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.
No comments:
Post a Comment