| Author | Message | ||
| Psalm107v2 Registered user Username: Psalm107v2 Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2008  |
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1:1-2 In my contact with Seventh-day Adventists and SDA offshoots I have been noticing a growing trend and it all points back to accepting Ellen White as prophet and authority. I'm sure those of us familiar with the SDA church have seen all kinds of offshoots but one thing that I keep running into is people not believing the Trinity and it comes directly from Ellen White. This trend is not new but it seems to be growing rapidly. It may very a little but the anti-trinitarians take the word of God and use the arguments that other people say about the Trinity (Jesus is son=separate being, Holy Spirit is never seen/doesn't speak=a force not a person. Again these arguments are not new but the kicker is they use EGW to back up their arguments AND be the final authority on the issue. The SDA church has done such a good job of ingraining in their followers that not only is the church the remnant, but that EGW is THE modern-day prophet and her word is to be respected. The SDA church may tout the Bible and say they are the torch bearers of the Reformation but like so many other things they redefine what sola scriptura means. The SDA church walks in the counsel of EGW rather than looking to the law--in this case meaning God's holy word/scripture. Whether a member is a liberal, conservative or historical SDA they all have EGW in common to some degree or another. Her influence is woven throughout every major doctrine an SDA of any stripe holds to. I can't tell you how many people I have come across since leaving the SDA church who are non-Trinitarians. The major difference over the last couple of years that I notice is that with the accessibility of her writings via the internet there are people who now systematically use her writings to prove she was non-Trinitarian, which is accurate, but dangerous to the SDA church and its offshoots. There have been some fellows that I have been in dialogue with that now are calling the General Conference Babylon or to be in partnership with Babylon/the Roman Catholic Church. They see the Trinity as the last shackle to shake and that the General Conference has bowed to to the RC church by accepting the Trinity. One fellow I know though he lives in a town with no major city for several miles, he and like minded people have founded a fellowship that goes from house to house having meetings. Though his particular group is only about 30 people he has managed to form a group and has a systematic way of using EGW to promote not only a vegetarian diet but a raw food diet movement, anti-medicine/vaccination/pharmacy mindset and anti-trinitarian instruction. He routinely uses the internet, Facebook in particular to reach SDAs. From what I've seen many debate him strongly but he is quite convincing and I've seen a few agree with some of his points to some extent or another. For any SDAs who may be reading this who are on the fence about leaving please consider that your church is not just another denomination who has some good ideas and some bad ideas. It is a church that is based not on scripture as it claims but on 2 authorities. Having EGW as an authority usurps authority from God and His word and the fall out may manifest itself in different ways but the root is all the same following the "lesser light" leads people into darkness and there's no telling just how badly a person will trip and fall if they are not walking in the light of the Word of God. Enoch | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10919 Registered: 12-2003  |
Enoch, you are SO right!! Adventism truly is not Trinitarian under the skin. The public words sound OK, but even those are written so the reality can hide underneath. Here's the Fundamental Belief #2:
The phrase "co-eternal Persons" leaves a deliberate loophole for the idea that the Three are not of the same-substance. This phrase could encompass three separate beings--which is actually how Adventists understand the Trinity. Moreover, this Fundamental Belief does not state that God is One Being. It merely identifies Him as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons". Adventists do not believe in the orthodox Christian Trinity, and its scholars openly admit this fact. Colleen | ||
| Rider Registered user Username: Rider Post Number: 9 Registered: 9-2009 |
The Trinity is one of those concepts I can't get my mind around. From reading the Bible I see God as a Spirit that can be manifested as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt. Each one being fully God. I don't know how correct my ideas is. Are their any Bible texts that could help me? | ||
| Jdpascal Registered user Username: Jdpascal Post Number: 201 Registered: 10-2003 |
Isn't the concept of the trinity expressed in the book 'The Shack' the same as the 3 seperate beings of the SDA FB#2? I didn't read much of it myself but mostly listened to my wife read while we were driving in the car and that is what I remember. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10928 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Jdpascal, I agree. The Shack presented a tritheistic picture of the Trinity. Rider, the Bible is full of references to the persons of the Trinity that clarify that each Person is a separate Person--not different manifestations of one spirit. It's true that God is one Being, and the persons are each of the same substance, yet there is personhood and differing roles. Colossians 1 and 2 describe Jesus and explain that God saw fit to put "all the fullness" of deity in Jesus as a man. "All the fullness" means every single attribute of God was in Jesus, including omnipresence. And the two persons are distinct. At Jesus' baptism we see all three: Jesus being baptized, the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the voice of God speaking from heaven. Ephesians 2:17-18 says,
There's no way we can fully understand this reality, being limited to time and three dimensions, but The Bible teaches that God is One and also that the One is expressed in three persons, each with a different role. But the idea that God is one Being, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same substance as the Father, is crucial. This is the thing Adventists will not affirm. Colleen | ||
| Bb Registered user Username: Bb Post Number: 634 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yes, and the worst of the teaching is that they believe that Jesus could have sinned at any time while on earth!! Ridiculously impossible! The seeking of perfectionism is what drives people to just give up! It almost did that to me, and praise God I don't have to feel that way anymore. | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 337 Registered: 4-2007 |
We carnal humans simply cannot accept the divine nature of God as beyond our comprehension, it’s an itch that won’t go away. We relentlessly attempt to put God in a box, pompously declaring that ‘THIS’ is God. Our best efforts resemble blind men describing an elephant. John | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 660 Registered: 8-2008 |
Actually, if I am correct, this is modalism, a denial of the Trinity. God doesn't just manifest Himself in three different ways. He is one being who exists as a mutual-indwelling of three persons. Jeremy's website Cult or Christian goes into detail about true orthodox Trinitarian theology versus what we were taught in Adventism. Also, theopedia has a good article on the Trinity. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 523 Registered: 2-2003  |
Yes, this does sound like modalism. As most heresies on the godhead, it arose in the early church, was refuted, but still refuses to go away. This was taught by Sabellius, I can't remember quite when, sometime around the 3rd century. It is also the teaching, since around 1913, of the various Oneness Pentecostal, or United Pentecostal groups. They teach that God is an absolute unity, manifested as the Father in creation and the Old Testament, as Jesus in the New Testament, and as the Holy Spirit in the church age. They believe baptism in the name of Jesus only, speaking in tongues, and various "holiness standards" are essential for salvation, in other words, stuff that only fits them as being the one true church. Sorry to ramble on. Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3136 Registered: 10-2004  |
Rider, This page I put together of some Christian quotes on the Trinity might also be helpful: http://www.cultorchristian.com/christiantrinity.html Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3137 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jdpascal, You're right about The Shack and it's "Trinity" teaching. Some Christian scholars have noticed that the book teaches Tritheism, and have mentioned it in their reviews. Here are a couple of quotes. First, Christian theologian Dr. Norman Geisler's review says:
And this second quote is from the review by Insight For Living (Chuck Swindoll's ministry), written by Dr. Glenn R. Kreider, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary:
There are many other theological problems with this popular book as well, which have been mentioned by many, and some of these are discussed in the reviews I've linked to above. In fact, another heretical teaching in the book which is also found in Adventism, is the following, discussed in Dr. Kreider's review that I quoted above:
Jeremy | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 663 Registered: 8-2008 |
On the plus side, The Shack disagrees with the anti-Trinitarian teaching common in Evangelicalism that Father and Son were separated on the cross. There were things about the book I liked. Things I was not comfortable with, like the part you cited above about Jesus' miracles. However, Geisler's statement makes no sense: Really? Does Geisler think God must be portrayed as a three-headed monster? What about: When the Spirit is represented "in a physical appearance" at the same time and place as the Son, God does not have a problem with the Spirit having a separate physical appearance from the Son. God being one Essence does not require that His physical appearance in our universe be represented as Geisler's three-headed monster. I think Geisler is actually confused about his Trinitarian theology because he seems to imply that God has a physical body. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3138 Registered: 10-2004 |
Actually, the "physical bodies" is part of what Geisler has a problem with, as he says: "Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since “God is spirit”—Jn. 4:24),..." I think what Geisler is concerned about is that Young seems to be portraying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate, physical beings. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 10, 2010) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 666 Registered: 8-2008 |
Was God doing this when the Spirit appeared as a dove? No, the Bible is clear that the Spirit was simply appearing as a dove. Papa also makes this clear in Young's book, and changes appearances half way through. There are also parts in it that are not tri-theistic, like when Mack asks which one of them is God, and all three in unison reply, "I Am." Most criticisms I have seen of the Shack all boil down to this: God isn't presented as the angry, vengeful and selfish God we all know He is, so therefore the book is wrong. BTW, I am familiar with the publisher of The Shack, have emailed him a few times, and I know he doesn't believe even half of what most evangelicals think the book is teaching. Geisler said the book teaches tri-theism. Another prominent evangelical scholar, Ben Witherington, claims it teaches the opposite heresy of modalism. I think, personally, that it doesn't intentionally teach either, but rather that Young himself really just as unclear on this topic as is most of modern Christianity (c'mon, why do Christian radio stations featuring the preaching of modalist T.D. Jakes?). I think the book has some good things in it and some objectionable things in it, and that people should do with it what they do with every non-Biblical book they read: Eat the meat, throw out the bones. But the fact that most prominent "evangelical" critics don't like it principally because it makes God too loving and gracious to a suffering person like Mack, tells me more about the "evangelical" critics than it does the book itself. (Message edited by bskillet on February 10, 2010) (Message edited by bskillet on February 10, 2010) (Message edited by bskillet on February 10, 2010) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10933 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, I didn't see God as being overly "loving" in The Shack. In fact, I really haven't read any criticisms that seemed to me to have God's loving nature as the underlying problem. There actually IS a problem, in my personal opinion, with the Father being represented as appearing in a body. I don't know of any place in Scripture where the Father appears in a physical manifestation, and the only bodily manifestation of the Holy Spirit that I can think of is the dove. Jesus was given a body at the incarnation, and in the OT He was apparently the "angel of the Lord" who appeared and also accepted worship--a fact which sets Him apart from angels. God is Spirit—and it's inappropriate to try to make Him accessible by representing Him in a way that the Bible does not. God represented Himself in Jesus—and we are asked to believe and trust the Father by faith because of our faith in Jesus and our rebirth by the Holy Spirit who makes Jesus real—with Whom we are hidden in God (Col 3:3). We really have to let Scripture inform our relationship to and understanding of God, not the sympathetic but diminishing concepts of a modern author, however well-intentioned. Finally, one of the underlying problems I had with The Shack is that there was no real repentance. Mack was shown that God understood and forgave Mack for his sins against his abusive father and his inability to protect his daughter, etc. But in the process of dealing with Mack's shame and remorse and guilt, there was no time when Mack was made to realize that even though he had been sinned against, his sin against his father was the result of his own depravity. We all have to face the fact of our depravity. We all have to face the fact that our sin, even sins resulting from the wounding of other's transgressions against us, are anathema to God and separate us from Him. We have to repent. The reason we have to repent is not that God arbitrarily and wrathfully insists on JUSTICE; the real reason is that if we don't repent, we never really surrender ourselves to the reality of who we are. We continue to live in a sort of denial: we were hurt; the hurt warped us and caused us to sin. It's not really our fault. But we are held responsible for our sin...even sin resulting from hurt. We are even held responsible for our inherited sin from Adam, as Ephesians 2 explains.We can't avoid sin by praying to be good. We have to repent. And repentance was missing from The Shack. In my opinion, that was a big problem. Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 683 Registered: 8-2008 |
I think I will have to respectfully disagree with you there, Colleen. The book had an entire chapter--"Here Comes Da Judge"--in which Mack is brought to repent for his desire to judge God guilty for not saving his daughter. And he has to give up his own allusions of guilt and shame in regards to the incident as well. He is also brought to turn from his hatred and unforgiveness towards the perpretator, to forgiveness towards him. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 712 Registered: 7-2000 |
One of the big problems that I have with the shack is the image of God as a woman. It seems more than a bit odd that this story comes out just in time for a lot of evangelicals to gush over and study the book. And then, the new NIV edition will be out next year with gender inclusive language, along with the NRSV that already has that language. The modern translations are going towards the gender inclusive/we can define God however idea, and the Shack just helps this along. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 684 Registered: 8-2008 |
God is primarily presented in the Bible in masculine terms, no doubt. But there are also places where He is presented in feminine terms. God does not have a gender. Young was trying to confront some of the un-Biblical religious prejudices common with evangelicals. But also I share your disdain for "gender inclusive" language in Biblical translations, but mine is partly on cultural grounds: Throughout English history, the masculine pronoun was understood to also be gender neutral: It could refer to a male or, in a general gender-neutral context, a male or female. But feminists got their panties in a knot about our historical language. I consider English to be one of the most beautiful languages on earth and I don't like changing a language simply to fit the short-term whims of some political activist. | ||
| Julieb Registered user Username: Julieb Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2010 |
I read The Shack and I simply saw it as a novel. As such, I saw it as portraying God in a way to help us visualize the three distinct Persons. Can anyone suggest a better way in which these Persons should have been portrayed? I think we've already ruled out the three-headed person. We know this story isn't real. I don't really understand the intracacies of the Trinity, especially with my SDA background, but isn't God indeed three separate beings/persons? | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 685 Registered: 8-2008 |
God is one Being who exists eternally as a mutual-indwelling of three co-equal persons. That's the explanation of the Trinity used most commonly in theological circles. He is one essence in three persons. He is not three beings. Each person is fully the one Being, having full ownership of God's one essence. Nonetheless, the mystery is that the three persons are distinct. Adventists, on the other hand, say the mystery is how the three "beings" can be one God. Again, the real mystery is how one Being can be three distinct persons. Theologians say the persons are distinct, but never separated (which, by the way, means the popular idea that Father and Son were separated on the Cross is heretical). Coming from SDAism, I know this sounds terribly confusing. Jeremy's site CultorChristian explains what is wrong with the SDA "trinity." Like Mormons, SDAs are not monotheists: They are pagan tri-theists. As for the book, I liked the way God's redeeming love is presented in a context that removed it from the usual human-added religious trappings. But over all I didn't find the book nearly as great as some people did. I don't think Young is a terribly great writer, to be honest. Over-sappy. And some of the things he wrote about Jesus (the stuff about His miracles) are simply incorrect. If you want to read a Christian novel that is a true literary masterpiece, and also less theologically muddled, then all of C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia are simply beyond compare. The best fiction books I have ever read. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1176 Registered: 7-2007 |
We won't understand how God is three in one, in this life and I don't know if we'll fully understand it even in Heaven. We were, however, created in God's image and we are three-part beings (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23), body, soul and spirit. |
