DEBATE: Is Adventism’s View of the Trinity Biblical?

All right. Well, Stephen, I appreciate you being here and being willing to come and have this discussion. And thank you to the audience as well for joining us tonight. We’re going to be discussing whether or not the Seventh Adventist Church truly understands Trinitarianism and whether or not the organization truly affirms the Trinity. But before we get into it, Stephen, let the audience know who you are and anything else that you would like to share about yourself. Yes, you mentioned my name is Stephen Beagles and I’m a fourth generation 7th day Adventist on both sides of my

Family. Uh my mother was born to missionary parents and she was actually born in South Africa. She lived there till she was seven. She had a large family of a lot of uncles and aunts that were born Adventists. And my father’s father was the treasurer for the Review and Herald Publishing Company uh for 20 years from what 1997 I’m sorry 1973 to 1992. And uh so he had a lot of inside knowledge of what was going on in the general conference during during his time there. And so I got a insider view of Seventh Day Adventist and um I can tell you the good, the bad, and the

Ugly. I’m not necessarily an apologist for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, but uh I will tell you the truth, whether it’s in favor of Adventism or or not. Uh I consider myself a gospel Adventist, and that’s really just traditional Adventism minus the legalism. So you and I, Miles, might agree a lot more than you think because I I’ve taken it step by step through all the fundamental doctrines and I’ve been able to interpret them in a light that streams from the cross of Christ and one I believe is uh orthodox Christianity and one I think that we can we we do

Have a lot to offer the Protestant world at large. Cool. Well, thank you for sharing. Yep. Um, thank you for sharing that. We will maybe have you back sometime then to talk about some of those other subjects. Um, I’d particularly be interested in talking about Protestantism with you. Uh, but before we get into it, Stephen, couple questions for you. Just preliminary so I know um, essentially who I’m engaging with. Um, are you a baptized member of the SDA church? Yes, I was baptized when I was 11 years old in Rochester, New Hampshire. And I’m a I’m a member in fine standing.

Cool. Okay. Have a church here in San Antonio, Texas. The scenic kill 7th Day Adventist Church if you want to look me up. Cool. And do you believe just before we get into the discussion obviously so the audience knows because you and I engaged on Facebook, but do you believe that Adventists worship the same God as Christians, other Christians? Yes, I believe some of the are Protestant denomination. Uh we came into that Protestant Reformation tradition. Okay. So that’s just I I wanted to have that out there from the outset just so the audience understands what the

Essential foundational claims are as we get into our discussion tonight. Now, the trinity, Stephen, is a very specific belief. In many of the recent exchanges that I’ve had with Adventists across the board, there seems to be a big push for a generalizing of that term, trying to to boil it down to something less specific and more vague, if you will. And the reason that this is extremely problematic is because the term itself was coined to express or rather yeah, specificity. The whole purpose of the term was was coined to be very precise and specific. So heretics within the

Christian church were spreading and and dealing with that issue became priority number one. And what the church learned along the way was that language matters. Words matter. The heretics depending on which one they were using similar language and words which is why the specificity around them became and still remains so vital. So if you’ve watched content on this platform, I bring this up constantly and this is why. So I want to establish for you as well as the audience what orthodox Christian teaching on this subject is. But before I do that, Stephen, will you explain

What you believe as an Adventist the Trinity to be? The Trinity doctrine is that God is one. And you find that in the Old Testament hero Israel, God is one. It’s the the the saying there in Judaism, God is one. Uh also in in the New Testament, it comes out quite clearly that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are part of that oneness of God. So they represent three different aspect of God. Let’s put it that way. But they all are united in nature and in essence and that’s the trinity. Okay. So good. I would agree with what you said there. What we’re

Going to get into now and we’re going to look at is definitions because like I mentioned that is crucial. Now I know the SDA church and again my my claims tonight are going to come against official SDA teaching if you remember in our discussion that’s what I was talking about that’s what I make my claims about not every adventist believes or understands this say systematically etc but what do the official source materials say so I agree with what you just put forth but the first business of order is understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the

Same as the biblical evidence for the Trinity. Do you know the difference? No judgment if you don’t. I’m just curious. Um, well, I would say the biblical evidence for the Trinity is what we draw out of the scripture. Uh, the one that we just mentioned that God is one and God is three. uh there is no actual explanation in the scripture of how that works. So when we have the doctrine of the the trinity that is something that was developed by the early church fathers to kind of uh dig down deep and to figure out what all the fine nuances were. uh where I think we can run into

Problems though is what we expect everyone to explain it exactly the same way and we run into problems uh by doing that because it really is a mystery when you get down to it. We know God is one, we know God is three. Uh but how that works behind the scenes is is not exactly clear. Uh and I think that human logic can only go so far with that. Okay. So, I would agree that human logic can only go so far, but as we’re going to see as we get a little bit further into the discussion, um I’m going to push back on some of that just a little bit, but you did a pretty good job. Um,

Honestly, uh, so the doctrine of the Trinity is the language and words that the Christian church uses to accurately describe what the Bible teaches about the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It’s the specific words such as trinity, person, being, etc. We use words to accurately describe what we find in the biblical record because we have to try and explain with specificity and go beyond only using words that are in the Bible, which the word Bible isn’t in the Bible. So, it’s the same exact thing. The Bible describes, it’s a descriptor of a body of work, a library of work, if you will.

Same sort of thing. So the biblical evidence for the trinity is where we look at the Bible in its entirety to see what it says regarding Christ and his nature, the father, the holy spirit, their characteristics and attributes. So this distinction is super important because you’re going to get people that will say the word trinity, for example, isn’t found in the Bible, like I just said, and we’re aware. It’s simply shorthand terminology that we use to not be long-winded and be specific about what we’re uh referring to. So more importantly or specifically what

Is the doctrine of the trinity put in its most succinct boiled down phrasiology and you’ve essentially alluded to this somewhat Stephen which is why we’re then going to like I said peel into definitions simply put the doctrine of the trinity is that within the one being that is God there exists eternally three co-eternal and co- uh equal persons namely the father the son and the holy spirit Now notice you mentioned the church fathers. Notice what Augustine and John of Damascus says regarding this. Now I know most Adventists do not care about what the church fathers say, but I cite

Them to simply show what Christians mean by the terms in focus. That’s all. So if the SDA church affirms the trinity, then they should agree with what what is said here regardless of who said it. That’d be the genetic fallacy. Well, it’s wrong because so and so said it. Well, no. If you’re a trinitarian, then you would agree with what’s being put forth here. So, first Augustine, this is in his uh day trinitat on on the trinity. This is book two. quote, “The purpose of all the Catholic or universal commentators I’ve been able to read on the divine books,

Speaking of scripture, of both testaments, who have written before me on the Trinity, which God is, has been to teach that according to the scriptures, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the inseparable equality of one substance, present a divine unity, and therefore are not three gods, but one God. Close quote. Very cleancut. This was the 4th century. The triune God is not just one in a a mission and purpose, but also in substance. Jumping to the 8th century. John of Damascus, he explains what Christians mean regarding the being or essence of God or substance.

Quote, “For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, not three resembling each other, but one with the same movement of all three hypostases, which means persons. Nor is there a difference of will or intention or energy or power or anything else that in us gives rise to a real and complete division. Therefore, neither do we call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three gods, but rather one God, the Holy Trinity. Close quote. So by one being we’re referring to the actual state of existence, the essence.

There is one power, one energy, one authority. They’re not three of those that resemble one another, but one singular being expressed through three persons, which brings us to another pivotal point. This is what Christians mean when using the terms person and being in this discussion. And Stephen, when I say Christians, I mean official Christian source documents, not every Christian in the world per head like on a headcount basis. No, I’m not saying that at all. So I’m saying when Christians meaning the Christian church universal, there are source documents that we can

Refer to on these things. This is what Christians mean when using the terms person and being in this discussion. By person we mean the ability to speak, self-reflect, exhibit emotions etc. By being we mean the mode or state of existence. So for example, a ball has being but not personhood. So personhood and being are not the same thing. But it is vitally vitally important that it be understood the Christian church is not saying that the father, son, and spirit all have a mind such that there are three minds. Father, son, and spirit share in one singular will and knowledge. The

Distinction in persons is to denote that the father isn’t the son, the son isn’t the father, etc. Yet father, son, and spirit are the one god. Which is why we also have to discuss and utilize the term being. So notice what Dr. Joel Beaki explains in his systematic theology regarding the term persons. Quote, “Speaking of three centers of consciousness seems to divide the one and simple God into parts. Consciousness guesses that each person has his own distinct knowledge and will, but the three persons of the Trinity share one knowledge and one will.” Close quote.

So I just want to be clear for both you Stephen and the listener. When I say person in this context I’m talking I I’m not talking about three minds. I’m seeking to describe at what level God is plural. It is at the relational level that father, son, and spirit are distinct. There’s an interaction and a relationship going on there. But this does not uh negate the singularity in being though such that all three persons are the uh at the ontological level the same their essence is essentially the same. So for example and the fathers used this uh analogy the

Light proceeds from the sun in the sky but the light is the same substance as the source which is the sun. So the father is the source that both the son and the holy spirit eternally proceed from. The light is not there without the light rays. But the source also doesn’t exist without the light that is emitted from it. So if the source exists so does the light that proceeds from it. It gives off its its light. This is what trinitarians are getting at when we talk of the father son and spirit possessing the same essence or substance. Same substance but relationally they are

Distinct. And as we’re going to see, the SDA church rejects this because the SDA church rejects the Ning Creed, which Dr. Beaki is essentially reiterating regarding God being a simple being not made up of parts or what’s called divine simplicity. They also reject eternal procession, that the Son and the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father, sharing in the same substantive essence, like I just described. They can’t affirm this because it does not fit with the great controversy narrative. But this is what we mean or and I mean tonight by the terms person and being and it’s why

It’s necessary that both uh be used when talking about the Holy Trinity because they refer to two distinct aspects that both require clarification. It isn’t simply enough to say God is three persons which is where the SDA church likes to draw the line but no that’s not specific enough because a tritheist could say that same thing. You have to have a way of distinguishing yourself from them. So before we begin looking at primary SDA source documentation, Stephen, is it your belief that the SDA church aligns with what I just presented? Uh yes, I I agree with everything you

Just said. Now we might make minor distinctions on here or they might have different way of describing it, but in essence, what you said is absolutely right. And it’s what I’ve been taught in Bible school since day one that God is one, he’s three. Uh and there God is co-eternal with each other. So they they’re distinct but never separate. Uh what trinitarianism is not is is not polytheism which says there are three gods who got together when they and formed a mission u that they can exist apart from one another. It isarianism which it denies God the

Father, God the son and God the holy spirit their personality because we do see them working differently and but together at the same time. Uh so but in essence I would agree with everything that you said and um I know the church has grown over a period of time you know up until 89 anti-trinitarian period where you had people like Uriah Smith and Andrews making statements that were anti-trinitarian in nature but up to from like 1890 to 1900 there emerged more of a trinitarianist sentiment. uh from 1900 to 1931 there is more of a transition and conflict. So there was a

Lot of debate going on but by 1930s when the church had an official uh teaching on the subject where they actually made it a fundamental belief and they put it into the baptismal vows is completely trinitarian. Uh but they don’t break it down into the fine nitty-gritty. Not everybody, not every evidence has a degreeology, but they do understand that God is one, God is three. They work together. They’re co-eternal with each other. They don’t exist apart from one another. And uh trying to dig any deeper than that to me is uh you’re you’re you’re going to run

Into problems because not everyone explains it the same way. All right. So, with that in mind, let’s look at some of the sources that you have mentioned here. You’ve mentioned some of the things that Jerry Moon brings up in his paper, A Quest for the Biblical Trinity, which is a very common source that is often cited by Adventists on this exact thing. Um, I’ve used this source many, many, many times here. Maybe you’ve seen me do that. Jerry Moon for those that do not know Stephen you may not know he is the chair of church history at the flagship seminary Andrews

Up in Berian Springs Michigan this paper documents down the historical development of this doctrine within the SDA church beginning with the pioneers to the present day first notice what he writes quote James White certainly did not doubt that God is spirit John 4:24 for but he insisted that those spiritual beings Christ and the father are nevertheless divine persons who have a literal tangible existence. They are neither unreal nor imaginary. The trinitarian creeds he knew of made God so abstract, theoretical and impersonal that God was no longer perceived as a real, caring,

Loving being. For example, one trinitarian creed that the early Adventists quoted fairly often was that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Ellen White’s Church of Origin. That creed says in part, “There is but one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts.” This the early Adventist vigorously refuted, citing several biblical passages that portrayed God as having both body and parts. Ellen White was also much interested in this question. Twice in early visions of Jesus, she asked him questions related to the form and person of God. In one

Early vision, she reported seeing a throne and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’s countenance, she said, and admired his lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his father had a form like himself. He said he had, but I could not behold it. For said he, if you should once behold the glory of his person, you would cease to exist. Close quote. So just like in the present day, the Adventist Church rejects the Nying creed, which is the creed he is referring to with regards to Methodism.

And Ellen White’s visions are what is used to support the pioneers appealing to places such as Daniel 7 for example where they claimed that Daniel being in vision proves that God has a body by nature because the ancient of days was seen sitting on a throne despite scripture saying that God is spirit and Jesus saying that spirits do not have flesh and bone. But what the SDA church means by the term person Stephen is having a literal tangible form. Ellen White saw Jesus in vision and asked him if God the Father had a form like himself. And he said, “He does, but she

Couldn’t behold it without ceasing to exist.” But Moon continues, quote, “The change from Adventist rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity to acceptance of a biblical trinitarian doctrine was not a simple reversal. When James White denounced credial trinitarianism in 1846, Ellen White agreed with both his positive point that the father and the son are two distinct literal tangible persons and his negative point that the philosophical trinitarianism held by many did spiritualize away the personal reality of the father and the son. Soon after

This, she added the conviction based on visions that both Christ and the father have bodily form, rejecting the teaching of one trinitarian creed that God is without body or parts. Close quote. So Moon showcases that the SDA church rejects orthodox trinitarianism in favor of what he poses a dichotomy for, biblical trinitarianism. That is to say that uh the orthodox Christian teaching of the trinity is not biblical. What they’ve come up with which is a novel concept that is what is supposedly biblical and it’s based on visions not Bible study but visions. And Ellen

Confirmed for the movement that God the father does indeed have a physical body like Jesus by nature. And that once again they reject the nice and creed. And this is reaffirmed by the way in great controversy where Ellen White writes what quote in the beginning man was created in the likeness of God not only in character but in form and feature. Close quote. So by three persons, Stephen, the SDA church means three physical tangible forms that look like we do and they are united in a mission and a purpose. So my question for you, why then do Adventists

Continue to insist that the SDA church is trinitarian when they very clearly reject the trinity in favor of their own view but borrow the language?

Uh, it shows I’m muted here. Can you hear me? Yep. Uh, Adventism does not get their view of the Trinity from the writings of Ellen White. We get them from the Bible. And I’ve heard you also say that Ellen White has a tendency to put words in God’s mouth. Um, which I don’t think she does, but we never canonized Ellen White. But we don’t get our doctrine from Helen White. And I think that’s a popular misconception. Something that I’ve been trying to avoid. Uh because I don’t like to use her writings when I do Bible study because I want people to know that

What we really do believe we get from the scripture. And but she does add some detail in it. And I might agree with some of it, I might not agree with some of it. If it’s not found in the scripture, it’s not important. Now um we when the church develops his doctrine, it has to be voted on in and at by the general conference. It can’t be just the opinion of one or two people within the denomination. However uh high they might be up to the chain of command. Uh the doctrine has to be officially voted on at the general conference and it reflects the study of

The scholars and it also reflects the general consensus within the the the pews. Uh so they send delegates up there and they all vote. Uh so to say that you know believe that God has a body like like we do is kind of misleading because in his essence I believe that God is a spirit but if he chooses to manifest himself how would he do that into a physical form and we kind of see in the old testament where there was some theosum I can’t say it theosum where the angels came down uh theophony u and also god did kind of when he presented himself to Moses he presented

Himself a certain way and then Jesus said if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the father uh so god can materialize himself in a way that we can view him and see him uh but uh we’ll never get the full force of his glory because I think in our current condition we couldn’t handle it uh But to argue about whether or not he has a physical body or not, to me that’s irrelevant. What we see in the scripture is that God is one and that God is three and that they’re all co-eternal and they all share the same nature. All I can say um to go any further than that is

Speculation. Okay. So Stephen, a couple things. So notice I didn’t claim that Ellen White originated the the teaching. I was very specific about my words. I actually wrote out verbatim. So I’m going to reread it to you and let you know what I did say. What I said was is that pioneers like Uriah Smith for example in his Daniel and Revelation commentary claimed for example God does have body and parts. And this is why they rejected the Nying creed because as Moon pointed out, they tried to claim, well, no, no, no, no. We can point to all sorts of places in scripture that

Show that this isn’t true. God has body and parts. And they pointed to places like Daniel 7. Ellen White then functioned like she did for all the other doctrines that got cemented in. She then was conveniently given allegedly a vision and the vision confirmed they were correct. God has body and parts. That’s what I said. I didn’t say that she I know how she she functions. We have an article on our website and I reference it constantly. I know I I correct people all the time on this. Ellen White did not originate any Seventh Day Adventist teaching. She

Functioned as the conduit messenger that God allegedly used to stamp in the correct understanding. So that’s one. But two, I didn’t hear an answer to the question. My question was, why do Adventists, after what we just read, and you even admitted it to yourself, why do Adventists continue to insist that the SDA church is trinitarian when very clearly they reject the Trinity in favor of their own view? You said it doesn’t matter if we believe, well, if God has a body or not. That’s a different heresy. It does matter. It does matter because Nika responds to heresies like this which is

Why God is without body and parts is a part of trinitarian belief. The Adventist church needs to own that they have their own belief. That’s my contention. Not use a word that’s very specific to then take it to say, “Well, we’re just like you guys.” When really you’re not, though, because you define all these things differently because we don’t believe that God has body and parts. And what that means is beyond just having a physical body. It means that God is not 50% love, 10% just, 5% holy, etc. God is what he is. He’s not a complex being either. Uh he’s not made

Up of having two ears, a nose, two eyes like I am. I’m a complex being. If you were to part me out, I’m no longer really a human being because you’ve taken apart the composition that makes me what I am. God is not that way. That’s what the creed is getting at. But my question is, why does the SDA church continue to insist that they are trinitarian when you guys don’t actually believe the same thing that we do? Well, we believe that we do believe in the Trinity. We may not believe it the same way you would express it. We don’t really believe that God has a body. Uh

In his in his purest essence and form, he is a spirit. But he can manifest himself in the in the physical world. And I guess he could do that if he wanted to. Jesus had a body. Uh in the book of Revelation, why would God have a throne? Why would we sit next to Christ on his throne? If God doesn’t have a body, why would he need a throne? Uh, so there we could, you know, some of it is literal, some of it symbolic, and you can kind of blur the two if you want to, but some of the Adventists truly do not believe that God is a human being with a physical body like we have.

But Stephen, the the source documents disagree with you. That’s the problem. Jerry Moon just told us what the Adventist Church means by person is having a literal tangible form because if you don’t, you actually believe in an imaginary spiritualized way concept where God’s not really personal. And this then also gets into the physicalist worldview of Seventh Day Adventism that if it’s not having a physical tangible I can touch it type thing, it must not really be real. That’s the worldview of the people that formulated and architected this worldview and this

System. It’s foundational actually to the system like we’re going to see in a little bit. But um we we’ll move forward because you’re going to have more to say and I’ll have more to say obviously as well. Um but we’re going to get into this this further because there we’re going to see why it’s necessary systematically that God does have a physical body. It’s necessary in the system. And I know that you may personally reject that and praise God if you do. Um, and I know there are lots of people out there that do. And like I said, I’m not saying that all 7th

Adventists understand this. But systematically, and according to the source documentation, comprehensively, this most certainly is what the system teaches. It absolutely is, and it’s necessary. We’ll see. But Moon continues explaining another vital aspect of the SDA church’s present view. Notice what he says. Quote, her, talking about Ellen White, her capstone statement came in 1905. So, you alluded to this a little bit, Stephen, regarding dates in your in your opening. She wrote, “There are three living persons of the heavenly trio, three great

Powers, the father, the son, and the holy spirit.” In the same year, she defined their unity in relational rather than philosophical terms. Quote, “The unity that exists between Christ and his disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. Since Ellen White clearly held the basic formula of one God and three persons, it can hardly be denied that her view is essentially trinitarian. However, her view differs from traditional trinitarianism in the

Following important respects. Close quote. So he recognizes that Ellen White said the heavenly trio are three great powers plural that does not comport with the trinity. Furthermore, notice that he does what I mentioned earlier, the boiling down of a very specific term to say, well, it can hardly be argued that her view, which is the present Adventist view, is essentially in trinitarian. But then he goes on to list the plethora of ways that it is entirely different and it’s just basically tries to like presented as though it’s like oh these are just

Kind of like nuanced differences when no it’s like foundational ones. So Stephen again you have scholars and teachers within your movement that are putting out papers and openly admitting that what Adventists mean by trinity person etc it’s different than what Christians mean. I understand that you may say we we can only go so far or we we shouldn’t this, we shouldn’t that. But really though, that’s irrelevant to what the Christian baseline is. The Christian baseline is established. Whether you can point to evangelicals out there somewhere that are ignorant or whatever,

That’d be the equivalent of me just pointing to, you know, fringe crackpot SDAs and claiming, well, see, all Adventists are this guy off in the corner at the potlook with the ascension robe on, you know, binging Walter Ve. when it’s like, well, no, that’s not how all Adventists are. So, Adventists continue to insist they believe in the same God as Christians simply because you guys are using the same words. Do you not think this is dishonest and that the organization should own that they have their own concept and then defend that? Do you see what I’m saying? Is

That not fair? Well, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that everyone has to think the same way on the subject because it is a mystery and you can only go far. I said in the beginning, human logic will only take you so far and there are different views of the trinity within Protestantism and within Catholicism. Uh, and so there there are competing views there. that to say that we are anti-trinitarian is not correct because we believe that God is one and God is three. Uh we we reject unitarianism. We reject polytheism. We’re not tritheists. We do

Believe that God is distinct three personalities but never separate. And so you have God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. And they all work together. uh they all share the same nature uh the the same spiritual essence um and other than getting aids um I think that’s enough to say we’re trinitarian. Now there might be those that disagree with our presentation of trinitarianism and we need that at a later time but it does fall within the definition of trinitarianism. If we believe God is one and God is three at the same time, we are Yeah, but Stephen, you have to define

The terms. See, this is the issue that we have. You’re using all the same terms, but we we we’re we’re just ignoring the elephant in the room, which is your organization tells us what they mean by the term person, for example. That’s not compatible with trinitarianism. There aren’t multiple definitions. It’s not like, well, you’re just reiterating the same thing Jerry Moon said in the paper. Like, well, it can hardly be argued. Well, yes, it can because the entire point of the term trinity, Stephen, is to differentiate and be very specific, not vague, not

General. It’s the exact opposite. And I would say that God is not going to require each and every one of us to write a 10-page essay on the Trinity in order to get into the kingdom. things that we can just agree to disagree. Yeah. I’m not saying all Christians have perfect knowledge of the Trinity. That’s not my argument. The thesis though is you’re telling me the Seventh Day Adventist Church believes the same thing Christians do. Yet your own scholars are publishing papers outright stating we don’t really, but we do use the language. That’s what he’s

Admitting. That’s what he’s saying. You may think it shouldn’t be this specific, etc., But that’s really irrelevant to the thesis. The thesis is that the 7th Adventist Church wants us to believe that the God of Adventism is the same God Christians believe in. Okay. Well, if you’re going to do that, you need to use the same terminology and definitions that Christians are. And when we actually look at that, you’re not. You’re using the same words. And I mean you as in the organization. I understand you personally may disagree with that. But again, we’re talking about the

Adventist Church, the organization, and its official sources, and they don’t check out with what you’re saying. Okay. Uh well, let me read to you the baptismal vows, and maybe we can go for it. Gain some clarity on that. It might it might help you a little bit. I may uh and baptismal vows started in 1920. This was just a suggestion that was brought forward by Ari Underwood. It says uh do recognize in your baptismal vow that you are taking upon yourself the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy spirit. And in in these three omnipotent powers are pledged to you. And then the

Baptismal vow of 1932 then the church manual. Do you believe in the existence of God as a personal being who is our heavenly father? Do you believe in the lord Jesus as the eternal son of God? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and in his work leading you to repentance? And then the 1941 they changed a little bit. They said, “Do you believe in God the Father, in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit?” 1951, “Do you believe in God the Father, in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit?” Uh, in baptism of Bell 1981, do you believe in God the

Father and his son Jesus Christ and his holy spirit? Uh then in 2000 it says I believe there is one God father son and the holy spirit a unity of three co-eternal persons.

Yeah but Stephen as Christians submit to go ahead. Well I was just going to say there there’s no right and I pointed this out earlier. You have to also get into the being of God. the Adventist church doesn’t like doing this. They like to say, “Well, we believe in three persons.” And I understand you personally have said, “Well, one being as well.” The Adventist church doesn’t do that. And we’re about to see why. But this is the problem. The problem is the definition. I understand you guys use all the right language. I understand all that, Stephen. You haven’t told me

Anything about definitions, though. And notice you said what in that vow? the same thing that’s found which we’re going to see from the quote from Ellen White here in a moment regarding at your baptism the three great worthies but you got to the part in the quote where it says three powers what does John of Damascus tell you concerning the holy trinity he puts forth the orthodox Christian teaching and the the whole thesis is you guys agree with the orthodox Christian teaching no it’s one power it’s not three powers that’s why I was saying as well that when we talk

About person we’re not talking about three centers of consciousness. That’s what you have in the great controversy narrative. It is these three different beings. I know you guys will say, “No, no, it’s not three beings,” which I’m going to contend, which we’re going to look at here momentarily. But functionally, practically speaking, that is what it is. It is three different beings who are all united in their desires, their will, their mission, etc. And they are united in this plan of redemption for mankind. And actually we’re going to see some to some it was

Supposed to be the angels as well but that part failed because they rejected him. But nevertheless this is a problem. You have to get specific with definitions because again the trinity was laid forth and nika was laid forth for specificity. I understand you guys want to say well we can’t go any further than this. Well that’s fine for you to to believe and to say but the point stands then that no it’s not orthodox trinitarianism. It’s not Christianity. It’s not what Christians believe. You have to be in line with that. You don’t get to come along 1600 years later and just say,

“Well, it’s too vague.” I mean, even though millions of Christians have, billions at this point have been catechizing their children in this and we understand what it is that we’re talking about, at least from an official statement standpoint. I understand not every Christian may um understand all the nuances and the the depths and those sorts of things, but um your your thoughts on that Well, I still don’t understand how we don’t believe that God is one and God is three. We can disagree on the

Defic’s only one God, creator of heaven and earth. And then by God, you have God the father, God the son, God the holy spirit. And as long as you believe those two things, you are essentially a trinitarian. And like I said, we can disagree on some things and still be Christian because we’re not judged based on what we know. We’re judged by know. And so we don’t have to literally every single word in order to understand the simple truth. And the simple truth is that God is one and God is good. Right. And I understand that you’re saying that, but Stephen, you’re not

Defining any terms that this continues to be the problem. I don’t know if it falls on deaf ears. I get the same thing from from the scholars. It’s like, hey, the way you guys are defining terms matters and they’re wrong. And all we get back is, well, but we believe God is three persons, right? What do you mean by persons? That’s the problem. What do you mean by God? That’s the problem. We believe God is one but three. That it’s a problem, my friend. That’s a problem. And so we we kind of continue going around this merrygoround. And I understand that you want it to to

To be that way. I get it. And I get Adventists truly believe what you’re saying. I I get that. But the thesis is if you’re going to claim to believe what Christians do, how you define the words matters. It’s not just like, well, we’re using all the same words and so because we say the same words, that’s enough. No. That’s called social trinitarianism. That is a form of social trinitarianism. That’s not that’s not what what orthodox Christian teaching is because again it doesn’t it’s not about personal opinions or and it’s we’re not talking here about

Does every individual Christian out there remember we need to keep this in the realm of official source documents when it comes to the trinity the standard is the ning creed that’s orthodox Christian teaching not every you know Christian out there just like every adventist out there isn’t the accurate representation of 7th day Adventism per se it is the source documents. Do you recognize that the organization is defining the terms person, being even the term God differently than Christians? I’m not aware of that because when I personally look at it

Myself, I’m saying the same thing. I can read what the quotes that you read and I say I agree with that. And it’s what I was taught from babyhood all the way up until now. So we agree uh with the trinity the doctrine that god is one god is three. Now we’re not unitarianism. Okay the destroys the personality of god. It’s just they’re all one but we’re not polytheistic or triththeistic where we believe that there is three separate beings who exist one another and could go off on their separate ways if they wanted. We believe that they are united and spiritually in essence in nature but

They repent and it’s three God the father, God the son, God the holy spirit. Now how that happens I cannot tell you and weak on that subject and I I’ll call you a brother in Christ as long as you believe that God is one and God is three. That’s what my requirement is for for being a trinitarian. Uh, now we can splice words and we can do all of the uh semantical going back and forth, but I think that does more harm than good because it just confuses people. And God is the mystery. And if we only can go so far before we run into a brick wall to know more about what your

Definitions are, that way I don’t know if I know enough about your definitions in order to be able to argue about it. But I do consider you a brother in Christ because I know you’re trinitarian. My definitions are just the classical Christian definitions. They’re they’re not they’re not mine because again, I don’t believe you get to come along 1600 years down the road, 2,000 years down the road, and just completely overhaul this. I mean, the fact that there was argument about this in the the life of the pioneers, the Adventist pioneers, is one of the biggest red flags to get the

Hell off of this thing and get out of here. Like, just putting it completely blunt with you, that is I mean, that is I look at some of the statements made by what are they thinking? You know, I mean, some of the quotations that uh Mariah Smith made almost equating Jesus to a created being is he and I don’t know what they were thinking, but all I know is that there was some debate over how that how Christ related to the father, how how the father related to the holy spirit. I think what they believe that Christ was begotten at some point in time in

Eternity and that um he is an emanation from the father. uh that happened at a certain point in time in history, but they quickly abandoned and but when we had an official view, it’s always been trinitarian. Yeah. But Stephen, the way you define I know you keep saying that, but the way the and I’m not saddling the modern SDA church with the the all the pioneers. I understand there’s been change. I I know the whole progression. I know post desire of ages is supposed to be which we’re going to get into all that but I want to transition here to some other

Quotes and I want to ask you some some very pointed questions about these okay because you’ve made it clear you believe this organization again the organization remember that the organization I understand not every individual SDA I understand you may disagree etc I get that we’re talking organizationally so we’re looking at statements that have authority organizationally so I want to hear from you how this comports with trinitarianism. Okay, you mentioned earlier, okay, their one being, their one substance. Quote, Ellen White, this is in Signs of the Times in 1900 after

Desire of Ages. Quote, Christ is the pre-existent, selfexistent son of God. In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. Close quote. So Christ is not self-existence, Stephen. Existence is being. So here we have her delineating Jesus as a distinct being from God the Father. And this is not a one-off. Spirit of Prophecy Volume 1. This went on to become great controversy, not some fringe, you know, some some letter off in a a drawer somewhere at the White Estate. Quote, “Satan in heaven before his rebellion

Was a high and exalted angel. next in honor to God’s dear son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. Ah, what did we hear earlier, Steven, about form and feature? Satan has a forehead. Apparently, his form was perfect, his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels. Yet Jesus, God’s dear son, had the preeminence over all of the angelic

Host. He was one with the father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. The word devolved means to delegate from a higher authority to a lesser authority. The Trinity possesses the same one single power in authority. And this is foundational to the SDA church’s great controversy paradigm. There is no abandoning this without the structure of the movement system collapsing. Same thing. It’s said again in volume two, same book. Quote, the son of God was next in authority to the great lawgiver.

He knew that his life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more value than man as his noble spotless character and exalted office as commander of all the heavenly host were above the work of man. He was in the express image of his father not in features alone but in perfection of character. Close quote. So again we see God the father and the son both have physical bodies. She told us in great controversy, “Being made in the image of God is not just in character, but in form and features.” And she says, “Jesus was next

In authority. This isn’t trinitarianism. Yet your movement upholds this as divinely inspired and holding some sort of doctrinal authority. If I want to come join your guys’ movement again, I have to make a pledge to uphold these writings because the same baptismal vows that you just read from, she’s included in. She’s part of the fundamental beliefs. I have to believe this narrative and paradigm that Jesus was exalted to be made equal with the father. And this whole thing that streams down and informs why Jesus came, the problem of evil, all of this stuff.

This is central to the whole thing. And she says here, he was next in authority. Testimonies for the church volume 8. Quote, God is the father of Christ. Christ is the son of God. to Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the father. All the councils of God are opened to his son. Close quote. So it really does not get more blatant than that. I I mean this does not comport with trinitarianism at all. God possesses one equal authority, power, might, etc. One council. Jesus did not gain access to to such by virtue of

Being exalted. And this is why I said earlier, it’s vital in trinitarian theology that one understands that the one being possesses one singular will and one single authority that all three persons operate with as the one singular being. They don’t operate like a team or like a band where you have a drummer, a singer, a basist, and a guitarist. And they all work together to form a one like a a song, and it all comes together as one thing. No, no. They’re not divided with God the father possessing knowledge and that the father and the spirit don’t know and then brought into

Councils etc. But another quote great controversy before the entrance of evil there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the creator’s will love for God was supreme love for one another impartial. Christ the word the only begotten of God was one with the eternal father. Ah here it is one in nature in character and in purpose. the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the councils and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought the creation of all heavenly beings. By him were all things created that are in heaven, whether they

Be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. Colossians 1:16. And to Christ equally with the Father all heaven gave allegiance. Close quote. So once again, she refers to Jesus as a distinct and separate being from God the Father. and that he was brought into councils that he previously did not have access to. This does not comport with trinitarianism. And I know Adventists will point to this to say, see, she said that that’s they have one nature, which further evid evidences my point that definitions matter because as we’re going to see later, she did not mean the

Same thing that Christians do. Another quote, and these are all again post desire of ages. quote, “Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in after your baptism.” You mentioned this earlier. “You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life, to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the under the sanction, the power of the three holiest beings in heaven who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin. Your life is

Hid with Christ in God.” hidden with Christ in God. Wonderful transformation. Close quote. Same thing. Three holiest beings and the SDA church upholds these as authoritative and doctrally accurate. Same thing. Lift him up. Quote, “We’re baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Ghost. And these three great infinite powers are united uh unitedly pledged to work in our behalf if we cooperate with them. We’re buried with Christ in baptism as an emblem of his death.” Close quote. Over and over and over again. Multiple powers, three great

Powers. Again, special testimonies. Series B. Quote, “We are to cooperate with the three highest powers in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God.” Again, the Australian Union Conference record 1907, quote, “Those who have a baptism given by God, a pledge of their faith in Christ and their death of the old life of sin have entered into covenant relation with God. The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are pledged to be their strength and their efficacy

Uh efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus.” Close quote. So, Stephen, over and over and over again, the woman who the organization tells us was divinely inspired that God revealed these things to her, she is part of the fundamental beliefs and holds an authority when it comes to representing the organization’s official belief. I know you said earlier that Ellen White didn’t actually really like inform the the teaching or it was more so rather um it was just kind of in accordance with what was going on. Well, that’s not what Moon puts forth in his

Paper. He admits that her visions helped develop the teaching. Of course, he includes Bible study in there, but he includes this sort of stuff which is supposed to confirm what is found in scripture. And this is all late in her life. I specifically used quotes that are late in her life after Desire of Ages, which also like Jerry Moon said is supposed to be the turning point where Adventist Christologology was corrected, ironed out, and finalized. So, can you please explain for us how this comports with trinitarianism since the claim is that the SDA church is trinitarian and

Believes the same thing Christians do? All right. Well, let’s first of all get to the authority of Ellen White. And Ellen White has been I’ I’ve had a lovehate relationship with Ellen White since day one because I see the problems that she creates for herself. Uh she’ll be saying one thing in one spot and then you read a few more pages and she can almost say the exact opposite. You kind of have to take what she says in the entirety and look at the history behind it and look at who she was writing to, why she was writing to that person, what point she was trying to

Make, and trying to figure out if there’s a better way for her to actually say it because her writings were heavily edited. Uh so it treats me as why people want to make her a Bible. They they try to put her on the same platform as the Bible. uh and well maybe they don’t want to say say that but the divine commentary and I believe Ellen White was inspirational I personally do not believe she was inspired uh I believe her writings have authority only when they can be proven and filtered through the scripture now you might say that’s not in accordance with the fundamental

Views uh I would say that if it’s not it should be and uh that’s one of the things I think maybe the church needs to look at and I think we have been looking at this. How are we supposed to read the writings of Ellen White and and and and look at what she says and then filter them through scripture the other end. And I I think if you do filter her through scripture, there’s a lot about her that is very relevant and very pertinent to us today as a church. But I cannot accept everything that she says at faith value. Um so that’s one. And two is I I think where we get hung up on

This is that you’re saying that we believe that um and the father and the holy spirit are three separate beings as in three separate um have three separate bodies and why they might represent themselves to the to us that way essentially they are one they I don’t how else to say Um but not three separate beings. Okay, they’re not three separate persons but they’re three separate personalities who can emanate three different ways. God the father, God the son, God the holy spirit. Now if we purport exactly to the way the Nian creed reads I I don’t know but all I

Know is that essentially we are trinitarian and we believe God is one and God is three and that’s what we need to believe in order to be baptized. uh not everyone that’s baptized has a seminary degree, you know, in trinitarianism. Uh and no one’s required to write a 10-page essay part of baptism on how they view the trinity. And I’ve also discussed there’s many different ways to explain the trinity that uh within the Christian church. So, I’m trying not to get too deep into the weeds because I we can agree to disagree about a lot of different things and

Still remain within the Christian boundary line. Yeah, but Stephen, does that make sense? I I get what you’re saying personally, but that does not comport with the thesis for tonight. The thesis for tonight is the SDA church’s official position is allegedly the same as the Christian church’s position. No, it isn’t. It is not. Please define person and being for us. I’m not saying every person has to have a seminary degree, but the individuals that have concocted up your fundamental beliefs. Your prophetus tells us the general conference in session is the highest

Authority on planet earth. when in session. When in session is when they’ve come to the the what’s formulated in the fundamental beliefs. And I’m getting into this topic this week, by the way, responding to some Adventist scholars that decided to respond to this platform on the Trinity. And ironically, we’re actually going to bring up the minutes from one of the GC sessions on this specific topic where they are batting around how to word the belief because there is all sorts of confusion on terms like person, being, etc. If you’re claiming that you believe the same thing

The Christian church does, it’s irrelevant what individual people are saying because we’re talking about source documents. We’ve already looked at how Jerry Moon says the SDA church defines person as a literal tangible form. You then come back to me and say, “Well, Adventists don’t actually believe that.” So, is Jerry Moon wrong? Is Jerry Moon misrepresenting? What? How are we supposed to understand his statement when he says that the Adventist position on God being personal is that you have a literal tangible form, not just that you are spirit.

Well, I’m saying that Jerry Moon does not speak for the entire 7th Adventist Church. Yeah, but Jerry Moon represents official SDA teaching. Stephen, hold on. Stephen, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Stephen, we’re going to try this one more time, friend. You’re a nice guy, but I have to get you to stay focused on the point. Okay? I understand Jerry Moon doesn’t speak for every individual SDA. I’ve already conceded that multiple times tonight. I’ll continue to concede that. I understand. That’s not why I’m citing him. We’re talking about official

Stated beliefs which come from sources of authority. You, as far as I’m aware, are not a source of authority in Adventism in terms of something that’s binding. And what Moon is putting forth in his paper as a historian is the bonafide truth about the doctrinal development within the SDA church of what the organization calls the Trinity. And what he presents is that Ellen White confirmed in vision what the pioneers were studying that God does have body and parts and they pointed to places like Daniel 7. Ellen White then gets a vision and confirms, “Yep, that’s correct. I

Talked to Jesus himself and he told me he has a form like we do and the father has one just like he does.” But you can’t behold it or you would cease to exist. That’s the official position. That is the official position. Do do you understand that that does not comport with Orthodox Christianity? That this is my this is what I would consider the official position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I know they’ve upgraded to 28 fundamental beliefs, but this is the one I was baptized under. Okay. and it’s still relevant to us today. And number two,

Um, and that’s is all I can tell you about our fundamental belief. There is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal persons. God is immortal, all powerful, all knowing, above all, ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through his self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship out of service by whole creation. That’s fundamental belief number two. To me, that’s the only thing that matters. Uh we can discuss things on a theological level all day long. I mean, I had an aunt that taught at Andrew University

And you know, she had a lot of disagreements with her other professors as well. So, I’m trying to explain that not every Adventist will see things the same way on the Trinity, but that’s okay as long as you see him as one and three. That they’re not separate gods. They’re one God, three separate of the same God. Now, you want to call I don’t know. I I haven’t seen God in person yet. I will um and my purpose today was not to make you agree with me or make you uh make you agree with me. But um just to hopefully we could come to some sort of understanding as to what

You believe and what I believe and I think I understand a little bit more about what you believe. So my mission is hopefully I’m a little bit closer to explaining is that Adventists are trinitarian and that we believe God is one and God is three and we I’m not going to get into the weeds. I’m just going to say on a simple level that is our view. Yeah. and and and pizza sleeps faster than Wednesday. Whatever that means. Well, I’m not going to get into the weeds because it doesn’t matter. Right. Yeah. I’m not going to get into the weeds. Well, that’s an absurd statement.

Right, Stephen? See, you’re you’re getting my point. The the way you use terms matters. You you you keep reiterating and just stating we believe God is three persons. Stephen, I know. I know you’re claiming this. What do you mean by person? You’ve told me that what I presented, which is supported from visions by Ellen White, which is supposed to be how she functions for the movement. This was supposed to be during a period where they were getting their dividing lines from all these pagan Babylonians, all those Protestants out there that don’t actually know what they

Believe. They’re just vestigages of Roman Catholicism. And we’re the the bastion of truth away from all that confusion. And we have a prophet, the spirit of prophecy, which is the identifying mark of the remnant church. And it defines and shows what is actually true when we come to a crossroads when we’re studying. And that was the crossroads they came to. And she allegedly was given a vision that God has a physical body by nature. This stands in contra distinction to what Christians believe. It doesn’t matter what individual SDA say. That doesn’t

Change the general facts. And and what I’d really love for you to do is to recognize that and recognize that yeah, the Adventist Church believes something different than what Christians believe. It’s just objective. It’s not it it’s conclusively objective. It’s just a fact because it’s based on the source documents. It’s not based on does every Christian out there have a seminary degree? It’s not based on does everyone out there have perfect theological knowledge. Well, no, none of us do. But we can define the terms that we’re using to be specific. And the

Christian church has done that because the scriptures delineate between these things. Person in being is not just some arbitrary thing that the Christian church just up and deemed like we’re going to use these words because well we’re just going to use these words. No, they come from scripture. Hypostasis comes from scripture. Substance essence being Hebrews 1:3 for example. This stuff comes from scripture. Aras was using scripture. You’ve mentioned modalism tonight for example. You’re not a you guys aren’t unitarians. Selius was using scripture. Marshian was using scripture.

Pelagius was using scripture. All these people were appealing to scripture. So using vague general terms and then saying, “Well, that’s only as far as we’re going to go.” That you’re just conceding there that you guys don’t believe the same thing Christians do. What Ellen White said doesn’t comport with Orthodox Trinitarianism. Those quotes I read do not comport with orthodoxy. What I could say is if we go back to the baptism, we had Jesus in the water. We had the Holy Spirit as a dove on his shoulder. We had God speaking from the heavens is my beloved son. In him I am

Well pleased. So does that mean the Holy Spirit is a dove? That mean that Jesus has a physical body? You know, he had physical body. Does he still have one? We’ll find out. In the book of Revelation, it describes him as a human form on our thrones in heaven where we’ll sit next to him. So, I’m I’m not sure if we want to get into all the literalism versus symbolism because now I think where we run into problems here is we have an eitheror fallacy. Either God is this or God is that. God has a body or he doesn’t. Maybe it’s both. can’t maybe sometimes he’s a spirit sometimes he

Represents as a body when we get to heaven we’ll find out why I’m not going to take a bullet you know Stephen because you understand what I’m either or it could be a both and and we just don’t have the comprehension to get there yeah Stephen the the problem you’re going to run into with this is again the trinity is something very specific I understand you’re saying for yourself, well, I don’t think this matters or not every person believes this or not every person has a seminary degree. All of that is kind of red herrings. It’s really irrelevant to the

Whole point. And the point is very simple. If you believe like the Adventist Church teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have physical tangible forms, you then get into having issues of so there’s some form of physical matter that’s also eternal. Their bodies are also eternal. They are made up of parts. Ellen White was shown in vision that God is made up of parts and the father has a form just like the son. This isn’t trinitarianism. That’s my point. You guys just need to own that the organization has its own thing. I understand you personally may

Reject these things and that’s fine, but it doesn’t comport with the organization’s official source documents. I I I want you to admit this. I want you to see this and admit this that and debate. Well, I don’t want to debate you come on here and debate it. I’d like to see come on here and debate. Yes, gladly. Get it. Get it set up. Get them to come on here. I would love to have it happen. This is one of my breadandbut topics. This is Christianity 101. And my point is is not to embarrass you. It’s not to say you’re a liar or you seem like a very nice guy.

Um, my point is to say when we were engaging on Facebook, my claims and statements were made in light of the SDA source documentation, not my own personal opinion, not individual SDA’s opinions. This is answering Adventism. So the official source documents and the authority sources that’s what informs the organization’s position not well my my aunt was a professor here and she you know Adventists love to appeal to for example Dr. Deterine Raul Deteran um because he was all big on Christologology etc. Yet at the end of the day Dr. Deteran still had to fall on

The side of the great controversy lie because again this is foundational to the system. Stephen, do you believe the great controversy? Well, I understand that you and I have differences of opinion on the great controversy. And I understand that in as as long as differently, we’re going to come to different conclusions. And so, it really has to be a stepby-step process to uh we do come from different positions and that that and that and that’s obvious. And uh you know, I’m not you’re not going to convince me, but we can still agree to disagree in an

Agreeable way. And that’s what I like about you is that we’re not getting into a fisticuffs here on on your program and um you know this is your show and I respect what you’re saying. Uh I’ve read the baptismal vows and I’ve read the official fundamental beliefs of the 7th adventist church and I’ve also you you’ve also read something about Ellen White where Jesus had a man to higher status. Is is that what you were saying? Oh yeah, it’s over and over. It says here patriarchs and prophet it it says there had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. That’s yeah

That’s page and being a mystery of representation claims to equality with Christ had been made necessary statement. So change in the official position of Christ there had to be a statement. I don’t know what the problem up there was. Uh maybe God will let me in on that when I get there. But all I know is there was a question about the authority of Christ in the kingdom and God had to solve that. Uh now do I take everything Ellen White says at face value? Absolutely not. And there will be a lot of evidence that will be critical of me for doing that. But I’ve read the

Official baptismal vows. I’ve read the fundamental beliefs. also bring my experience to it as well that um we the traditional adventist view has always not always been but it is today very trinitary and I know you you have words uh that we might we might disagree on but maybe we can talk about that later. Well, right because definitions matter, Stephen, I’m going to keep saying that because it does. If I were to tell you I’m a seventh day sabotarian, but what I actually mean is um I’m a I I go to church on the first day and I set aside the first day as

Holy. You’re going to say you’re not a seventh day sabotarian. I’m going to say, “Yeah, I am.” Because in essence, it’s it’s really the same thing. It’s a day and I set it aside and no, you guys aren’t gonna you guys aren’t going to accept that. But when it comes to this, all of a sudden, it’s supposed to be this real vaguy It’s what? Because the trinity, the trinity is a mystery. I mean, it’s recognized that there’s only so far we can go. And we run into problems when we try to pick uh certain views that what we need to do is just admit that God’s

One and God’s three and get over it. Yeah. Because it we do not understand it. We do not understand it. It’s beyond human comprehension. Yeah, and I get that. But Stephen, scripture reveals what it is that I’m saying the SDA church is leaving out. That’s part of the problem. That’s what Augustine’s quote was getting at. This is derived from scripture. What we mean by person is derived from scripture. What we mean by being is derived from scripture. It’s not saying that we understand the mechanics exhaustively and we understand how God can be omnisient, omnipresent,

Etc. That’s not what we’re that’s not what I’m claiming. But the definitions that is pulled from scripture. Scripture does go that far. It is revealed that far. Yeah. The Seventh Day Adventist Church as far as I’ve ever known. You can maybe I’m wrong about it, but as far as I know, God the Father is a person with blood human being like we are. Exactly. They do not believe that. That Stephen, that’s what the sources say. That’s what the sources say. That is what the sources say, Stephen. You’re I’m reading sources and then you’re saying, “No, Adventists don’t teach

That. Adventists don’t believe that.” Even though the source materials say such you define person for us. How is person defined? How does the Adventist church define personality? Personality is a personality and that they can represent three different little difference. You know, like I said, they’re spirit. Well, when they represent themselves in physical form, which they can, they represent in certain ways, but in essence, they are spirit. Yeah. And you’re out of line with the Yes. Yes, it makes sense. But Stephen, my point is you’re out of line when you

Say that with the source documents. And this is what we get. We get Adventists that say, “No, that isn’t that isn’t what Adventists teach. That’s not what Adventists teach.” Yet, I have a mountain of source documents from the 19th century, 20th century, 21st century, and yet we’re supposed to be the ones you’re I hear it constantly. You misrepresent Adventism. You don’t know what Adventism teaches. Okay, I’m going to read like 15 quotes here. I read 15 quotes. Yeah, they don’t mean what you’re saying. We don’t actually believe God. That that’s not that’s not

What was taught. Okay, your prophetist claimed to see this invision from God. Your prophetist claimed to confirm this invision from God. And outright Jerry Moon is admitting the pioneers, which is what you guys have built upon. And it’s still to this day, we can go to the fundamental beliefs page. I I don’t think you’re going to deny the fact that the SDA church tries to do the only creed but the Bible. No creed but the Bible, right? They don’t affirm the Nining Creed. No, we I don’t know that we affirm it in every respect because we don’t believe

In eternal hell and all that. Um but well, you don’t believe that God is without body or parts like Jerry Moon? No, we don’t. We don’t believe God parts. No, we don’t believe that. I We believe that he can manifest himself, but we don’t believe he is a body. Okay. Ellen White confirmed in vision. Steven, Steven, I have to stop you again. Ellen White supposedly confirmed in vision contrary to the creed saying God is without body or parts that he does and she was shown this as confirmation. You’re now telling me no, the Adventist church doesn’t believe that. And it

Sounds like what you mean when you say that is, well, I know a lot of Adventists that would reject that, so that means well that’s not what Adventism teaches. No, the source documents, those determine what the SDA church teaches and believes, not individual Joemo individuals. Because I’m telling you, I’ve talked with hundreds if not thousands of Adventists at this point in my life about this exact subject. And when they describe their understanding of the Trinity, it is not what Christians believe. I understand they use the same words, but then when you peel back the layers

Behind the definitions and what their concept and understanding is, it is tritheism. It’s tritheism. Well, I understand. I understand that Adventists are not Lutheran. We’re not Baptists. We’re not Episcopalians. We’re not uh you know, a lot of the other churches. We we agree a lot of things and we disagree on a lot of things. And right is not Christian but not Christian Adventist that that we believe that’s the word of God that God is the father son God the holy spirit we believe in the atonement I know you don’t agree with that but we do believe

In the legal atonement at the cross and we you also believe that the benefits of the atonement are are being met out today which is I I completely agree with your last video on that subject. I like I like how you put that video together. I thought it was very good. Uh now, do all evidence agree on everything? Absolutely. And there’s you you’ll find a wide spectrum of liberals to conservatives to everybody in between. Uh so what you consider a source document may not represent the official view of the church. The only official views of the church I know are the ones

The fundamental beliefs that are published and then also in the baptismal vows. Those are only official views that I’m aware of. And I can tell you by sitting in the since I was a baby what most people believe and we most people will believe in the trinity. Now I don’t think we’ll um describe it the same way. I don’t think we’re encouraged to because that just runs in the problem. Yeah. Well, Stephen, I’m not talking about a fringe source here. We’re talking about Ellen White and vision. Ellen White is a part of the fundamental beliefs. The statement of confidence in

Her writings is voted upon by GC delegates which is supposed to be the highest governing body of people on the planet when in session. They state that she corrects inaccurate interpretations of scripture and uplifts the normative character of such. She did so supposedly on Daniel chapter 7 etc. when God is supposedly the father for example manifests in a physical form. You mentioned something earlier about does Jesus still have a physical body? Well, I would hope that you still believe this, Stephen, because first Timothy, for example, tells us that there is one

Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. He is still a man. He will forever be a man, etc. But Jesus is the unique one, the unique son of God, who took on and upon himself human nature. He didn’t ontologically possess a body prior to the incarnation, which is how Ellen White describes him in the great controversy narrative. It’s Lucifer as well. Like we just saw, he has a high brow ridge. Lucifer has a forehead. He’s an angel and has a forehead. But Jesus uniquely took on human nature at the incarnation as the unique son of God. The father and the

Spirit do not have physical bodies ontologically. But I want to keep moving forward here with some other sources and see because it isn’t just this area where things do not comport. Notice here, Signs of the Times, this is 1911. This is after Desire of Ages. It’s all supposed to be ironed out by that point. Quote, the eternal word gave himself. He did not aspire to be equal with God. Did not meditate a usurp of the throne of the universe. See Philippians 2 5-7. But he emptied himself, gave himself then and there for sinners. He took the form of a servant, becoming an angel

Among the angels, that he might redeem angels, but they would not. And when they rejected the righteousness and life so freely offered, he descended lower still to those duped by Satan, fallen man, stooping even to death, that he might redeem of the fallen all who desired to be redeemed and vindicate the universe of all eternity the character of God. That was the work of the word of God, the eternal logos, when he became Michael the Archangel. When he became Jesus, the man of Nazareth, when he was anointed the Christ, when he died our sacrifice on Calvary. Yet during all

This time, the host of evil with all the baleful, deceptive, cruel devices of sin were hurled against him, that God’s character might be marred, that the great vindicator, redeemer might fall. Close quote. So the Adventist Jesus, they say here, took on an angelic nature, not just the role of a messenger, but an angel nature and became Michael the Archangel. And he did this allegedly to try and save the angels that rebelled with Satan, but they rejected him. So then he took on the nature of a man to seek to res to to redeem humanity. In doing so, he set his

Divine nature aside that he received in the pre-earth exaltation that we saw earlier. And all of this is tied to the great controversy narrative of the Adventist Jesus seeking to silence Satan’s accusations against the ten commandments etc. again in the same year or a year later, same publication. Quote, he talking about Jesus took the nature of angels to repeat the first step then in his humiliation in laying aside his divine nature was to put on the nature of angels. And thus it is that we have Jesus brought to view as Michael the archangel, the commander of the hosts of

Heaven, the captain of the host of the Lord, and as such the armies in heaven follow him. When he became an angel, he bore a fitting name, even as when later he became a man. His name befitted the nature which he took by virtue of his birth into our human family. That name was Emanuel, God with us. His name as an angel is Michael which signifies the one who is like God. Whatever the name that he takes in crushing sin and rebellion, in redeeming the lost and in restoring harmony to the universe, that name must indicate that God is in him and with him on the very

Plain and in the very nature of the class of beings to whom he has sent. By living the god life on the plane of angels of which Satan was one although fallen he could neutralize the force of Satan’s accusations. Thus when he became an angel the fact must not be lost sight of that he was God with the angels yet living on their plane possessing their natures and this thought is preserved in the name that he bears as an angel. Close quote. So, same thing said and this demonstrates that when this organization uses even words like God, they do not mean the same thing that

Christians do. That as an angel with an angelic nature, Jesus was still God on that plane. Is Signs of the Times an an official source material for the organization beyond just well, it’s just some scholar out there? Well, now it’s not just that. Now, you’re talking an official organ. But we get the Kosis interpretation of Philippians 2 that Jesus set his divine nature aside and was only a man while on earth which is still put forth by the organization to this day. This is currently on their website. On an article titled life, death and resurrection of Christ. In

Part they write quote Philippians 2 6 through8 says that even though Jesus is God he set his divine nature aside and took on human nature. Close quote. So, Stephen, do you believe this comports with trinitarianism that Jesus took on an angelic nature? Wasn’t just a messenger? I know Adventists like to say, “No, no, no. By angel, we just mean a title of a role like messenger.” No, no. This says he took on an angelic nature, becoming Michael the Archangel with the purpose of seeking to redeem angels, but they rejected him. So then he went even lower and took on the

Nature of a man to redeem fallen humanity. Do you believe that this comports with trinitarianism? Uh no I I mean unless you want to say that he just appeared as an angel uh but actually became an angel then he’d be a created being like the rest of us. Um so but when he he became angels a human being he did not uh lay aside his divine nature I don’t care what that screen set up there he was both God and man at the same time so he had a unique human nature he was God and man at the same time so you know if that’s what they believe then I don’t agree with

It but does that say that God is not one or three I don’t think anyone’s denying the divinity of Jesus. I I think that everyone has always acknowledged his divinity. They just have different ways of coming to it. Um so we run into real problems when we try to get into areas we don’t belong. Human beings do not have the brain power to understand God. He is even says in our fundamental belief that he’s beyond human comprehension. So, I’m not going to speculate other than to say what the Bible says that God is one and God is three and that there are times when he

Can manifest as, you know, in physical form, but that his essence is a spirit. And I um I’m saying that and I wish an SDA would come and challenge me because I would have something to say to them. Well, Stephen, you told me earlier though that they’re one in nature. And here it’s telling us that Jesus took on an angelic nature. So, does God the Father and the Holy Spirit have an angelic nature? No. That’s why I don’t believe Jesus became an angel. Okay. So, but so you’re admitting then that Okay. Amen. Amen. It’s not. So, Yep. Perfect. Excellent. Yep. Thank you. Thank you for

Letting us know that Adventist sources here are not in accordance with scripture. Now, from the 7th Day Adventist belief, fundamental beliefs book in line with what you just said because Stephen, you said that he was you you affirm you said the hypothetic union that Christ is 100% man, 100% God. When he incarnated, he added unto himself human nature. He did not uh put his divine nature to the side, was only a man and then reassume said thing after the resurrection or something like that. So this is from Seventh Day Adventist believe the fundamental beliefs book the

Exposition of what you said is the standard the fundamental beliefs. Quote Jesus asserted his omnipresence with the asurances lo I am with you always even to the end of the age. Matthew 28:20 and where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20. Although his divinity has the natural ability of omnipresence, the incarnate Christ has voluntarily limited himself in this respect, he has chosen to be omnipresent through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-18. Close quote. So the Adventist Jesus is not truly omnipresent. By

Taking on the nature of humanity, he limited himself in this capacity. And this is ultimately coming from Ellen White, of course. Desire of Ages, quote, 669, when all this stuff is supposed to be worked out by this point. Quote, the Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative. Yeah. The Holy Spirit is Christ representative. Well, let let me finish. Let me finish out here. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. encumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore, it was for their

Interest that he should go to the father and send the spirit to be his successor on earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the spirit, the savior would be accessible to all. In this sense, he would be nearer to them than if he had not ascended on high. Close quote. So, she contradicts herself because like Jerry Moon recognized in his paper and we’ve looked at before, Ellen White claimed the Holy Spirit is just as much a person as the son and the father, meaning he has a physical tangible form

That looks like a human. Quote, “In the 1890s, when Ellen White became convinced of the individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to describe the Father and the Son. For instance, addressing the church at Aenddale College in 1899, she declared, “The Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds unseen by human eyes. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.” Close quote. But in Desire of

Ages, she claims that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative in his physical absence and is divested of personality of humanity. the same thing found in the fundamental beliefs book. So, Stephen, please explain for us how this comports with trinitarianism since the claim is that the SDA church is trinitarian. Well, what I’m getting out of this is that, you know, God can be spirit or he can have a physical form at the same time. Just depends on how he decides his essence and his very nature is a spirit. If he wants to become material then he

Can adopt whatever form he wants. Uh and in this case you know Elli saw him as a human being walking through the gu walking through the camp. Uh so that he’s not spirit and omnipresent but that he can limit himself to one place in time if he wants. Now human beings would have a hard time understanding that because we’re not God but God understands that. I mean, how can God be human and divine at the same time is a mystery. How can God give be sovereign and give us free will at the same time is a mystery, you know. How can God be merciful and just

At the same time, you know, is a mystery. We worked it up scriptures in the cross, you know, in the incarnation. Uh so because God is God’s spirit absolutely is omni present. times he connect himself to time and place and space. Yes, he he can do that if he wants to. Um how I don’t know. So the Adventist God can be a person but also not be a person. He he can turn that off. You said God can have a interesting. Okay. So wow. So we’re talking ontology here. Who God is ontologically. That’s not something you can turn on and off. Do you think that God can be both be a a

Person and then not be a person? I believe so because he represents himself as being a spirit be he’s a spirit but he can materialize in time and space. Yeah. But that’s the ontology of of God’s actual being. You’re telling us that God’s being who God is fundamentally that can change. This is not compatible with go that far. But that’s what you just said. I’m not I’m not going that far. Well, maybe you just said that you misunderstood you. Maybe I But what I’m saying earlier can be physical and at the same time. Yes. Yeah. Well, you said earlier that

Because this discussion is happening happening in the realm of ontology, who God is at the being level. Because I I keep trying to circle us back to this. The Adventist church likes to say, “No, we believe three persons, right? That’s not enough. What about the being? Three persons? What about the being?” And we just keep going back and forth. And then we get this sort of, well, it doesn’t really matter how we define terms as long as I use the right words. Well, let’s let’s be honest, Stephen. Adventists would not accept that if I used all the same

Terminology Adventists do, but I completely redefined it as some other thing. And then I went around being like, “No, I am a Seventh Day Sabotarian, even though I don’t mean at all the same thing Seventh Day Sabarians do, generally speaking.” And I know you want to say, “Well, the Trinity is different because it’s a mystery.” But the whole thesis of what’s being put forth is you’re telling us the Seventh Adventist Church believes the same thing as Christians do. And no, they don’t. I’m sorry. They they don’t. You may individually, and if you do, praise God.

I hope you get out of this movement. This movement has nothing to offer. I know you said earlier that 7th Aven the Seventh Day Adventist movement has has great things to offer to to Protestantism, to the the universal Catholic Church. And it I I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t. They’re not the only Seventh Day Sabotarian group. They’re not the only group that claims to have a prophet. They’re not the only group that claims to uphold the law of God. They’re not the only group that claims to have the gospel, etc. Everything that makes Seventh Adventism

Unique is heretical. They’re their unlawful use of the law, the the false trinity, the false gospel, the false prophet, it’s a false church. It’s it’s full of sectarianism and division. Any sort of unity that’s that’s sought to have amongst the body of Christ, that’s supposed to affirm Satan’s at work. That’s Satan. And it was foretold. Ellen White foretold that they were all going to unite. Oh wow. She foresaw that Jesus’s will for the Christian church is going to happen and there’s going to be unity amongst Christians and this is supposed to be the work of Satan. It

Just it’s all this big mess that all it does is leave people confused saying things that you’re saying like, “Well, we can’t really know that.” Well, Stephen, there are are 5-year-olds at my church that understand this. Christians have been getting catechized in these very basic things for a very long time. And it’s really not that complicated. Like I said, this this remote has being. It doesn’t have personhood. You you have to delineate and distinguish what you mean by that. This thing has a mode of existence, but it doesn’t have a personality. And a personality does not

Necessitate a physical body. Spirits have personality, but they don’t have flesh and bones. Jesus tells us this. But then when when when scripture says in in John 4:24 that God is spirit, we see what the pioneers and modern SDA scholarship points to, which is essentially what James White put forth in his book, The Personality of God, where he tries to make this argument that, well, God is a spirit, but he’s not just makebelieve. He’s not just imaginary. He’s real, tangible, physical by by nature, which just assumes that if you don’t have a physical, it assumes

The physicalist worldview. And so these things do not comport. I’m sorry that they do not comport with with orthodoxy. And I’m glad that you admitted earlier. I’m glad that you were you were willing to say, “Well, what they said there was was wrong. It’s not correct.” And I know you didn’t say this word, but I would say not just wrong, but outright heretical. Jesus doesn’t have an angelic nature. God the Father doesn’t have an angelic nature. She’s already told us earlier in the Adventist church tells us, “Well, they they share the same nature.” Well, here you’re telling us

Jesus took on an angel nature. Yeah, that’s nowhere in the Bible. I mean, so that’s completely irrelevant to me because it doesn’t really make a difference in my salvation. I mean, it’s not it’s not in the Bible, so I can’t prove it with you’re right. I don’t think that um that’s biblical. Amen. Right. So, but you’re recognizing that’s what the SDA church’s official sources are saying. Signs of the Times is an official organ of the organization. This was being said over and over and over again. So, I I’m glad that that’s that that you agree there.

That’s not biblical. And again, I know you didn’t say this, but I would go so far as to say it’s it’s outright damnably heretical. It’s a false Christ that’s warned about in 2 Corinthians 11, namely verse three, verses 3 and 4. Um, as well as Jesus himself in Matthew 24, uh, warning about false Christ. But notice from Desire of Ages another claim the SDA church upholds and I’ve heard numerous Adventist pastors try and defend. Quote, “Satan with his fierce temptations rung the heart of Jesus. The Savior could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to him is

Coming forth from the grave a conqueror or tell him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that their separation was to be eternal. Close quote. This is blasphemous heresy. Doubt is unbelief and unbelief is a sin. Remember the Adventist Jesus was only a man while on earth. Stephen, I get that you say no, you you disagree with that. But the sources presently on the SDA church’s website informed ultimately by Ellen White who is an official source of authority in the movement and Satan was able to twist his heart while on the

Cross causing him to doubt his resurrection and if his sacrifice would be accepted by the father. In conjunction with this, she also says, supposing that he was the gardener, talking about Mary here, she begged him if he had borne away her Lord to tell her where he had laid him that she might take him away. Jesus spoke to her with with his own heavenly voice, saying, “Mary.” She was acquainted with the tones of that dear voice and quickly answered, “Master.” And in her joy was about to embrace him. But Jesus said, “Touch me not, for I’m not yet ascended

To my father. But go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my father, and your father, and to my God, and your God. John 20:1 17. Joyfully she hastened to the disciples with the good news. Jesus quickly ascended to his father to hear from his lips that he that he accepted the sacrifice and to receive all power in heaven and on earth. Close quote. So on the cross, the Adventist Jesus doubted his resurrection and feared that sin was so bad that it would lead to a total separation from the father. This is not possible. Can I just ask you one question because I

Understand where you’re coming from. Uh how does when when Jesus said on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Y what did he mean by that? Jesus is quoting a psalm. Got to know the psalter. Jesus is telling uh citing all sorts of psalms actually from the cross. Numerous ones. But that was foretold. And then we get into your it depends on your he didn’t really believe that. What do you mean he didn’t really believe it? This is why def again this gets into why definitions because that’s where they’re getting that from. They’re trying to explain why

Jesus said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Yeah. So, they’re they believe that there was some section that happened between God and Jesus. And Jesus was going, “What’s going on? You know, why have you forsaken me?” It was a real it was a real separation at that point. Um, so, but I don’t think Jesus ever doubted God, but I don’t think he understood what was going on at that point. Yeah. So I I know the defenses and I know the scriptures that are appealed to. The issue again becomes definitions Stephen because what does it mean my God my God why hast thou

Forsaken me? What we are supposed to plug into this is what Ellen White said that what it means was Satan was able to twist his heart. Remember statement of confidence in her writings. They correct inaccurate interpretations of scripture and uplift the normative character of scripture. So, this is supposed to be the details for us to know what was really going on there and what’s really being said by that verse. And it’s supposed to be that Satan was able to twist his heart causing him to doubt his resurrection and if his sacrifice would be accepted

By the father, which would be unbelief. And the problem is is the 7th Adventist Church does not understand both the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ. and why both are necessary to then be imputed to the sinner such that they can meet the demands of the law fully in Christ which is why they have a false gospel which is something that you would take umbrage with. This is a core problem right here. Claiming that on the cross, the son of God, the almighty, yah, Jesus Christ is Yahweh. Yahweh’s mind was twisted. Twisted. I guess I could use

The argument or try to use the argument here that no, no, well, that’s in his humanity and that there is, you know, you have dialitism and monop which without getting into all of that, the point being that’s not what the text says. All of that to say, that’s not what the text says and that’s not what the psalm was foretelling. The father, where are you getting from that text that what it’s saying is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” That means Satan was able to twist his heart, causing him to doubt if his sacrifice would be accepted and

His resurrection because he couldn’t see through the portals of the tomb. Well, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that why would Jesus say that? Or uh are you saying that Jesus was not tempted to doubt? Because he was tempted uh all the way up until he died his last breath. So I I believe Jesus was tempted to doubt and I do believe there’s a real separation between God and Jesus that caused him to say, “My God, my God, why has forsaken me?” And there was a temptation to unbelief, but he never he never felt. So that’s how I would explain it. But you you would have a

Different way to explain it. So Well, right because I’m just Where are you getting from my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That the Savior couldn’t see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to him is coming forth from the grave a conqueror or tell him of the father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. What where are you getting that? is you can derive all that from my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? This is a psalm that’s being cited. I mean, I could I could induce it, but I can’t that that ages. So, I have to go with what

The Bible says. I had to filter all that through the Bible, and if it’s not scriptural, then I’ll disregard it. Uh, so, but I’m trying to see if what she said is scriptural or not. And I can understand uh why that Jesus was tempted on the cross and that he there there was an actual relation between God and his savior because of sin. Uh I don’t know uh that Jesus couldn’t see the into the future and he he did tell the the um the the thief on the cross you know verily I say you will be with me in paradise. So he did believe that much. Well, but I’m not sure that I’m willing

To say that everything that she says is biblical. I don’t know. I have to filter it all through the Bible. And that’s where I’m not an Adventist apologist. I’m an Adventist reformer. And I think that’s one something I want to make clear tonight is that if there are Adventists that do believe this, they should not be believing that Illinois is the Bible. Well, I got you. But we’re talking the organization, Stephen. you can try and reform as much as you want. You’re not going to overcome this. Just like GI Butler said, and and he had quite the the the word if you go read the entire

Article, um not just the quote that I typically use, but he had quite a harsh word for people in the movement like yourself. He says, “The testimonies,” and he’s using that term to refer to Ellen White’s writings, “Are the keystone to the arch. You remove that and there’s no logical stopping point until all the special truths of our movement are gone. The critics of our movement understand this, but unfortunately some of those in our own ranks are so foolish that they don’t understand it. And that’s exactly correct because you can try and reform

The movement. You can try and make all these these changes. And I applaud the people that have tried to do that. There have been lots of people before you that have. But this isn’t changing, Stephen. This is not changing. This stuff is foundational to the great controversy worldview. The world view, this stuff is authoritative in the movement. I understand you might reject it, but it doesn’t comport. But furthermore, we have to finish because that isn’t all of what she said there. In conjunction, this is in in story of redemption and desire of ages. after he

Resurrects before he could receive worship. And she uses John 20:17 to try and support this, which she should have done better homework and cross referenced with the accounting in Matthew and seen what’s actually being said here. She says that before he could receive worship, he had to quickly ascend to the father and hear from his lips that his service was ac or his sacrifice was accepted and then he received all power in heaven and on earth. despite Romans 1:4 saying that the resurrection itself demonstrated the sacrifice was accepted because if it

Wouldn’t have been, Jesus wouldn’t have resurrected. He would have remained dead as a sinner like the rest of of humanity. But that fact that he resurrected proves that his sacrifice was accepted. But on top of this, Jesus is omnisient. Going back to what I said at the beginning around the shared mind of God, you mentioned, for example, not being able to see the other side of the tomb because that’s what the quote says. I mean, Stephen, this is just one of of many places. Notice John 2, Jesus cleansing the temple. Quote, “The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to

Jerusalem. In the temple, he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and the oxmen. And he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. This was also foretold prophetically. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away. Do not make my father’s house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, this is the prophecy, zeal for your house will consume me. So the Jews said to him, “What sign

Do you show us for doing these things? essentially, who are you and why? How do you have the authority to come in here and and behave this way? Jesus answered them, destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said, “It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. This is just one of many places

This idea that Jesus had to resurrect and he’s like, “Oh man, hold on. Don’t worship me.” Because again, if you go to Matthew, she clings to him. And Jesus tells her, “Don’t cling to me.” And when he talks about ascending, he’s essentially saying, “I’m still on a divine timeline and still have things to do. I can’t do that and walk out that timeline with you holding me down in place.” That’s what the Greek is saying there to not cling to him. So he sends her out to take the gospel, the good news, that Christ is risen to the disciples. So she’s sent out almost like

An evangelist, a Christian into the world to go tell the disciples so that he can continue going down the timeline to eventually ascend to the father. Not that there’s going to be some secret ascension where he has to go hear from the lips of the father that his sacrifice was accepted and then after hearing that the sacrifice was accepted and given all authority and power. Oh, okay. So then he entered back into the world and came back for 40 days and then he was willing to receive homage etc. So Stephen please explain for us how this comports with trinitarianism

Since again the claim is that the SDA church agrees with Christians when it comes to the trinity. Well, what I’m saying about the trinity is very simple is that all that is required to be a trinitarian is that you believe God is one and God is spirit at the same time. You’re not required to explain all the nuances or all the details. You just need to know that God is one. God is spirit. And now I’ve gone a little bit deeper in trying to explain God is a spirit, but that he also manifests himself in time and space. And so when you have the references about

God having a body, that was his physical manifestation of himself. Uh but in his essence, in his nature, he’s spirit. So God can both have be spirit and he can have a a physical body, you know, at the same time. Now, you know, that’s a mystery, isn’t it? Um, now we’re also talking about um the authority of Ellen White and I’m just tell I’m here to tell you that we as the Adventists have always put the Bible first. I know that people don’t believe that and there are individual Adventists uh want to put Ellen White on equal status to the Bible. But um it says here

The holy scriptures old and new testament are the written word of God given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this word God is committed to man and now is necessary for salvation. The holy scriptures are the infallible revelation of his will, the understanding of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy records of God’s acts in history. And so the authority that we give Ellen White is only in agreement with the Bible. Now, the way they get

Around that is they say Ellen White is never in disagreement with with the Bible. Uh I happen to have found places where she does disagree with the Bible. So I had to deal with that myself early on and say well I cannot make her equal to scripture. Uh I have to make her a lesser light that points towards the Bible and if she’s not in accordance with scripture that I can disregard with what she’s saying. Um so I don’t have to believe everything Ellen White says at face value. Uh, and I don’t believe the church believes that officially either because

They want they will selectively enforce certain things and disregard other things. And I’ve seen that happen over and over again official level. Um, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, we’re going around. We’re going around. Well, hold on. Hold on. We’re going around and around in circles here. Who says the way you define the Trinity is the standard? That’s just begging the question. You’re using a term that has a distinct meaning, redefining it, and then claiming that’s the new standard. How do you not see the issue with this? That that’s dishonest. This

Is supposed to be the commandmentkeeping church. I’m telling you what I’m telling you what my definition is of the Trinity, right? But Stephen, we’re talking about the organization. We’re talking about the organization. You knew this before we started the discussion, not your own personal views. Because Stephen, I could bring another Adventist on here that says the pioneers had it correct. The present day church is apostatized and I’m part of the remnant within the remnant and they would tell me the same thing. Yes, that’s not what has to define the

Standards. The official sources have to define that sort of stuff. And when we look at those, they don’t align with what the trinity is. There is a problem right now with anti-trinitarian sentiment trying to make its way back into the church and I’m going to fight that. If they ever do, let me know because I will dysfellowship myself that same day. Okay, Stephen, you but you guys aren’t supposed to have you guys aren’t supposed to non-turnian then I will dysfellowship myself. But I personally believe and everything I’ve read the fundamental beliefs. I’ve read the baptismal vows. I

Know what my experiences are. I know what my history is through education. Okay. I’ve never been taught anti-trinitarianism in the 7th Adventist church. Yeah. But again, Stephen, it’s definitions. You keep using the word trinity, God, nature, person, but but you don’t want to get into defining those. And when you do, you give us your own personal definition when the whole stated thesis of this is the organization. And I think it highlights for people to see the level of confusion that exists within the movement. You guys aren’t supposed to have any

Theological division. You guys have the theological God particle, the great controversy theme, the theory of everything, the mind of God. Is Herbert Douglas not a qualified source, right? So why do they make this insane claim and then publish this this stuff? This is what’s in the official sources. Does this not concern you that you’re part of an organization that says these things? This is one of the most grandiose statements I’ve ever heard anyone ever make ever in the whole world. We have the mind of God, the theory of everything. And it’s the

Equivalent of Stephen Hawkings God particle. We only have it. We didn’t we didn’t dis He said we we didn’t discover this. We were given this. And we were given this through Ellen White, who supposedly got visions that confirmed all this stuff. You guys aren’t supposed to have theological division. Not everything Ellen White says. No, I wish that was true. Not the case. We know that there’s liberal abism, there’s mainstream absism, and there’s subgroups of each one. Uh that’s Babylon, Stephen, when you try to pin us down on what we believe, you’re you’re gonna get, you

Know, a 100 different viewpoints on the subject. I understand that and I wish that would because that frustrates the heck out of me. And that’s one of the reasons why as a child growing up, I was almost, you know, I did not know who to do do I believe Herbert Douglas or do I believe Morris Vendon or do I believe Mark Finley? Do I believe Doug Bachelor? They all have different ways of explaining things. I had to go back to the scripture and find out what does the Adventist church fundamentally agree with the Bible. And I believe that we do believe the Bible is the word of God. We

Do believe in the atonement righteousness by faith. And I know people that disagree uh with me saying that. But I can prove from the scripture those things and that that’s what I was taught growing up. But there are a lot of there there is confusion in the church. And I that’s one of the reasons why I’m doing this program with you today is to maybe alleviate some of that. If the Adventist church does not believe in the Trinity, which I believe it does, it should believe in the Trinity. And I agree with your definition. So I’m I’m I don’t see where

We disagree a lot on a personal level. Uh I think the disagreement is how we present it as an organization. And I think we could do both. Yeah, Stephen, you’re you guys are supposed to have the spirit of prophecy, which is supposed to be the antidote to all that confusion. That’s supposed to be the whole one of the hallmark identifying signs that you’re a the remnant church. You guys aren’t supposed to have any of that. Ellen White said, “I can show you that. I can show you all the source documentation on this too where they’re claiming that we’ll have far

More unity than any creed ever brought to any Christians when in reality I’m sorry Stephen but no you don’t. You guys don’t have more unity than Christians. It’s almost laughable. It’s almost laughable. It is one of the most divided doctrinally confused divided messes that has really just confused more people. It emphasizes sectarianism. It’s rooted into the movement at a foundational level that this is some sort of end times. You know, right before Jesus comes, there’s going to be this uniting of Protestants and Catholics. Yeah, I hope that happens. I want unity. Now,

I’m not saying in spite of serious grave differences that we just put those aside, etc. But I actually pray for the unity of the Christian church. Yet, Adventism as a movement is going to is going to say, “See, that’s evidence that Ellen White was correct. There’s going to be this uniting against Seventh Day Adventism emphasizing sectarianism. You guys aren’t supposed to have any of that division and all that stuff is connected. Well, and then I turn on the TV and I watch the Trinity Broadcasting Network and

Oakit and Ruth Myers and all these, you know. Yeah, they’re heretics. It’s a worldwide global Christianity itself is under and um it’s horrible. Uh now if I really believe that the Adventist church was not trinitarian, I would leave. I I I’ve told you that if if if I think that uh they t Jesus was a created being, I would leave. uh but honestly at the core of my being because I the fundamental beliefs you know the baptismal vows the way I was raised you know and I I at the core we are solidly uh that’s something that Walter Martin recognized even though um there

Was some push back within the church they didn’t want to be part of the evangelical community they wanted to be by themselves so they pushed them back out. Um, which I think they did themselves a big disservice by doing that. But Walter Martin was on our side. Yeah, he he started to change his tune on that. We have an article on that on our site talking about the Walter Pass. I know Adventist I know Adventist. Yeah. No, after the church pushed them out because you know of of what happened to Desmond Ford and also everyone that upheld questions on aside

And says you know what you don’t want to be part of the evangelical community and I think that was the wrong move to make. Yeah. Well, Walter Martin started coming around when Walter Martin became aware of sources that he wasn’t previously aware of, and he didn’t take his own advice of scaling the language barrier, which circles us right back to my primary point. Definitions matter. Stephen, I’ve shown this before and I will continue to do so. Despite Adventist scholars like Jud Lake, as we’re going to as we’re going to see uh this later this week, his

Taking umbrage with this, this visually proves the point and is in accordance with the plethora hold up. Hold up, Stephen. Hold up. Hold up. Visually, it proves the point and is in accordance with the plethora of statements that we have looked at tonight. Ellen claimed Jesus is the self-existent one, the only being that could be let into the councils of God. She used the terms person and being interchangeably. The heavenly trio, according to the Adventist Church’s website, adventist.org/trinity, the heavenly trio is like a team that is working on a

Common mission and goal. And because they’re united in that, that makes them one God. This is the same thing that Jerry Moon puts forth in his paper that if they weren’t united in their mission and purpose, that would be polytheism, like the pantheon of gods where they’re clawing for ultimate power. But because the heavenly trio is united in that, that makes them one God. But according to Christian teaching like we saw with Augustine and John of Damascus, the onlogical oneness of God is fundamentally what makes God the only God. The relational and operational

Oneness such as being united in creation, the plan of redemption, etc. That is downstream from the singularity in being. There is no way to hold on to an ontological unity in the Adventist system because the great controversy narrative is fundamental to Adventist theology proper. All the stuff about Satan becoming jealous and attacking the ten commandments that is upstream from why the SDA church teaches and claims Jesus incarnated, what he came to do, etc. There is no removing that from the system without the whole thing collapsing. And I know that Stephen

Mentioned like Adventists like to do. We have an article on this on our website that on patriarchs and prophets pages 36 and 37 she claims that this exaltation didn’t lead to any actual change. Yeah, I will challenge any Adventist in the world on that claim. And we will walk through it and show on the timeline why this is problematic because first and foremost it all supposedly came from God. All of it. Which is a problem in and of itself. Now, the point being, while many in the movement are well-meaning people, like yourself, Stephen, you seem like a super nice guy.

Nothing against you personally. You’ve been very cordial. I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you. But people can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. And what this organization calls the Trinity is not. You don’t get to come along, 1600 years down the road and redefine things, but then use the same terms and insist that you mean the same thing. This is deceptive and dishonest. The SDA movement needs to own that they have their own concept and belief and then defend that. Stand by it. Don’t try and play both sides of the field and and be like, “Well, we outright reject the Ning

Creed and we outright reject that God doesn’t have body and parts and we outright reject the way they define person and we define it based on what was confirmed through Ellen White’s visions, which is that God the Father, Son, and Spirit have physical tangible form, etc. But we’re not going to get into any of that stuff because we use the right words.” Well, it’s fundamentally the same thing. No, this is dishonest and Adventists need to stop doing that. Stephen, I appreciate you being here. I’ll let you share any final thoughts that you’d like to before we

Wrap things up and shut things down. All right. Uh, well, the I’ve gone over the fundamental beliefs that we teach as a church. I’ve gone over the baptism and we’ve kind of did done some discussion about what we believe about the trinity that god is one and three at the same time. Not three separate gods but uh but distinct. Not separate but distinct. Uh that’s very very important. Um and that I also believe that we’re not saved by what we know, we’re saved by who we know. And I want to ask you the question um can we have a disagreement on the trinity on how we explain things and

Still be Christian? I believe yes you can have a disagreement and still be a Christian. You might arrive at things a little bit differently, but as long as you believe that God is one and God is three as the scriptures say um and that you believe that Jesus is the only uh but Lord and Savior of your life and that the only condition for salvation is simple faith and trust in him. Uh you can do you can disagree on certain things and still be Christian. So I don’t think that this discussion today rises to heresy. I think we have two different points of view. I think that

We have two Christians talking and and discussing the very very complex and difficult subject. Uh one that human beings have never been able to completely figure out. Uh in the words of CS Lewis, he said once he says, “I don’t know how the atonement works. I know that it works.” And I’m here to tell you, uh, I don’t know how the Trinity works, but I know that it works. God is one. God is three. That’s biblical. It’s what I stand on. And I believe that’s what I’ve been taught my entire life growing up within the Seventh Adventist Church. If there are evidence out there,

They do, you should, and this is where Miles and I agree. We agree on the Trinity. I know he thinks we don’t. Uh but on a personal level, I don’t uh he hasn’t said anything I disagree with other than the fact that Adventists are not Christian. I I I believe we are firmly Christian. We’re rooted in the historical Christian faith. And well, we there are a lot of critics over there that want to, you know, argue the point and argue fine details, but uh I I I grew up in the church. I know what the church teaches. I know what I believe. And um I 100% believe the

Seventh Day Adventist is a Christian denomination. And I’ve I’ve I’ve had a wonderful discussion with Miles. And um I hope I haven’t come across as being pushy or obstinate. I’m I’m trying to understand what he’s saying. I’m not trying to be overly uh argumentative. Uh I’m I’m just trying to explain what I believe as an individual 7th Adventist and what I believe the church teaches. Uh but thank you very much much Miles for having me on. It’s been a wonderful discussion. Yeah Stephen, anytime. Thank you for being here. Maybe you can come back sometime. We can talk about a different

Subject in a similar fashion if you’d like. Thank you again for being here. All right, folks. What he said there at the tail end is exactly the point. And Stephen, I could not agree more. You don’t have to be a theologian. I always talk about on this platform all the time. The gospel is the power of God to salvation. The gospel is not systematic theology. I don’t think people have to have perfect knowledge to be saved. Perfect knowledge does not save people. Being united to the true Christ, however, does. And it does matter who your faith is placed in. And if you’re

An Adventist, I know Stephen said he rejects those things. And I’m glad he was willing to be forthright about that and say, “Yep, what they’re teaching there is not biblical. Thank you. They have the theological God particle theory of everything. Jesus has an angel nature.” Okay. But if you are an Adventist and you believe in the Jesus that is put forth in the desire of ages, the great controversy etc. that Jesus cannot save you. That Jesus not is not real. It is a false Christ. And Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11, there are such thing as things as false Christs

And false spirits and false gospels. You have to have the correct God and his gospel. It is a twofor one deal. You can’t have one without the other. Two for one deal. And your faith is only as good as who you place it in. Jesus was not exalted, be made equal with the father such that Lucifer became jealous and began waging war against God and his law. Now there’s a great controversy playing out that’s like some divine cosmic politics where Jesus and Satan are in this arm wrestling match and Jesus came to silence Satan and demonstrate to all these watching beings

And and universes or worlds rather that the law can be kept and that God is who he says he is and seven steps through the sanctuary and just all this stuff all this stuff is all brought to the Bible. It’s not found in the Bible. You’re not going to find any of this pre-earth origin story in the Bible. Yet this stuff is damnably heretical. It’s a false Christ. This matters. It’s not just mere definitions like, “Oh, well, because we say Jesus, that’s good enough. Oh, because we say Trinity, that’s good enough.” No. The thesis of tonight and the lesson for

Tonight is that definitions matter. The way you define things matters. What you mean by the words that you say matters, not just that you say the right words. And as we saw tonight, and I think Stephen knows, the organizational source documents, whether it’s a scholar, whether it’s a the prophetus, whether it’s an official organ, Signs of the Times, whether it’s the Adventist Church’s website, the fundamental beliefs exposition book, I mean, we could have kept going. This is only scratching the surface on all of these topics. I’ve got documents, folks, hundreds of

Pages of quotes from all these sources, all these different periods of time. It doesn’t fundamentally change. It’s just a new window dressing. It’s just using different words. I’ve been citing, for example, more recently, and I’m going to keep citing it now since the Adventist scholars want to tell us this is just this new staple work, salvation, contours of adventiology. It’s the same thing as Beachch’s Dimensions and Salvation from the 70s. It’s just repackaged in like a new veneer. This idea that it’s all fundamentally different. It’s just we

Really have it figured out now. It’s like everything is supposedly that. Yet time goes on and now they need the pre present truth magic wand to clean things up. It’s just it’s forever changing. It’s a malaise. It’s a confused mess because at the end of the day, God wasn’t behind all this, folks. Christians know who they worship. This is fundamental Christian teaching. It’s fundamental. I’m sorry. Pointing to TBN and heretic TV televangelists as though that’s some sort of what? They don’t claim to have the theological God particle. They don’t claim the these

Things are categorically different. This organization claims to have the mind of God. That’s just Herb Douglas’s opinion. No, it’s not. It’s in Ministry magazine. They show this in multiple places from more people than just Herbert Douglas. This is foundational to the Adventist system. It’s crazy the arc that this movement is on. You’re talking about a movement that rose up and knew exactly who they were, were unashamed of it. They were willing to just put it out there, let the chips fall where they may, and shoot it straight down the pipe to now being allegedly this massive

Tent. We don’t really know what an Adventist is. It’s just this general malaise of well, whatever you believe. It’s just kind of crazy the arc the movement’s on. Folks, if you’re an Adventist, we don’t hate you. or challenging you to dig into these things a lot more deeply to wrestle with the sort of cognitive dissonance that has to be embraced for all of this to work. Jesus is the self-existent son of God. Well, no, he’s not. That’s not how this works. And the fact that they were struggling on these foundational things shows they’re not attached to the church

In history. This was dealt with folks in like third century, 2nd century and and we can go back before then too. We’re talking about when it was systematized. We’ve got statements from Ignatius who knew the apostles laying this stuff out and as time is progressing heretics are splintering being sectarians basically and this stuff got hammered out with more specificity. The whole point of the term trinity, the doctrine of the trinity is exactly that. It is to be very precise. The Adventist Church rejects it. I’m sorry. They do. They use all the same language. They do not

Believe the same thing. They reject divine simplicity. They reject the eternal procession of the son and the spirit from the father. Consistently speaking, they have to reject the onlogical oneness of God because again, you have Jesus being given an authority he didn’t possess. You’re referring to God as three powers. None of this stuff comports. It’s just at every step of the road, they don’t know what they’re talking about, and they’re trying to figure this stuff out. Yet, we’re supposed to believe this is who the true God raised up to restore his church. They didn’t

Even know who he was. They were espousing a bunch of damnable heresies. And oh, well, they got it cleaned up eventually, kind of. And that’s who God raised up to it. Just folks, at a certain point, you got to give it up. You got to give it up. Thank you for being here tonight. I hope that this was beneficial. I know it was an anomalous Sunday evening stream. This was great. If you’re an Adventist and you would like to do something similar and you’d like to challenge the claims that I have made or that you’ve heard from this platform, reach out to

Us and we can potentially get it set up in the same fashion. May Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by him and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah and Marinatha.