath (1855), the Great Controversy theme (1858), and tithing (1878) developed in a similar manner.

Second, the development of the Trinity doctrine demonstrates that sometimes doctrinal changes require the passing of a previous generation. For Seventh-day Adventists, it took over 50 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to become normative.

Finally, Adventist theology is always supremely dependant upon Scripture. It is always necessary to engage in careful Bible study. Adventist doctrinal beliefs were built on a biblical foundation during the Millerite movement, during the formative period of Sabbatarian Adventism after 1844, and continuing down to the present.

Merlin D. Burt teaches Church History at the S.D.A. Theological Seminary and is Director of the Center for Adventist Research and the Ellen G. White Estate Branch Office, AndrewsUniversity. He holds a Ph.D. in Adventist Studies from AndrewsUniversity.

The above article is from the very conservative Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. Note the following from another very conservative Adventist voice Kevin Paulson from:

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/editorial/ed125-kp_onlyinspiredp.php3


Recently some in conservative Adventist circles have tried to bring back the Arian or semi-Arian views of the Trinity, which were held by certain of the Adventist pioneers. While it is beyond the scope of this editorial to examine this issue at length, I invite my readers to consult an article I wrote for Our Firm Foundation in December 1998, titled, "In Defense of the Trinity" (6). This article contains sufficient evidence from both Scripture and Ellen White to establish beyond question the doctrine of a triune Godhead of equal Persons. The Ellen White passages found in this article disagree strongly with the views on this subject held by a number of our early pioneers.

And interesting blog article Against "Historical" Adventists: The Whites and the Divinity of Christ states:

However, what motivated me to write this article is a genuine concern. From the 1990s well into the 21st century, there seems to be an increasing anti-trinitarian revival in Seventh-day Adventist circles spread throughout various regions across North America. These so-called ‘Historical Adventists’, operating mostly from independent ministries outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are pushing a seemingly innocent, yet dangerous agenda: a return to what they claim as ‘the historical beliefs of the early Pioneers’. The 'Historical' agenda calls explicitly for an outright rejection of the church's current stand on the Trinity, i.e. Adventism should reinstate the Arian/Semi-Arian views held especially before 1888, since virtually all the pioneers allegedly adhered to such
views.

continued in part 2

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Part 2

From an article by the Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999
http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/trinity.html

A number of Adventist authors today, who are opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, are trying to resurrect the views of our early pioneers on these issues. They are urging the church to forsake the "Roman doctrine" of the Trinity and to accept again the semi Arian position of our pioneers.

Some examples from the Anti-trinitarian, they a rarely say they are semi-arian, statements:

When one considers that the founders of Seventh-day Adventism were not only anti-Trinitarian but also anti-Catholic it raises serious questions regarding the movement’s claim to be the remnant church when it has now come to accept the trinity which is the very central, root doctrine of Roman Catholicism.

The trinity concept of God distorts the most fundamental truth of Christianity, that "God (the protagonist) so (to such extent) loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ...." John 3:16. Yet Seventh-day Adventists have joined the majority of churches in Christendom in professing belief in the trinity, declaring this change to be an advancement in light.

http://www.restorationministry.com/tracts/are_sdas_advancing.htm

The way I have been taught the trinity is the same as Rome teaches because I was born and raised Roman Catholic. Provable historical fact is, ALL that embrace the Trinitarian theology are in fact embracing a Roman Catholic invention. I was taught God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the same in office and supreme alike in all ways. From a child I was taught that Jesus has the same powers and abilities as well as administration duties as the Father and vise versa. It was also taught the Holy Spirit was 100% identical to all that the Father and the Son can do. Bottom line is, this Trinitarian doctrine declares that there are three infinite persons, sharing the same substance, same power, same administrational duties, gifts, and operations, yet making up only one single solitary God; or one God divided into three parts. This is where the 'god blob' theology originates. In essence, one God with three heads. Is this Biblical? Is this what is spoken as Truth by the Creator God Himself? Is there only one God yet three separate entities? Is it true that no matter where Jesus walked, His Father had to walk as well as His Spirit? Or is this a cleverly designed method by which the enemy can separate brethren and at the same time belittle or destroy the paternal relationship of the Father to His Son? Which in fact will also place our image of the Godhead on a lesser level.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/trinity.htm

It needs to be understood that some groups with SDA affiliation do not agree with the SDA scholars cited above. Here are some comments from an email I received dated 01/18/07 about this (I have no retyped it and have not attempted to correct any typos):
I read with interest your article regarding the differences between Ellen White and Herbert Armstrong. One thing that I would ask you to consider updating is your belief that Ellen White led the Adventist church to its acceptance of the trithestic trinity doctrine. This is simply not true. Your sources, Gerhard Pfandl, Sam Bacchiocchi and Dr. Jerry Moon, are all part of the organizational group that is trying to convince the church that Ellen White became trinitarian. This is not the case, and these "scholars" have re-written church history, twisted quotes and supplied misinformation to the church at large to continue this charade in order to give a reason for the acceptance of the tritheistic trinity doctrine.


The historic Adventist church, which does still exist, does not believe in the trinity. We believe that "to us there is but One God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things, and we in Him". The historic chgurch was never "bitarian", but rather believed that the Father is the One true God and that Jesus Christ was His divine Son and God by inheritance.


I (COGwriter) will comment that my point that the SDAChurch (the main one) teaches the trinity, is of course, sadly true.
He sent a paper titled We Have Nothing to Fear for the Future, Except…A Response to Dr. Jerry Moon’s Overview of The Trinity Debates By Final Reformation Ministries
http://www.cogwriter.com/trinity.htm

You can even by their book “What did the Pioneers Believe” in which the ebay ad says:

THIS BOOK IS A COMPILATION OF QUOTES FROM ADVENTIST PIONEERS WHICH REFLECT THE UNANIMOUS POSITION OF THE EARLY ADVENTIST CHURCH. MANY ARE UNAWARE OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE ADVENTIST CHURCH. AFTER READING THIS BOOK, YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT THEY BELIEVED. HAS THE ADVENTIST CHURCH, AS A WHOLE, SHIFTED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE, AND TAKEN UP DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH ARE HELD BY ALL OF HER DAUGHTERS, THE APOSTATE PROTESTANT CHURCHES. MAY GOD HELP US! JUDE 4,5; 1 JOHN 2:22...​

TPOICS COVERED IN THIS BOOK:​

THE TRINITY (etc.)​

[FONT=&quot]Or you can simply read it here:[/FONT]
http://www.restorationministry.com/books/wdtpb/wdtpb.htm
The book actually includes this in the introduction and it is indeed a very true quote:

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs.
“More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. …” (Famous author and Andrews University seminary professor, George Knight, Ministry Magazine, October, 1993, page 10)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Bump to refresh remind of this quote:
“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs.
“More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. …” (Famous author and Andrews University seminary professor, George Knight, Ministry Magazine, October, 1993, page 10)

 

[GuardianShua]

Excellent work.

 

[GuardianShua]

BUMP, BUMP, BUMP.

 

[GuardianShua]

 

[mva1985]

Bump to refresh remind of this quote:
“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs.
“More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. …” (Famous author and Andrews University seminary professor, George Knight, Ministry Magazine, October, 1993, page 10)

Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

 

[GuardianShua]

Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

There was a time I used to believe in the trinity doctrine, and that is what I told people. But now after I have changed my mind, some of those people still think that I believe in the trinity doctrine. I hope I got rid of all that i wrote about believing in a trinity.

 

[GuardianShua]

You can call me Forest BUMP.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Great work, RC!

While Merlin D. Burt may have written the article that was published in this conservative journal, I would hesitate to classify him as truly conservative in his theology. But that is JMO.

 

[mva1985]

Michael,

I'm curious what changed your mind about the trinity?

Thanks,
Chris

 

[GuardianShua]

Michael,

I'm curious what changed your mind about the trinity?

Thanks,
Chris

Here are some things I wrote over in Non-denominational: http://www.christianforums.com/t5809450-trinitarism-facts.html

 

[GuardianShua]

You can call be Forest, Forest Bump.

 

[GuardianShua]

Personally I dont think Arian was a Gnostic; I think Constantine the great said that about him, to discredit him. Dont forget, Constantine the Great was the Pagan High Priest, all during the time he proclaimed to be head of the Christian church. Since Arian was a Judeaizing Christian, A logical assumption would be that he was a Judeao Christian. And as for Constantine he was a Pagan Christian. Because the Judeao Arian Christians lost the war against the Pagan Christians; you can imagine what happened after that.

 

[GuardianShua]

Bumpity,bump.

 

[djconklin]

Constantine the Great was the Pagan High Priest,

Can you tell me where you found that?

 

[GuardianShua]

Can you tell me where you found that?

It's recorded in some historical documents, but I dont know where to find them now. You may try looking on the web under: Constantine The Great.

 

[oldsage]

It's recorded in some historical documents, but I dont know where to find them now. You may try looking on the web under: Constantine The Great.

From what I remember about Constantine was just an emperor who came into Christianity. He was tired of the fighting between Alexander and Arius and told them to settle their differences. That didn't work so he asked the bishops from around the empire to come together and reconcile the problem.

All but two of the bishops voted against Aruis' position and later Aruis was exiled and not allowed communion within the church.

Some time later Constantine sided with the Arians and ordered the church to allow Arius to take communion but Aruis died before that was to happen. Constantine died an Arian. Constantine was against paganism and enacted laws which prohibited Pagans to obtain Christian converts and even had laws which said a Christian was not allowed to convert to Judaism.

So, historically, I don't see where Constantine could have been a pagan high priest.

blessings,
Chris

 

[GuardianShua]

From what I remember about Constantine was just an emperor who came into Christianity. He was tired of the fighting between Alexander and Arius and told them to settle their differences. That didn't work so he asked the bishops from around the empire to come together and reconcile the problem.

All but two of the bishops voted against Aruis' position and later Aruis was exiled and not allowed communion within the church.

Some time later Constantine sided with the Arians and ordered the church to allow Arius to take communion but Aruis died before that was to happen. Constantine died an Arian. Constantine was against paganism and enacted laws which prohibited Pagans to obtain Christian converts and even had laws which said a Christian was not allowed to convert to Judaism.

So, historically, I don't see where Constantine could have been a pagan high priest.

blessings,
Chris

For now I dont have access to my other computer. But anyway, Constantine made a pretence to becoming a Christian. It was not until he was on his death bed that he was truely baptised. Until his death he remained also the Pagan High Priest. This info I told you is recorded in some history books, but it's hard to find. Ill go now and see if I can find anything.

 

[GuardianShua]

This is a link to a bible study in regards to Adventist and trinisarism http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/132.trinityhistory.html