Sanctuary, sanctuary...

Geoff asked why I insisted that the Godhead question be tied to the sanctuary doctrine. The reason is the quote that leads my post True Knowledge of God

..remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary OR concerning the personality of God or of Christ."

The context is firmly "The Sanctuary" (title of the article) and is largely against Ballanger's attack on the sanctuary. The reason I want 'correlate' the two is that this is the only place I have seen where the Godhead is part of the 'pillars'. So the 'personality' of God and Christ are important present-truth as they relate to the sanctuary.

Geoff comments:

I notice that Waggoner felt that those views destroyed the atonement. It is an area that I have not explored.

That is interesting. (I'm thinking out loud) The atonement... The purpose of the sanctuary was so that God can safely dwell with His people (atonement). The priests and Christ as priest stand between us and the destroying fire or holiness of God. So Christ must be another individual for this to work. "As a personal Saviour He intercedes in the heavenly courts" Ministry of Healing 418.1. The whole system falls if He is not 'personal'.

Christ had to be 'a personal Saviour' to die for us too, He was personal as a human of course, but did He have to have separate divinity to His Father to die for us?

Most Christians, I'm surprised to learn, don't have, or at least haven't thought through, this 'personal' aspect to their religion. I think this message of a 'personal Saviour' makes atonement and the judgement and the sanctuary vivid and full of life. Thanks for leading me to this Geoff.

Geoff then talked about the love of God. I replied:
Thanks for the sharing, Geoff. Yes, of course, you reminded me of the most basic principle of them being separate! If they are sort of "one being" then ANY relationship is simply self love. Love is only possible between individuals in a relationship. So the Father and Christ being separate makes relationship possible. Great!

Victory for the Weak

I've just thought of a whole new reason why the it is important that the Father and Son are separate Persons.

When Jesus was on earth, He lived by faith, that is He didn't use His own divine power to live a victorious life. He depended wholly on His Father's power (John 5:19,30).

If we believed in the nebulous '3 in 1 God' of many churches then there is no separation between the power of God and the power of the Son. So if Jesus trusted "God's power" in this system, He was simply trusting in His own, innate divine power. In other words, unless the Father and Son are different individuals then Jesus was trusting Himself! This is the very temptation that Satan used in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11) and again at the cross (Matt 27:41-43).

So the implications are:

Rev 14:12 says the saints are those who keep the commandments of God and the FAITH of Jesus. - the saints (hopefully us) must trust Jesus the way that He trusted His Father for the power to overcome (John 15:5 and all of ch 15).

Second, and here is the link to the sanctuary: We have a "great High Priest" who can "sympathise with our weaknesses" (Heb 4:14,15) because He was weak too (He willingly became totally dependent). So in v16 He can invite us to come and boldly ask for mercy and grace so we can overcome as He did.

Neither of these things, empowering trust and enabling sympathy, would be possible unless Christ and the Father were separate individuals.

Differences

Great to see that you are getting more confident with the whole blogging thing, Geoff, so I think it's time we ran up our true colours.

Stated as succinctly as I can, here are the three main 'Godhead' differences that have become apparent in previous discussions. Please correct me if I have misstated your case, Geoff.

1. The origin of Jesus - I believe Jesus is figuratively "the Son of God", with the meaning that He is one with His Father "in nature, in character, in purpose" (Like father, like son) and has been since eternity.
Am I correct in saying that you believe that Jesus is literally "the Son of God"? That is, He began when He was literally "born of God".

2. The Person of the Holy Spirit - I believe the Spirit is a literal Person, "the third Person of the Godhead". I think you believe that the Holy Spirit is a figurative Person. That is, it is the power, influence or thinking of the Father and Son.

3. The importance of the Godhead doctrine - I believe that a clear understanding of this subject is of minor importance at present, certainly not essential to salvation. My take on your belief, Geoff, is that you believe that it is 'present truth' and essential to salvation.

I can't think of any other differences between us. We both agree that the Bible and Mrs White are authoritative. We believe in all the other 27 Fundamental doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We both believe in the seventh-day Sabbath and the soon-return of Jesus Christ. We are fairly conservative in our approach to doctrine and religion and enjoy our families.

I won't go into the first two differences here because it gets tedious (we have already exchanged well over 100 long-winded emails on the subject) but I will delve into the third a little . I think this third difference is the most important.

Geoff, I was surprised when you showed me that the members of the Seventh-day Adventist church who were published from 1863 to around 1900 were overwhelmingly in agreement with you on the first two points of difference. That is, they believed that Jesus is a literal Son and the Holy Spirit is a figurative Person.

The booklets you gave me, Geoff, and quotes from our "pioneers" you sent me in correspondence as well as my own re- reading of E.J. Waggoner and James White clarified why I was surprised: they disagree with you on the third point.

Mrs White rarely refers to the issues in the first two points and when she does, it is indirectly and only to support another doctrine she holds as more important. In most of these statements she is equivocal, not offending either you or me, Geoff. It is only by inference that we can find support for our views. This changed after James White died when she started being more specific about these issues.

The statements she made from the 1890s onwards were interpreted to support the position of Jesus as a figurative Son of God and the Spirit a literal person. Whether this is the correct interpretation is what we are debating, but since the 1930s most SDAs believe this interpretation.

But, and this is essential, she only makes a few references to this topic. She never calls the Godhead a 'pillar' or fundamental belief, she never says it is 'present truth' or something we must set before the people. She is so reticent on the issue that even her own son, Willie White, did not understand what she believed.

So I was surprised at the position the church took in the early days, because Mrs White had never condemned or condoned it. In her writings it was a non-issue so I was never made aware of it.

The other pioneers were reticent too. Rereading their statements, with the knowledge of what they believed, I can see it there but like Mrs White, if you didn't know it was an issue you would see no threat to Protestant Trinitarian beliefs. In other words, they did not actively provoke the issue.

James White wrote extensively but I don't know of even one article specifically on this topic. Were there any articles by any author, published in our missionary magazines, like the Signs, that were candidly anti-Trinitarian?

E. J. Waggoner in "Christ and His Righteousness" talks about the origins of Christ but only to back up his contentions that Christ is uncreated and divine, which we both believe. He does not denigrate trinitarianism or insist his own beliefs on the Godhead are essential knowledge.

Willie White seems to have been specific only once on his beliefs on the nature of the Holy Spirit and that was in a private letter. So I think there is little evidence to support the belief that this was, or is, an important doctrine, as there was virtually no public discussion of it and very little discussion privately.

To sum up, Geoff, the problems I have with your beliefs are not so much with the beliefs themselves but with their promotion which has become divisive. This is not all your fault as you have often had the beliefs rejected out of hand with no discussion. Nonetheless, if you really believe that this is essential to salvation you must continue to promote your first two beliefs whether or not it edifies the church. I have a problem with this.

I don't question your motives. You are acting out of concern for souls. You are also motivated by the "Faithfulness Model" that says that if we return to faithful observance of the doctrines of old, God will bless the church and prosper it. These are great motives but, I think, misguided.

So why am I still in this discussion with you? I'll quote the way I ended my long profile (where you have been making your comments):

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.

These are the truths that the Whites and other pioneers were speaking about when they made the quotes we argue over. These truths are important to our salvation.

True Knowledge of God

In connection with A.F. Ballenger's sanctuary theory, Mrs White said in Manuscript Releases p. 9. :

Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.

Ballenger's attacks on the sanctuary, with the doctrine of universal justification, are still used to denigrate the sanctuary doctrine. I didn't realise that he also attacked the personality of God or of Christ. Even now after thinking about it for some time, I'm just beginning to see how they are linked.

One link I see is that if God is only Spirit and Jesus and the Father are sort of merged into one being, how can any work be done in the sanctuary at all? 'One' being cannot be the mediator between us and Himself. While Christ can be the sacrifice and priest only because he has these functions at different times ie. He was the sacrifice and now He is the priest. But this cannot apply to a priest before the throne of God, as both are present simultaneously.

Geoff mentioned a chapter in Ministry of Healing on worship, chapter 35 "A True Knowledge of God". It was a great reminder to read it again. A few highlights:

p410 We need to study the revelations of Himself that God has given.

413

God is a Spirit; yet He is a personal Being; for so He has revealed Himself:

"The Lord is the true God,
He is the living God, and an everlasting King: . . .
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth,
Even they shall perish from the earth, and from under
these heavens."

"The portion of Jacob is not like them:
For He is the former of all things."

"He hath made the earth by His power,
He hath established the world by His wisdom,
And hath stretched out the heavens by His discretion."
Jeremiah 10:10, 11, 16, 12.

So we NEED to study that God, though Spirit, is a personal Being

pp 418, 419

As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son... Jesus as a personal Saviour, came to the world. As a personal Saviour, He ascended on high. As a personal Saviour, He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers "One like unto the Son of man." Rev 1:13

And it goes on to "He sent His Son into the world to manifest, as far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God.

We NEED to study God as a personal being revealed in Jesus, a personal Saviour on earth, ascended and as intercessor. Revealer of the nature and attributes of invisible God. Ballenger didn't believe in Christ as High Priest so maybe he couldn't have Him as 'personal' as well.

There are heaps of great quotes about the saved looking upon the face of God (What greater joy..indeed) and personality of the Father and the Son on page 421 and the quotes keep coming, as Geoff pointed out, right to the end of the chapter.

p425 The knowledge of God as revealed in Christ is the knowledge that all who are saved must have.

it transforms character, recreates the image of God in the soul, imparts divine, spiritual power. No wonder she finishes with "beside (this knowledge) all else is vanity and nothingness."

Wow, to see the unity and, at the same time, the person of God revealed in Jesus is amazing and powerful. But I don't think I have seen clearly yet how this relates to the sanctuary.

Two Distinctly Loving Personages

I'm glad God the Father is a Person but much of Christianity, on the basis of John 4:24, 'God is Spirit', would disagree with us and make Him out to be some amorphous being. This, I guess, has something to do with Greek dualism - 'the body is bad and the spirit is good'. A non-Biblical idea.

As Mrs White points out, such a belief takes away the glory of both God and heaven. I know I am dwelling on this, but it IS really important that God and heaven and Christ are all physical.

The fact that the devil attacks at this point, all through Mrs White's ministry and into our time means that it is important. As she summed up in the quote below, men try to make the Son a nonentity by making Him 'one' with the Father.

And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." All through the Scriptures, the Father and the Son are spoken of as two distinct personages. You will hear men endeavoring to make the Son of God a nonentity. He and the Father are one, but they are two personages. Wrong sentiments regarding this are coming in, and we shall all have to meet them.
{Review and Herald, July 13, 1905 par. 3}

Satan would like nothing better than for the Son of God to be a nonentity, a person of no influence. And he will try anything to do it and a 'loose, lax religion' certainly would. As Mrs White points out below, the fact that Christ and the Father are two personages, yet are united, means that we are to be one with Christ. This unity proves God sent his Son to save us.

Christ is one with the Father, but Christ and God are two distinct personages. Read the prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of John, and you will find this point clearly brought out. How earnestly the Saviour prayed that his disciples might be one with him as he is one with the Father. But the unity that is to exist between Christ and his followers does not destroy the personality of either. They are to be one with him as he is one with the Father. By this unity they are to make it plain to the world that God sent his Son to save sinners. The oneness of Christ's followers with him is to be the great, unmistakable proof that God did indeed send his Son into the world to save sinners. But a loose, lax religion leaves the world bewildered and confused.
{Review and Herald, June 1, 1905 par. 14}

This concept of 'oneness yet distinct personalities' lived out by us, makes salvation clear to a bewildered world. The unity of the Father and Son are an example of our unity with Christ. But this sets a very high bar because they were one in spirit, heart and character 'from eternity'. That spirit, heart and character was of unfathomable love.

The love of God was Christ's theme when speaking of his mission and his work. "Therefore doth my Father love me," he says, "because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." My Father loves you with a love so unbounded that he loves me the more because I have given my life to redeem you. He loves you, and he loves me more because I love you, and give my life for you. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you." Well did the disciples understand this love as they saw their Saviour enduring shame, reproach, doubt, and betrayal, as they saw his agony in the garden, and his death on Calvary's cross. This is a love the depth of which no sounding can ever fathom. As the disciples comprehended it, as their perception took hold of God's divine compassion, they realized that there is a sense in which the sufferings of the Son were the sufferings of the Father. From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character.
{Youths Instructor, December 16, 1897 par. 5}

A church united with such love would be a powerful witness indeed. 'Almost identical' in loving, giving and longsuffering. Are we up to this Geoff?

So God and Son must be distinct personages or else 'love' becomes 'self-love'. No wonder Satan wants confusion here. He wants to make God's greatest attribute into selfishness.

I would really like verses that back this concept up. Do you know of any Geoff? From my limited knowledge, a few verses which seem to show the Father as being a Person are the vision of Daniel 7 where the Ancient of Days (v9-10) show Him as an awesome Being seated on a throne. which is similar to "Him who sat the the throne" in Revelation 5:1 with His right hand holding the scroll (v7) and being approached by "One like the Son of Man" (v13). In Revelation He is approached by the Lamb.

The Father's Person

The second truth is another wonderful one:
the Father is a Person and has a form so glorious that we can't see Him yet.

I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist...
Early Writings p54

This is Good News, God is 'real'!! We can relate to Him.

Most of the Christian world get themselves tangled up trying to explain the extradimensional, incorporeal and 'entirely simple' (therefore spirit alone). Some Hebrews felt the same, as do the Hindus.

All of these beliefs, seem to me, to have the effect of distancing God from us. Making Him into a distant, incomprehensible, ethereal spirit.

Why is it so important that the Father is a Person? One reason the booklet quotes is:

I have often seen that the spiritual view took away all the glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David and the lovely person of Jesus have been burned up in the fire of Spiritualism...
Early Writings - Experience and Views p77

This seems to indicate that an airy fairy heaven is not a glorious one, I wonder if the usual cloud-sitting, harp-playing heaven has made people think of it as a boring place where people only exist as 'spirits'. It has made them prefer this down-to-earth existence now.

This reminds me of Nirvana where the enlightened Buddhist goes, he becomes one with the universe, so ceases to exist. Isn't it strange that these people spend their whole lives working hard to get to a place that is close to our idea of where the wicked will spend eternity. The devil has fooled so many peoples and religions.

Our job is to tell people that God exists! That heaven is a gloriously real place with a throne and Persons on it.

Won't it be exciting to see the Father for the first time?

just testing, geoff.

God Personified

We are still looking at that first truth, that Jesus is the a person.

In the Review and Herald, January 30, 1900, Christ or Barabbas?, Mrs White says:

The world is not improving. Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. By rejecting the Son of God, the personification of the only true God, who possessed goodness, mercy, and untiring love, whose heart was ever touched with human woe, and choosing a murderer in his stead, the Jews showed what human nature can and will do when the restraining power of the Spirit of God is removed, and men are under the control of the apostate. Those who choose Satan as their ruler will reveal the spirit of their chosen master. {RH, January 30, 1900 par. 6}

From this we see that the Son of God is the personification of the only true God.

Websters 1828 defines personification as: The giving to an inanimate being the figure or the sentiments and language of a rational being.

While the Son isn't inanimate, I think Mrs White wants us to see that the figure, sentiments and language of 'the only true God' are in Christ because she goes on to say "who possessed goodness, mercy and untiring love, whose heart was ever touched with human woe." So not only is He lovely in form, He is lovely in sentiment as well.

We can see this clearly at the cross which surely has to be the greatest demonstration of "mercy and untiring love" that this world has ever seen. Mercy because we were the ones who should be punished but Jesus bore that punishment instead. Untiring love in that He loved us until death, despite all the coercion of Satan to give up on us.

We see this idea of Christ as a person being reflected in Adam and Eve:

Created to be "the image and glory of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7), Adam and Eve had received endowments not unworthy of their high destiny. Graceful and symmetrical in form, regular and beautiful in feature, their countenances glowing with the tint of health and the light of joy and hope, they bore in outward resemblance the likeness of their Maker. Nor was this likeness manifest in the physical nature only. Every faculty of mind and soul reflected the Creator's glory. Endowed with high mental and spiritual gifts, Adam and Eve were made but "little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:7), that they might not only discern the wonders of the visible universe, but comprehend moral responsibilities and obligations. {Ed 20.2}

Our first parents reflected the mental/mind and spiritual/soul of the person of their Creator as well and the outward physical form. In other words a 'person' consists of a mind, soul and form. Christ, Even preincarnate Christ had all these features.

As a human, I too, reflect the form and features of my Maker, not as much as Adam and Eve did of course. But with his help I can reflect His mind and soul.

So the truth that Jesus is a complete person means that He has real feelings of mercy and love towards us and we can reflect his thoughts.

Jesus has form

In looking at "The Godhead in Black and White" I found some neglected truths. Truths you must never give up or compromise, Geoff. These are things the church needs to hear. They are certainly things I needed reminding of, and to appreciate again or for the first time. Thank you!

The first truth:

Jesus has a form and is a person.

... I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that he is a person. I asked him if his Father was a person, and had a form like himself. Said Jesus. "I am in the express image of my Father's Person.

I have often seen that the spiritual view took away all the glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David, and the lovely person of Jesus had been burned up in the fire of spiritualism. I have seen that some, who have been deceived, and led into this error, would be brought out into the light of truth, but it would be almost impossible for them to get entirely rid of the deceptive power of spiritualism. Such should make thorough work in confessing their errors, and leaving them forever. {Experience and Views p64 para1,2}

This is wonderful in that we can relate to Jesus personally, so we aren't relating to some vague thing as the 'spiritualisers' propose. We have 'the lovely person of Jesus' on the throne of David.

He was in in the express image of the Father, not in features alone, but in perfection of character.

We have an actual Person, not made in human image but who is the express image of His Father.

Websters 1828 defines 'express' (adjective) as: Plain; clear; expressed; direct not ambiguous.
1. Given in direct terms; not implied or left to inference. This is the express covenant or agreement. We have his express consent. We have an express law on the subject. Express warranty; express malice.
2. Copied; resembling; bearing an exact representation.

So Jesus is a plain, clear, unambiguous, exact representation of the Father. And in two ways:
Physical: in form and features.
Character: perfection of character.

When Jesus said He who has seen Me has seen the Father, He means that they are alike in character. This is great news. They are both loving and gracious, merciful and longsuffering. They are also alike in form and feature but separate persons.

Great Truths - My Condition

Probably the most personally valuable 'truth' to come out of my conversations with Geoff. has been the confirmation that I am a genuine member of God's last-day church...Yay!

Laodicea... Not so Yay...

In our talks I have acted with the pride of opinion, self-justification and blindness of self-love that typifies the church of Laodicea. I would not have seen this without our emails, it was too painful to look at myself. I honestly thank Geoff for the timely drops of 'eyesalve' that have allowed me to see my real condition.

This has reinforced, for me, the value of 'priesthood of believer principles'. We cannot reach any great height alone, we need fellow church members, especially those who disagree with us and tell us the truth.

Providentially, as I slowly realised my condition, "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked", the quotes that he had me read were lifting up Christ as my only hope. Quotes like this one from The Signs of the Times , May 30, 1895, paragraph 3, Article Title: Christ Our Complete Salvation.

There is but one way of escape for the sinner. There is but one agency whereby he may be cleansed from sin. He must accept the propitiation that has been made by the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. The shed blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Yes, there is hope in Christ! "The shed blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin." Yay indeed!

The next paragraph is full of wonderful promises too.

John said, "We have seen, and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." The Son of God took upon him human nature,--"the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." "God was manifest in the flesh." The union of divinity with humanity brings to the fallen race a value which we scarcely comprehend. The human and the divine were united in Christ, in order that he might represent those who should believe in him. He took our nature, and passed through our experiences, and as our representative he assumed our responsibilities. The sins of men were charged to Christ, and, innocent though he was, he engaged to suffer for the guilty, that through faith in him the world might be saved. "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Christ reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. O, what compassion and love are here revealed! How is humanity exalted through the merits of Christ! His sacrifice was ample and complete. The Holy One died instead of the unholy. He clothed himself in our filthy garments, that we might wear the spotless robe of his righteousness, which was woven in the loom of heaven. He paid the whole debt for all who would believe in him as their personal Saviour. His blood cleanseth from all sin and purifieth from all unrighteousness. In him, through him alone, we have forgiveness of sins. Through faith in his blood we have justification in the sight of God. {ST, May 30, 1895 par. 4}

So that is the first 'truth'. I am a great sinner, but Jesus is a great Saviour. He alone can give me a humble faith in Him in place of my pride and His justification in place of my self-justification.

Thank your for pointing that out to me, mate.

How to Make a Comment

Comments on this blog are moderated. This means that they will have to be approved by us before the comment appears. If you want to see your comment, please follow these steps:

At the bottom of each post is the highlighted word 'COMMENTS'. Click on this and see the comments already made and type in your own. If you come up as anonymous, please type in your name or a nickname so we can have a sensible conversation.

Writing a comment.
Keep it short. Two or three sentences at most.
Keep it simple, state your case simply and stay on topic.
Keep it clear, try not to be cryptic.
Keep it good-natured, we are in this together.
Use snippets and give the source of quotes, not the whole quote.
No denigrating or unedifying comments. We are searching for truth, not trying to win an election!

Thank you for following these rules.

Bruce's Profile

The 'Godhead controversy', for want of a better term, first came to my attention when one of our church members, a young woman, stood in the Sabbath School just before we divided into classes to study the Holy Spirit. She said that she had come to believe in a different sort of Godhead. At the time I felt as if she had invaded our space (not the least because I was superintendent that day). The feeling increased as the class she was in, talked heatedly about her new beliefs rather than the lesson the members came to study.

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:

1. 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.


2. The Godhead is not one of the pillars of our Seventh-day Adventist faith


3. Being correct on the Godhead does not determine our salvation. What we need for our salvation is clear and easily understood.


4. '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.


5. 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.


6. 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.


7. 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:

1. 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.


2. 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.


3. 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.