Adventist Idol


(Phillip Brantley) #42

Why has there been a surge of anti-Trinitarianism and Arianism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church during Ted Wilson’s presidency? Certainly you are aware that the Seminary has gone on record and expressed alarm about the recent rise of anti-Trinitarianism and Arianism in the Church. Are you saying that the Seminary is living in a fantasy world? Are you saying that the Seminary is telling lies to the Church? What happened to the theologically conservative Daniel Mesa? What happened to the theologically conservative Ingo Sorke? And these gentlemen have been honest and candid about what they believe, in contrast to so many conservative Seventh-day Adventist leaders who remain coy and silent about what they believe with respect to the Trinity.

You are no doubt unaware that there are notable evangelical and Reformed complementarians (male headship theorists) who have recanted, repented, and are now adamantly opposed to Eternal Functional Subordinationism. They not only accuse people like you of Arianism and Subordinationism but also of idolatry, blasphemy, and of departing from biblical Christianity. And yet, just a few years ago, they believed just like you do, that the immanent Trinity is hierarchically ordered and that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

I wish I was not forced to tar all Seventh-day Adventist opponents of women’s ordination with the accusation of anti-Trinitarianism and Arianism. But in contrast to various notable evangelical and Reformed Christians who have recanted and publicly and unequivocally denounced Eternal Functional Subordinationism, not one Seventh-day Adventist opponent of women’s ordination has ever done so. Seventh-day Adventist opposition to women’s ordination has been monolithically Arian for over thirty years. And the truth of what I speak is spreading throughout the Church like a wildfire.


(George Tichy) #43

For as much as I despise the Devil, it’s not fair to blame him for things that people (humans) decide to do. It’s always the same game: people play politics and make bad decisions, then immediately blame the Devil for what they have done. Nor fair.


(Kevin Paulson) #44

The Seminary is not necessarily representative of the worldwide Adventist body, and they are as capable of error as any of us. I thank God continually for the courageous and unflinching integrity of the current General Conference administration. We are blessed to have such stable and principled leadership in these tumultuous times.

I believe the case for the three co-eternal Members of the Godhead and the varying roles they fill has been adequately demonstrated from the inspired pen, irrespective of whatever theological or other objections might be posed by contrary positions.


(Phillip Brantley) #45

You speak of the GC’s “courageous and unflinching integrity,” but I cannot find any statement of Ted Wilson or Mark Finley that publicly and unequivocally discloses what they believe with respect to Eternal Functional Subordinationism, which has been one of the four or five most hotly-debated issues in Christendom during the last forty years. Do they believe that the immanent Trinity is hierarchically ordered and that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father? I cannot find a statement from Wilson or Finley that publicly and unequivocally answers this question. Actually, I think Wilson and Finley have been extraordinarily cagey, tactical, and political. Some Seventh-day Adventists, including Mesa and Sorke and you, Angel Rodriguez and me, have taken a firm stand. We have publicly and unequivocally declared what we believe with respect to this question, with respect to Eternal Functional Subordinationism. But Wilson and Finley have not. Instead, they have cowered in the bushes, exceedingly afraid of revealing to the world what they believe with respect to Eternal Functional Subordinationism.

I applaud your forthrightness in clearly stating what you believe, even though I disagree with you. And Mesa and Sorke are also to be applauded for their courageous and unflinching integrity, even though I disagree with them. But as for Wilson and Finley, they merit little respect. Godly leaders do not sit on the fence. Genuine Christians do not remain silent as our precious Lord and Savior is debased in our midst.

The inference I am forced to draw is that Wilson and Finley believe in the anti-Trinitarian heresy of Eternal Functional Subordinationism. I think you are justified in trumpeting that they are on your side. I freely concede that there are many other GC leaders who are on your side.


(Kevin Paulson) #46

Mesa and Sorke are not in the same camp as myself. They are opposed to the co-eternal Godhead as defined in our Fundamental Beliefs. I, by contrast, am on record in defense of our Bible-based, Spirit of Prophecy-affirmed position as a church regarding three co-eternal Persons.


(Phillip Brantley) #47

Actually, you are in the same camp with Mesa and Sorke, but you don’t realize it. If the immanent Trinity is hierarchically ordered, then it is most certainly chronologically ordered. Mesa and Sorke understand this, but you do not. Stated another way, if the Son does not possess all of the attributes of divinity that the Father possesses, such as sovereignty and omnipotence, then the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. Again, Mesa and Sorke understand this, but you do not.

You need to begin to understand what is so special about the Son being co-eternal with the Father. Co-eternality connotes that the Son and Father are equal, that the Son possesses all of the attributes of divinity that the Father possesses, that the Son and Father (and Holy Spirit) are One, and that there is no hierarchy or subordination. If you deny these necessary connotations, then you are in essence denying co-eternality, despite your protestations to the contrary.


(Steve Mga) #48

Phillip –
Originally, when ALL the Bishops met together and created the Nicene Creed, it said
the Holy Spirit came from the Father.
Later, when lots of barbarians north of Italy were being won to Christianity, there was
a FEAR that “The Son” would be seen less than God [a 2ndary diety] by them.
The Holy Father of Rome changed the wording to “the Father AND the Son” sent the
Holy Spirit. [this change was to make Father==Son, Son==Father as God.]=
This made the Eastern church angry and was another cause to separate to its own
“Denomination” of Catholics.


(dale) #49

Every writer before our modern definition of plagiarism would be guilty of plagiarism according to our standards. It was a commonplace practice to quote other writings without crediting him, Paul even quotes Epicurus without giving him credit, should we also discard the writings of Paul? Or the New Testament writers for quoting the Old Testament writers without giving them credit? That plagiarism charge against Ellen white is charging her with a standard that didn’t exist in her day. It is quite deceptive and unfair.


(reliquum) #50

The HUUGEST SDA idol, so apparent on these boards (but by those seemingly blithely unaware) is their own veritably palpable “humble” pride in perfection adhering to strict and exact (often umspoken) distinctives which makes them better than we unwashed masses. Idol of self is unworthy of homage (but so is the idol of apparent and conspicuous “selflessness”.)

Forgiveness from the father, “for they know not what they do…” includes as much the amazing misogynist as much as the humble “president of the remnant” (provided they see need to accept said state of requiring forgiveness)


(dale) #51

Denying that the son had a fallen human nature robs God of his glory. It wasn’t a hard thing for a perfect being not to sin but it is an unfathomable thing for a being with a fallen nature to live a sinless life. It shows the power of God that he can save to the fullest that he can give victory in the fullest. It also make the bible a liar when it says he was tempted in all points like we were. Because if he didn’t have a fallen nature then he couldn’t have been tempted in all points like we were. We have temptations that arise out of our flesh(our fallen nature) if Jesus didn’t experience temptation like that then we need to
Discard the bible because God lied. We have very little in common with Adam’s nature before the fall how could Christ understand our struggles if he wasn’t right there with us? To believe that Jesus didn’t have a fallen nature one has to accept some form of the immaculate Conception. Hebrews 2:14-18 KJV
[14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took m part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [15] And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. [17] Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. [18] For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour s them that are tempted. …

Romans 8:3-4 KJV
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for a sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. …
Those texts put to bed the idea that Christ had a nature different than ours. There are plenty more than that. Because if he took he nature of Abraham it had to be a fallen nature Abraham was 2000 years after sin.


(reliquum) #52

That raises the specter that the Angel of Light and his fallen comrades were created less than perfect and suggests a flaw in the Creators perfection (dare we consequently then claim God created evil?).

“Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in you…” certainly seems to suggest that the unfathomable inverse of your statement (unfathomable thing for a being with a fallen nature to live a sinless life) is equally possible, to wit, that a sinless, “unfallen”, “perfect being” could possibly sin.

That we accept Jesus was both fully man (voluntarily) as well fully God is a sticky wicket to this line of thought.

What if the “temptations” were not about “fleshly needs” like food, or “fleshly lusts” (like power, or sex, or fame, or fortune, or “being right”) but something entirely different?

These examples we each can relate to, one way or the other, may be “analogies of sin”-which we have co-opted and installed as the real thing-but perhaps they merely were employed to try to point us toward the actual core soul-damning temptation?

"IF you are the son of God PROVE it…"
Perhaps trying to PROVE we are sons, and not orphans, is the real trust problem
(especially via deeds, and doctrines, behaviors and beliefs)

After all, Lucifer, to join creation tribunal as he so desperately desired, needed to prove (Jesus, that “other guy”) was no more “son” than he himself was.
When we do likewise, claiming our secret decoder ring gives us special access, we may be sinning far the more than when we bib wine, sip java, or lust after the neighbors wife.


(dale) #53

2/3 of the angels chose not to sin. 100% of the human race with a fallen nature chose to sin save jesus. It is impossible without divine intervention to not sin in a fallen nature. That is what makes Christ’s sinless life even more remarkable. The only one of the human family to live a sinless life with a fallen nature. If he had a perfect nature like an angel or Adam resisting sin wouldn’t be a difficult thing because he would have 0 natural weakness towards sinning. Living a life without committing sin in a fallen nature gives a living display that God can save those to the uttermost from the disease of sin. His (Christ) victory is our victory and as we submit to him and become one with him as he is one with his father he can live his life in us as his father manifested his life through his son. Jesus prayed to his father in John 17 to be one with him as he and his father are one. Do you honestly believe that the father would refuse to answer that prayer of his son?


(ROBIN VANDERMOLEN) #54

So sorry,
I have to sincerely disagree!

Contemporary nineteenth century writers, Walt Whitman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain, Henry James, Longfellow, Herman Melville, Edgar Allen Poe, Charles Dickens, The Bronte sisters , Jane Austin, Lewis Carroll,
and many others come to mind—I am an avid reader!

None of these contemporary nineteenth century authors, to my knowledge were ever accused of plagiarism —certainly not to the extent of stealing whole paragraphs/passages/pages and seemingly without shame —-

and furthermore adamantly denying any copying, when confronted with it!

So sorry that your “prophet “ has “feet of clay “ .


(Tim Teichman) #55

Plagiarism, theft of intellectual properly, has been a thing since the 16th century.

Copyright protections are included in the Constitution of the United States.

“At the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, both James Madison of Virginia and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina submitted proposals that would allow Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time. These proposals are the origin of the Copyright Clause in the United States Constitution”:

At the time that Ellen wrote, the same ideas we have today for copyright and plagiarism were commonly understood. Saying “things were different then” is not accurate.


(dale) #56

Plagiarism as we define it today it did not exist in the 19th centuries, None of those writers were anywhere near comparable to Ellen White. None of them were tasked with presenting God’s final messages to the world. That’s like comparing apples to wrenches, they are not even remotely comparable. The words of Jesus. John 15:18-21 KJV
[18] If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. [19] If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20] Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. [21] But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. …

That is why all these charges are laid at the feet of Ellen White because she is a servant of the lord. I have read her writings extensively and found them to be in complete harmony with the bible. I have read much of her works.


(Tim Teichman) #57

Huh?

Not only did it exist, but there were laws to punish those that stole copyrighted intellectual properly, which were in effect in various states even before the constitution was written, and then later a copyright clause was added to the constitution of the united states when written.

Ellen’s books were copyrighted when published. The purpose of a copyright is to prevent others from using your intellectual properly, prevent them from copying it.

It was no different then than it is now.


(reliquum) #58

It has been suggested in obscure Ellen writings that half of the angels “fell”, but at the cross some of those changed allegiance. This is a provocative thought. I have been unable to confirm the source, but that aside, I suspect what Jesus DID NOT DO (use his power) to surmount sin is the greater good. That is the “faith of Jesus”, when he ratified our adoption as co-heirs, and that only by a trust that he WAS the son of God, despite all that he evinced he was the one forsaken. When we demand that Jesus was “just like us” with an inevitable bent for sinning and an inherent sinful nature we may in fact be making Jesus and ourselves completely unworthy for the Father, and may be glorifying the victory of Jesus as if it were IS humanly possible. Thats why I entertain the belief that Jesus victory has more import and gravity, and perhaps a deeper interpretation besides his “resisting” (in his “fallen human sinful state, like ours”) the lusts of the belly, the loins, fame, power etc etc evinces his victory.

As far as being “one”, as the father and son are “one”, I’ll suggest the passage may have additional importance beyond the standard narrative. I suggest that it may instead (or also) signify that Jesus wishes we humans had the “integrity” (wholeness, oneness) as he and Abba have. What I mean is the “tri-une being”, being balanced and aware of the three facets of our nature. Hand, head, and heart in harmony. The tents of skin sanctuary analogy (as well the heavenly temple) suggests there are three parts of worship (its all about worship) that correspond to the three parts of human (and, perhaps unsurprisingly, divine) nature.

This is why deconstructing tri-unity is spiritual suicide, why our worship may be ineffectual (having a form thereof, but lacking power), may harken to the prayer you referenced (daddy, give them power), and to the final words Jesus uttered. Forgive them daddy, for they know not, and do not what is right -hand & head, ie “mark”, or deed and doctrine- but they have my identity.

I’m sorry for my poor ability to articulate this idea, but try to see the gist of it.

We’ve done the “deeds and doctrines” to death, but seem no closer to surmounting our sinfulness. Perhaps we are like a two-legged milking stool, missing the third foundational leg.
Note Jesus did NOT answer his temptations by theological rhetoric (doctrines,beliefs) or by his deeds or behaviors, but one single point; “I AM THE SON OF GOD” and “YOU CANNOT TEMPT ME”


(dale) #59

You are saying that the copyright laws were exactly the same as they are today in the time of Ellen White?? The same understanding of intellectual property as we have today? That’s the answer you are going to stand by?


(ROBIN VANDERMOLEN) #60

If you wish to remain gullible that is your prerogative.

Please read timteichman’s post above, for definitive information about
plagiarism and its legal ramifications in the nineteenth century.


(Darrel Lindensmith) #61