| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2780 Registered: 10-2004  |
Thanks also for the link to the Modern Reformation article, Keri! This statement is very good:
Compare that to Professor Reeve's deceptive, anti-Trinitarian statements linked to above! Also, this statement from the Modern Reformation article seems to describe the SDA view (of Jesus merely being a "representative of the Father") very well:
Additionally, the statement that, "Thus the Godhead is not established through a mere aggregate of three totally separate persons, [...]" would also be refuting the SDA "Godhead"! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 07, 2009) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2781 Registered: 10-2004 |
Keri, Here is what Augustine said about "equal substance." He was not denying "same substance" (Nicene Creed), as the SDA syllabus may have been trying to imply, and he certainly wasn't teaching the SDA concept!  Jeremy | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 589 Registered: 10-2008 |
Jeremy, MY GOODNESS! I just looked at your first link you posted for me to look at that talks about homoosious. My, oh, my! Adventists reject the Council of Nicea? Another My, oh, my. Is there any way for apologists to get ahold of the things you have collected Jeremy? I'm thinking that professors from other universities and apologists need this information as they "defend" the gospel. People from CARIS (I think this is it) and other entities need this information. I appreciate the link to what Augustine said too. There was a section in the syllabus on plurality ... I don't have time tonight to look it up right now ... Thanks, again Jeremy. I appreciate the links you posted. Good information. And again, good work on the website and I pray for God's revelation to others to be manifested in the information you have gathered. Praise Him for what He is doing and will do! May He glorify Himself. Blessings, Keri | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2782 Registered: 10-2004 |
Keri, I've been e-mailing many (and plan on mailing printed versions to some) Christian countercult apologists and theologians/professors about my website. Feel free to pass it on to any apologists, professors, etc. you come into contact with! I also agree with you and Rick that they need to know about the SDA "Godhead" teaching. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 07, 2009) | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 492 Registered: 5-2004 |
I agree that this discussion is very timely. In talking with people about Adventism, I often hear "well, they're not like the Mormons or JW's because they believe in Jesus and the Trinity". It's so nice to have real concrete proof to say, that, in fact, that's highly debatable...rather than my old feelings of uncertainty over the subject - even though I 'felt' that there was something wrong with the SDA versions. I think if more people could see this, there'd be a different concept about Adventism. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 202 Registered: 3-2009 |
Ok, I need some assistance. Things are never clear when I talk to my sociologist colleagues. When I bring up this topic with them, they say that the reason the Christian church holds to the "one substance" idea of the Trinity is because they killed off all the arians who disagreed with them. Granted, I have a limited understanding of Christian history, but from what I do know, this pattern is repeated over & over again. This is the problem with Christianity that I struggle with--it's bloody past. Seems like Christians killed a lot of dissenters in their attempt to preserve the "truth". | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2037 Registered: 8-2004  |
They did have a big fight about it, and Arians and Trinitarians both fought and killed (not unlike the Catholic/Protestant kill off in more recent history - both sides of which demonize the other because 'they killed us'). So far as I'm concerned, the issue is not who was more barbaric in their defense but who better explains what the Scriptures testify. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 203 Registered: 3-2009 |
Yes, go back to scripture. Amen! If it's all right there so clearly, why can't people simply agree on what they read? It would make things a lot easier. Hec had a similar question on another thread, I think. If the H.S. inhabits each believer, why are there such vast differences in their interpretations and applications of Scripture? Indeed this is a mystery to me at the current time. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 494 Registered: 7-2008  |
The Holy Spirit doesnt kidnapp the human mind. We are still allowed to think and draw conclusions on our own. Sometimes I wish God would control our thinking, but then we wouldnt be worshiping God freely. We would just be as a robot, programmed to do without truly being alive. Not sure if what I said makes sense...sigh. Just like the Trinity ...hard to put into words. But God knows our heart. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2783 Registered: 10-2004 |
Seekinglight, Arianism was not officially condemned by the Church as heresy until 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea (which is where the Nicene Creed, with the words "one substance," was officially formulated). And that belief was almost unanimous: "The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[5])." (Source.) So even before Arianism was condemned by the Church, it clearly was not what Christianity had believed. In fact, the Council of Nicaea (like the other Councils) only affirmed what Christianity had always believed and taught. The only reason the Councils were necessary, and the only reason doctrine needed more "formal" formulations, was because of the heresies that kept creeping into the Church. The creeds are more of a rejection of heresy, and a statement of what the Church does not believe, then they were of actually "formulating" doctrine. Orthodox Christian doctrine has not "changed" since the start of the Church. In any case, it had nothing to do with who was able to "kill off" more of one doctrine's followers than the others. It's a matter of what Christ and His apostles taught, and handed down to the Church. God preserves His truth. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 08, 2009) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2784 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, those comments from your sociologist colleagues don't surprise me. Here are some excerpts from the panel discussion at the 2006 "Trinity Symposium" of the Adventist Theological Society:
Notice that in that last quote, LeRoy Moore says that Adventists today "reject" the orthodox "brand of Trinitarianism" right along with non-Trinitarian tribes in the early centuries, and he admits that "we probably would have been branded as Arian by the orthodox" (if they were around back in the early centuries)! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 08, 2009) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9951 Registered: 12-2003  |
We've also sent Jeremy's website link to Paul Carden and will send it to others as well. This is exactly what has been needed: all the information collected and made accessible. The real problem with Adventism is not legalism. The real problem is they worship a different god—a non-trinitarian god with a "sorta divine" Spirit and a denatured Jesus. I have often heard the argument, "People can be saved in Adventism; therefore, it is not a cult at the same level as Mormonism or JW." Wrong. Its god is just more cleverly camouflaged. Adventism uses Christian vocabulary to identify their version of God—but they're disingenuous to do so because even they admit that Ellen's (and therefore Adventism's) trinity is not the same as that of orthodox Christianity. When an Adventist is actually saved, it's not because they learned about Jesus and the true God within its teachings. If an Adventist is saved, it's because at some point the individual took Scripture seriously and began reading and seeking the true God. It is a miracle of God whenever an Adventist actually takes Scripture seriously, because Adventism teaches its members to understand the words of Scripture according to an Adventist paradigm. Again, it's a matter of "insider vocabulary". Seekinglight, God said in Jeremiah 29:13: 'You will seek Me and find {Me} when you search for Me with all your heart." Understanding the Bible requires submission to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be understood only analytically, like an analysis of a piece of literature. Understanding Scripture requires a willingness to submit to its truth, to its every word. It requires a surrender to the Lord Jesus and an openness to learn what is true, immersing oneself in the word of God and allowing Him to transform our minds. People who are not born again can never understand Scripture. The Bible is the actual word of God to us, and when people refuse to believe Him, they cannot understand His word. 1 Cor 2 says that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, that when we have God's Spirit, we have the mind of Christ. People perusing the Bible for the sake of supporting their ideas or finding proof for their dogmas or even for the sake of critiquing it will miss its truth. Only as one submits his mind to the Bible and to the teaching of God through His word does it begin to makes sense. Its cohesion and consistency increase amazingly as one submits to its every word. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9952 Registered: 12-2003 |
Oh, Jeremy--I just saw your last posts. Very telling quote by Leroy Moore. You know, I have little patience for the Adventist double-speak. Their statements about the central doctrines of the Christian faith are vague, guarded, veiled, and misleading . The trot out their best words when the public eye is on them, but internally they teach their young (and their converts) heresy. Yesterday our FAF group was invited to lunch at our pastor's house. In the afternoon, Gary and Elizabeth spent an hour and a half or so just fielding questions from the group. One person said she had recently had a conversation with her mom in which her mom argued that the fourth commandment is the only one in which God said, "Remember". This "Remember", the mom said, is to remember a creation ordinance, and that remembering is for all time. The FAF member telling the story said, "I didn't know how to answer her." Elizabeth spoke up and said something so profound—she said, When someone has lied to you and then asks you to trust them, you should know that you cannot. She said she had spoken just that morning with a woman whose husband was abusing her, but the husband would then ask her to trust him, and the woman felt bound to try to trust him and stay within the abuse. Elizabeth said, "When you know someone has lied and yet asks you to trust, you should know better. You cannot trust someone who lies." (She was not referring to the questioner’s mother per se—but to Adventist arguments in general.) Adventists ask the Christian world to "trust them". "We believe what you believe; we just choose a different day..." Lies. They have a different Jesus, a different Spirit (or spirit!), and a different Father. They have an incomplete atonement, they deny the existence of "spirit" within mankind, they identify (within their private writings) Jesus as Michael the archangel, and they have satan as the scapegoat finally bearing away the sins of the saved. What do they mean, they're "just like" evangelical Christianity?? They teach heresy! They are a cult...and the LIE about it. There is no point in arguing with them about their rationalization and "rememberings"--these arguments are made-up contrivances designed to deceive the gullible and to confuse the sincere but biblically uninformed. We cannot trust Adventism. It has lied to us, and the lies remain. I pray for those caught in this web of deceit. God is faithful; He is reaching for them. Colleen | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 204 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thank you for the help, everyone. I trust that as I continue to study and submit to Scripture, that certain doctrines will become clearer over time. I've already seen the Bible becoming more understandable, just in the past few months. Colleen, Adventism is so embarrassing. Even when I thought it was the "truth", I've always been embarrassed about its strange beliefs and how it tries to hide them by sounding normal and mainstream. When I was a teenager, my folks would always ask me to witness to my non-SDA friends. I never could get the courage to reveal to my friends that we had THE true, hallucinating prophet! It was just too "out there". I sometimes would explain the Sabbath, but the prophet thing--well, that was just too much. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 253 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy says:
Is that a generalization? Do we apply the same argument to the council (whichever it was) where the dogma of the immaculate conception was confirmed? or the transubstantiation? or...? Hec | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2785 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hec, I was mainly referring to the early ecumenical councils and creeds (such as Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc.), which affirmed the orthodox understandings of the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Christ, etc. Also, see more info here. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2786 Registered: 10-2004 |
You might also be interested in Protestant theologian and Church historian Philip Schaff's book The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, which is available online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2787 Registered: 10-2004 |
Keri, Going back to our discussion yesterday about SDA seminary professor John Reeve's claims regarding what the Nicene Creed meant by homoousios: There is a very fascinating quote in Schaff's book that I linked to in my previous post above, by St. Athanasius himself, who was actually at the Council of Nicaea and argued against Arius's denial of homoousios, and Athanasius himself actually tells us what they meant by using the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed:
Notice that Athanasius directly denies what Professor Reeve claims (here and here), and affirms that they wished to indicate that it was not just like a human father and son sharing the same nature! So Adventists have to decide whether they are going to believe what Professor Reeve (who was obviously not at the Council ) says about what the Council meant, or what St. Athanasius, who actually attended, and spoke at, the Council, says about what they meant! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 08, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1697 Registered: 4-2000  |
Jeremy, The annals of history verify that "God preserves His truth." Thank you for using that phrase. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 717 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, Even the phrase pre-Trinitarian Christians implies that the concept of the Trinity does not come from the Bible, but from a much later source. If we believe that the Trinity is taught in the Bible (by concept not by name), then there is no time during which someone is a Christian but not a Trinitarian. Thank you for all your work in putting this information together in one place. The sheer volume makes it clear that this isn't just one or two outliers at the fringes of SDAism. I would highly encourage you to include Matt Slick of CARM in your distribution list. |
