She has since left our local church but I now realise that I failed her by not listening. She had given me a booklet on her beliefs several months before and I had failed to talk to her about it, or even read the booklet properly.
I stumbled into the Trinity debate following Geoff's comments on my "To Win Christ" blog. With little previous experience I naively set out to bring Geoff back into the trinitarian fold. After over a 100 emails (and following up on the references) and carefully reading two booklets (The Godhead in Black and White and Putting the Pieces Together) Geoff gave me, I have come to some conclusions:
- This is not 'present truth', yes Godhead is important, but apparently not for now, otherwise it would be much clearer. The fact that we can argue for so long means that the limited information we have is not conclusive.
- The Godhead is not one of the pillars of our Seventh-day Adventist faith
- Being correct on the Godhead does not determine our salvation. What we need for our salvation is clear and easily understood.
- 'Trinity' is a dirty word. It's history has coloured the word for the 'Godheaders', so I think it was a mistake to name our second fundamental belief 'The Trinity'. An honest and unintentional mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, as it has raised the heat of the debate. On the other hand, we need to look at the target audience for the '28 Fundamentals', if it was the general public then I think it was probably the right thing to do. Other Christians would understand the meaning correctly.
- This is an argument, largely over language and its use. As with 'Trinity', the same word can carry very different emotional meanings to different people.
- Mrs White was inspired. By that I mean God gave her the ideas and she found the appropriate words to express those ideas. Unfortunately she had to use limited human language to express some pretty amazing ideas. Most of the conversation I have had with Geoff has been over quotes from Mrs White and I can see the wisdom with which she handled a difficult idea like the Godhead. I think that wisdom is more than human. Nevertheless it is the Bible we should use to confirm doctrine.
- I believe in a Godhead consisting of three 'persons' (in the usual sense of person), the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the Son is eternal (that is, He has always existed) I held these beliefs in fuzzy kind of way before, with little understanding, now at least I hold them with some intelligence.
So why stay with the discussion?
I had read and been changed by reading A. Leroy Moore's Adventism in Conflict and his more recent "Questions on Doctrine Revisited". Moore encouraged me to practice:
- Priesthood of Believers Principles - allowing me to see my own sinfulness specifically my pride of opinion and self-righteousness. Both things that I wouldn't have seen by myself. Priesthood principles mean that God is not only directly accessible to me but also that God uses fellow believers (and others) to find access to me. I believe God has spoken through Geoff to me.
- Listening to what Geoff was saying - enabling me to grasp wonderful truths in the verses and quotes that Geoff sent me. Truths I had forgotten or never heard. I could well have had the same experience if I had listened to the young woman I spoke of earlier. This is something I have done poorly and collectively as a church we cope with doctrinal dissent by ignoring or berating our dissenters rather than listening. In a small way I want to correct that in Geoff's case now.
- Placing the best possible construction on Geoff's, and the church's, words and behaviour.
So I stay with it because I think that God purposes, through Geoff and his fellow believers, to remind me and the church, of truths we don't know we have neglected. Truths about the character of Christ and His salvation. I hope to bring these out through this blog.
5 comments:
I am sorry to have to take issue with a comment of yours so soon,
namely, "the Godhead is not one of the pillars of our faith."
"That there is one God, a personal spiritual being, creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps.139:7.
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things..."
Numbers 1 and 2 of our 1872 Declaration of the Fundamental Principles.
These would be the fundamentals referred to by the prophet when she said, "from which we must not depart." Unchanged till 1930,
or 31, but the Godhead still being covered on fundamental no. 2 and in the book Adventist Believe, also covered in priciple no. 2.
Thanks for the comment Geoff, I didn't expect you to agree with all I said. I was laying out my present thinking.
While I agree that we made the Godhead a 'fundamental', Mrs White never called it that or something we should be majoring in, nor a part of the advent message the world needs to hear, or to my knowledge, one of the pillars.
If we are going to follow her lead, we should pretty much ignore the whole 'Godhead issue'.
I am really sorry to have to be taking issue with your comments Bruce, I guess it is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to return to the blog. I note your comment, "the fact that we can argue so long means that the limited information we have is not conclusive."
If I were to apply that same reasoning to the Sabbath question, I would have to conclude that it also is not a fundamental doctrine,
is not present truth, and is not important.
The fact that the Sabbath is still debated does not mean that it is not clearly taught in Scripture, or that it is not present truth and is not important, but rather because of the baggage people bring to the debate, it is hard for them to accept the plain evidence.
I am simply astounded at your last comment. When Kellog was arguing for a trinitarian view, even quoting DA 671, "Third Person of the Godhead" she said he should stop talking and writing about God as he had done and go away for a while and study the scriptures. She did not ignore the issue at all. She wrote whole chapters about it in Ministry of Healing and Testimonies vol. 8. And numerous other places stressing that our pioneers had the truth and were not to be moved by Kellog "to accept another doctrine which was not true."
She also said that to have a false understanding of God is akin to Baal worship. When the Bible tells us to worship God, can we charge God with failing to make clear who He is?
Thanks for the comments Geoff, please don't stay away, this is a place to discuss these things.
I have put up a new post on our differences, I hope they express your point of view correctly.
Regarding the Sabbath, both the Bible and Mrs White have conclusive and ample references that the Sabbath is a fundamental doctrine. There are limited references to the Godhead issue in both places and what is there is inconclusive.
People argue against clear facts for fear of being drawn into heresy. Since reading the booklets, I have lost that fear. I hope my argument is marked by love and humility, not fear. Geoff, the facts are few and case is inconclusive.
Both of us carry baggage, I hope "Differences" expresses your baggage correctly.
Regarding Kellogg, Mrs White is clearly against his pantheism and his spiritualism. She speaks against it in both Ministry of Healing and Testimonies 8. There is no evidence in either place that she has problems with his trinity doctrine or in any of the other material you have sent me. You assume she means the trinity but the evidence points to pantheism and spiritualism. The only time she speaks directly to his trinitarianism, SHE is the one talking about the "three living persons of the heavenly trio...three great powers - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit..." Evangelism 615.
Please look clearly at the evidence about Kellogg, Geoff, it does not support your case. Do you think this may be "because of the baggage people bring to the debate, it is hard for them to accept the plain evidence."?
Post a Comment