 GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | |
Quick Points Concerning the Godhead
Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick
Location: Internet (GCOList mailing list)
Delivery: 2005-12-19 04:41Z
Publication: GreatControversy.org 2005-12-20 18:41Z
Type: Mailing List Posting
URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/kir-quickgodhead.php
The following is lightly edited sharing from a post that appeared on the GCOList mailing list. In the occasion, one list member was adamantly seeking to present an Antitrinitarian view of the Godhead, while the remainder of the list population involved in the discussion sought to present the view upheld by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
- Seventh-day Adventists teach that there is one God and that He is manifest in three distinct, co-eternal persons. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit each are unique persons. Matthew 28:19 offers us three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but one name. Name here is singular.
The chief individual responsible for our coming to this position is Ellen G. White.
Be this as it may, Mrs. White never used the term Trinity. Some of us prefer not to use the term “Trinity,” as for some minds, it creates a needless stumbling block. At least “Godhead” does occur in the Scripture.
The writings of Ellen G. White are, beside the Bible, a primary source for Seventh-day Adventist understanding sustaining the Godhead as taught above.
Some wish to re-characterize the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Holy Spirit, indicating that He is not a distinct person in Himself, but an emanation of the Father. This reduction in rank, from person to emanation not only is contradicted by Matthew 28:19, but also the gospel of John, where the Holy Spirit is ranked equal to Christ as a co-paraclete (“another Comforter,” Christ being the first Comforter) at John 14:16.
John 5:26 is sometimes brought forth in support of mistaken teaching: “For as The Father hath life in Himself so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” Taken in isolation this text can be interpreted in support of the Anti-Trinitarian doctrine as can others. Almost any text—in isolation—can be interpreted contra to other doctrines. Usually however, as again is the case here, there are a range of possibilities for interpretation. In this case, just going to the next verse yields another item, the Father “hath given” (Greek edwken in both cases) “authority.” These statements have, in their context, nothing to do with morphe, or being, but are fully explainable in light of the authority hierarchy operative within the Godhead.
When Jesus presented the redemption plan to His Father in converse, the Father agreed to it. The Father as ultimate authority decreed that Jesus should come in His incarnation mission and that in the execution of that mission, He should have authority. No need to invoke here the Father having given Jesus life as an origination for His personhood. Such an interpretation goes against both John 1:1-3 as well as the Ellen G. White statement from The Desire of Ages, p. 530 that in Christ was life “original, unborrowed, underived.” The interpretation given by the anti-Trinitarian at John 5:26 invariably is one of derivation. But we cannot let such an interpretation stand in isolation from other texts—not if we are going to let all of inspiration speak. Rather, Let each of us be willing to submit to God’s truth. We mustn’ to protect a dubious, non-inspired idea, drive a point so far that the only result is a deeper and deeper hole.
The three persons of the Godhead are equal in power but the Son and the Spirit voluntarily rank themselves lesser in hierarchy. However, in addition to this, it is also true that Jesus voluntarily surrendered certain of His attributes ever to be identified with man, for example, He took on the limitations of a human form for all eternity hence. When it comes to the Holy Spirit, there are many places where one would be most interested in learning more but inspiration does not give us more. Therefore, we must exercise a degree of humility and accept the testimony of inspiration and refuse to speculate beyond what Heaven has offered. Let us be content with the instruction given in inspiration and the warning given.
It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, ‘the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.’ It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, ‘He shall not speak of Himself.’ John 15:26; 16:13.
The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden (Ellen G. White, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 51, 52).
Primary leakage of false doctrine into the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not from Rome, but from Apostate Protestantism. While Rome believes much that is false it also teaches much that is true. We must never base our decision to hold to a teaching on the fact that another group, for whatever reason, does or does not hold that teaching. We may look at their theology and be informed about why they hold to a given teaching or reject it, but we must teach what we teach on the basis that God revealed this truth in inspired writings.
Otherwise, our beliefs would be hostage to the decisions of other groups that have left God out of their reckoning. Sometimes conservative Adventists do their own position a disfavor by putting the spotlight almost exclusively upon Rome. The fact is that there are two beasts in Revelation 13 and we should split the warning both ways, including a strong measure of warning also against apostate Protestantism. By focusing almost exclusively on Rome, we open ourselves to the influence of the Max Lucados and Rick Warrens.
The Godhead teaching is very challenging because there are no completely perfect analogs in nature or life to the idea of one in three or three in one. We hold to this teaching not on the basis of complete understanding, but on the basis that the Bible teaches unambiguously that God is one and the same Bible teaches unambiguously that God is three. God gives us fact one and fact two. He does not offer us a complete explanation for how fact one and fact two fit together.
Therefore, although we cannot fully explain the relationship between fact one and fact two, we accept by faith that fact one and fact two are both true. Either God will explain this matter more fully to us on the other side, or He will tell us that while both are true, our intellect is incapable of satisfactorily understanding the relationship between fact one and fact two and we will just have to agree to accept truth even when we cannot explain it fully. But groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses demand that we explain that which God has not explained. We should explain what has been revealed—and stop there, refusing to be baited into trying to explain that which God has given us only limited data on.
The identity and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are NOT defined purely on the basis of official documents or statements. They are defined, perhaps more meaningfully, by the total interaction of its historical and theological teachings. That is, for example, Questions on Doctrine is one milepost along a whole road of mileposts, including the 1973 - 1974 Annual Council Appeals. Hence, a small meeting by SDA scholars with this church here and a meeting by that church there are of very limited significance for us. These are small groups of scholars. They represent essentially themselves. It is hardly fair to highlight these meetings of minimal significance as evidences of “selling-out” and ignore other positive developments here and there. Even the decisions of the church in GC Session are of limited meaning. Church legislation changes few minds; the long-term teaching is far more determinative.
This fact has been very good to us as a people, even with reference to the nature of Christ area. A century of teaching post-Fall even today trumps a half century of pre-Fall or synthetic nature teaching. The pre-Fall teaching has been long in decline. The Post-Fall position remains very strong, and even four or five decades have only seen limited headway against the teaching. Black-brushing the church for the futile efforts of a few scholars and RickWarrenites among us do not a ruined church make. There is an increasing cleavage in the church between scholars/administrators and the general population of church members. Many of the things reported in our magazines are basically irrelevant to the membership at large who continue to read the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy and to give to it more credence than to the passing fads and emphases found in print in our compromised magazines.
Remember, long after your nearest liberal SDA college/university professor has passed off the scene, the press will still be turning out new copies of Spirit of Prophecy books. With every new run by an Adventist press, the theology advocated by EGW is reproduced in print and ultimately in heart and mind of those who receive God’s message.
Mrs. White’s writings have not been tampered with as some are teaching today. Let us not forget the first sources for this were not conservative SDAs, but liberal, who for years complained about how Messages to Young People was faulty as a book. If one should conclude that God could not protect the Spirit of Prophecy writings for even two centuries, how shall we maintain faith in the Bible which had to be preserved over millennia?
The GCOList community, whatever its failings, is overwhelmingly persuaded that both the Bible and writings of Ellen G. White, as delivered to us, are an infallible revelation of truth. In the absence of very clear evidence to the contrary, it is exceeding unlikely that this view will be changed. This presents another point. Whoever you regard as the leading guardians of truth today, where is the groundswell in favor of this? If this argument is backed by persuasive evidence, where are the serious kind of brethren who have stepped up to make the powerful arguments in its favor? Notice, I am not asking who of the Pharisees have believed, but asking who among those at any level, at any place, generally regarded by those who hold true to the faith once delivered to the saints, have come out in favor of anti-Trinitarianism, and where are their strong arguments? The burden of proof is with those who propose an alternative understanding.
Argument from silence never offers serious evidences. It is more than worth one’s energies to think through with renewed carefulness the various factors in the discussion. Careful workers are needed to defend truth that is under assault, and Satan desires to sidetrack us into agendas that are only wheel-spinning wastes of time. How sad it will be should one at last discover that his energies have been spent just the way his enemy wanted. GCO
© 2005 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.
