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.
5 comments:
Geoff made two comments on this post at James White on the Holy Spirit.
Geoff "Why do you continue to accuse us of basing our beliefs on inferences, when we simply believe what the Bible says repeatedly, that Jesus is the Son of God. When the real fact is that the trinity doctrine itself is the one based on inferences.
"The term Trinity is applied to the Christian doctrine of God... It may be inferred from the Scriptures that when the Godhead laid out the plan of salvation at some point in eternity past, They also took certain positions or roles to carry out the provision of the plan." Signs of T July 1985.
"To me this signifies the interchangeableness of the members of the Godhead since they are one in action and purpose." R&H Oct 21,
1971. J. R. Spangler.
"While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times."
"Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity."
Adventist Review, Vol 158, No. 31.
Can we accept the Sabbath "only by faith" or is there sound Scriptural evidence for it? What other doctrine do we accept, "only by faith" without direct Scriptural evidence?"
Bruce - Thanks for these quotes Geoff, I agree both trinity and Sonship are based on inferences. That's why I think you should be welcomed into our church. Both sides are making inferences.
This subject is not one we can be sure about at present. It is not a doctrine of importance at present. And the differences between us are certainly not important.
How can you claim that Trinity and Sonship are both based on inferences?
While the trintarian theologians themselves acknowledge that only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity, since no scriptural passage states it formally, we have many texts formally stating and emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. I spent two hours with the Conference president, who was also a member of the BRI, and the pastor, as they tried to tell me that Jesus was not the Son of God before the incarnation. And the reason I was not allowed to speak was that my views, "were out of harmony with the body."
I can claim that the Trinity is based on inference because your own quotes in the first comment show that. Don't they?
I can claim that literal Sonship is based on inference by the post these comments are on and the previous posts on inferences. These are all obvious cases of inference.
And in those "many texts formally stating and emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the Son of God" you infer this means literal Sonship, a trinitarian would say that it means figurative Sonship. Which side is correct? I'm not sure, which is why I'm not ever again going to tell anyone what they must believe on this subject.
So that is how I can claim both trinity and Sonship are based on inference. Surely you must agree?
Can I make one thing clear please...
An inference can be true or it could be false. It is difficult to tell because of the nature of inference. That is why we should seek for "positive testimonies" on these subjects and if we can't find them we should be humble in our treatment of those who disagree.
That is why your conference president and pastor should have been less dogmatic.
We should all be less dogmatic on these issues especially if we define dogmatic as - characterised by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
In the normal course of speech, we do not add the word "literal" to everything we say. But no one then assumes something different. If I say "Marshall is my son" people don't stop and ask if I mean that in a spiritual or literal sense. Likewise, 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.
Thanks Geoff,
I'm not sure what you mean by a "spiritual son" but yes I agree that WE don't have to put "literal" before "son" in our case as that is the usual meaning.
In "Son of God" maybe there is some difference.
And yes you can certainly take "Son of God" to mean literal Son.
I have written a post to answer your last point about "the first rule of Bible study"
Post a Comment