Foreword
A. Leroy Moore has provided us with a helpful examination of one the thorniest problems in Adventism - the ongoing struggle that began in the late 1950s in reaction to the Evangelical/Adventist dialogues and the publication of Questions on Doctrine. The results of those meetings, and the General Conference-sponsored book they spawned, produced widely different responses from leading Adventist ministers. On the one hand, M. L. Andreasen interpreted the events surrounding the publication of Questions on Doctrine to be a sell-out of the denomination's theology in order to obtain Evangelical recognition. On the other hand, the General Conference leadership, represented by such men as R. R. Figuhr, L. E. Froom, and R. A. Andersen, saw the meetings, the book, and Evangelical recognition as a great blessing.
The varying reactions were vigorous and became increasingly acrimoninious over time as each side argued for its position. Unfortunately, when both sides seek to "win" an argument, balance tends to be lost as theological and personality polarization takes place. The major casualty in such situations is nearly always truth. And the cost of that casualty has hurt the Sevent-day Adventist Church more dearly than most realize. The denomination is now in the midst of a theological power struggle that fractured it for a half century. And, as in most cases of polarization, the parties have not come closer together over time. To the contrary, they have moved further apart as positions have solidified. And the stakes are not small. The very identity of Adventism stands at the center of the struggle.
It is into this controversy-laden arena that Dr. Moore enters, offering both parties a wake-up call and an olive branch. In the tradition of his very helpful Adventism in Conflict: Resolving the Issues that Divide Us (Review & Herald, 1995), Moore argues that most people only see half of the truth - neither side has all error, and neither side has all truth. What is needed, according to Moore, is to get people thinking in a bipolar fashion that helps each side in a debate unite both poles of truth. That is, each party in a debate needs to integrate the correct ideas held by the opposition with the truths it has been defending. Only when both poles of truth are united can people hope to arrive at the closest approximation of God's truth and will.
Leroy Moore is onto something important here. And we would do well to listen to him carefully. The only way to health in Adventism is to move beyond the bipolarism that has divided the denomination since the late 1950s.
Questions on Doctrine Revisited is a detailed application of Moore's methodology. His aim in writing is to examine the fifty years of conflict in a manner that will enable the church to profit from past mistakes and to thus establish a basis for unity.
In Moore's treatment, there are no sacred Adventist cows as he writes with both conviction and passion. Each side is given credit for both its truths and its errors. And none of the controversial topics are left out, including the human nature of Christ, perfection, the role of the final generation, and so on.
In the process, Moore courageously takes all sides to task. But, and here is the crucial point, he does so in a manner that starts out with the principle that it is of the utmost importance - to put the best construction on each participant's motives and theological understandings. That spirit, which is the opposite of that which has too generally been exhibited in theological dialogue, is absolutely crucial in solving Adventism's theological difficulties in the early twenty-first century. Its opposite, what Ellen White in 1888 called "the spirit of the Pharisees" or "the spirit of Minneapolis" has in Moore's opinion to often driven the participants in the ongoing Adventist discussion.
In the spirit that Ellen White sought to foster in the midst of the 1888 controversies, Moore writes in first chapter that "though I discuss theological issues... my primary burden is not so much to relolve those issues as to suggest how we can work together to overcome the blindness that occurs... The resolution of our conflict must be a corporate undertaking... My emphasis is thus upon attitudes and methods that the Holy Spirit can bless in effecting a unity of spirit that too many resist for fear of compromise."
With that thought in mind, I would like to recommend Dr Moore's book as essential reading for all of those who have an interest in either the controversy over Questions on Doctrine or in the broader issue of a "Christian" approach to theological methodology.
George R. Knight
Andrews University (May 2005)
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Evidence against Matthew 28:19
Posted for Geoff (Bruce's reply in Comments)
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
by Clinton D. Willis, CWillis@ipa.net
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
For more truth on this important subject on the personality of God and His Son and Their Holy Spirit see :
Restitution Ministries Australian
Theme of the Bible Australian
Restoration Ministries Jamaican
Also there are also more references with respect to the addition of parts of 1 John 5:7
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
by Clinton D. Willis, CWillis@ipa.net
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
For more truth on this important subject on the personality of God and His Son and Their Holy Spirit see :
Restitution Ministries Australian
Theme of the Bible Australian
Restoration Ministries Jamaican
Also there are also more references with respect to the addition of parts of 1 John 5:7
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Nicene Creed
Just for a bit of fun, I thought I would look at the Catholic version of the trinity doctrine. It is based on the Nicene Creed. I used the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET) from Wikipedia "English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use". I have numbered the lines for ease of reference.
In 1975, ICET published, in the book Prayers We Have in Common, an ecumenical English translation of the Nicene Creed that was adopted by many Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Following is the text of this 1975 version as printed in the English-language Roman Missal used outside the United States. The only difference between this presentation and the way ICET presented the text is that ICET printed the Filioque clause as a parenthesis, thus: "[and the Son]".
1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
5
6 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
7 the only Son of God,
8 eternally begotten of the Father,
9 God from God, Light from Light,
10 true God from true God,
11 begotten, not made,
12 of one Being with the Father.
13 Through him all things were made.
14 For us men and for our salvation
15 he came down from heaven:
16 by the power of the Holy Spirit
17 he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
18 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
19 he suffered death and was buried.
20 On the third day he rose again
21 in accordance with the Scriptures;
22 he ascended into heaven
23 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
24 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
25 and his kingdom will have no end
26
27 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
28 who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
29 With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
30 He has spoken through the Prophets.
31 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
33 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
34 and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Both mainline SDAs and antitrinitarians would agree with most of this.
Mainline SDAs disagree with lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of seven lines
Antitrinitarians would disagree with lines 8, 12, 27, 29 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of five lines.
Therefore the antitrinitarians are closer to the Catholic doctrine of the trinity, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, than are mainline SDAs.
Comments and corrections welcome.
In 1975, ICET published, in the book Prayers We Have in Common, an ecumenical English translation of the Nicene Creed that was adopted by many Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Following is the text of this 1975 version as printed in the English-language Roman Missal used outside the United States. The only difference between this presentation and the way ICET presented the text is that ICET printed the Filioque clause as a parenthesis, thus: "[and the Son]".
1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
5
6 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
7 the only Son of God,
8 eternally begotten of the Father,
9 God from God, Light from Light,
10 true God from true God,
11 begotten, not made,
12 of one Being with the Father.
13 Through him all things were made.
14 For us men and for our salvation
15 he came down from heaven:
16 by the power of the Holy Spirit
17 he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
18 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
19 he suffered death and was buried.
20 On the third day he rose again
21 in accordance with the Scriptures;
22 he ascended into heaven
23 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
24 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
25 and his kingdom will have no end
26
27 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
28 who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
29 With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
30 He has spoken through the Prophets.
31 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
33 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
34 and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Both mainline SDAs and antitrinitarians would agree with most of this.
Mainline SDAs disagree with lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of seven lines
Antitrinitarians would disagree with lines 8, 12, 27, 29 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of five lines.
Therefore the antitrinitarians are closer to the Catholic doctrine of the trinity, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, than are mainline SDAs.
Comments and corrections welcome.
Where We Disagree with James White
To finally sum up our discussion of James White on the Trinity, I will discuss where we disagree. Before I do, just a reminder that this is one of the few places where we disagree with James, most of what he says is orthodox SDA doctrine.
Where Antitrinitarians disagree with James White but the mainline SDA church agrees:
James White on the Personality of God
I take the views of The Godhead in Black and White" as the antitrinitarian norm.
Where Mainline SDAs Disagree with James, but antitrinitarians agree
So that means that the antitrinitarians disagree with James on four points while the mainline SDA church disagrees on one point, albeit a major point.
James rarely mentions the trinity and he never wrote an antitrinitarian article in his long writing career. This probably indicates the low importance he attached to this doctrine, which goes against the whole tenor of present-day antitrinitarians who hold this area as so important it deserves compilations, websites and separation from the church.
After looking carefully at what James White says on this issue, I agree that he was non-trinitarian but his actions are a far cry from those who claim to follow his beliefs. Not only are they disagreeing with him on a number of points but they are working to pull apart the church that he spent his life and health to build up.
I know this is probably a surprise to most antitrinitarians, it certainly was to me, so I would love comments.
Where Antitrinitarians disagree with James White but the mainline SDA church agrees:
James White on the Personality of God
- "Personality" means a distinct personage and physical form. (See Personality of God)
I take the views of The Godhead in Black and White" as the antitrinitarian norm.
- There are two distinct Comforters
- The Holy Spirit is another Comforter, it is not Christ because Christ is absent, after the ascension.
- The "three-one God" is a fallacy, "but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse".
Where Mainline SDAs Disagree with James, but antitrinitarians agree
- Jesus Christ is NOT the very and Eternal God
So that means that the antitrinitarians disagree with James on four points while the mainline SDA church disagrees on one point, albeit a major point.
James rarely mentions the trinity and he never wrote an antitrinitarian article in his long writing career. This probably indicates the low importance he attached to this doctrine, which goes against the whole tenor of present-day antitrinitarians who hold this area as so important it deserves compilations, websites and separation from the church.
After looking carefully at what James White says on this issue, I agree that he was non-trinitarian but his actions are a far cry from those who claim to follow his beliefs. Not only are they disagreeing with him on a number of points but they are working to pull apart the church that he spent his life and health to build up.
I know this is probably a surprise to most antitrinitarians, it certainly was to me, so I would love comments.
We all Agree with James White
We have looked at all the information that Geoff could find on James White and the Godhead. So this post and the next will be a summary of the main points.
First we will look at the parts of Godhead belief we can all agree on. Using myself as an example of mainline SDA belief, I think we can all agree with the antitrinitarians and James himself on the following:
From the post, James White on the Personality of God
This is a fairly long list and means that there is much common ground even over the Godhead. I invite comments and corrections. Next we will look at where we disagree with James and each other.
First we will look at the parts of Godhead belief we can all agree on. Using myself as an example of mainline SDA belief, I think we can all agree with the antitrinitarians and James himself on the following:
From the post, James White on the Personality of God
- God the Father has a physical form
- God can be anywhere by his representative, the Spirit
- Jesus has a physical form
- Heaven is a physical place
- Christ was "in a special sense" Comforter while on earth with his disciples.
- While Christ is absent the Holy Spirit is His representative and Comforter.
- The Catholic trinity doctrine is error
- The Father and Son were one in man's creation and in his redemption
- The "three in one and one in three" formulation is a fallacy, neither Biblical or explicable.
- The Father and the Son are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption.
- The old Trinitarian creed is unscriptural
- Jesus is second in authority to the Father
- Jesus is the Father's "only beloved"
- The Catholic trinity doctrine "does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ"
- The Father is never called an angel but Jesus is frequently called an angel in the Old Testament.
- Jesus is given credit for what angels do because they are His agents.
- Jesus represents the Father's mind (thinking) in the events of deliverance.
This is a fairly long list and means that there is much common ground even over the Godhead. I invite comments and corrections. Next we will look at where we disagree with James and each other.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
James White and the church
Geoff sent me some more quotes, probably the last, regarding James White before we summarise:
The article deals with church worker's attitudes toward church leadership. Some were too independent, not heeding leadership. Others were not independent enough, relying on church leadership to make all their decisions for them. This leadership included James White, which is why she made the second quote above about people putting burdens on him that they should have carried themselves.
There are many references to James and the unappreciated burdens he bore. One I particularly liked was:
The chapter ends (p508, 509) with a comments that James was often misunderstood by his co-workers:
While I appreciated the chapter, I can see no relationship between it and the topic of the Godhead. I think Geoff infers that God spoke to James on the Godhead and that James clearly discerned the correct picture of the Godhead. The quote I gave from page 502 says God permitted truth to illuminate the James' mind. We could infer that this includes Godhead BUT it is only inference. In the context, Mrs White doesn't even hint at what these truths are.
So I don't find it adds any significant weight to Geoff's argument. In fact, in context, it presents some real difficulties for the present-day antitrinitarians. Their attitude to church leadership is directly challenged by the chapter's second paragraph on page 492:
So Geoff, and your friends, I encourage you to heed the voice of the prophet and the voice of the General Conference, cease your wilfulness and put your "undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God".
When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to his voice.. 3 Testimonies 509and
My husband's ready judgement and clear discernment, which have been gained through training and exercise, have led him to take on many burdens which others should have borne. 3 Testimonies 497.These quotes come from James' wife, Ellen, in a seventeen page section entitled "Leadership". Once again Geoff, thank you for leading me to this wonderful article, my copy is now heavily underlined.
The article deals with church worker's attitudes toward church leadership. Some were too independent, not heeding leadership. Others were not independent enough, relying on church leadership to make all their decisions for them. This leadership included James White, which is why she made the second quote above about people putting burdens on him that they should have carried themselves.
There are many references to James and the unappreciated burdens he bore. One I particularly liked was:
God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband... 3 Testimonies 502She went on that James should have reflected this light by preaching and writing but he was kept too busy doing church church business that others could have done. At the end of the page (502, 503):
The wide contrast between themselves and him seemed like a gulf; but might easily have been bridged, had these men of intellect put their undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God.It is clear that the same "ready judgement and clear discernment" that James exhibited, could have been gained by his fellow workers if they were willing to exercise their talents. We may also, "through training and exercise", gain these same characteristics.
The chapter ends (p508, 509) with a comments that James was often misunderstood by his co-workers:
I was shown that my husband's course has not been perfect. He has erred sometimes in murmuring and in giving too severe reproof. But from what I have seen, he has not been so greatly at fault in this respect as many have supposed and as I have sometimes feared. Job was not understood by his friends...
... His motives are misunderstood and his actions misconstrued by those who would be his friends, until like Job, he sends forth the earnest prayer: Save me from my friends...
When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to His voice; but to bear the condemnation and reflection of his friends who do not seem to discriminate has been a great trial... (they torture) his feelings by reflections and censures which he in no way deserves.
While I appreciated the chapter, I can see no relationship between it and the topic of the Godhead. I think Geoff infers that God spoke to James on the Godhead and that James clearly discerned the correct picture of the Godhead. The quote I gave from page 502 says God permitted truth to illuminate the James' mind. We could infer that this includes Godhead BUT it is only inference. In the context, Mrs White doesn't even hint at what these truths are.
So I don't find it adds any significant weight to Geoff's argument. In fact, in context, it presents some real difficulties for the present-day antitrinitarians. Their attitude to church leadership is directly challenged by the chapter's second paragraph on page 492:
I have been shown that no man's judgement should be surrendered to the judgement of any one man. But when the judgement of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgement must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgement of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon earth...You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference...You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.
So Geoff, and your friends, I encourage you to heed the voice of the prophet and the voice of the General Conference, cease your wilfulness and put your "undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God".
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The First Rule of Bible Study
Geoff has said that "the first rule of Bible study is that we are to understand the words according to their obvious meaning unless a figure or metaphor is indicated."
In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."
First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".
Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.
Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.
Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).
So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.
1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".
2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.
3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.
4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.
To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.
Does that answer your question Geoff?
In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."
First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".
Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.
Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.
Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).
So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.
1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".
2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.
3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.
4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.
To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.
Does that answer your question Geoff?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Backfire and Sentience
Last year I posted about Selective Inattention
To quote a pertinent part of that post
I came across an article by Joe Keohane "How Facts Backfire" that adds more to this subject. Even though Joe is talking about political beliefs, it also applies in the realm of religion.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
(Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance." It is interesting to note that our pioneers are held up as examples in the Wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance "The Great Disappointment of 1844 is an example of cognitive dissonance in a religious context.")
Joe' had some very disturbing points to make (these were from recent research such as the Michigan study mentioned above):
Facts do not cure misinformation -
when misinformed people are presented with facts that correct their beliefs "they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."
Our beliefs often dictate the facts we notice
Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information."
Motivated Reasoning - We passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs and actively dismiss information that doesn't. This is like selective inattention
Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.”
Salience
the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.
Insecurity breeds selective inattention
if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.
Some of the cures for this are:
Directness
There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas.
Education (but it probably won't work)
And if you harbor the notion — popular on both sides of the aisle — that the solution is more education and a higher level of political sophistication in voters overall, well, that’s a start, but not the solution. A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong. Taber and Lodge found this alarming, because engaged, sophisticated thinkers are “the very folks on whom democratic theory relies most heavily.”
As Moore said of selective inattention "it is relatively easy to discern in others and almost impossible to see in one's self". We should be humble and take correction to heart.
This is tough work. I don't know if I'm up to it. But it does explain much of inconsistency I see in the anti-Trinitarians. But where is it in my life. What am I strongly attached to? Where am I ignoring facts?
To quote a pertinent part of that post
The more convinced one is of the validity of his position the less capable he is to accommodate contrary factors. Moreover, psychological and spiritual sanity require certainty on some issues as the basis for both clarity and security needed for examining others.
I came across an article by Joe Keohane "How Facts Backfire" that adds more to this subject. Even though Joe is talking about political beliefs, it also applies in the realm of religion.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
(Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance." It is interesting to note that our pioneers are held up as examples in the Wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance "The Great Disappointment of 1844 is an example of cognitive dissonance in a religious context.")
Joe' had some very disturbing points to make (these were from recent research such as the Michigan study mentioned above):
Facts do not cure misinformation -
when misinformed people are presented with facts that correct their beliefs "they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."
Our beliefs often dictate the facts we notice
Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information."
Motivated Reasoning - We passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs and actively dismiss information that doesn't. This is like selective inattention
Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.”
Salience
the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.
Insecurity breeds selective inattention
if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.
Some of the cures for this are:
Directness
There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas.
Education (but it probably won't work)
And if you harbor the notion — popular on both sides of the aisle — that the solution is more education and a higher level of political sophistication in voters overall, well, that’s a start, but not the solution. A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong. Taber and Lodge found this alarming, because engaged, sophisticated thinkers are “the very folks on whom democratic theory relies most heavily.”
As Moore said of selective inattention "it is relatively easy to discern in others and almost impossible to see in one's self". We should be humble and take correction to heart.
This is tough work. I don't know if I'm up to it. But it does explain much of inconsistency I see in the anti-Trinitarians. But where is it in my life. What am I strongly attached to? Where am I ignoring facts?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
More Inferences
Some more inferences from Adrian's article:"No Other Foundation"
The quote given to support this was
Notice the author is saying that it is the "truth" that our eternal life depends upon, not as Adrian infers, our "belief" in that "truth". The author also explicitly states how the trinity saves; because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Persons.
Does the author believe that non-belief in this "truth" will "cause the loss of salvation"? We could infer that, but remember it is only an inference, he (or she) does NOT SAY that.
Adrian will need a much stronger quote to make his inference a fact.
To state my own belief here; I don't think that it matters one way or the other for our salvation, what we believe on this subject. And the reason I believe that is because if it did matter, there would be "positive testimonies" on this subject from our pioneers.
Another inference from page 5:
"How God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of... finding the true Son of God."
There is no mention of the "true Son of God" in either quote. It can't even be infered. This statement cannot be sustained by quotes given. There is nothing at all about the Sonship of Jesus in either quote.
"...Christ, his mission and His priesthood... are labeled as old landmarks and pillars"
Once again Adrian is sloppy here. Yes, I agree that these are probably landmarks and pillars BUT it DOESN'T SAY THAT. Adrian has put the two bits of the two quotes together and inferred that is what it means.
To be true to the first quote it would be best to say "Christ, his mission, and his priesthood were truths that the pioneers understood after earnest prayer, Bible study and Mrs White's visions. "
Also trinitarians can believe the same as Adrian on Christ's mission and priesthood. So Adrian is inferring that making the word "Christ" mean "the literal Sonship of Christ". That is quite a long shot.
"...notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this..."
Once again there is no reference given for this assertion. In fact the earlier quote (I am assuming the author was an Adventist scholar) states specifically that God and Christ are separate Persons.
But if Adrian understands personality in the modern sense, of "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual" then that is not a problem for even a Trinitarian to enumerate these attributes and connect them to the atoning work on earth and heaven.
However, if you infer that "personality" means the literal Sonship of Jesus, Fatherhood of God then Adrian better supply some more positive evidence that this is what Mrs White had in mind. She certainly doesn't say that here.
I believe that the Sonship of Jesus and for that matter, the Trinity are NOT pillars or landmarks of the Adventist church. I also believe that the personality of God and Christ is essential. I want to thank you Geoff, for pointing this out to me in the past.
Also from page 5:
"Christ and the Sanctuary stand or fall together." Amen and amen... Preach it brother!! I couldn't agree more.
"If Christ is not literally the Son of God, then the foundations for a literal sanctuary in heaven have been smashed."? - I still can't see the link. Why would the fact that Jesus in not literally a Son, affect the literality of the heavenly sanctuary. I thank you for showing how real and literal the sanctuary in heaven is, but the inference that it is somehow linked to Christ's Sonship is still inference.
No quotes are given to back Adrian's statement up. Personally I don't think Jesus is the literal Son of God and I'm very happy to see you preaching the heavenly sanctuary as it is a subject that we should major in. As for the investigative judgement, and the day of atonement, I believe this is probably the most powerfully evangelistic doctrine of our church. Non Christians are especially attracted to it, as are post-moderns and Muslims, in my experience. "The hour of His judgement has come" is wonderful news indeed! Preach it LOUD!
In this lawless time, the Law of Covenant is a shining light in this dark and hopeless world. Preach it too.
"Victory over sin" is the message that our youth and especially the men need to hear. This is a doctrine of hope and encouragement for the neutered Aussie man of today. When this catches on we will see a revival here in Australia that will send missionaries to every corner of our country and world. I really mean "men on a mission", real soldiers, soldiers of Christ, real men in their families, communities and churches.
Preach on brethren, this is why you guys are here... Don't get sidetracked with these inferences.
From page 6
The first sentence is true, the second is inference.
The Son of God is not spiritual in the sense that James White uses it. The spiritualisers that he was battling in "The Parable" believed that Jesus returned "spiritually" in 1844 (or when we were converted). They believed heaven was 'spiritual'. Another good article by James on this subject is "Personality of God". I agree with his conclusion there, that heaven is real and physical, as are the Father and Son.
My plea to Geoff, Adrian and any other anti-trinitarian is that you would give me "one positive testimony" from James White or any other person in the White family. I'm getting tired of inferences.
The wise man built his house upon the rock, but our leaders now want us to believe that we built it on a very dangerous belief (literal Sonship of Jesus), that will in fact cause the loss of salvation! This is a fantastic claim that must be clearly understood. Our church claims that our forefathers ignorantly laid a poisonous corner stone that would kill us all and that later wiser leadership would have to correct this most terrible situation!
The quote given to support this was
"What do we forfeit if God is only one Person? For one, Christ could not be our Savior. It took the Holy Spirit to bring Christ to Mary. It took the Father to answer Christ's prayers and give Him needed help. That's how important the Trinity is to us. Our eternal life depends upon this truth."Geoff, you and I both believe that the Father and Son are not the same Person, so we both believe that Christ can be our Saviour because of this. You would probably also agree with the examples given as to why the it is important that the Godhead consists of separate Persons. The offending part of the quote must be "Our eternal life depends upon this truth (the trinity)."
Adventist World Magazine - February 2010 Issue - Page 30 par. 2
Notice the author is saying that it is the "truth" that our eternal life depends upon, not as Adrian infers, our "belief" in that "truth". The author also explicitly states how the trinity saves; because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Persons.
Does the author believe that non-belief in this "truth" will "cause the loss of salvation"? We could infer that, but remember it is only an inference, he (or she) does NOT SAY that.
Adrian will need a much stronger quote to make his inference a fact.
To state my own belief here; I don't think that it matters one way or the other for our salvation, what we believe on this subject. And the reason I believe that is because if it did matter, there would be "positive testimonies" on this subject from our pioneers.
Another inference from page 5:
The whole of chapter 23 of Great Controversy outlines the history of how God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of measuring the temple and finding the true Son of God. Notice carefully the words of the prophet concerning our pillars...
"After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me." RH, May 25, 1905 par. 24
"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." MR760 9.5
Here is a definitive statement that light was given to the pioneers regarding Christ, his mission and His priesthood. They are labeled as old landmarks and pillars and notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this.The logic of our current position in the church is that our pioneers dragged in their false beliefs concerning Christ and we all had to suffer the consequences for over 100 years.
"How God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of... finding the true Son of God."
There is no mention of the "true Son of God" in either quote. It can't even be infered. This statement cannot be sustained by quotes given. There is nothing at all about the Sonship of Jesus in either quote.
"...Christ, his mission and His priesthood... are labeled as old landmarks and pillars"
Once again Adrian is sloppy here. Yes, I agree that these are probably landmarks and pillars BUT it DOESN'T SAY THAT. Adrian has put the two bits of the two quotes together and inferred that is what it means.
To be true to the first quote it would be best to say "Christ, his mission, and his priesthood were truths that the pioneers understood after earnest prayer, Bible study and Mrs White's visions. "
Also trinitarians can believe the same as Adrian on Christ's mission and priesthood. So Adrian is inferring that making the word "Christ" mean "the literal Sonship of Christ". That is quite a long shot.
"...notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this..."
Once again there is no reference given for this assertion. In fact the earlier quote (I am assuming the author was an Adventist scholar) states specifically that God and Christ are separate Persons.
But if Adrian understands personality in the modern sense, of "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual" then that is not a problem for even a Trinitarian to enumerate these attributes and connect them to the atoning work on earth and heaven.
However, if you infer that "personality" means the literal Sonship of Jesus, Fatherhood of God then Adrian better supply some more positive evidence that this is what Mrs White had in mind. She certainly doesn't say that here.
I believe that the Sonship of Jesus and for that matter, the Trinity are NOT pillars or landmarks of the Adventist church. I also believe that the personality of God and Christ is essential. I want to thank you Geoff, for pointing this out to me in the past.
Also from page 5:
"Christ and the Sanctuary stand or fall together." Amen and amen... Preach it brother!! I couldn't agree more.
"If Christ is not literally the Son of God, then the foundations for a literal sanctuary in heaven have been smashed."? - I still can't see the link. Why would the fact that Jesus in not literally a Son, affect the literality of the heavenly sanctuary. I thank you for showing how real and literal the sanctuary in heaven is, but the inference that it is somehow linked to Christ's Sonship is still inference.
A denial of the literal Son of God MUST of necessity destroy the foundation of the Sanctuary in heaven which flows onto an erosion of a literal investigation; a literal law and literal victory over sin. All must stand and fall together and all are linked to the literal Son of God, for He is the WAY into the Most Holy His very identity as the Son of God is the Door to understanding. pp5,6
No quotes are given to back Adrian's statement up. Personally I don't think Jesus is the literal Son of God and I'm very happy to see you preaching the heavenly sanctuary as it is a subject that we should major in. As for the investigative judgement, and the day of atonement, I believe this is probably the most powerfully evangelistic doctrine of our church. Non Christians are especially attracted to it, as are post-moderns and Muslims, in my experience. "The hour of His judgement has come" is wonderful news indeed! Preach it LOUD!
In this lawless time, the Law of Covenant is a shining light in this dark and hopeless world. Preach it too.
"Victory over sin" is the message that our youth and especially the men need to hear. This is a doctrine of hope and encouragement for the neutered Aussie man of today. When this catches on we will see a revival here in Australia that will send missionaries to every corner of our country and world. I really mean "men on a mission", real soldiers, soldiers of Christ, real men in their families, communities and churches.
Preach on brethren, this is why you guys are here... Don't get sidetracked with these inferences.
From page 6
By its very definition, the Trinity denies us the right to believe that the Son of God is literal. It demands of us a belief that the Son of God is spiritual, an application, a working title but not His true identity.
The first sentence is true, the second is inference.
The Son of God is not spiritual in the sense that James White uses it. The spiritualisers that he was battling in "The Parable" believed that Jesus returned "spiritually" in 1844 (or when we were converted). They believed heaven was 'spiritual'. Another good article by James on this subject is "Personality of God". I agree with his conclusion there, that heaven is real and physical, as are the Father and Son.
My plea to Geoff, Adrian and any other anti-trinitarian is that you would give me "one positive testimony" from James White or any other person in the White family. I'm getting tired of inferences.
Inferences on James White
I must really thank Geoff and Adrian for alerting me to "The Parable" from James White. It has clarified his position and gave me a vocabulary to express my unease with the the anti-trinitarian argument. As always I have learned lots of other things too, so a genuine thank you.
Also thank you for the advice to "Read it again carefully". I did, and learned a great deal about the things that you should be telling us about Geoff...
The problem of "spiritualising"
The importance of a literal Sanctuary in heaven
The real meaning of the parable of the 10 virgins
The meaning of the 'bride of Christ'
The history of our church.
Now for a couple of principles from James White on how to find the truth from Scripture:
1. Positive Testimony not Inferences
Starting at page 21 when James is talking about the bride of Christ, he says
from pp21,22
My impression is that most of the anti-trinitarian argument is inferences and Adrian's "No Other Foundation" provides some excellent examples.
Immediately preceding the quote in the previous post, Adrian says:
The quote does not back up this claim:
"Only"? - Also listed as being literal are our High Priest, the Sanctuary in heaven, Jesus, the candlestick, the Son of man, the Ark containing the ten commandments in heaven, the City and finally, the Son of God. Far from 'only'.
"Literal Sonship of Jesus"? - is never mentioned. The "literal Son of God" is what James says. We can infer that he is talking about "sonship" here because we know his theology, but a stronger inference would be that he is simply using another name of Jesus to drive home the point that He is the "literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven".
"Sonship"? - the subject of this quote is to provide "a perfect safeguard against spiritualism". It is not an argument on the subject of sonship. In fact he states clearly that the perfect safeguard against spiritualising God and heaven is the "position...that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven."
"only through an understanding"..."could the door into the Most Holy be opened"? - the part of the quote missed out indicates that it is was the ending of the 2300-day prophecy (not our understanding) that opened the atoning work in the Most Holy...
So to sum up: There is no part of Adria's assertion that is not proven false by the context.
James' subject in the The Parable is to combat the deceptions of spiritualising (p16) and of thinking that Jesus is still High Priest in Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (pp19, 20), that come from a misinterpretation of the Matthew 25 parable of the Ten Virgins in the "few years" (p6) after 1844, (probably just after 1850 or 1851 p13).
Using James' second principle, this quote and the whole article is NOT on the subject of the Sonship of Jesus. While James is definitely non-trinitarian, I have never seen a single article he has written on the subject. (If you can find one, please let me know).
Sorry Adrian, but this is a very weak inference indeed.
Also thank you for the advice to "Read it again carefully". I did, and learned a great deal about the things that you should be telling us about Geoff...
The problem of "spiritualising"
The importance of a literal Sanctuary in heaven
The real meaning of the parable of the 10 virgins
The meaning of the 'bride of Christ'
The history of our church.
Now for a couple of principles from James White on how to find the truth from Scripture:
1. Positive Testimony not Inferences
Starting at page 21 when James is talking about the bride of Christ, he says
One positive testimony is worth more on this point, or any other, than a hundred inferences.2. The Subject not Weak Inferences
from pp21,22
The principle Scripture brought to prove that the church is the bride of Christ, is Eph.v,22-33. But it should first be particularly noticed, that Paul's subject is the duty of husband and wife. The union that should exist between them is strikingly illustrated by the union that exists between Christ and the church. But the Apostle does not intimate that the church is the bride of Christ. Those who use this text to prove that the church is the bride, infer that it is so, merely because Paul chose the union existing between Christ and the church, to show the duty of man and wife. Those who have had much to say upon the (22) insufficiency of inferential reasoning should not rest their faith relative to the bride, on such a weak inference, which contradicts the plain testimony of John. Rev.xxi,9,10.
My impression is that most of the anti-trinitarian argument is inferences and Adrian's "No Other Foundation" provides some excellent examples.
Immediately preceding the quote in the previous post, Adrian says:
It is only through an understanding of the literal Sonship of Jesus could the door into the Most Holy be opened. p3
The quote does not back up this claim:
"Only"? - Also listed as being literal are our High Priest, the Sanctuary in heaven, Jesus, the candlestick, the Son of man, the Ark containing the ten commandments in heaven, the City and finally, the Son of God. Far from 'only'.
"Literal Sonship of Jesus"? - is never mentioned. The "literal Son of God" is what James says. We can infer that he is talking about "sonship" here because we know his theology, but a stronger inference would be that he is simply using another name of Jesus to drive home the point that He is the "literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven".
"Sonship"? - the subject of this quote is to provide "a perfect safeguard against spiritualism". It is not an argument on the subject of sonship. In fact he states clearly that the perfect safeguard against spiritualising God and heaven is the "position...that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven."
"only through an understanding"..."could the door into the Most Holy be opened"? - the part of the quote missed out indicates that it is was the ending of the 2300-day prophecy (not our understanding) that opened the atoning work in the Most Holy...
And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel. He says, "The temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT." Rev.xi,19. Also, "The tabernacle of the testimony was opened in heaven." Chap.xv,5.
This being an event to take place under the sounding of the seventh angel, it could be fulfilled at no other time than at the end of the 2300 days. The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary.
So to sum up: There is no part of Adria's assertion that is not proven false by the context.
James' subject in the The Parable is to combat the deceptions of spiritualising (p16) and of thinking that Jesus is still High Priest in Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (pp19, 20), that come from a misinterpretation of the Matthew 25 parable of the Ten Virgins in the "few years" (p6) after 1844, (probably just after 1850 or 1851 p13).
Using James' second principle, this quote and the whole article is NOT on the subject of the Sonship of Jesus. While James is definitely non-trinitarian, I have never seen a single article he has written on the subject. (If you can find one, please let me know).
Sorry Adrian, but this is a very weak inference indeed.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
James and the Parable
Geoff sent me the following in an email. It is a quote from Adrian Eben's "No Other Foundation" which in turn quotes from James White's "The Parable".
Quote from No Other Foundation by Adrian Ebens:
Notice carefully the observations of James White
As I read the above statement, I am forced to stop and weep for joy. WHAT A GIFT God has given us in the person of James White and this statement! When I get to heaven I am going to grab this man and hug him and hold him tight and greet him with a holy kiss.
Here is the secret to our entry into the Most Holy Place. It is based on an identification of Jesus as the literal Son of God. Read it again carefully we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place.
Our pioneers measured the temple of God and found the WAY into the Most Holy. Let us remember that a measuring of the Sanctuary is a measuring of the person of Christ.
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
End of quote
Thanks for this Geoff (and Adrian) I will post about this, again.
For some more information, from Adrian's home page, download the excellent "Comparison Chart", under point 6.
Quote from No Other Foundation by Adrian Ebens:
Notice carefully the observations of James White
Our position is, that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven, which is to be compared to the coming of the bridegroom in the marriage. This view is a perfect safeguard against spiritualism. We not only believe in a literal Jesus, who is a "Minister of the Sanctuary," but we also believe that the Sanctuary is literal. ‐ And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel.
...The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If we take the liberty to say there is not a literal Ark, containing the ten commandments in heaven, we may go only a step further and deny the literal City, and the literal Son of God. Certainly, Adventists should not choose the spiritual view, rather than the one we have presented. We see no middle ground to be taken. - The Parable Page 16
As I read the above statement, I am forced to stop and weep for joy. WHAT A GIFT God has given us in the person of James White and this statement! When I get to heaven I am going to grab this man and hug him and hold him tight and greet him with a holy kiss.
Here is the secret to our entry into the Most Holy Place. It is based on an identification of Jesus as the literal Son of God. Read it again carefully we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place.
Our pioneers measured the temple of God and found the WAY into the Most Holy. Let us remember that a measuring of the Sanctuary is a measuring of the person of Christ.
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
End of quote
Thanks for this Geoff (and Adrian) I will post about this, again.
For some more information, from Adrian's home page, download the excellent "Comparison Chart", under point 6.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Geoff on Criticism
(a slightly edited email from Geoff to Bruce 21 March, 2010 - posted with permission)
As we see the increasing efforts to silence criticism of the trinity doctrine; John Carter, and others, had a meeting with all the pastors in Russia to counteract unauthorized people questioning the church's position on that and other issues. John Carter himself was going to address the issue of the trinity, at Lakeside church they were having a whole weekend of meetings on the topic, and the new pastor at Avondale Memorial is planning talks likewise, he has already stated that he believed Matthew was a trinitarian, and we have been urged to attend his meetings; it is with a feeling of sadness that we visit our friends in other churches, not to argue the point, but just to say, we still love you.
We have been warned to be careful not to have the same attitude as the Jews, who hardened their hearts in rejecting truth and evidence, and ended up rejecting Him who was the Truth. Every where you turn, you see groups engaged in activity and having a measure of success, assuming that all is well and they are enjoying the favour of God. It is a trap we can all fall into. But if that were the real test of our position, any number of divergent groups could claim God's sanction for their program. In fact the bigger pentecostal groups could claim greater evidence of God's favour.
It seems the church is determined to not only reject the light themselves, but like the Jews, prevent others who might be inclined to listen, from hearing anything different as well.
The facts are that the trinity teaching has no part in the "faith, once delivered to the saints." as the firsttrinitarian leanings did not appear in the church till late in the second century. The doctrine of the trinity was not known among the first Christians.
Did Jesus teach it? Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, would he not have known who the Father and Son were? Would He need Jesus to reveal to Him who the Father was?
Did Paul teach it? Romans 8:6 "But 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 by him."
From the book, The Trinity by Whidden Moon and Reeve, "If indeed the Holy Spirit is a third equal person in the Godhead, then it only seems logical that we should pray to and worship Him." Yes indeed, since we are admonished to worship God, then we must worship Him. But is that scriptural? Nowhere in Scripture is worship or prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. In fact in Jude 20 says that we are to pray "in the Holy Ghost." not to the Holy Ghost. Obviously their deduction is not correct, because it is not borne out in Scripture. Yet even in our church services we sing hymns that are prayers to the Holy Spirit, but because the trinity doctrine is so entrenched, no one seems to see the unscriptural nature of what they are doing, and Satan succeeds in his plan of hiding Jesus from view as "the Comforter."
We can see that our beliefs will never be acceptable in the church, even though they are no different to James White and his two sons, whom the prophet affirmed many times as being especially blessed of God to correct the erring, and who were as true as steel to the cause of God. When we see a lying report that deceives the people, being advocated and promoted, while those who appeal for all the evidence to be laid openly upon the table, are condemned as being divisive, we can only conclude that our beliefs are not welcome, and that we could never function in any meaningful way within the church. As Mrs White said when Kellogg was advocating the trinity and receiving enthusiastic support, many had changed tracks, and were not even aware of it.
I long that our fellowship could be on a deeper level than this.
With our love,
Geoff
As we see the increasing efforts to silence criticism of the trinity doctrine; John Carter, and others, had a meeting with all the pastors in Russia to counteract unauthorized people questioning the church's position on that and other issues. John Carter himself was going to address the issue of the trinity, at Lakeside church they were having a whole weekend of meetings on the topic, and the new pastor at Avondale Memorial is planning talks likewise, he has already stated that he believed Matthew was a trinitarian, and we have been urged to attend his meetings; it is with a feeling of sadness that we visit our friends in other churches, not to argue the point, but just to say, we still love you.
We have been warned to be careful not to have the same attitude as the Jews, who hardened their hearts in rejecting truth and evidence, and ended up rejecting Him who was the Truth. Every where you turn, you see groups engaged in activity and having a measure of success, assuming that all is well and they are enjoying the favour of God. It is a trap we can all fall into. But if that were the real test of our position, any number of divergent groups could claim God's sanction for their program. In fact the bigger pentecostal groups could claim greater evidence of God's favour.
It seems the church is determined to not only reject the light themselves, but like the Jews, prevent others who might be inclined to listen, from hearing anything different as well.
The facts are that the trinity teaching has no part in the "faith, once delivered to the saints." as the firsttrinitarian leanings did not appear in the church till late in the second century. The doctrine of the trinity was not known among the first Christians.
Did Jesus teach it? Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, would he not have known who the Father and Son were? Would He need Jesus to reveal to Him who the Father was?
Did Paul teach it? Romans 8:6 "But 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 by him."
From the book, The Trinity by Whidden Moon and Reeve, "If indeed the Holy Spirit is a third equal person in the Godhead, then it only seems logical that we should pray to and worship Him." Yes indeed, since we are admonished to worship God, then we must worship Him. But is that scriptural? Nowhere in Scripture is worship or prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. In fact in Jude 20 says that we are to pray "in the Holy Ghost." not to the Holy Ghost. Obviously their deduction is not correct, because it is not borne out in Scripture. Yet even in our church services we sing hymns that are prayers to the Holy Spirit, but because the trinity doctrine is so entrenched, no one seems to see the unscriptural nature of what they are doing, and Satan succeeds in his plan of hiding Jesus from view as "the Comforter."
We can see that our beliefs will never be acceptable in the church, even though they are no different to James White and his two sons, whom the prophet affirmed many times as being especially blessed of God to correct the erring, and who were as true as steel to the cause of God. When we see a lying report that deceives the people, being advocated and promoted, while those who appeal for all the evidence to be laid openly upon the table, are condemned as being divisive, we can only conclude that our beliefs are not welcome, and that we could never function in any meaningful way within the church. As Mrs White said when Kellogg was advocating the trinity and receiving enthusiastic support, many had changed tracks, and were not even aware of it.
I long that our fellowship could be on a deeper level than this.
With our love,
Geoff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)