Basically after the 1888 message was rejected which held:

"The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only-begotten Son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told .... There was a time when Christ proceeded and came forth from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning."

(Taken from the book, "Christ and His Righteousness" written by E.J. Waggoner in 1890)

Then, after all the pioneers died off, including Ellen White, Leroy Froom took marching orders from people like A.G. Daniels and some others in the high places of Adventism. After meeting with Evangelicals Barnhouse and Martin, Questions on Doctrine was produced. Then the twenty seven fundamental beliefs developed, which had the trinity doctrine in it.

Question,

Does the Trinity Doctrine reflect the same view of the Godhead represented in the quote above from Christ, Our Righteousness?

I think you get the picture.

Dennis

Quote:

---

"The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only-begotten Son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told .... There was a time when Christ proceeded and came forth from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning."

---

There is no other record in scripture of an offspring coming forth from one's bosom. In my opinion, this could mean that the term "begat" might mean something different than we generally tend to think of it as meaning.

Could it be said that Eve was begat from Adam? She was taken not from his bosom, but from his side.

What do you mean by "Evangelical Theology"?

Are you saying the doctrine of the Trinity is false?

Gerry

Dennis has stated, I believe, that he believes that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

There is a growing movement in the SDA Church to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and to call for a return to what is believed to be our historic position.

The history is interesting. It is clear to any student of SDA history that certain early SDA leaders were NOT Trinitarian. However, if this is accepted, does this make our historic doctrinal position to be that of a denial of the standard Trinitarian doctrine? In addition, another interesting question is that of whether or not Ellen G. White denied the doctrine of the Trinity. People who differ on this issue take differing positions as to where EGW was doctrinaly.

Dennis asks if the position presented in his quote is in agreement with standard Trinitarian doctrine. The answer to that would be NO, as I understand it.

So, now I ask a question: Is it possible that a leader could be doctinally supported by EGW on one point, and that the leader would be wrong on another point?

But, SDA history has more to contribute on this point. The 1888 Conference involved several points. These included discussions conducted with vigor and some anger, regarding esoteric points on a prophecy of Daniel. In addition they involved discussions of Righteousness by Faith, and other points. I will suggest that EGWs support of Jones and Waggoner on one point does not represent support on other points that they may have taken in the discussions.

Further, following the 1888 conferences they went on a path where they took some positons that were not supported as EGW did on the point she supported in 1888.

Now, Dennis took the quote from a 1890 publication. That may have been Wagonners positon then. But, one cannot automaticly assume that such was the point in contention in 1888.

SDA history is interesting. Yes, some early leaders were not Trinitarians. But, that cannot be said for all. I will say that it cannot be said for EGW, although others will argue with me on that point.

My introduction to that was as a child when I noticed that the final line of "Holy, Holy, Holy" in the SDA Church Hymnal says, "God over all who rules eternity." This as opposed to the commonly used version which says, "God in three persons blessed trinity." I asked an evangelist why? He said the Church had changed it for our hymnal because the trinity is a Catholic doctrine and Our Church does not believe in it.

Then we moved the the USA and I was shocked to find that the trinity was widely accepted here. (We were shocked about alot of other things too.) It seems that the church is an evolving entity. Not always a bad thing, even in matters of doctrine.

The Bible very clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, Dennis. The Bible teaches the Deity and the eternal, pre-existens of Christ, the second Person of the Godhead. The Bible also teaches that at some time in the past, the pre-existent Christ entered into the relationship of Sonship with the Father, for purposes which only God would know. If you are interested in a Biblical exposition of the doctrine of the trinity, let me know. I should be pleased to share what I have found.

As for some of the early Adventist leading figures, they were, after all, human and subject to error. Thank God that Ellen G. White took a firm stand in support of the eternal pre-existence and Deity of Christ!

Regards, Dave

Re: "If you are interested in a Biblical exposition of the doctrine of the trinity, let me know. I should be pleased to share what I have found."

Dave & Dennis: I would be very pleased to have you two conduct such a discussion. I think that it would be helplful. If you two would like to, I would be pleased to have you two conduct it in one of the two Biblical discussion forums that I moderate.

Again, I think that it would be very helpful inview of the current trend, as I see it, within Adventism, for a group to call upon us to give this up.

Dennis, if you are concerned about me editing you, I think that Dave is well able to handle himself. I would really like to have the two of you discuss this here in Club Adventist.

btw I shared this study on the divinity of Christ with a group of Arians (not SDA, but other Christian faiths) a couple of years ago. The Scriptures were very straightforward. The result? A couple of them began screaming at me and verbally abusing me, right in the middle of the study! One of them said that he had more texts than I had. Finally, the host intervened so that we were able to continue the study. I am looking forward to carrying forward a discussion on the topic as Gregory suggested. Dennis, would you like to begin the thread with a position statement, or shall I?

Regards, Dave

Speaking of scripture, could you point out where the term trinity, a supposed biblical doctrine, is found anywhere therein? Are you unwilling to see that our denomination could not effectively call lost souls out of Babylon while we choose to have her wine in our own goblet? The description of Christ proceeding forth from the bosom of God is a descriptive account of how Jesus was begotten. Because there is no such scripture stating that He was created, we are stuck with begotten. Not that I necessarily believe He was created. We cannot know above and beyone what has been revealed in the scriptures about the godhead.

Here is how the Catholics view the trinity:

the Catholic Church has stated:

"Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture . . . . But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels."

Life Magazine, Oct. 30, 1950

"The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

The truth about this doctrine is that it is the one doctrine from which all others spring forth in the Roman Church. They have stated so already. What are we doing with it in our Fund. Beliefs??? It doesnt fit.

Dennis

Pardon the interruption here. I just need to ask [of both of you--or all three of you]:

Why [if SDAs are not trinitarians] do our SDA ministers, when baptizing new converts, unfailingly do so "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"?