Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

What about the quote from Ellen that I shared with you earlier?
…She clearly said the power of God would come into her.
…& SHE was clearly able to determine truth from error.
…This was said in the context of “what was to be believed / taught” as doctrine.

Was there a conference President or General Conference 1 Session at the time Ellen said that?

No, her statement was not backed by either a GC Session vote, nor a President.

The real question in regard to her statement is to its application, perhaps as to its actual meaning. I suspect hat you would apply it more broadly and more strictly than I might.

 

[Pythons]

A valid question. My response would be:

1. Anything that EGW said is to be judged by the Bible.

Ok, fair enough - what about God The Father ‘promising’ that Christ wouldn’t fail?
…God the Holy Spirit affirming that Christ wouldn’t fail.
…God the Son claiming that He wouldn’t fail.
…The Angel of The Lord saying Christ wouldn’t fail.
…Various Prophets stating Christ wouldn’t fail.

Then along comes Ellen who says what God said isn’t possible was absolutely possible…
…It seems to my amateur eyes if we judged Ellen White by the Bible in this case.
…She would be found to be in most serious error, would she not?

I know what you’ve said about this - chalking up Ellen’s theological affirmation to Christ’s human nature…
…Still, at the end of the day & where the rubber meets the road.
…Ellen usurped God by claiming what God said was impossible was, in fact possible.

Gregory:

1. Each person is individually responsible directly to God.

For themselves they are - again, if we go by the Bible, God set up a Church - a Church with a structure…
…Where there exist different positions - such as Bishops, etc.

Gregory:

1. Each person should judge what EGW said by their understanding of what the Bible teaches and as led by the Holy Spirit.

This ultimately leads to a rejection of “Authority” by each member becoming “their own” Magisterium…
…The SDA Church ejected several “high profile” members for failure to accept & promulgate the SDA Church understanding did they not?
…Also, Ellen claimed when the SDA teachings were just getting sorted out that SHE was the one the Holy Spirit worked through.
…If there was an individual within the early SDA Church who did as you said & went with what they thought - what happened to them?

Gregory:

1. If there is a conflict, the person must accept what they believe to be Biblical until led otherwise…

This is based upon a general understanding of John 16:8 ff in which a) The HS is primarily responsible for ones spiritual development. b) The HS will develop an individualized plan of spiritual development that is best fitted for each individual. c) That plan of spiritual development may not follow the same order of steps for each person.

Then nothing Ellen said was authoritative then…
…It was private revelation she should have applied to herself.
…It wasn’t the sort of revelation other people were bound to follow, right?

I’m wondering if I’m saying this right?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Ok, fair enough - what about God The Father ‘promising’ that Christ wouldn’t fail?
…God the Holy Spirit affirming that Christ wouldn’t fail.
…God the Son claiming that He wouldn’t fail.
…The Angel of The Lord saying Christ wouldn’t fail.
…Various Prophets stating Christ wouldn’t fail.

Then along comes Ellen who says what God said isn’t possible was absolutely possible…
…It seems to my amateur eyes if we judged Ellen White by the Bible in this case.
…She would be found to be in most serious error, would she not?

I know what you’ve said about this - chalking up Ellen’s theological affirmation to Christ’s human nature…
…Still, at the end of the day & where the rubber meets the road.
…Ellen usurped God by claiming what God said was impossible was, in fact possible.

There is a difference between saying that God could not and saying that God would not.

God, with foreknowledge, knew that the incarnate Christ would not fail.
SDAs do not believe that God’s foreknowledge governs and directs what will happen in itself.

Every one of your references is to the fact that the incarnate Christ would not fail In my thinking those statements do not address the question as to whether or not Christ could fail.

So, yes, SDAs, generally believe that the incarnate Christ could have failed which is not a denial of statements that there would not be a failure.

As this is a question on which the Christian world is divided, I have no doubt that there are SDAs who believe it differently and would agree with your position. I cannot imagine that we would kick any such people oft of the church for such a belief.

Yes, I believe that it is a very important issue. But, we try to maintain people as members who want to remain, in spite of some doctrinal issues that they might have.

We also may attempt to maintain some people who may have life-style issues. As a former congregational pastor, the critical issue to mew was whether or not they wanted to remain members. If they did I wanted to keep them. If they wanted to exit the denomination, I felt that we generally should let them go if this was their firm decision.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

For themselves they are - again, if we go by the Bible, God set up a Church - a Church with a structure…
…Where there exist different positions - such as Bishops, etc.

Yes, there is clear spiritual value in associating with an organized body and with a congregation. People who do not do such lose something of value.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

This ultimately leads to a rejection of “Authority” by each member becoming “their own” Magisterium…
…The SDA Church ejected several “high profile” members for failure to accept & promulgate the SDA Church understanding did they not?
…Also, Ellen claimed when the SDA teachings were just getting sorted out that SHE was the one the Holy Spirit worked through.
…If there was an individual within the early SDA Church who did as you said & went with what they thought - what happened to them?

O.K. Let is name a name that you will recognize: Desmond Ford. Ford was removed as a clergyperson. In his later years, he departed from a fundamental doctrine that was not part of the issue for which he was removed. However, his membership was not affected. For decades he remained a member of a SDA congregation. This continued well after he became active in his own independent ministry. There were some people who thought that he should be kicked out of the denomination. But, he was not.

Very late in life he moved back to his home country. I do not know what happened to his membership after he did that. However, I think that it was very likely that he maintained his membership after he returned to his home country.

I disagree with certain doctrinal positions that Ford took. I am not certain that at the time he was removed from his clergy status that the decision to do so was appropriate. But, it was done. However, in view of a position that he took later in life I have to say that it might have been appropriate for him not to be clergy. The problem with that is that all of the positions that Fold held are currently held by some of our clergy and we do not remove them from their clergy status. .

NOTE: I have a great deal of respect for Desmond Ford.

Alright, I will mention one more name: Walter T. Rea, the author of The White Lie

Walter Rae made it impossible for us to continue to keep him. In the years that followed his departure, he became less stable in his doctrinal beliefs.

I personally believe that Walter Rae made a contribution to the SDA church and that we are indebted to him. Probably, most people would not agree with that.

In my thinking, the major problem with Walter Rae was not with what he claimed to be the facts. It was with what he then did with the facts. In my thinking, he typically went far beyond what was rational based upon the facts that he had.

But, in my thinking, this was symptomatic of him. I had followed him for years and during that period of time he was at an extreme end of the Adventist spectrum spectrum. When he departed, he rejected it all and went 180 degrees to the other extreme end.

Yes, I have his *White Lie. * I am looking at it now as I write this.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Reference my post 12:13 today, in regard to Evangelist X:

Coordination and communication has taken place between the parties involved. As a result, Evangelist X will not conduct the planned meeting in the State where the ruling SDA organization requested that he not do so.

This situation would not have occurred, along with the publicity that has taken place, if the denominational standards for communication and coordination had taken place early on.

 

[Pythons]

There is a difference between saying that God could not and saying that God would not.

Christ 'COULDN’T FAIL because God said Christ ‘WOULDN’T FAIL’…
…Salvation was totally a work of God & the day God’s success is measured against “conditionality”.
…Is the same day humanity doesn’t ( and never did ) have a real God in the 1st place.

Gregory:

God, with foreknowledge, knew that the incarnate Christ would not fail.
SDAs do not believe that God’s foreknowledge governs and directs what will happen in itself.

This is a pretty big problem Gregory…
…God knows the end from the beginning - God told us ‘how’ it would end.

Psalm 37,28
For the Lord loves justice; he will NOT forsake his saints

Gregory:

Every one of your references is to the fact that the incarnate Christ would not fail In my thinking those statements do not address the question as to whether or not Christ could fail.

If God says something is absolutely Salvation ] going to happen…
…You can take it to the bank there is no conditionality in it happening.
…Which precludes the thing from NOT HAPPENING.

Isaiah 46,10
I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose

**Eph 1,5
**He destined us in love[a] to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Eph 3, 10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord

Gregory:

So, yes, SDAs, generally believe that the incarnate Christ could have failed which is not a denial of statements that there would not be a failure.

Consider the impact what you just said has on the following.

Matthew 20,18
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again if I don’t sin & loose my salvation I mean I’ll rise again. If I screw up I will rot in the tomb ].

Matthew 1,21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins **if He doesn’t sin and loose His salvation **]

Daniel 2,45
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure as long as Christ doesn’t sin & loose His salvation **cuz if that happens yer all in the soup lol **]

Luke 2,25
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation as long as He doesn’t sin & screw it up ], Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people

From discussing things with SDA’s on the internet for a long time I know SDA think Catholics believe about anything…
…You seriously don’t think for a minute that we would believe “the real meaning” of the verses above.
…Are conditional by the meaning within the brackets, do you?

Gregory:

As this is a question on which the Christian world is divided, I have no doubt that there are SDAs who believe it differently and would agree with your position. I cannot imagine that we would kick any such people oft of the church for such a belief.

I have asked the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Greek Orthodox and about anyone willing to talk to me this question…
…And there is NO QUESTION “officially” in the above denominations view about the certainty of Christ making it.
…However the JW’s agree “he could have sinned” as do the Christadelphians & World Wide Church of God 7th day.

What do you say about this?

 

[GregoryMatthews]

What I have to say, is exactly what I have said before.

God has foreknowledge of what is going to happen. God had a perfect plan of salvation that God knew would succeed.

God’s foreknowledge is not directive. It is not directing that something happen.

 

[Pythons]

What I have to say, is exactly what I have said before.

God has foreknowledge of what is going to happen. God had a perfect plan of salvation that God knew would succeed.

God’s foreknowledge is not directive. It is not directing that something happen.

That’s true in the sense of God offering something that requires OUR cooperation to activate…
…However God was the ONLY One involved pertaining to Salvation being a reality.
…God can’t “conditionally” exist and be God in the 1st place - that’s a different God than the One of Sacred Scripture.

To say it another way your position defaults into making the claim…
…That Jesus wasn’t the Christ UNTIL He BECAME the Christ.
…By making it to the end w/out sinning & subsequently loosing His Salvation.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, Seventh-day Adventists believe that every aspect of our salvation is dependent upon the activity of God in the incarnate form of Jesus Christ. We do not believe that in any manner we have saved ourselves.

I will suggest that Hebrews 4:14 - 16 is an important passage. Here we are told that the incarnate Christ was God, able to sympathize with us in our weakness, tempted in every way as we are tempted and was without sin.

To me, to be tempted in every was as we are tempted is to say that the potential of the incarnate Christ to sin in his human nature was real. How else could he be tempted in every way as I am tempted, and also sympathize with me?

NOTE: To be tempted in every way is not to say that the incarnate Christ was tempted with every identical sin that I may be tempted. He was never tempted to watch televised porn.

In addition, the incarnate Christ was free from hereditary corruption and actual sin. He had no guilt of sin, John 8:46. He was holy, blameless and pure, Hebrews 7:26. As a newborn babe, he was to be called the holy one, Luke 1:35. He was free from sin, 2 Corinthians 5:21. He never committed sin, 1 Peter 2:22.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, Seventh-day Adventists believe that every aspect of our salvation is dependent upon the activity of God in the incarnate form of Jesus Christ. We do not believe that in any manner we have saved ourselves.

I’m not saying that - what I’m saying is that you appear to be of the opinion THAT…
…The human nature of Christ even while perfectly united to the Divine Nature.
…Had the possibility of rebelling against Divine Law & had this been realized Christ would have remained eternally dead.

Allow me to have a Seventh-day Adventist summarize the teaching.

Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ “risked all,” EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph’s tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. **All would have been lost and HE would have suffered “eternal loss,” the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost
**
It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, “God, the Father”, would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth.

You would agree with me that the above was said by an individual you would classify as “non - Trinitarian” , right?
…There is a lot going on in that teaching - He claims Christ put up or hawked “His Divinity”.
…This is because SDA’s believed Christ’s Divinity was “on loan” or “borrowed”.
…Like a Drivers License is “given” to a 16 year old.

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926
He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

If you drink & drive you indeed endanger your State issued Drivers License!
…If you do it then you LOOSE your drivers License.
…The Agency that issued it PULLS it.

Ellen White
Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty

Now, if Christ WOULDN’T have remained loyal & true to His loyalty what would have happened to His Divinity???
…Ellen explains below:

Ellen White, 21MR 418.5
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person–the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; THAT would have been impossible

But wait, Ellen said Christ, in taking on the mission to save humanity, “RISKED” His Divinity and eternal existence…
…If this is so then Christ’s Divinity wasn’t part of His original Nature.
…It was an “investiture”, a “credential set” GIVEN or GIFTED to Him.

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; “tempted like as we are,” he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

If prior to whatever it was that Ellen thought Christ was PRIOR to leaving heaven for earth…
…Risked “it’s” future, eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict AND.
…It was impossible for the Divinity to sink & die it is proved that the Divinity.
…WASN’T a natural part of the IDENTITY of whatever it was Ellen Thought Michael the archangel was.

This is a simple chain of logic.

 

[Pythons]

2nd Part

Gregory:

I will suggest that Hebrews 4:14 - 16 is an important passage. Here we are told that the incarnate Christ was God, able to sympathize with us in our weakness, tempted in every way as we are tempted and was without sin.

To me, to be tempted in every was as we are tempted is to say that the potential of the incarnate Christ to sin in his human nature was real. How else could he be tempted in every way as I am tempted, and also sympathize with me?

NOTE: To be tempted in every way is not to say that the incarnate Christ was tempted with every identical sin that I may be tempted. He was never tempted to watch televised porn.

In addition, the incarnate Christ was free from hereditary corruption and actual sin. He had no guilt of sin, John 8:46. He was holy, blameless and pure, Hebrews 7:26. As a newborn babe, he was to be called the holy one, Luke 1:35. He was free from sin, 2 Corinthians 5:21. He never committed sin, 1 Peter 2:22.

People in the ancient world were probably exposed to MORE pornographic material in the way of live shows…
…Then would be the most exposed porn addict today - the Jews at that time were under the Roman Empire.
…I’m sure you have access to the History Chanel - this was open season for the expression of any kind of perversion.

Besides, Sin isn’t sin just because God says it’s sin - it’s sin because it goes against God’s eternal Nature - that’s why it’s sin…
…God does not have to “YEARN” or “LUST” for homosexual sex to be able to help a homosexual resist the temptations he or she fells to have homosexual sex.
…Before I go any further here I want to make sure I’ve understood what you are saying???

 

[GregoryMatthews]

I’m not saying that - what I’m saying is that you appear to be of the opinion THAT…
…The human nature of Christ even while perfectly united to the Divine Nature.
…Had the possibility of rebelling against Divine Law & had this been realized Christ would have remained eternally dead.

That is not the way that I would state it. The reason that I would not state it that way is due to the suggestion that divinity could die.

You would agree with me that the above was said by an individual you would classify as “non - Trinitarian” , right?
…There is a lot going on in that teaching - He claims Christ put up or hawked “His Divinity”.
…This is because SDA’s believed Christ’s Divinity was “on loan” or “borrowed”.
…Like a Drivers License is “given” to a 16 year old.

I assume that you reference Charles S. Longacre. If so, he was born in December of 1871. I would have to do some research in order to determine his views on the Trinity. However, in view of the time I which he lived, it is probably that he was not a Trinitarian, at least to some degree. In any case, I would not suggest that his views on the Trinity represent main-line views of SDAs today,

As to your citation of EGW comments: I have a problem with the term “blended nature.”
The SDA Church teaches that the incarnate Christ was both fully divine and fully human. This is a dual nature. It is not some mysterious blended thing. I will suggest that EGW also taught what I have just said. So, what about her use of the word “blended.” Either she was wrong, or your cited statement was poorly stated.

I am running short on time. IF I can quickly copy something into a post here, I will do so. In any case I need to leave this thread for a while.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

The following statement may interest you:

Appendix
Consensus Statement

Trinity Congress
South Pacific Division
May 1-4,200

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has expressed its position on the God-head in its fundamental beliefs. Paragraph 2 speaks about the Godhead, paragraphs 3-5 describe each of the three persons of the Trinity.

We, a group of Seventh-day Adventist Christians, theologians, pastors, administrators, convening in Wahroonga, have been invited by the Pacific Division to study biblical, theological, and historical aspects of this doctrine.

• On the basis of our study of Scripture we affirm our belief in ‘one the one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal persons’ (Fundamental Belief # 2).
• We understand the eternal pre-existence and full divinity of Jesus and the distinct divine personality of the Holy Spirit to be essential to our belief in the full redemption and atonement in Jesus Christ
• We approach this subject with awe, and we acknowledge that human words cannot fully describe and human minds not fully grasp the mystery of the nature of God. These limitations in understanding and language arise out of God’s greatness and majesty and the depth of the divine plan of salvation, particularly of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
• As we seek to grow in our understanding of God, we recognise the need continually to base our theology on his self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit through the Bible
• We are grateful that the Holy Spirit has led us in our past history, as the Adventist community has developed a deeper understanding of God through the study of Holy Scripture
• We pray that God’s people will reflect the love and unity of the God-head as they seek to understand Scripture better and share the good news that God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ.
• * May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all (2 Cor. 13:14)

Paul Petersen & Rob McIver, Editors, Biblical and Theological studies on the Trinity. Avondale Academic Press, 2014, Pages 2d19 & 220.

 

[Pythons]

Gregory, is the consensus statement you just posted about the Trinity a “binding” theological statement?
…Is it authoritative in that members of the SDA Church are required to believe it?

Around 10 years or so ago I was invited to a local SDA Church for their “prophetic seminar”…
…There were glossy hand outs with Dragons, solar system pictures and stuff like that on the pamphlets…
…It was essentially, as far as I could tell a presentation of the unique view of SDA’s about the end of days as understood in the Book of Revelation.

Twice, in the seminar production the pastor was challenged by Members of THAT CHURCH…
…Who wanted to know what he the pastor ] was going to do about Trinity doctrine.
…This was a large group of SDA’s who said it was “the primary wine of Babylon”.

To the Pastors credit he attempted to defend the Trinity and diffuse the situation but not before one of the louder people…
…Reminded him that there were Pastors who agreed with them that the Trinity was NOT part of the original deposit of SDA Faith or something to that effect.
…These folks believed the Trinity was an Alien introduction to SDA teaching.

I left after that last go around about the Trinity - I mean seriously, would you expect to go to a program held by the Catholic Church…
…And expect to see a large number of Catholics hammer on the Priest about the alien introduction of Mary in Christianity?
…This is essentially what I observed at the end of days seminar at the SDA church.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons, you have asked very valid questions. Thank you for asking them. I will respond to your questions.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

People in the ancient world were probably exposed to MORE pornographic material in the way of live shows…
…Then would be the most exposed porn addict today - the Jews at that time were under the Roman Empire.
…I’m sure you have access to the History Chanel - this was open season for the expression of any kind of perversion.

Besides, Sin isn’t sin just because God says it’s sin - it’s sin because it goes against God’s eternal Nature - that’s why it’s sin…
…God does not have to “YEARN” or “LUST” for homosexual sex to be able to help a homosexual resist the temptations he or she fells to have homosexual sex.
…Before I go any further here I want to make sure I’ve understood what you are saying???

I agree with you. the root nature of sin is complex and possibly could be expanded beyond what you said. But, that does not indicate any basic disagreement with your statement.

My comment related to TV Porn was simply due to the fact that sometimes people make some trite statements when this subject is discussed. You have correctly spoken to the heart of the matter which is exactly where I am.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons asked:

Gregory, is the consensus statement you just posted about the Trinity a “binding” theological statement?
…Is it authoritative in that members of the SDA Church are required to believe it?

No, it is not a binding statement that one must believe in order to be a SDA. This is where it can get confusing when other people look at us.

That statement was produced by a major geographic region of the SDA Church. It reflects what is Fundamental Belief # 2:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through his self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4, Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev 14:7.)

That paragraph is the official, formal statement on the Trinity. There is also a short formal statement on God the Father, God the Son and God the Holly Spirit. The one on God the Son is a little bit longer, but not much.

These are formal statements of SDA teachings in a number of areas.

The formal requirement for SDA membership includes a positive answer to the following question:

Do you believe that there is on God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal persons?

The above question is followed by three additional questions related to Christ. These are followed by nine additional questions for a total of 13.

NOTE: In recent times a set of three (3) questions has come into some use which is thought to assume the 13 that I have mentioned above.

This issue is further complicated by the fact that in SDA practice, the individual congregation is what decides whether or not a person has met the formal requirements to become a members. That decision is not made by SDA Clergy. They may recommend. But, the congregation decides.

I have clearly stated that our current, official, Trinitarian view has slowly come into belief in recent years and that some of our early leaders held views that were not Trinitarian.

The result of all of this is that you may be able to find some people who are SDA members and are not Trinitarian.

However, there is an additional factor: There are some groups present today who have been dismissed from SDA Membership, yet claim to be the “true” Seventh-day Adventists and advocate a non-Trinitarian set of doctrines.

Some of these people have gone so far as to suggest the Catholic Church has infiltrated the SDA denomination with Jesuit priests in disguise. You can find lists of SDA clergy and other leaders, on the Internet, who are claimed to have left the true faith and/or fallen under the influence of the Catholic Church.

Just because someone says that they are SDA does not mean that they are.

This can be confusing for people outside looking in, as well as for our own members.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Around 10 years or so ago I was invited to a local SDA Church for their “prophetic seminar”…
…There were glossy hand outs with Dragons, solar system pictures and stuff like that on the pamphlets…
…It was essentially, as far as I could tell a presentation of the unique view of SDA’s about the end of days as understood in the Book of Revelation.

I know exactly what you are talking about.

This type of meeting is still practiced by some SDAs. Remember, I have said that there may be five (5) Distinct groups within the SDA denomination.

This is not the type of program that I would have if I were a congregational pastor.

Others agree with me.

 

[GregoryMatthews]

Pythons said:

Twice, in the seminar production the pastor was challenged by Members of THAT CHURCH…
…Who wanted to know what he the pastor ] was going to do about Trinity doctrine.
…This was a large group of SDA’s who said it was “the primary wine of Babylon”.

To the Pastors credit he attempted to defend the Trinity and diffuse the situation but not before one of the louder people…
…Reminded him that there were Pastors who agreed with them that the Trinity was NOT part of the original deposit of SDA Faith or something to that effect.
…These folks believed the Trinity was an Alien introduction to SDA teaching.

People who would publicly interrupt such a meeting would be the type of person we would exit from membership. So, I cannot actually say whether or not the people who challenged the pastor were actually SDA members. Maybe you know better than I. I do not mean to be sarcastic. You actually may know the situation better than I.

On occasion, we do have mentally ill people attend our services.