Very good. Amen brother Belovski! I was pulling for you the whole time, as though I were watching it live. : ) When Steve Wohlberg tried to use the “unborrowed, underived” quote that every trinitarian tries to use, and believes is a trump card. I just wanted to stop him and point out that if he were to read the whole quote, he would see that we too can have that “unborrowed, underived” life. It can be given. And WAS given to Him from the Father. Here’s the whole quote: “In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He CAN possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour.” {ST Feb 13, 1912} Maybe you could do a part two on this. Because I know that every single point that Wohlberg made in his whole talk can be refuted. If Ellen White had reversed her position and became a trinitarian. Something that God had specifically led her and the pioneers away from. She would have held a press conference. Not dropped a few subtle statements in a book. Most people don’t know that the way this heresy was brought in, was by Leroy Froom. The worst enemy this Church has ever had, other than Satan. He compiled the book “Evangelism” in 1946 and took her statements out of context, and made it look like she supported the trinity. Among other things. Like the book “Questions on Doctrine” He had a hand in that. There is a website with lots of information on this, but if I give the link, youtube will remove my whole post. The website is called truthseeker . church. Check it out. There is a load of information there. Including the hand typed letter that Froom sent to two of his accomplices later in life, when he wanted to reminisce and crow about what he had done. But even with all that, it still took until 1980 for it to be made official. Now we have the central doctrine of the beast power, right in our midst. What a nightmare.
Amen. It was Leroy Froom who introduced that doctrine to our denomination. Let us stick to the word Godhead which is our LORD God Jesus Christ and not to use the word Trinity which is not Biblical teaching. The teaching is Monotheism and not Trinitarianism. We believed in one God Jesus Christ the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
The trinitarian movement started with Kellogg when he accepted the trinity while writing his book the Living Temple. It snowballed under Froom and I agree that Froom was the worse enemy that the SDA church ever had. From my understanding he was buried in the Free Mason section of the cemetery where he was laid to rest. Did a lot of damage to Adventism including rewriting our history.
*Trinitarians must provide the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses that explain the following:* *1.* There is one God, and He is triune *[They are “God-identical but Person-distinct]* *2.* Jesus is God, yet He is not triune. *3.* The holy Spirit is God, but not triune. *4.* Jesus is a metaphorical Son *5.* That the Son of God is a job description/roleplay/imaginative Son. *6.* Calling or covenantal/agreement identity. *7.* A narrative/story identity *8.* That the Bible text "Son of God" has nothing to do with [ontology/metaphysics] nature of being and existence. *Philosophical explanations are not acceptable.* Only the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses must be provided. Most SDA Church *members believe in a literal sonship,* but *the authority of the GC, the BRI argues differently,* - *they believe in a metaphorical Son.* *Below is what the SDA hierarchy say* - [not the members]. *Seems like the hierarchy is the ponéros speaking through the people. [Acts 19:15].* "People expect the General Conference to have the last word and to speak for the Church with ultimate authority.” (General Conference President Neal C. Wilson, Commission Report on Role and Function of Denominational Organizations, 140-85GN, p 22-23, April 30, 1985). *Did you get that?* - *They say “the people expect”* - *What a blatant lie.* - *I'd like to see the agreement between the GC and the "people".* *Additionally, they say that the members must abide by their decisions.* “It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, *and then to abide to the decisions of the church...”* (Seventh-day Adventist Church Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, Lesson 13, March 28, 1987, p 92, or p 153 in the Teacher’s Edition). *There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Jesus is a metaphorical Son.* - *Such un-Biblical utterances were made by Manuel Rodriguez [now retired] was a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and was the “director” of the Adventist BRI (Biblical Research Institute).* In the November 2015 issue of Adventist World on page 42 he wrote the following: "The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. *The term “Son” is used metaphorically* when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship" *Likewise, Gerhard Pfandi, says,* - *"The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role"* - The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandi, Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD, June 1999. *Read the following heresy by Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Emeritus, Fernando L. Canale, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia Volume 12.* - *He says,* “In biblical anthropomorphisms, God reveals what He is and what He can do in terms of human realities. For instance, when God says that He has an arm (Ex. 14:16; Ps. 89:13), He does not mean that He exactly or univocally what we call an arm. The expression signifies that God’s reality is capable of performing all that can be performed by a human arm, and infinitely more. We cannot conceive or imagine the actual structure of God’s reality that allows Him to perform these acts.” *Retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) states,* - *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons:* - *but* theological reasoning on the basis of biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” - *Kwabena Donkor, retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) Release 9, May 2015, page 20, God in 3 Person - in Theology* So, then what is being stated is that *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons”* Then he [Kwabena Donkor] concludes, “theological reasoning based on biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” *What a contradiction!* - *First, he says there is no prooftext* - *then he contradicts himself by saying theological reasoning based on biblical principle leads to that conclusion.* - *He should have been a politician* *Since when does dogma replace scripture?* *An official Church Publication reads,* “If Adventism is to meet the needs of all people around the world, the landmarks must remain simple and straightforward. The Bible will be our only creed. Complex theological definitions, *the Trinity, for example, may serve the church well in general but cannot be imposed as a test for all Adventist everywhere.”* - The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (NAD 1977), p.50 Adventism can expect fresh insights into truth, ‘present truth’ that will enhance the appreciation of old landmarks. Such an expectation has always been a part of historic Adventism and is reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. When ‘present truth’ is of a complex nature, however, *it may be more helpful for some in the church than for others. In such a case it cannot be imposed on the church as a whole.”* (Ibid). *Then they say,* - *“Remember our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks should encourage a certain humility in the church and lead us to resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest.”* (Ibid) *Now, be honest and tell me, is it proper for the GC of the SDA Church to impose its synthesis on members, and expel those who conscientiously do not agree with the church’s reasoning, even though those members accept everything the Bible actually says?*
So, I’m a non-trinno, have been for about 30 odd years. Mate of mine here in Australia was dis-fellowshipped for being a non-trinno. So the conference president in his area, told the pastors, that if he showed up, he was to be refused entry. Some one unknown, possibly the conference president, rang the police, told the police that he was causing a ruckus and had set himself at the front of the church. So the police showed up, and were really annoyed, not at my mate, but at the pastor and promptly left. So let’s think about this. The church has used the state to enforce a doctrine, or to refuse entry to those who believe something different. This is straight out of the medieval period. Officially our church has adopted exactly the same hold as the Catholics which is a mix of ‘as AT Jones puts it’, the new paganism of Ancient Rome and apostate Christianity.
Wohlberg quotes Haskell as saying that “the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood”. Of course it is - if the word trinity is only used as a collective term for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is like saying the doctrine of the second coming is true when rightly understood or the state of the dead is true when rightly understood. We could go on forever with that one.
Anyway, there is no record of Haskell making that statement (the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood). It was written in a one paragraph article called 'Union' (if it can be called an article). This one paragraph was in the paper 'The Bible Training School'. This was not an official publication of the SDA Church. Haskell published it himself. He began it when he was 70 years of age. According to the online SDA Encyclopaedia, Haskell's paper was often at odds (caused friction) with some of our publishing houses. It doesn't say why.
In the two issues of Haskell's paper (February and March 1906), where the statement in question is made, there are a number of articles credited to Haskell. There were also articles credited to other authors. This included those of his second wife Hetty. The article 'Union' though (where it says the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood) is not credited to anyone. In fact when it was republished in the Caribbean Watchman of February 1907 it just said --Selected--. From that evidence alone, it appears quite apparent that Haskell didn't write it. It was anonymous. It is quite obvious that Haskell, from his theology (some of which has been pointed out in this video) did not believe in the trinity doctrine. Enough said on that one.
Here are more: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and receive worship. Each one represents all the other members of the *Trinity [or the Godhead GROUP overall]...[but] Gabriel was only an angel bearing a message from the great *Trinity of heaven, and could not receive worship [Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8-9]" ---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, November 1907, No. 6, pg. 94 "It is evident that the Holy Spirit is one of the *Trinity, and fully represent God [the Father] and Christ, and the *Trinity [or the Godhead GROUP overall]; and appears in any form or shape, or without form or shape, as best answers the purpose of God" ---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, 1910, Vol. 9, No. 7, pg. 13
@@chrischung2365 Haskell may have used the word trinity but he certainly was not a trinitarian. Just because someone uses the word 'trinity' does not mean they must be a trinitarian. To draw such a conclusion would be very poor exegesis. To determine whether a person is a trinitarian, their theology needs to be analysed. Haskell believed with SDAs across the board that Christ was the first begotten of God. He also believed that at one time, the Father and Son were alone in the universe, and that before anything was created, God had to reveal the plan of creation to His Son. Haskell also believed that in appreciation of the Son’s pledge to save mankind if he should fall, God bestowed upon Him the power of creation. Haskell ‘idolised’ Ellen White. He believed her to be verbally inspired, thus he would have believed, as she did, that the divine person of the Son of God died at Calvary, and that only the Father could release Him from the tomb. He would also have believed along with Ellen White that if the incarnate Son of God had sinned, He would have lost (forfeited) His eternal existence. No trinitarian would have believed any of the above. To say that Haskell was a trinitarian just because he used the word trinity really is very poor exegesis indeed. Haskell also, like Ellen White, continually referred to the Holy Spirit as an ‘it’. He also believed that Melchizedek was the Holy Spire - which was something never said by Ellen White. All of Haskell’s beliefs, as above, can be found in the relevant section here (The case of S. N. Haskell) theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/Articles_pdf/SDA_trinity_theology.pdf
@@chrischung2365 People also exercise very poor exegesis when they draw the conclusion that if the Holy Spirit is a person, then God must be a trinity of divine persons as depicted by the trinity doctrine. This is false because to have a trinity doctrine, the three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) must be said to be inseparably connected to each other in one trinitarian being, as the one immortal God, who can never, under any circumstances, undergo change.
@@terryhill6912 well I suppose by your own witness, the 1980 SDA trinity is really non trinitarian as we believe in three separate persons, no? Even Catholics note this. If that is the case then why are you dedicating this level of energy to this topic? Here’s a statement from a Catholic website listing our supposed heresies: Ellen White’s “ongoing revelations formed the basis of the doctrine upon which she and her husband, James, founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church (so-called because White claimed that Christ wanted to be worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath). These doctrines included the revival of Jewish dietary customs (although most Adventists are vegetarian today); identification of the pope as Antichrist; three separate Divine Persons rather than the orthodox doctrine of Trinity; and several other unique teachings.”
I thank Father this response wasn't oppositional nor disrespectful. we all have blindspots and biases and so need to be dealt with objectively. The hostile spirit some non trins use has made me distance myself. it's not what is said and done but how we react and respond. this is our test
True Agape love "reviles" not, and truth will holds its own with out a Jehu defending it. My sheep hear my voice that still small voice Those who are of him will hear it in time. My challenge is not to be sucked into their reaction vortex.
@@1888fiire “Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” So says Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:22). He claims that words spoken in anger are the moral equivalent of murder. But by chapter 23, he’s pretty angry at the religious leaders. “You blind fools!” he shouts during a chapter-long rant (Matthew 23:17). He calls them hypocrites, snakes and vipers, everything - as the saying goes - but a child of God. We all know that insulting people is incompatible with Christian teaching. But Jesus actually did it quite a bit. Here are some of Jesus’ best insults: Fool: Our word moron actually comes form this Greek word, and probably conveys the intended level of contempt better than fool. Fools, in Hebrew wisdom literature, were not just ignorant. They were immoral. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” writes the Hebrew Psalmist, who goes on to say “They are corrupt; their deeds are vile” (Psalm 14:1). The word could also be used as a verb, meaning “to dull,” as in to dull a blade. When we talk about “salt losing its saltiness” (Matthew 5:13), the whole phrase is captured by this one word. When salt “loses its edge,” it becomes dull and useless. So when Jesus admonishes his followers not to lose their flavor, he’s asking them not to become morons (who aren’t even fit for the manure pile (Luke 14:34)). In spite of the fact that he tells his followers not to use this word, he lets it fly on occasion. Usually it’s part of a parable (the foolish bridesmaids in Matthew 25:2, or the rich man in Luke 12:20). But in his angry tirade against religious leaders, he simply can’t help himself. Fox: When some Pharisees come to warn Jesus that King Herod wants him dead, Jesus has the audacity (and the courage) to say, “Go and tell that fox for me…” (Luke 13:32). This insult hasn’t changed its meaning much. It still means sly, cunning and crafty, but we often use it as a compliment. In Jesus day, among more agrarian folks, calling someone a fox was more like calling them a weasel. Since kings preferred to be compared to lions and eagles, calling Herod a fox would likely have been enough to get killed. It’s unlikely that Jesus’ Pharisee friends would have taken that message back to Herod word-for-word. Dog, pig: Immediately after he tells his followers not to be too judgmental of their neighbors (“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)), he walks his statement back a bit. Sure, don’t criticize your neighbor’s faults, BUT… there are some people you shouldn’t waste your time on. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6). I believe these sayings go hand-in-hand. Trying too hard to change the beliefs or behavior of others, whether you see that as “removing a speck,” or “offering something holy” is probably a bad idea. What may be surprising to those of us who grew up singing “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild” or who have seen one too many memes that Jesus “always had time” for everybody is that Jesus seemed to believe that your time is too valuable to waste on those who won’t appreciate what you have to offer. Another time Jesus used the dog insult was toward a woman who actually came to him for healing (Matthew 15:26). This story has always been troublesome for Christians whose image of Jesus is that he always showed perfect love to everyone, and it goes beyond the scope of this essay. It has been thoroughly discussed and debated elsewhere. But his use of it in the Sermon on the Mount shows that the insult was not as out of character for Jesus as we might think. Snake, brood of vipers: More animal insults. These sound almost quaint to us modern (and increasingly urban) folks, but the danger of snakes to foot travelers in the ancient world was very real. Snakes were sometimes used symbolically to represent healing, but Jesus clarifies that he has in mind the poisonous, non-helpful kind of snakes when he refers to the religious leaders. Hypocrite: This is THE insult that Jesus popularized. Because he used to to describe religious leaders, it has entered popular discourse and is often the first insult leveled against Christians. I do not think we hear the word the same way that Jesus intended. We often use hypocrite to mean “someone who says one thing but does another.” But that would include everybody, right? If we manage to live up to our value system all of the time, it probably means we have set a low bar. If we are truly striving to be better people, we will always be sanctified hypocrites. But the word hypocrite simply means actor. I believe Jesus meant something more like drama queens or religious divas, people who were more concerned with how religious they appeared to other people than someone who simply doesn’t practice what they preach. His chapter-long rant in Matthew 23 details some of the specific behaviors that he called hypocrisy, and they are more about missing the point than actively doing wrong. Which is also why I don’t think Jesus is really a hypocrite when he calls religious leaders fools after telling us not to call people fools. Jesus is not pretending to be something he is not, and he’s not trying to impress anybody. He’s simply doing what prophets have always done: calling those in power to task. In modern language, he’s “punching up, not punching down.”
I am also a long time Seventh-Day Adventist and I love my church. I have seen it go through many changes, only because these changes came from Satan's deceptions. But I won't stop worshipping my Father and His only Begotten Son. It is also disgusting to me see one man speak so blasphemously about God. The Lord have mercy on him.
Amen. The closing statement of the presentation [ 18LTMS, 1903 ] is a most beautiful instruction by sister White. It also plainly reveals her unchanging understanding of her God from her teenage years until her final years.
Amen 🙏🏽❤❤ Well articulated, the only begotten Son of God is Begotten not created that's biblical and what our pioneers believed, Pastor Steve is embrassing unique Son, Jesuit style of destroying the literal sonship of Christ Jesus through the Trinity doctrine deception concept, like Lucifer and evil angels in heaven, so does Apostate Protestantism. Mercy. Thanks for sharing.
As a long time Seventh-Day Adventist member and a non-trinitarian all my life I can't understand why people like wohiberg are allowed to make videos containing nothing but lies about those of us who believe the same as the pioneers believed. I think it is disgusting and I am convinced that the Omega is the Trinity teaching and that because of this many sincere Seventh-Day Adventists will be lost.
@@Jasho-Beam for 20 years a i saw some of the most horrific things done to members who spoke truth about the pagan trinity and yes Doug Batchelor and Walther and Amazing Facts are in on this deception big time . I know 5th the generation Adventist who have followed the lamb were so ever he goeth and they were put out of the cult of the Seventh day adventist and restraining orders were the threat if they ever spoke on that subject in the private property’s of the cult .Come out of her my people .Why don’t you test the spirits to see if it’s from God yourself and you will enjoy the persecution that the Apostles and Jesus the Son of God endured from them and the world .Love with out Truth is no love at all but deception let no man or men deceive you by ANY MEANS .If to deceive the very elect !!!!!!!!!!!!
He is allowed because God gave us freedom of choice. I am also a non-trinitarian and do not agree with Wohlberg, but he does have a right to express his opinion, I say opinion because he did not use much Bible in the video and twisted what he did use along with twisting Sister Whites writings.
It is clear thing, that SDA Trademark Church has changed her God YHVH to the Holy Trinity. Her current god is just the same as god of Babylon the great, whose feast day is Sunday. Not any good for the future!
Yes and agreed. Although it is fair to say that the future is finally here today, no? We can sense the shift, the 'shaking' is just now gaining momentum. And go figure, it is centered around this very matter!
Ellen White stated not a pin or piller shall be removed from that which was given to the pioneers in the first 50 years. The Fundamental Principles is included in that ststement. It did not advance. Any new light can not contradict light already given. Steve Wahlburg your argument is bogus.
I believe in the Heavenly trio. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Only the Bible has an authority on who is God. I don’t believe in the non Trinitarian belief. I am a seventh day Adventist and I believe in its doctrine .
Thank you for clear Bible studies. I can’t find the video you showed a clip of, from White Horse Media, the mystery of the trinity from 2017. If you can, please share the link? I have searched the website and the RUclips channel with no results. Thanks much!
The controversy not only involves the statement of Dr. John Harvery Kellogg in his letter to G.I. Butler, but also involves the heavenly trio statement where, in her own handwriting, EGW changed persons to personalities. In the mind of EGW there was a difference between a "person" and a "personality".
Persons would mirror the language of the Trinity doctrine and there needs to be a distinction. This is causing great confusion. Trying to use the term Trinity while claiming to have a different meaning does not work . The says nothing of the substance of God , eternal generation is not part of scripture , and one being three persons is not in the Bible . The Bible clearly states there are three co-eternal entities ( Father , Son, Holy Spirit ) what are in agreement and act as one . Therefore there exists one God just as a married couple consists of two humans who become one and the church is one body with many members .
3 co-eternal entities that's false and not biblical John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
@@lesirterholland5186 First , only God can have life in himself because every created being takes life from God . Second , to be God one must be eternal if you are not eternal then you are not God . Third , the Bible clearly states there three witnesses in heaven . To be witness one must personally observe/ see and to be true witness one must have seen everything. Only an eternal being can witness everything. It lists the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit as co-eternal . They are one because they act as one . Just as the church has many members and one body so is God three eternal entities who act with one purpose . Man and woman become one upon marriage and yet they are two separate humans who are to act as one . God created marriage to show us how the Godhead exists . Nothing unbiblical about the Bible . 1 John 5:7-8 KJV - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
First , only God can have life in himself because every created being takes life from God . Second , to be God one must be eternal if you are not eternal then you are not God . Third , the Bible clearly states there three witnesses in heaven . To be witness one must personally observe/ see and to be true witness one must have seen everything. Only an eternal being can witness everything. It lists the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit as co-eternal . They are one because they act as one . Just as the church has many members and one body so is God three eternal entities who act with one purpose . Man and woman become one upon marriage and yet they are two separate humans who are to act as one . God created marriage to show us how the Godhead exists . Nothing unbiblical about the Bible . 1 John 5:7-8 KJV - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Notice, when Steve starts with his presentation he doesn't read fully what it says if fundamental principle number one, that God is everywhere present by his representative the holy spirit. He didn't read that part in such a way that it made it even more vague, and took away the meaning that it had already had. This is pretty deceptive. The second thing I noticed is right away he needs to jump in there and promote the idea that The Seventh-Day Adventist Church changed over the years and continue to learn new things. He didn't want the people to think for themselves, he wanted to steer their thinking.
A Hardy AMEN Brother Vasko. Clearly, all the verifiable truths are all there: Exposed! When there is an agenda and a motive of operation of the reprobate mind; in this instance, the promotion of his book, then he will not understand the concept of "cease to desist" falsehood. I pray for my brothers and sisters who are bound to theologians, pastors, and those in leadership, who are leading whole congregation, as well as ministries to hell (Grave) without the Salvation of JESUS! Maranatha💙
Even our Leaders pronounced the Trinity,says",it not found in the Bible but I do believe it!" And here says EGW " don't depend on the president of your conference or president of the General Conference to think for you.God has given" to every man his work"!{Mark 13:34} "then they doing the very opposite of that wich God told them to do"! 4LtMs, Manuscript 11,1883,par.3
The first statement you presented on Wholberg's video says it all. Let the Bible be your guide, why does he go on about "progressive truth"? Thank you for the enlightenment.
Perhaps he is borrowing from Bill Johnson who, about three decades ago, claimed that it was "present truth" that led our more modern intellectuals to claim superiority to the "pioneers" who hammered out our first "fundamental beliefs" - as if those early Bible scholars were misguided and preaching heresy (that would get them disfellowshiped these days). Did Ellen White ever chastise any of them for holding such beliefs? On the contrary: she said to REPUBLISH the works of several of those founders so that their words could live on though their authors did not. So what did "they" do with Smith's D&R? They thoroughly RAPED it! Woe unto any who THINK they can change truth to suit their twisted thinking. And that should be telling enough: their rewritten history that has sister White doing a 180 (doctrinally) as if God got confused and took a good while to figure out how to fix it - well, it's a good thing these modern hot-rods came along to help!
I'm doing a study on the paper put out by Charles S Longacre (Adventist Pioneer 1871-1958) called 'The Diety Of Christ'. If you can all find yourself a copy, I thoroughly recommend going through it in detail.
It is interesting to me that Steve Wahlberg did not address the chapter "A True Knowledge of God" in the book "The Ministry of Healing" (published 1905) which Ellen White wrote to combat the error of that time propagated by Kellogg and others. If this had some trinitarian statements in it, they would be heralded far and wide! The 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 on this chapter of the book by Wahlberg and others 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. Also their omission on John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself"...that pre-existent life of Christ was 🅶🅸🆅🅴🅽 to Him.
1Corintians 8:6 one God,one Lord Jesus the Son! It doesn't matter what People say!! And the holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Almighty and from Jesus Christ!! Read from EGW the "Western Tour" she was absolutely against the teaching of the Trinity!
The Catholic Trinity teachings is not qwite right.1 Corinthians 8:6. There are two,God Father,a Person who does has a name! " I AM" and the begotten Son,a Person has a name,Jesus Christ,but the holy Spirit has no name,its not a Person, because,it is the Spirit of God Almighty and Jesus Christ! A person can not be at the same time on different places in the World,the holy Spirit can!!
If godhead is used, it can still be a trinity statement. Look at the words and the meaning of the words that are being used and whether you can find a "plain thus saith the Lord" in the Holy Scriptures.
God is the author of order and Satan is the author of confusion. There is danger in speculative theories in which there is a desire for knowledge that God has withheld from us. Those who engage in this line of study are treading upon forbidden ground.The lesson is for us. The field into which Satan led our first parents is the same to which he is alluring men today. He is flooding the world with pleasing fables. By every device at his command he tempts men to speculate in regard to God. Thus he seeks to prevent them from obtaining that knowledge of God which is salvation. {MH 428.1}
And again! EGWhite seen the three highest beings in heaven after the fall of Luzifer. The Father,Son and Gabriel. " It was Gabriel,the Angel next in rank to the Son of God" ( Desire of Ages,page 234) and it was Gabriel,who came with the divine Message to Daniel!!
Exodus 3:14 KJV And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Who was the God who spoke those words to Moses, I AM THAT I AM? It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, “I AM THAT I AM: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came “in the likeness of men,” He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God “manifest in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16. 42 . FLB 47.5
I can't amen this enough! It just goes to show, that church/denominational membership means nothing. If we individually seek Him with our whole hearts, He will reveal the truth through the Scriptures. Jesus WAS with God, and WAS God - The invisible Word changed forms - and was begotten a visible Son, the exact image of the invisible God. Scripture states eternal life is in two always different Divine Persons being of one Spirit, NOT three different persons being the same Being, all at the same time. By saying God the Father, Trinitarians forget He's a Holy Spirit, the only Holy Spirit. Jesus said God is “a Spirit”. Two distinctly different omnipresent spirits cannot be only one Spirit, they must be polytheistic. The First Adam was created a body of flesh from the dirt (a living soul), and he dwelled in the sinless Presence of God. His was a mortal life that would live forever, if he continued in the Presence of God. When banished from His Presence, due to sin, Adam's body died, The Last Adam, was implanted within the woman by the Spirit of the Most High, and the reverse occurred, God's sinless Presence indwelled the body of flesh (a “life-giving spirit”), and He walked in the fallen, banished world, still away from God's sinless Presence. An immortal life that will live forever, even when His mortal flesh body died, because He is the dwelling place of the immortal Presence of God (His living Temple). Jesus is the first and only begotten after God's kind, the Spirit filled man. Those who have been born again, and received a portion of His Spirit, through the Lord Jesus, likewise are the adopted “sons of God” or “children of God”. We're a new Creature in Christ, the “Everlasting Father” of the redeemed, immortal human race, a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament. Colossians 1:27 GNT *_God's plan is to make known his secret to his people,_* this rich and glorious secret which he has for all peoples. And *_the secret is that Christ is in you,_* which means that you will share in the glory of God.
My take on all of this nonsensical arguments are that everyone who are involved in this are supposedly Pastors who are allowing themselves to cause divisions in God's Church! We're to preach the undiluted Angels Message to a dying World instead of bickering over something that we can wait for eternity to be taught by the GOD HEAD. Preach the WORD. AMEN
Sorry - while nonsensical arguments should NOT be allowed to waste much of our time, the simple truth is that Sister White gave very specific instruction about how to handle points of disagreement, and it did NOT include telling anyone with whom we might not agree that THEIR ideas are NONSENSE! Certainly a matter as fundamentally important as knowing the God whom we worship and claim to be children of is worthy of our study and deliberation - else the sounding of the three angels' messages will be uncertain and unclear. God has given us minds with which to reason, information sufficient for our pondering and a plan of salvation that is ours for the taking - not to mention warnings galore about pitfalls and deceptions. When we have numerous scholars sounding the warning that our history and theology have been twisted and distorted to the point where we seem to be drawing closer and closer to the Babylonian "wine" of deception, I submit that pretending it is of little import is an ostrich-like perspective.
To preach the First Angels Message undiluted we need to know who Him is. The first Angels Message begins with Rev. 4:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." The question is. Who is Him ??? With the witness of the Bible and the SOP I think it is pretty plain that HIM is the Father. Not a trio of God's as it would be if there was a trinity. So to give the 3 Angels messages we need to have a correct understanding of God.
I would like to see you discuss your beliefs with Mario Shepard of the Biblical Binitarian channel. He is Reformed instead of an SDA, but he has very similar views to your own except he believes Christ existed with the Father from eternity. It would be interesting to see you discuss the similarities and differences of your beliefs.
Why? What matters is: "It is written..." not what agreements and differences any potential debaters may pontificate upon. What you cite is actually one of the main problems that trinitarian SDAs trip up on: they cannot concede that Jesus could have had a beginning, being hung up on this "from eternity" concept, EVEN THOUGH that refusal forces them to THROW OUT the OBVIOUS and oft-repeated description of Jesus as THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON - and of WHOM? Of His God and Father, AND OURS! And for WHAT? What difference does it make what happened between the Father and the Son BEFORE anything and anyone else was CREATED? Arguing about such a thing is so utterly USELESS, MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS and FUTILE - it is a complete waste of time and energy, especially when one self-proclaimed genius insists upon forcing HIS OPINION of the matter onto ANYONE else - in other words, elevating it to a CREED that outweighs any "thus saith the Lord...!"
Persons would mirror the language of the Trinity doctrine and there needs to be a distinction. This is causing great confusion. Trying to use the term Trinity while claiming to have a different meaning does not work . The says nothing of the substance of God , eternal generation is not part of scripture , and one being three persons is not in the Bible . The Bible clearly states there are three co-eternal entities ( Father , Son, Holy Spirit ) what are in agreement and act as one . Therefore there exists one God just as a married couple consists of two humans who become one and the church is one body with many members .
That reasoning is as flawed as your editing, and totally disregards NUMEROUS plain statements in the Bible AND the SoP! Here's a suggestion: take what you think you know and try to answer Daniel Mesa's "Fifty Questions," as I have proposed to Wohlberg. I have to assume that his failure to reply to that suggestion is as much of an answer as we can expect to see - but YOU can give it a go?
@@YahWho-is1tt There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea of substance being the foundation for determining God . There is nothing in the Bible or SOP that supports the idea of eternal generation ( that somehow in the eternity past Jesus was generated by the father . ) 1 John 5:6-8 KJV This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
@@darrenharriott2120 Firstly: are you confusing me with someone else? I never said a single word about "substance being the foundation" of ANYTHING!?!?!? Secondy: you are totally mistook about what "eternal generation" means, but - again - why are you trying to lecture ME about THAT? Thirdly: you are still thinking that the johannine comma somehow PROVES a triune God - NEVERMIND its widely-known SKETCHY source: Erasmus! and Lastly: your original statement, to which I replied with concerns for ?WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? remains unanswered and mysterious. By now, though, I have to say: NEVERMIND - I'm sorry I engaged.
@@YahWho-is1tt There is nothing I said that is said that is in agreement with the Trinitarian doctrine or triune . If you understood you would know . 1 John 5:6-8 actually disproves the Trinitarian doctrine and does not confirm it .
Many people get confused over the meaning. Many thinks trinity means 3. Well that is a half truth. See our pioneers was against using the word trinity because of the meaning from the catholic. There doctrine of trinity is , they believe Jesus and Mary had sinless flesh. As well as they lift mary up where Jesus is. As well as they believes the holy spirit is Jesus and God's spirit and there is 1 God. But our pioneers and Ellen white used the term Godhead and taught there are 3 persons in the body. As the Bible says many members in 1 body.
@@Fred-sy5sg WELL TO THE WORLD YES BYT IF WE READ ALL THE WRITINGS ABOUT THE TRINITY FROM THE CATHLOIC CHURCH IT MEANS SO MUCH MORE SO TO SAY YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY YOU ACCEPT THEIR UNDERSTANDING THIER DOCTRINE. BUT BIBLE TERMENOLIGY IS GODHEAD A BODY MADE UP OF MANY MEMBERS ACTING AS 1 I.E ONE ACCORD.
"Godhead...there are 3 persons in the body"? What does that mean? Do we worship a "Godhead"? I prefer to worship according to Jn 17:3, 1 Cor 8:4-6, Gal 1:1-3 etc.
@revelation1790 well can see that the Bible teaches that principle in Roman's 12:4,5. 1corn.12:12,20 also the word one can imply "1 accord" or unity. The ord trinity is not in the Bible therefore you have to go outside of the Bible to get the meaning. Trinity is a catholic doctrine. 1in 3 or 3in 1. The Bible teaches 3 being 3 different persons or else Jesus would be praying to himself and God would being sending himself . We must let the Bible identify the work of each person in the body : the Godhead. Pray about it. God bless.
@revelation1790 we can't build doctrines of one line. The Bible calls Jesus God and God the father called Jesus God Hebrew 1:8 kjv. The Bible also called the holy spirit God.
In our study groups we had 2 young men come in new pushing just the father and son not counting the Holy Spirit as a third person. This caused our group to break up. I appreciate the effort and all the research done on this video, but I still found it very confusing, vague and too long. Why can’t it be explained quickly and to the point covering ALL details? I’m still not sure where you stand.
When God says "this is my Son in whom i am well pleased" and Jesus says Father "give me the Glory i had with you before the world" They are no metaphors! God and His Son use the words Son and Father because it is true. It is not role play, metaphor or modalism. That's all you need to know . All the rest is word play and smoke screen deception from the king of lies. ` There is One God and One Begotten Son . The Spirit of God is His animating omniscient power and presence that comes to mankind in a nurturing power, or it rejected one sin at a time until the pleading is total rejected and His Spirit Grieved. Jesus said "God is Spirit". There is no mystery in what God told us about himself, the mystery is how the Holy Sprit of God works and why He pursues each of us with a relentless Love
The one true God _is_ love (1 John 4:8,16). And the greatest demonstration of love is to *lay down one's **_own_** life* - not someone else's life - for others (John 15:13). The trinitarian Adventist version of "God the Father" did not lay down his own life for anyone. And the _anti-trinitarian_ Adventist version of "God the Father" did not lay down _his_ own life for anyone. So neither the trinitarian Adventist version of "God the Father" nor the _anti-trinitarian_ Adventist version of "God the Father" is the one true God.
The one and only true God - God the Father, "THE everlasting Father" - is the unipersonal Spirit who "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and who manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son, so that he could *lay down **_his own_** life* for us, raise _himself_ from the dead, and give eternal life to all who believe on _him._
And the _name_ of this unipersonal, *self-sacrificing* Spirit is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
*1 TIMOTHY 3:16 (KJV)* And without controversy *great* is the *mystery* of godliness: *GOD was manifest in the flesh,* justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Yes the disappointing KJV translation of the Greek 'OC' which is -hos-. Hos is not Theos. Hos is 'he' or 'who' or 'which' or 'what'... Not God...as KJV decided on. A proper and correct choice of translation is and would be as in, ''He was manifest in the flesh" 1 Tim 3:16 ESV
Novel concepts - but highly problematic. Were this the answer or the best way of explaining it to us, Jesus (the Master Teacher) would have sounded like you with your interesting perspective. He did not. Better that you should try harder to sound more like HIM!
@@YahWho-is1tt The self-sacrificial love of the Father is not "highly problematic". The self-sacrificial love of the Father is what the gospel is all about.
And Jesus spoke in such a way that those who _do_ believe in the Father's self-sacrificial love can see him for who he is, and those who _don't,_ can't.
@@euston2216 Are you SERIOUS? I never stated, inferred or THOUGHT of the idea you respond with here (that I was suggesting that the self-sacrificing love of the Father was what is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC!) Let me try to paint it by the numbers: YOUR THESES which I find problematic are these: that both SDA "camps" are missing the importance of the love of the Father, concluded because neither side considers the Father to be the One whose life was laid down. Your unique perspective on this seems to be the basis for your condemning both. That you then twist this into a totally spiritual scenario, as if neither the Father nor the Son have physical bodies in which their Spirit dwells, is as much a figment of the imagination as is the triune God concept born in the 4th century by knuckle-heads who wished to impose THEIR whacked interpretations onto others - just like the GC and subdivisions who consider the BRI to be the source of all theological understanding within Adventism - thus adopting - wait for it -- A CREED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
The Catholic Trinity teachings is not quite right!! 1Corintians 8:6. There are two,God Father,a Person who dos has a name! "I AM" and the begotten Son, a Person has a name,Jesus Christ, but the holy Spirit has no name,it is not a Person, becouse,it is the Spirit of God Almighty and Jesus Christ! ( A person cannot be at the same time on different places in the World. But the Spirit of God and Jesus can!!
Jesus never ever claimed to be God!!In the whole bible not!! 1 Corinthians 8:6!!! And his Father called Jesus out of the Grave= Pitt= Hell. Acts 2:24+32;3:15+26;4:10;5:30and 10:49;13:30;33,34,37. And Roman 4:24 and 6:4!!!!
No, He never blew His own horn thusly, but UNLIKE Gabriel, He did NOT refuse WORSHIP. And He gave numerous evidences that He was and is THE I AM - which was clearly understood IMMEDIATELY - as they wanted to stone Him on the spot! I suggest you watch your step in how far you try to take this down the proverbial rabbit hole!!!
The history of pantheism brought by Kellog and the biblical trinity are totally different. The Holy Spirit is a third person of the God Head. E.G. White's writtings has proven that the Holy Spirit is a third person. There are 3 indivual beings in Rev. 4 and 5. Steve Wohlberg is correct.
You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the the Lord God himself. E.g.white, to john Harvey kellogg, letter 300, mar 16th, 1803 Her letter 242, 1903. Also calls him out referring to a certain man in the medical work, aka kellogg. 1 cor 8 v 6
So EGW proves the Bible wrong? None of the NT writers were thinking in trinity terms. Just read the first few verses of every book from Romans to Revelation for yourself!
@@revelation1790 Please do not take dohnlabalaba's word for what E G White said! Anyone who thinks "Wohlberg is correct" in this sad attempt has not done any better research than he has - and that is woefully incomplete! I do not believe that ANYONE in this conversation would be at ALL comfortable with the notion that "EGW proves the Bible wrong," and if you have to be told that, I do not wish to be the one.... There are clearly two camps within Adventism here: those who claim that EGW became a trinitarian and those who insist that this is a false, groundless accusation. The former class are also satisfied with Fundamental Belief #2 being added WAY late in "the game," pretending that this does NOT constitute a HUGE, problematic SHIFT that would NEVER have passed while Ellen was alive. Furthermore, they want to believe that the nine "proof texts" listed with FB#2 are actually Biblical PROOF of their "triune God" notion, in spite of COUNTLESS Biblical scholars over CENTURIES openly admitting that no clear and definite statement exists in the Bible (as is well proven by the utter FAILURE of those nine verses to state ANY SUCH THING!!!) Yes, every Pauline epistle offers that fine clue, but that is only going to be helpful to open-minded seekers of TRUTH - not biased arguers hoping to prove THEIR point REGARDLESS of factual evidence.
Very good. Amen brother Belovski! I was pulling for you the whole time, as though I were watching it live. : )
When Steve Wohlberg tried to use the “unborrowed, underived” quote that every trinitarian tries to use, and believes is a trump card. I just wanted to stop him and point out that if he were to read the whole quote, he would see that we too can have that “unborrowed, underived” life. It can be given. And WAS given to Him from the Father. Here’s the whole quote:
“In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He CAN possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour.” {ST Feb 13, 1912}
Maybe you could do a part two on this. Because I know that every single point that Wohlberg made in his whole talk can be refuted. If Ellen White had reversed her position and became a trinitarian. Something that God had specifically led her and the pioneers away from. She would have held a press conference. Not dropped a few subtle statements in a book. Most people don’t know that the way this heresy was brought in, was by Leroy Froom. The worst enemy this Church has ever had, other than Satan. He compiled the book “Evangelism” in 1946 and took her statements out of context, and made it look like she supported the trinity. Among other things. Like the book “Questions on Doctrine” He had a hand in that. There is a website with lots of information on this, but if I give the link, youtube will remove my whole post. The website is called truthseeker . church. Check it out. There is a load of information there. Including the hand typed letter that Froom sent to two of his accomplices later in life, when he wanted to reminisce and crow about what he had done. But even with all that, it still took until 1980 for it to be made official. Now we have the central doctrine of the beast power, right in our midst. What a nightmare.
Also I think that if she had changed her position, she would’ve rewritten the books where she held her first view.
Amen. It was Leroy Froom who introduced that doctrine to our denomination. Let us stick to the word Godhead which is our LORD God Jesus Christ and not to use the word Trinity which is not Biblical teaching. The teaching is Monotheism and not Trinitarianism. We believed in one God Jesus Christ the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
The trinitarian movement started with Kellogg when he accepted the trinity while writing his book the Living Temple. It snowballed under Froom and I agree that Froom was the worse enemy that the SDA church ever had. From my understanding he was buried in the Free Mason section of the cemetery where he was laid to rest. Did a lot of damage to Adventism including rewriting our history.
*Trinitarians must provide the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses that explain the following:*
*1.* There is one God, and He is triune *[They are “God-identical but Person-distinct]*
*2.* Jesus is God, yet He is not triune.
*3.* The holy Spirit is God, but not triune.
*4.* Jesus is a metaphorical Son
*5.* That the Son of God is a job description/roleplay/imaginative Son.
*6.* Calling or covenantal/agreement identity.
*7.* A narrative/story identity
*8.* That the Bible text "Son of God" has nothing to do with [ontology/metaphysics] nature of being and existence.
*Philosophical explanations are not acceptable.* Only the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses must be provided.
Most SDA Church *members believe in a literal sonship,* but *the authority of the GC, the BRI argues differently,* - *they believe in a metaphorical Son.*
*Below is what the SDA hierarchy say* - [not the members]. *Seems like the hierarchy is the ponéros speaking through the people. [Acts 19:15].*
"People expect the General Conference to have the last word and to speak for the Church with ultimate authority.” (General Conference President Neal C. Wilson, Commission Report on Role and Function of Denominational Organizations, 140-85GN, p 22-23, April 30, 1985).
*Did you get that?* - *They say “the people expect”* - *What a blatant lie.* - *I'd like to see the agreement between the GC and the "people".*
*Additionally, they say that the members must abide by their decisions.*
“It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, *and then to abide to the decisions of the church...”* (Seventh-day Adventist Church Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, Lesson 13, March 28, 1987, p 92, or p 153 in the Teacher’s Edition).
*There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Jesus is a metaphorical Son.* - *Such un-Biblical utterances were made by Manuel Rodriguez [now retired] was a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and was the “director” of the Adventist BRI (Biblical Research Institute).* In the November 2015 issue of Adventist World on page 42 he wrote the following: "The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. *The term “Son” is used metaphorically* when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship"
*Likewise, Gerhard Pfandi, says,* - *"The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role"* - The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandi, Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD, June 1999.
*Read the following heresy by Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Emeritus, Fernando L. Canale, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia Volume 12.* - *He says,* “In biblical anthropomorphisms, God reveals what He is and what He can do in terms of human realities. For instance, when God says that He has an arm (Ex. 14:16; Ps. 89:13), He does not mean that He exactly or univocally what we call an arm. The expression signifies that God’s reality is capable of performing all that can be performed by a human arm, and infinitely more. We cannot conceive or imagine the actual structure of God’s reality that allows Him to perform these acts.”
*Retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) states,* - *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons:* - *but* theological reasoning on the basis of biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” - *Kwabena Donkor, retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) Release 9, May 2015, page 20, God in 3 Person - in Theology*
So, then what is being stated is that *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons”*
Then he [Kwabena Donkor] concludes, “theological reasoning based on biblical principles leads to that conclusion.”
*What a contradiction!* - *First, he says there is no prooftext* - *then he contradicts himself by saying theological reasoning based on biblical principle leads to that conclusion.* - *He should have been a politician*
*Since when does dogma replace scripture?*
*An official Church Publication reads,* “If Adventism is to meet the needs of all people around the world, the landmarks must remain simple and straightforward. The Bible will be our only creed. Complex theological definitions, *the Trinity, for example, may serve the church well in general but cannot be imposed as a test for all Adventist everywhere.”* - The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (NAD 1977), p.50
Adventism can expect fresh insights into truth, ‘present truth’ that will enhance the appreciation of old landmarks. Such an expectation has always been a part of historic Adventism and is reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. When ‘present truth’ is of a complex nature, however, *it may be more helpful for some in the church than for others. In such a case it cannot be imposed on the church as a whole.”* (Ibid).
*Then they say,* - *“Remember our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks should encourage a certain humility in the church and lead us to resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest.”* (Ibid)
*Now, be honest and tell me, is it proper for the GC of the SDA Church to impose its synthesis on members, and expel those who conscientiously do not agree with the church’s reasoning, even though those members accept everything the Bible actually says?*
Thank you for these quotes. I have been looking for these sorts of comments by the church.
So, I’m a non-trinno, have been for about 30 odd years. Mate of mine here in Australia was dis-fellowshipped for being a non-trinno. So the conference president in his area, told the pastors, that if he showed up, he was to be refused entry. Some one unknown, possibly the conference president, rang the police, told the police that he was causing a ruckus and had set himself at the front of the church. So the police showed up, and were really annoyed, not at my mate, but at the pastor and promptly left. So let’s think about this. The church has used the state to enforce a doctrine, or to refuse entry to those who believe something different. This is straight out of the medieval period. Officially our church has adopted exactly the same hold as the Catholics which is a mix of ‘as AT Jones puts it’, the new paganism of Ancient Rome and apostate Christianity.
The police were really annoyed at the police? Sorry - making negative sense unto myself, although the lone stranger I may be.
@@YahWho-is1tt Yeah sorry, didn't read it through after I wrote it, I'll correct it.
Wohlberg quotes Haskell as saying that “the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood”. Of course it is - if the word trinity is only used as a collective term for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is like saying the doctrine of the second coming is true when rightly understood or the state of the dead is true when rightly understood. We could go on forever with that one.
Anyway, there is no record of Haskell making that statement (the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood). It was written in a one paragraph article called 'Union' (if it can be called an article). This one paragraph was in the paper 'The Bible Training School'. This was not an official publication of the SDA Church. Haskell published it himself. He began it when he was 70 years of age. According to the online SDA Encyclopaedia, Haskell's paper was often at odds (caused friction) with some of our publishing houses. It doesn't say why.
In the two issues of Haskell's paper (February and March 1906), where the statement in question is made, there are a number of articles credited to Haskell. There were also articles credited to other authors. This included those of his second wife Hetty. The article 'Union' though (where it says the trinity doctrine is true when rightly understood) is not credited to anyone. In fact when it was republished in the Caribbean Watchman of February 1907 it just said --Selected--. From that evidence alone, it appears quite apparent that Haskell didn't write it. It was anonymous.
It is quite obvious that Haskell, from his theology (some of which has been pointed out in this video) did not believe in the trinity doctrine. Enough said on that one.
Here are more:
"The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and receive worship. Each one represents all the other members of the *Trinity [or the Godhead GROUP overall]...[but] Gabriel was only an angel bearing a message from the great *Trinity of heaven, and could not receive worship [Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8-9]"
---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, November 1907, No. 6, pg. 94
"It is evident that the Holy Spirit is one of the *Trinity, and fully represent God [the Father] and Christ, and the *Trinity [or the Godhead GROUP overall]; and appears in any form or shape, or without form or shape, as best answers the purpose of God"
---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, 1910, Vol. 9, No. 7, pg. 13
@@chrischung2365 Haskell may have used the word trinity but he certainly was not a trinitarian. Just because someone uses the word 'trinity' does not mean they must be a trinitarian. To draw such a conclusion would be very poor exegesis. To determine whether a person is a trinitarian, their theology needs to be analysed.
Haskell believed with SDAs across the board that Christ was the first begotten of God. He also believed that at one time, the Father and Son were alone in the universe, and that before anything was created, God had to reveal the plan of creation to His Son. Haskell also believed that in appreciation of the Son’s pledge to save mankind if he should fall, God bestowed upon Him the power of creation. Haskell ‘idolised’ Ellen White. He believed her to be verbally inspired, thus he would have believed, as she did, that the divine person of the Son of God died at Calvary, and that only the Father could release Him from the tomb. He would also have believed along with Ellen White that if the incarnate Son of God had sinned, He would have lost (forfeited) His eternal existence. No trinitarian would have believed any of the above. To say that Haskell was a trinitarian just because he used the word trinity really is very poor exegesis indeed.
Haskell also, like Ellen White, continually referred to the Holy Spirit as an ‘it’. He also believed that Melchizedek was the Holy Spire - which was something never said by Ellen White.
All of Haskell’s beliefs, as above, can be found in the relevant section here (The case of S. N. Haskell)
theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/Articles_pdf/SDA_trinity_theology.pdf
@@chrischung2365 People also exercise very poor exegesis when they draw the conclusion that if the Holy Spirit is a person, then God must be a trinity of divine persons as depicted by the trinity doctrine. This is false because to have a trinity doctrine, the three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) must be said to be inseparably connected to each other in one trinitarian being, as the one immortal God, who can never, under any circumstances, undergo change.
@@terryhill6912 well I suppose by your own witness, the 1980 SDA trinity is really non trinitarian as we believe in three separate persons, no? Even Catholics note this. If that is the case then why are you dedicating this level of energy to this topic? Here’s a statement from a Catholic website listing our supposed heresies:
Ellen White’s “ongoing revelations formed the basis of the doctrine upon which she and her husband, James, founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church (so-called because White claimed that Christ wanted to be worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath). These doctrines included the revival of Jewish dietary customs (although most Adventists are vegetarian today); identification of the pope as Antichrist; three separate Divine Persons rather than the orthodox doctrine of Trinity; and several other unique teachings.”
I thank Father this response wasn't oppositional nor disrespectful. we all have blindspots and biases and so need to be dealt with objectively. The hostile spirit some non trins use has made me distance myself.
it's not what is said and done but how we react and respond. this is our test
Granted and properly stated.
Although... is not the hostile spirit you did mention display itself as such through their disfellowship?
True Agape love "reviles" not, and truth will holds its own with out a Jehu defending it.
My sheep hear my voice that still small voice Those who are of him will hear it in time. My challenge is not to be sucked into their reaction vortex.
@@1888fiire “Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” So says Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:22). He claims that words spoken in anger are the moral equivalent of murder.
But by chapter 23, he’s pretty angry at the religious leaders. “You blind fools!” he shouts during a chapter-long rant (Matthew 23:17). He calls them hypocrites, snakes and vipers, everything - as the saying goes - but a child of God. We all know that insulting people is incompatible with Christian teaching. But Jesus actually did it quite a bit. Here are some of Jesus’ best insults:
Fool: Our word moron actually comes form this Greek word, and probably conveys the intended level of contempt better than fool. Fools, in Hebrew wisdom literature, were not just ignorant. They were immoral. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” writes the Hebrew Psalmist, who goes on to say “They are corrupt; their deeds are vile” (Psalm 14:1).
The word could also be used as a verb, meaning “to dull,” as in to dull a blade. When we talk about “salt losing its saltiness” (Matthew 5:13), the whole phrase is captured by this one word. When salt “loses its edge,” it becomes dull and useless. So when Jesus admonishes his followers not to lose their flavor, he’s asking them not to become morons (who aren’t even fit for the manure pile (Luke 14:34)).
In spite of the fact that he tells his followers not to use this word, he lets it fly on occasion. Usually it’s part of a parable (the foolish bridesmaids in Matthew 25:2, or the rich man in Luke 12:20). But in his angry tirade against religious leaders, he simply can’t help himself.
Fox: When some Pharisees come to warn Jesus that King Herod wants him dead, Jesus has the audacity (and the courage) to say, “Go and tell that fox for me…” (Luke 13:32). This insult hasn’t changed its meaning much. It still means sly, cunning and crafty, but we often use it as a compliment. In Jesus day, among more agrarian folks, calling someone a fox was more like calling them a weasel. Since kings preferred to be compared to lions and eagles, calling Herod a fox would likely have been enough to get killed. It’s unlikely that Jesus’ Pharisee friends would have taken that message back to Herod word-for-word.
Dog, pig: Immediately after he tells his followers not to be too judgmental of their neighbors (“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)), he walks his statement back a bit. Sure, don’t criticize your neighbor’s faults, BUT… there are some people you shouldn’t waste your time on. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6).
I believe these sayings go hand-in-hand. Trying too hard to change the beliefs or behavior of others, whether you see that as “removing a speck,” or “offering something holy” is probably a bad idea. What may be surprising to those of us who grew up singing “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild” or who have seen one too many memes that Jesus “always had time” for everybody is that Jesus seemed to believe that your time is too valuable to waste on those who won’t appreciate what you have to offer.
Another time Jesus used the dog insult was toward a woman who actually came to him for healing (Matthew 15:26). This story has always been troublesome for Christians whose image of Jesus is that he always showed perfect love to everyone, and it goes beyond the scope of this essay. It has been thoroughly discussed and debated elsewhere. But his use of it in the Sermon on the Mount shows that the insult was not as out of character for Jesus as we might think.
Snake, brood of vipers: More animal insults. These sound almost quaint to us modern (and increasingly urban) folks, but the danger of snakes to foot travelers in the ancient world was very real. Snakes were sometimes used symbolically to represent healing, but Jesus clarifies that he has in mind the poisonous, non-helpful kind of snakes when he refers to the religious leaders.
Hypocrite: This is THE insult that Jesus popularized. Because he used to to describe religious leaders, it has entered popular discourse and is often the first insult leveled against Christians.
I do not think we hear the word the same way that Jesus intended. We often use hypocrite to mean “someone who says one thing but does another.” But that would include everybody, right? If we manage to live up to our value system all of the time, it probably means we have set a low bar. If we are truly striving to be better people, we will always be sanctified hypocrites.
But the word hypocrite simply means actor. I believe Jesus meant something more like drama queens or religious divas, people who were more concerned with how religious they appeared to other people than someone who simply doesn’t practice what they preach. His chapter-long rant in Matthew 23 details some of the specific behaviors that he called hypocrisy, and they are more about missing the point than actively doing wrong.
Which is also why I don’t think Jesus is really a hypocrite when he calls religious leaders fools after telling us not to call people fools. Jesus is not pretending to be something he is not, and he’s not trying to impress anybody. He’s simply doing what prophets have always done: calling those in power to task. In modern language, he’s “punching up, not punching down.”
I am also a long time Seventh-Day Adventist and I love my church. I have seen it go through many changes, only because these changes came from Satan's deceptions. But I won't stop worshipping my Father and His only Begotten Son. It is also disgusting to me see one man speak so blasphemously about God. The Lord have mercy on him.
Amen.
The closing statement of the presentation [ 18LTMS, 1903 ] is a most beautiful instruction by sister White.
It also plainly reveals her unchanging understanding of her God from her teenage years until her final years.
Amen 🙏🏽❤❤
Well articulated, the only begotten Son of God is Begotten not created that's biblical and what our pioneers believed, Pastor Steve is embrassing unique Son, Jesuit style of destroying the literal sonship of Christ Jesus through the Trinity doctrine deception concept, like Lucifer and evil angels in heaven, so does Apostate Protestantism. Mercy. Thanks for sharing.
Great explanations. Thank you. Happy Sabbath
As a long time Seventh-Day Adventist member and a non-trinitarian all my life I can't understand why people like wohiberg are allowed to make videos containing nothing but lies about those of us who believe the same as the pioneers believed. I think it is disgusting and I am convinced that the Omega is the Trinity teaching and that because of this many sincere Seventh-Day Adventists will be lost.
Love of money ❤
You were never a Seventh Day ADVENTIST for starters you were baptized under false pretence.
@@Jasho-Beam for 20 years a i saw some of the most horrific things done to members who spoke truth about the pagan trinity and yes Doug Batchelor and Walther and Amazing Facts are in on this deception big time . I know 5th the generation Adventist who have followed the lamb were so ever he goeth and they were put out of the cult of the Seventh day adventist and restraining orders were the threat if they ever spoke on that subject in the private property’s of the cult .Come out of her my people .Why don’t you test the spirits to see if it’s from God yourself and you will enjoy the persecution that the Apostles and Jesus the Son of God endured from them and the world .Love with out Truth is no love at all but deception let no man or men deceive you by ANY MEANS .If to deceive the very elect !!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed, it’s the omega
He is allowed because God gave us freedom of choice. I am also a non-trinitarian and do not agree with Wohlberg, but he does have a right to express his opinion, I say opinion because he did not use much Bible in the video and twisted what he did use along with twisting Sister Whites writings.
a very simple and clear rebattal to the arguments present by pastor steve....
Very well explained! I loved it🙏🏼
It is clear thing, that SDA Trademark Church has changed her God YHVH to the Holy Trinity. Her current god is just the same as god of Babylon the great, whose feast day is Sunday. Not any good for the future!
Yes and agreed.
Although it is fair to say that the future is finally here today, no?
We can sense the shift, the 'shaking' is just now gaining momentum.
And go figure, it is centered around this very matter!
Ellen White stated not a pin or piller shall be removed from that which was given to the pioneers in the first 50 years. The Fundamental Principles is included in that ststement. It did not advance. Any new light can not contradict light already given. Steve Wahlburg your argument is bogus.
Indeed! In MANY ways! But - does sincerity count for any points? How about passion? Or is wrong simply wrong?
@@YahWho-is1tt Wrong is simply wrong.
I believe in the Heavenly trio. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Only the Bible has an authority on who is God. I don’t believe in the non Trinitarian belief. I am a seventh day Adventist and I believe in its doctrine .
Thank you Brother Belovski
Thank you for clear Bible studies. I can’t find the video you showed a clip of, from White Horse Media, the mystery of the trinity from 2017. If you can, please share the link? I have searched the website and the RUclips channel with no results. Thanks much!
AMEN
I'M PART OF THE REMANENT
🙏
Amen brother. You point clear the truth. God bless!
The controversy not only involves the statement of Dr. John Harvery Kellogg in his letter to G.I. Butler, but also involves the heavenly trio statement where, in her own handwriting, EGW changed persons to personalities. In the mind of EGW there was a difference between a "person" and a "personality".
Persons would mirror the language of the Trinity doctrine and there needs to be a distinction. This is causing great confusion. Trying to use the term Trinity while claiming to have a different meaning does not work . The says nothing of the substance of God , eternal generation is not part of scripture , and one being three persons is not in the Bible .
The Bible clearly states there are three co-eternal entities ( Father , Son, Holy Spirit ) what are in agreement and act as one . Therefore there exists one God just as a married couple consists of two humans who become one and the church is one body with many members .
3 co-eternal entities that's false and not biblical
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
@@lesirterholland5186 I agree.
@@lesirterholland5186 First , only God can have life in himself because every created being takes life from God .
Second , to be God one must be eternal if you are not eternal then you are not God .
Third , the Bible clearly states there three witnesses in heaven . To be witness one must personally observe/ see and to be true witness one must have seen everything. Only an eternal being can witness everything. It lists the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit as co-eternal . They are one because they act as one . Just as the church has many members and one body so is God three eternal entities who act with one purpose . Man and woman become one upon marriage and yet they are two separate humans who are to act as one . God created marriage to show us how the Godhead exists .
Nothing unbiblical about the Bible .
1 John 5:7-8 KJV - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
First , only God can have life in himself because every created being takes life from God .
Second , to be God one must be eternal if you are not eternal then you are not God .
Third , the Bible clearly states there three witnesses in heaven . To be witness one must personally observe/ see and to be true witness one must have seen everything. Only an eternal being can witness everything. It lists the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit as co-eternal . They are one because they act as one . Just as the church has many members and one body so is God three eternal entities who act with one purpose . Man and woman become one upon marriage and yet they are two separate humans who are to act as one . God created marriage to show us how the Godhead exists .
Nothing unbiblical about the Bible .
1 John 5:7-8 KJV - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Praise the Lord for.Beautifully And Thoroughly Explaining the Godhead.
Notice, when Steve starts with his presentation he doesn't read fully what it says if fundamental principle number one, that God is everywhere present by his representative the holy spirit. He didn't read that part in such a way that it made it even more vague, and took away the meaning that it had already had. This is pretty deceptive.
The second thing I noticed is right away he needs to jump in there and promote the idea that The Seventh-Day Adventist Church changed over the years and continue to learn new things. He didn't want the people to think for themselves, he wanted to steer their thinking.
A Hardy AMEN Brother Vasko. Clearly, all the verifiable truths are all there: Exposed! When there is an agenda and a motive of operation of the reprobate mind; in this instance, the promotion of his book, then he will not understand the concept of "cease to desist" falsehood. I pray for my brothers and sisters who are bound to theologians, pastors, and those in leadership, who are leading whole congregation, as well as ministries to hell (Grave) without the Salvation of JESUS! Maranatha💙
I watched him, it was painful to watch.
Sunday is honor of the pagan trinity Steve is supporting the pagan Babylon Trinity while keeping the sabbath what a state of confusion
Even our Leaders pronounced the Trinity,says",it not found in the Bible but I do believe it!" And here says EGW " don't depend on the president of your conference or president of the General Conference to think for you.God has given" to every man his work"!{Mark 13:34} "then they doing the very opposite of that wich God told them to do"! 4LtMs, Manuscript 11,1883,par.3
The first statement you presented on Wholberg's video says it all. Let the Bible be your guide, why does he go on about "progressive truth"? Thank you for the enlightenment.
Perhaps he is borrowing from Bill Johnson who, about three decades ago, claimed that it was "present truth" that led our more modern intellectuals to claim superiority to the "pioneers" who hammered out our first "fundamental beliefs" - as if those early Bible scholars were misguided and preaching heresy (that would get them disfellowshiped these days). Did Ellen White ever chastise any of them for holding such beliefs? On the contrary: she said to REPUBLISH the works of several of those founders so that their words could live on though their authors did not. So what did "they" do with Smith's D&R? They thoroughly RAPED it! Woe unto any who THINK they can change truth to suit their twisted thinking. And that should be telling enough: their rewritten history that has sister White doing a 180 (doctrinally) as if God got confused and took a good while to figure out how to fix it - well, it's a good thing these modern hot-rods came along to help!
Happy Sabbath everyone ❤ ❤
I'm doing a study on the paper put out by Charles S Longacre (Adventist Pioneer 1871-1958) called 'The Diety Of Christ'. If you can all find yourself a copy, I thoroughly recommend going through it in detail.
Thanks. I just downloaded it and will read it as time allows.
This metaphorical understanding of God and Jesus is so blasphemous. My heart hurts when I hear this.
It is interesting to me that Steve Wahlberg did not address the chapter "A True Knowledge of God" in the book "The Ministry of Healing" (published 1905) which Ellen White wrote to combat the error of that time propagated by Kellogg and others. If this had some trinitarian statements in it, they would be heralded far and wide! The 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 on this chapter of the book by Wahlberg and others 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Also their omission on John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself"...that pre-existent life of Christ was 🅶🅸🆅🅴🅽 to Him.
What is interesting is that these so called leaders in the SDA church keep pushing the trinity doctrine and have no leg to stand on.
1Corintians 8:6 one God,one Lord Jesus the Son! It doesn't matter what People say!! And the holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Almighty and from Jesus Christ!! Read from EGW the "Western Tour" she was absolutely against the teaching of the Trinity!
The Catholic Trinity teachings is not qwite right.1 Corinthians 8:6. There are two,God Father,a Person who does has a name! " I AM" and the begotten Son,a Person has a name,Jesus Christ,but the holy Spirit has no name,its not a Person, because,it is the Spirit of God Almighty and Jesus Christ! A person can not be at the same time on different places in the World,the holy Spirit can!!
Even the Bibls says: The Spirit OF GOD!! One Not 3
If godhead is used, it can still be a trinity statement. Look at the words and the meaning of the words that are being used and whether you can find a "plain thus saith the Lord" in the Holy Scriptures.
Amen
Amen!!!
God is the author of order and Satan is the author of confusion. There is danger in speculative theories in which there is a desire for knowledge that God has withheld from us. Those who engage in this line of study are treading upon forbidden ground.The lesson is for us. The field into which Satan led our first parents is the same to which he is alluring men today. He is flooding the world with pleasing fables. By every device at his command he tempts men to speculate in regard to God. Thus he seeks to prevent them from obtaining that knowledge of God which is salvation. {MH 428.1}
Joanne Hansen is your husband Bartholomew; did you used to go Plumstead SDA Church.
Chur found some more brothers who know the truth,
1 cor 8 v 6 Amen❤
And again! EGWhite seen the three highest beings in heaven after the fall of Luzifer. The Father,Son and Gabriel. " It was Gabriel,the Angel next in rank to the Son of God" ( Desire of Ages,page 234) and it was Gabriel,who came with the divine Message to Daniel!!
Wheee does “SSP 93.2” comes from?
The book is called "The Story of the Seer of Patmos"
Blessings
Exodus 3:14 KJV
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Who was the God who spoke those words to Moses, I AM THAT I AM?
It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, “I AM THAT I AM: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” This was the pledge of Israel's deliverance. So when He came “in the likeness of men,” He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God “manifest in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16. 42 . FLB 47.5
I can't amen this enough! It just goes to show, that church/denominational membership means nothing. If we individually seek Him with our whole hearts, He will reveal the truth through the Scriptures. Jesus WAS with God, and WAS God - The invisible Word changed forms - and was begotten a visible Son, the exact image of the invisible God. Scripture states eternal life is in two always different Divine Persons being of one Spirit, NOT three different persons being the same Being, all at the same time. By saying God the Father, Trinitarians forget He's a Holy Spirit, the only Holy Spirit. Jesus said God is “a Spirit”. Two distinctly different omnipresent spirits cannot be only one Spirit, they must be polytheistic.
The First Adam was created a body of flesh from the dirt (a living soul), and he dwelled in the sinless Presence of God. His was a mortal life that would live forever, if he continued in the Presence of God. When banished from His Presence, due to sin, Adam's body died,
The Last Adam, was implanted within the woman by the Spirit of the Most High, and the reverse occurred, God's sinless Presence indwelled the body of flesh (a “life-giving spirit”), and He walked in the fallen, banished world, still away from God's sinless Presence. An immortal life that will live forever, even when His mortal flesh body died, because He is the dwelling place of the immortal Presence of God (His living Temple).
Jesus is the first and only begotten after God's kind, the Spirit filled man. Those who have been born again, and received a portion of His Spirit, through the Lord Jesus, likewise are the adopted “sons of God” or “children of God”. We're a new Creature in Christ, the “Everlasting Father” of the redeemed, immortal human race, a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament.
Colossians 1:27 GNT
*_God's plan is to make known his secret to his people,_* this rich and glorious secret which he has for all peoples. And *_the secret is that Christ is in you,_* which means that you will share in the glory of God.
My take on all of this nonsensical arguments are that everyone who are involved in this are supposedly Pastors who are allowing themselves to cause divisions in God's Church! We're to preach the undiluted Angels Message to a dying World instead of bickering over something that we can wait for eternity to be taught by the GOD HEAD. Preach the WORD. AMEN
So we should present and proclaim the 3 angels message proceeding from the triangle god/gods?
Sorry - while nonsensical arguments should NOT be allowed to waste much of our time, the simple truth is that Sister White gave very specific instruction about how to handle points of disagreement, and it did NOT include telling anyone with whom we might not agree that THEIR ideas are NONSENSE!
Certainly a matter as fundamentally important as knowing the God whom we worship and claim to be children of is worthy of our study and deliberation - else the sounding of the three angels' messages will be uncertain and unclear. God has given us minds with which to reason, information sufficient for our pondering and a plan of salvation that is ours for the taking - not to mention warnings galore about pitfalls and deceptions. When we have numerous scholars sounding the warning that our history and theology have been twisted and distorted to the point where we seem to be drawing closer and closer to the Babylonian "wine" of deception, I submit that pretending it is of little import is an ostrich-like perspective.
To preach the First Angels Message undiluted we need to know who Him is. The first Angels Message begins with Rev. 4:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." The question is. Who is Him ??? With the witness of the Bible and the SOP I think it is pretty plain that HIM is the Father. Not a trio of God's as it would be if there was a trinity. So to give the 3 Angels messages we need to have a correct understanding of God.
I would like to see you discuss your beliefs with Mario Shepard of the Biblical Binitarian channel. He is Reformed instead of an SDA, but he has very similar views to your own except he believes Christ existed with the Father from eternity. It would be interesting to see you discuss the similarities and differences of your beliefs.
Why? What matters is: "It is written..." not what agreements and differences any potential debaters may pontificate upon. What you cite is actually one of the main problems that trinitarian SDAs trip up on: they cannot concede that Jesus could have had a beginning, being hung up on this "from eternity" concept, EVEN THOUGH that refusal forces them to THROW OUT the OBVIOUS and oft-repeated description of Jesus as THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON - and of WHOM? Of His God and Father, AND OURS! And for WHAT? What difference does it make what happened between the Father and the Son BEFORE anything and anyone else was CREATED? Arguing about such a thing is so utterly USELESS, MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS and FUTILE - it is a complete waste of time and energy, especially when one self-proclaimed genius insists upon forcing HIS OPINION of the matter onto ANYONE else - in other words, elevating it to a CREED that outweighs any "thus saith the Lord...!"
What sayeth the Bible and the SOP??????
I think Steve is right.
Amen❤
Persons would mirror the language of the Trinity doctrine and there needs to be a distinction. This is causing great confusion. Trying to use the term Trinity while claiming to have a different meaning does not work . The says nothing of the substance of God , eternal generation is not part of scripture , and one being three persons is not in the Bible .
The Bible clearly states there are three co-eternal entities ( Father , Son, Holy Spirit ) what are in agreement and act as one . Therefore there exists one God just as a married couple consists of two humans who become one and the church is one body with many members .
That reasoning is as flawed as your editing, and totally disregards NUMEROUS plain statements in the Bible AND the SoP!
Here's a suggestion: take what you think you know and try to answer Daniel Mesa's "Fifty Questions," as I have proposed to Wohlberg. I have to assume that his failure to reply to that suggestion is as much of an answer as we can expect to see - but YOU can give it a go?
@@YahWho-is1tt There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea of substance being the foundation for determining God . There is nothing in the Bible or SOP that supports the idea of eternal generation ( that somehow in the eternity past Jesus was generated by the father . )
1 John 5:6-8 KJV
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
@@darrenharriott2120 Firstly: are you confusing me with someone else? I never said a single word about "substance being the foundation" of ANYTHING!?!?!?
Secondy: you are totally mistook about what "eternal generation" means, but - again - why are you trying to lecture ME about THAT?
Thirdly: you are still thinking that the johannine comma somehow PROVES a triune God - NEVERMIND its widely-known SKETCHY source: Erasmus!
and Lastly: your original statement, to which I replied with concerns for ?WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? remains unanswered and mysterious. By now, though, I have to say:
NEVERMIND - I'm sorry I engaged.
@@YahWho-is1tt There is nothing I said that is said that is in agreement with the Trinitarian doctrine or triune . If you understood you would know . 1 John 5:6-8 actually disproves the Trinitarian doctrine and does not confirm it .
@@darrenharriott2120 If I understood, I would know?
Wow -- WAY too deep for ME!
We have lost ex Adventists and lost anti Goodhead/Trinity who have departed from the faith and giving heed to seducing spirits spirits.
Many people get confused over the meaning. Many thinks trinity means 3. Well that is a half truth. See our pioneers was against using the word trinity because of the meaning from the catholic. There doctrine of trinity is , they believe Jesus and Mary had sinless flesh. As well as they lift mary up where Jesus is. As well as they believes the holy spirit is Jesus and God's spirit and there is 1 God. But our pioneers and Ellen white used the term Godhead and taught there are 3 persons in the body. As the Bible says many members in 1 body.
So trinity doesn't mean 3?
@@Fred-sy5sg WELL TO THE WORLD YES BYT IF WE READ ALL THE WRITINGS ABOUT THE TRINITY FROM THE CATHLOIC CHURCH IT MEANS SO MUCH MORE SO TO SAY YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY YOU ACCEPT THEIR UNDERSTANDING THIER DOCTRINE. BUT BIBLE TERMENOLIGY IS GODHEAD A BODY MADE UP OF MANY MEMBERS ACTING AS 1 I.E ONE ACCORD.
"Godhead...there are 3 persons in the body"? What does that mean?
Do we worship a "Godhead"?
I prefer to worship according to Jn 17:3, 1 Cor 8:4-6, Gal 1:1-3 etc.
@revelation1790 well can see that the Bible teaches that principle in Roman's 12:4,5. 1corn.12:12,20 also the word one can imply "1 accord" or unity. The ord trinity is not in the Bible therefore you have to go outside of the Bible to get the meaning. Trinity is a catholic doctrine. 1in 3 or 3in 1. The Bible teaches 3 being 3 different persons or else Jesus would be praying to himself and God would being sending himself . We must let the Bible identify the work of each person in the body : the Godhead. Pray about it. God bless.
@revelation1790 we can't build doctrines of one line. The Bible calls Jesus God and God the father called Jesus God Hebrew 1:8 kjv.
The Bible also called the holy spirit God.
In our study groups we had 2 young men come in new pushing just the father and son not counting the Holy Spirit as a third person. This caused our group to break up. I appreciate the effort and all the research done on this video, but I still found it very confusing, vague and too long. Why can’t it be explained quickly and to the point covering ALL details? I’m still not sure where you stand.
What part did you find confusing and lacking clarity? Maybe we can zero in on that and share something that can be more helpful.
Blessings.
When God says "this is my Son in whom i am well pleased" and Jesus says Father "give me the Glory i had with you before the world" They are no metaphors! God and His Son use the words Son and Father because it is true. It is not role play, metaphor or modalism. That's all you need to know . All the rest is word play and smoke screen deception from the king of lies. ` There is One God and One Begotten Son . The Spirit of God is His animating omniscient power and presence that comes to mankind in a nurturing power, or it rejected one sin at a time until the pleading is total rejected and His Spirit Grieved. Jesus said "God is Spirit". There is no mystery in what God told us about himself, the mystery is how the Holy Sprit of God works and why He pursues each of us with a relentless Love
The one true God _is_ love (1 John 4:8,16). And the greatest demonstration of love is to *lay down one's **_own_** life* - not someone else's life - for others (John 15:13). The trinitarian Adventist version of "God the Father" did not lay down his own life for anyone. And the _anti-trinitarian_ Adventist version of "God the Father" did not lay down _his_ own life for anyone. So neither the trinitarian Adventist version of "God the Father" nor the _anti-trinitarian_ Adventist version of "God the Father" is the one true God.
The one and only true God - God the Father, "THE everlasting Father" - is the unipersonal Spirit who "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and who manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son, so that he could *lay down **_his own_** life* for us, raise _himself_ from the dead, and give eternal life to all who believe on _him._
And the _name_ of this unipersonal, *self-sacrificing* Spirit is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
*1 TIMOTHY 3:16 (KJV)*
And without controversy *great* is the *mystery* of godliness: *GOD was manifest in the flesh,* justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Yes the disappointing KJV translation of the Greek 'OC' which is -hos-.
Hos is not Theos.
Hos is 'he' or 'who' or 'which' or 'what'... Not God...as KJV decided on.
A proper and correct choice of translation is and would be as in,
''He was manifest in the flesh" 1 Tim 3:16 ESV
Novel concepts - but highly problematic. Were this the answer or the best way of explaining it to us, Jesus (the Master Teacher) would have sounded like you with your interesting perspective. He did not. Better that you should try harder to sound more like HIM!
@@YahWho-is1tt
The self-sacrificial love of the Father is not "highly problematic". The self-sacrificial love of the Father is what the gospel is all about.
And Jesus spoke in such a way that those who _do_ believe in the Father's self-sacrificial love can see him for who he is, and those who _don't,_ can't.
@@euston2216 Are you SERIOUS? I never stated, inferred or THOUGHT of the idea you respond with here (that I was suggesting that the self-sacrificing love of the Father was what is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC!) Let me try to paint it by the numbers:
YOUR THESES which I find problematic are these: that both SDA "camps" are missing the importance of the love of the Father, concluded because neither side considers the Father to be the One whose life was laid down. Your unique perspective on this seems to be the basis for your condemning both. That you then twist this into a totally spiritual scenario, as if neither the Father nor the Son have physical bodies in which their Spirit dwells, is as much a figment of the imagination as is the triune God concept born in the 4th century by knuckle-heads who wished to impose THEIR whacked interpretations onto others - just like the GC and subdivisions who consider the BRI to be the source of all theological understanding within Adventism - thus adopting - wait for it --
A CREED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
The Catholic Trinity teachings is not quite right!! 1Corintians 8:6. There are two,God Father,a Person who dos has a name! "I AM" and the begotten Son, a Person has a name,Jesus Christ, but the holy Spirit has no name,it is not a Person, becouse,it is the Spirit of God Almighty and Jesus Christ! ( A person cannot be at the same time on different places in the World. But the Spirit of God and Jesus can!!
Jesus never ever claimed to be God!!In the whole bible not!! 1 Corinthians 8:6!!! And his Father called Jesus out of the Grave= Pitt= Hell. Acts 2:24+32;3:15+26;4:10;5:30and 10:49;13:30;33,34,37. And Roman 4:24 and 6:4!!!!
No, He never blew His own horn thusly, but UNLIKE Gabriel, He did NOT refuse WORSHIP. And He gave numerous evidences that He was and is THE I AM - which was clearly understood IMMEDIATELY - as they wanted to stone Him on the spot! I suggest you watch your step in how far you try to take this down the proverbial rabbit hole!!!
The history of pantheism brought by Kellog and the biblical trinity are totally different. The Holy Spirit is a third person of the God Head. E.G. White's writtings has proven that the Holy Spirit is a third person. There are 3 indivual beings in Rev. 4 and 5. Steve Wohlberg is correct.
3 beings in Rev 4 and 5?
Please do give us the passages.
I have not found that to be the case.
You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the the Lord God himself.
E.g.white, to john Harvey kellogg, letter 300, mar 16th, 1803
Her letter 242, 1903. Also calls him out referring to a certain man in the medical work, aka kellogg.
1 cor 8 v 6
So EGW proves the Bible wrong?
None of the NT writers were thinking in trinity terms. Just read the first few verses of every book from Romans to Revelation for yourself!
@@revelation1790 Please do not take dohnlabalaba's word for what E G White said! Anyone who thinks "Wohlberg is correct" in this sad attempt has not done any better research than he has - and that is woefully incomplete! I do not believe that ANYONE in this conversation would be at ALL comfortable with the notion that "EGW proves the Bible wrong," and if you have to be told that, I do not wish to be the one....
There are clearly two camps within Adventism here: those who claim that EGW became a trinitarian and those who insist that this is a false, groundless accusation. The former class are also satisfied with Fundamental Belief #2 being added WAY late in "the game," pretending that this does NOT constitute a HUGE, problematic SHIFT that would NEVER have passed while Ellen was alive. Furthermore, they want to believe that the nine "proof texts" listed with FB#2 are actually Biblical PROOF of their "triune God" notion, in spite of COUNTLESS Biblical scholars over CENTURIES openly admitting that no clear and definite statement exists in the Bible (as is well proven by the utter FAILURE of those nine verses to state ANY SUCH THING!!!)
Yes, every Pauline epistle offers that fine clue, but that is only going to be helpful to open-minded seekers of TRUTH - not biased arguers hoping to prove THEIR point REGARDLESS of factual evidence.
Could you show me where the Holy Spirit is in Rev 4 and 5? And can you show me anywhere in the Bible or SOP where the HS is sitting on a throne?