What Adventist Scholars Won’t Tell You About the Trinity | Part 1

Hey there. As always, thank you for being here, especially if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. So, once again, Dr. Dr. Jud Lake is making the rounds this time on the Adventist Pilgrimage podcast where a few weeks ago he and others were invited to engage some of the claims that I have made regarding the Trinity and Adventism’s unique view. Once again, our organizational reputation is implicitly called into question, which is why we are going to yet again bring out the sources and take as much time as needed to go over them

And show who is and isn’t misrepresenting things. When I commented on their video, their response was, “They weren’t engaging in apologetics.” No, no, no. They were just discussing Adventist history. So, we’re going to start from the very beginning, including their intro segment, because we need to hear something that is stated by Dr. Michael Campbell from the start. This will be a multi-part, more than likely three-part series. So, we will get into part one right now. Hey everybody, welcome to the Adventist Pilgrimage Podcast. We uh have got a pretty fun episode here today.

We’ve been going back and forth uh on a couple of different topics and directions. If you’ve been following us for the last few months, uh you’ve heard us giving some good uh thought to our early pioneers, guys like GI Butler and and some other ones like that. But today, we’re going to be going a little bit more into the thinking of our pioneers in terms of theology and in terms of specifically the doctrine of the trinity. Uh we’ve got lots of different material on this. A couple of different guests here are actually going to be part of the conversation. Um the

Eminent uh historian podcaster extraordinaire Mr. Matthew Lucio is here with us today as well as Dr. Jud Lake coming to us from Southern Adventist University uh just to kind of get all of our heads together a little bit and to talk about what the trinity has meant uh within the 7th Adventist faith since the early days on up to the present. Um, and given that this is a larger topic than even just the four people here, uh, this is got a lot of a lot of people talking already about it. Um, some of the folks out on YouTube have been going back and forth on these things and we’re going to

Be talking a little bit about some of that because part of the goal of our podcast is to both discover the unknown parts of Adventist history, but also to see how those parts of history apply to the present. So, we’re going to be talking Trinity, Trinitarian, uh, Pelagianism, and all these kinds of fun theological topics today, but we just kind of want to get things kicked off. Michael, what how are we going to play this one today? All those those those uh fancy words is making starting to make my head spin, so just want to say a warm welcome to Matthew and Jud. Wow, we’re

Going to have a great time. I think so. I think so. Thank you. Yeah. So, we’re going to look at some clips and we’re going to uh do a little bit of just kind of brief commentary. Does this really represent Adventism and what is the historical context? So, we just want to kind of uh just really look at these and just try to really understand and make sense of it. All right. So, notice what Michael Campbell said. They’re going to look at some clips and do a little bit of a brief commentary to see what does this really represent Adventism and what is the historical

Context. So gentlemen, when one of you told me that you aren’t doing apologetics, you’re only doing history. No, you’re not. You’re engaging in apologetics here. And this is about signaling out that answering Adventism is misrepresenting Adventism regarding two things. the Trinity and two the SDA pioneers on that subject. Now, like I said, one of these gentlemen reached out to me privately and because he requested that I not say who, on principle, I won’t. But yes, you guys are engaging in apologetics here, gentlemen. So, don’t act like you aren’t and claim that I was

Only an incidental part of this, that I was only used to to accompany you guys talking about Adventist history. No, it’s implicit in your claims that I’m misrepresenting. don’t know my stuff, etc. You are implicitly claiming that we are not a reliable organization and source of information and people should not listen to us. So to make sure that this is crystal clear, if you make claims about this organization and our credibility and you bear SDA scholarship credentials, you will be responded to every single time. Okay, Dr. Lake, you can keep making the rounds and we will

Too. You guys know that Answering Adventism is making a splash and our impact is only increasing. Our reach is growing. And folks on this side that have been here from the beginning know that I’ve always said that this is a marathon. Like I didn’t train 10 years for this to only run a couple miles, fellas. But Dr. Campbell, I’m not sure that all of you actually listened to the full video if I’m being perfectly honest with you. Because what we’re about to see is these four gentlemen actually prove the entire thesis of the video that they are clipping. You all would have been

Better, far better off actually responding to our presentation on the exact subject in focus, the Adventist pioneers and their denial of the Trinity. Not a presentation where the thesis was whether or not the heavenly trio is Orthodox Trinitarianism. Two totally different focuses and context. Because what you all would have seen is that the uh uh most of the claims that you guys are about to bring up in this stream regarding the pioneers and their views I’ve stated myself in that exact presentation. It’s four hours long. But to the audience, that’s what

Is stated as part of their goal with this video. It wasn’t just talking about SDA history. It was to analyze my claims and demonstrate that I’m misrepresenting both Adventism and SDA history. Remember this. All right, cool. And who’s our who’s our clips coming from here? Oh, we have uh we have some clips from a channel called Answering Adventism. And this first one is really going to set up uh set up the crux of our discussion. So, let’s hit that one. You are not one God because you have three individual persons, which they’re incorrectly defining or defining it differently. All

Right. Who are united in their mission, so therefore it’s one God. No, that’s not how it works. Okay. All right. This is coming to us from Miles Christian and making some claims um obviously about Trinity talking a little bit about what Adventism teaches uh how he thinks about it and he’s definitely of the opinion that Trinity as Adventists have taught it is not necessarily orthodox uh according to other Christian denominations. Now guys, obviously we’ve had a chance to talk about this a little bit, but just lead us into the discussion a little bit either Dr. Lake,

Matthew or Michael. Um, what is the doctrine of the trinity in the terms of abist pioneers? Uh, has it always been something that’s been rock solid? Have we worked through it? Have we evolved in how we do we change terms? Like what have we done with this topic? Yeah, I think uh I think there’s room for a lot of clarification here because you hear people talk about the avenist pioneers as being u Aryan or semi-ANA and you know we throw these terms around and it you know I think it’s worth exploring what do we mean by this and what did they actually believe

Because the claim here is that Adventists don’t believe in the trinity they believe in what he calls the heavenly trio which is not a phrase he invented of of course, but uh you saw in his diagram there that we believe basically basically in polytheism in three gods who are just united by one one purpose. And I don’t know about you guys, but when I heard that I thought, “Wow, that’s what I believe. That’s good to know.” I I did, you know, I thought I believed in the Trinity, but here I’m finding out I don’t actually believe in that. So, go figure. In fact, I don’t I don’t

Really know any avenists who very few of them maybe on Facebook, you know, like the Facebook friends types who uh who who don’t believe in the Trinity. Now, gentlemen, what’s funny about this is you guys played a 20 second clip completely ignoring that the language I used, even the analogy of what makes the Adventist God one is coming from Jerry Moon’s Quest for a Biblical Trinity paper, a document we proceeded to go through at great length to support what I was claiming. I mean, as a podcast that centers around SDA history, I think the chair of church history at Andrews

University, the flagship university, I think it’s a qualified source to site from, but also it would have done you all well to pay attention to the video you were clipping to make sure you understood the thesis. Because again, this video wasn’t about the historical development of your movement’s understanding of God. It was for Christians to explain to them where the rub is between Christian Orthodoxy and Adventism, which is precisely why it took two and a half hours of diving into specifics. But notice it was recognized. My claim is that what the SDA church

Calls the trinity is not orthodox trinitarianism. And this was followed by followed up by the question, has this understanding changed? Has it evolved over time, etc. Gentlemen, for starters, it isn’t according to other denominations that you guys aren’t Orthodox. You aren’t Orthodox because you’re out of sync with Christian Orthodoxy, namely the creeds. Because the creeds have authority. The creeds have authority. And what is set forth in the creeds, namely the Nying creed, is the baseline definition of the trinity. This is an objective fact because the two

Trinity and nice and creed are intrinsically tied together. Just do a study folks on the history of the word because the word’s not found in scripture. That’s not the point. It’s a summation statement to to not have to be long-winded every time you’re trying to explain. It’s a very succinct way with one word to say, “Oh, that so you believe that insert point point without having to go through and say all the points, which is why definitions matter.” And you can’t come along and do what the SDA church has done and just on the surface be like, “Well, we use all the same words, so

Therefore you can’t take umbrage with what we’re saying. It’s essentially trinitarian, as we’re about to see.” But this is also insight into your guys’ misdefining of solos scriptor, which also comes from Ellen White. Notice folks, quote, “Those who oppressed these followers of Christ called themselves Protestants, but they objured the fundamental principle of Protestantism, the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice.” Nope, that’s not solos scriptor because the same individuals that coined the phrase solos scriptor believed that the creeds were a

Barometer of Christian faith and practice. This is what solos scriptor means from Charles Haj’s systematic theology. Quote, all Protestants agree in teaching that the word of God as contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Close quote. Notice Ellen White left off the word infallible. Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, not the only rule outright because the creeds are a rule of faith and practice. They’re just not God breathed. But that doesn’t mean that

Because they’re not God breathed, they’re incorrect or they’re not biblical. They’re just not a part of canon. They’re not a part of what God has spoken his own words. But God absolutely led the church in the formulation of denunciation of heresy and everything that comes with that. But the SDA church’s own source documents state that Ellen White’s writings are also infallible. Individual Adventists can disagree with that all they want, but it doesn’t change the facts. What is contained in the creeds is not only biblical, but it’s foundational to the

Christian faith. And it is the creeds that put you guys outside of Orthodoxy, not some certain denomination determining if you are or not. But the question was asked if anything has changed in Adventism as it pertains to this doctrine. Now folks, if one goes and watches the stream that they’re clipping from, I not only recognize this, but it’s a core component of my objections. It doesn’t sound like these guys actually listen to them closely enough to catch why this is an issue on something as fundamental as the Trinity. This is a cardinal doctrine of

The Christian faith. Gentlemen, I understand you guys don’t see it that way, which is precisely the point. This is more important than esquetology and the Sabbath and young earth creationism and all the other distractions that Adventists are obsessed with. We’re talking about which God you worship. It’s like everything else flows down from that. If you have the wrong God, the rest of that stuff is null and void. Which segus us to Matthew’s uh comment there that my chart puts forth that they essentially believe in polytheism, that they believe in three gods that are just

United in one person. And Matthew, that is exactly correct, except you either didn’t fully watch as to why this was being visually represented that way, or you did and you’re ignoring that for some reason. We will circle back on my chart towards the end when Jed Lake will mention it as well. But then Matthew followed up by rhetorically saying, “Wow, that’s what I believe as an Adventist.” And here we see the lack of paying close enough attention. I’m on record repeatedly saying, gentlemen, repeatedly that our criticisms are levied at official SDA source materials

That bear the organizational stamp of approval in some form or capacity. It’s not about you and your own personal beliefs. I don’t know anything about you and your own personal beliefs. That’s not what that video had anything to do with. But friends, remember what my objections were in the clip. What were they? They only played like 20 seconds. They had nothing to do with Matthew or any individual Adventist. My objections were one, the SDA church defines person incorrectly, meaning not the same way that Christians do. Because again, remember the whole thesis of that video

Was they don’t believe the same thing that Christians do organizationally. And the second objection in that small clip was the SDA church defines the oneness of God incorrectly. Now, it was demonstrated in that video, but we’re going to go even deeper on this tonight and look at a plethora and mountain of other sources that weren’t even brought up in that video. We’re also going to be looking at Jerry Moon’s paper yet again, the same source that I used for the language that was used in that clip. And this highlights one of of my other primary objections that that is a stone in my

Apologetic edifice. The SDA church uses Christian language but does not define it the same way. I mean, I’m on record saying this over and over and over again. So unless these gentlemen are going to get into the specifics about definitions and not just do the the superficial lip service to using certain words doesn’t matter. And if definitions don’t matter then I can just start saying I’m all sorts of things. I’m a seventh day Adventist except I don’t go to church on Saturday and I don’t believe in young earth creationism. I actually believe in

Old earth. And every Adventist would say you’re not a Seventh Day Adventist. Yeah I am because words don’t matter. I can just define them however I want. Right? Notice a comment that this user left on their video. He wrote or she, whichever. Quote, “I’ve been in the SDA church for 45 plus years now, now out. And the issues that Miles answering Adventism has raised are based on factual historical information that this group avoids.” Miles makes clear he’s not attacking every individual member’s personal beliefs. He’s dealing with the published documents by the founders and SDA

Scholars. You guys go back and forth between schoolyard tactics of simply smearing Miles to straight out nonsense on what the documents actually say. If you have all the facts on your side, then meet with Miles with uh a little bit of a typo there. I just left it how they wrote it. Then meet with Miles on a neutral channel such as the SDA Q&A where the documents can be reviewed and you can explain how Miles is incorrect. Either the SDA has the most terrible history in knowing how to communicate or the documents straightforward reading is what was

Intended. SDA church has a fundamental belief that Ellen White is an authority. She makes statements that are terrible and anti-gosspel. Either defend them or condemn them. But stop this enlightened reading and reinterpretation of all the words that make laughable claims. She meant something totally different from what she meant. Until you guys, SDA church are willing to face the critical review of your doctrines, you cannot be taken seriously. Now we can be sloppy is the latest excuse. Ridiculous excuses from a denomination that has all truth.

Folks, this is a person that’s listening. Thank you, friend. You get it. And praise God for your freedom from slavery in uh Adventist Egypt and that God has added you to the convoy as Jesus leads us to the better promised land. But this is spoton. Spot. And much of it will make even more sense as we get further into this. Nothing Matthew Lucio said actually engages with my objections in the clip that they played because my source for both claims that the personhood and oneness of God are misdefined is based on claims from Pope Ellen herself who claimed to have been

Revealed this stuff in vision from God himself which Jerry Moon even recognizes and we look at in the stream that they’re clipping from. As for the claim that only fringe SDAs on Facebook reject the Trinity, like Matthew, what a silly claim. So now you’re just going to throw your own crew under the bus. Adventists love doing this. You know, we’re not we’re not those hyper fringe, hyperconservative Adventists anymore. You Oh, you mean like literally all the people the Adventist church puts on TV?

H again, this is a common approach that’s often employed. They know that these people exist amongst their movement. So they have to try and distance themselves from them, but at the same time they have the great controversy theme, the God particle, the theory of everything, the antidote to theological division. They’re not part of Babylon. They were raised up as the bastion of unity out of Babylon. Mhm. Except for all those Adventists on Facebook. You’re kidding yourself, dude. I know tons of Adventists that are hopping on board either either recently

Or have been for years and years and years. They’re in the camp where they reject the heavenly trio. They reject trinitarianism, too. And some of them I’ve talked to actually recognize and understand, yeah, what the Adventist church has developed into it ain’t trinitarianism. You know, these guys claim to be a part of mainstream Adventism, which is basically rule by adopulum. And since they are the majority, everyone else in the fringe, you know, everyone else is a fringe whacker doodle that doesn’t represent real Adventism. They all claim to be

Real Adventism. I love how Peter Dixon over on the SDA Q&A, he’s on this like scavenger hunt where he just brings all these Adventists on there and he’s like, I’m trying to find like where can I find what the real Adventist is? Everyone I talk to, you all disagree. You all have crazy beliefs that do not overlap. They do not align. And yet, you all tell me you’re the real Adventist. I mean, what an arc this movement is on. Folks, this was a movement that raised up. And they knew exactly who they were. They were unashamed. They were bold. They had a

Prophet. They had a spirit of prophecy. And that was the hallmark that they were the true group at the end that God raised up. And now here we are, and it’s just this big tent. and we don’t really know what an Adventist is. It’s just what does an Adventist mean to you? And yeah, okay, we saw this the last time we responded to Jud Lake. If you recall, he did the same thing. He made it seem like my objections are only applicable to some loose screwed Adventist, you know, in his ascension gown off in the corner somewhere. Gentlemen, again, you guys

Allegedly have the theological God particle, the theory of everything, the mind of God, the antidote to theological division. That’s Herbert Douglas, not me. Is he some fringe crackpot off in the corner now somewhere? It’s not even just him saying it. It’s not like it’s just in his Heartbeat of Adventism book is in Ministry magazine. The organization’s publishing this stuff. People are signing off on this stuff, sending this out to hundreds of people, thousands of people. You guys aren’t supposed to have any theological division. That’s supposed to be a hallmark of Babylon,

Which your movement is supposedly not a part of, and you’re the remnant out of that. But let’s see if they actually engage with the objections I raised before we look at the sources for my objections. Okay. Okay. What what that’s that’s interesting you say it that way because that brings up the idea of if we don’t think of it that way, do we somehow mean it differently? Like what’s what’s the source here that we should be talking about when it comes to our doctrinal position? Well, when you you look back in in Adventist history and particularly Ellen

White, the emphasis has been on the relational nature of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit in relationship. And Ellen White, that is her emphasis on the relational trinity. She’s not attempting to to set forth the trinity ontologically. uh she’s more focused in a practical way on the work of the triune God in the plan of redemption. However, that does not preclude or deny the oneness of God. Okay. So, it was asked, do Adventists mean something differently when they say trinity? Yes, they do, as we will see in a moment. But Dr. Like

Everything you said right there I say in the stream that you listen to 20 seconds of. I mean we looked at Jerry Moon’s footnotes where he cites who you’re citing from Fernando Canal and Fritz Guy and their warning that if there’s an overemphasis put on the relational aspect over and against the ontological unity of the Adventist heavenly trio it leaves the door open for tritheism. However, this doesn’t get you guys out of trouble because when the Christian church when the Christian church talks of the oneness of God in being, that also includes one will, one energy, one

Authority, one power, etc. For example, and we just looked at these the other night, by the way. First, let’s look at Augustine and his day trinitat or on the trinity book two. And you know, we had all sorts of Adventists that commented on that video saying all sorts of stuff about the church fathers. And it’s like it really helps if you listen because I stated why I was citing these individuals. There’s all sorts of people I could cite from on this. I’m simply citing individuals that do align with trinitarian theology because it’s not a spectrum. is not some

General term where you can have all sorts of concepts of the trinity out there which is what these guys are trying to put forth because they have to do that to then be able to hitch their wagon to the term. It can’t be hyper specific and very specific which is exactly why the term was coined dealing with heresy and being very specific about what the Christian church believes. No, no, no. It has to be this vague general thing where there can be all sorts of concepts out there. So I am citing the fathers here to simply show you this isn’t me just saying

This quote the purpose of all the Catholic or universal commentators I’ve been able to read on the divine books referring to scripture of both testaments who have written before me on the trinity which God is has been to teach that according to the scriptures according to what scripture Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the inseparable equality of one substance present a divine uni unity and are therefore not three gods but one God. Close quote. Very clean cut. This was the fourth century. Trying God is not just one in a mission and a purpose but also substant uh

Substantally jumping up to the 8th century John of Damascus he explains what Christians mean regarding the being or essence of God. 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 hypoasis, meaning 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. That’s what Christians mean. If Adventists want to say, well, that’s the church fathers and well, you’re just proving the point, right? If you disagree with them, you don’t believe the Christian position, which is the entire point. We it doesn’t matter if you reject them in this context. All that does is prove the point because this is the Christian belief. Whether you think it’s biblical or not is irrelevant. It is biblical and it is from scripture because these these terms like hypostasis, us etc. are biblical

Terms. But by one being we are referring to the actual state of existence, the essence. There’s one power, one energy, one authority, etc. Not three of those that resemble one another, but one singular being expressed through three persons. A lot of people when they think of the word being, they think of like a human being. But human is a descriptor of my state of existence. There’s not three of those. We will see how their system does not comport with this in a moment. But he said Ellen White’s focus was on the practical oneness in relation to the

Adventist heavenly trio and their role in the plan of salvation. And Dr. Lake, this is why you should have to use your own word that you said to me. Listen more comprehensively. This is what you told me. If I need to if I’m going to critique Adventism, I need to to be more comprehensively read. And then you held up Salvation Contours of Adventology, which I own. because that is something I highlighted in the video that you’re responding to. Again, first folks, notice from Jerry Moon’s paper, quote, “The conceptual key that unlocks the puzzle of Ellen White’s

Developmental process regarding the Godhead is the discovery that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief. one based on scripture alone and one based on scripture as interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy. The same hermeneutic that brought the immortality of the soul into Christian theology. The concept of God that is explicit in her writings portrays the father, son, and holy spirit as three eternal persons of intellect, will and emotions who are united in character, purpose, and love. There’s no conflict among them. No

Working at cross purposes, no competition, not even disagreement. Thus, they are not three gods as in polytheism or tritheism, but one. And then again, he reiterates in the conclusion of the paper, 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 credle 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 notice he says that the key to unlocking the puzzle of Ellen White’s doctrinal development in this area is what discovery? that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief. And he compares the Christian teaching with the Adventist

Teaching by claiming that the Adventist one is biblical, whereas what Christians believe is philosophical and not biblical. Total nonsense. But he then explains that part of why the SDA church rejects the language found in the Nison creed is because the Adventist teaching is that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have physical forms, which is what they mean by the term person when they say God is three persons. That isn’t what Christians mean. And for those unaware, Moon talks about Ellen’s I saw the lovely Jesus vision in his paper. This vision was

Supposed uh supposed to be to confirm to the movement that God indeed does have a physical body because Ellen saw Jesus and asked him this herself if God the Father has a physical form like himself. To which he supposedly said yes, but if you were to behold it, you would cease to exist. Which this shows, no, the SDA organizational position isn’t trinitarian, which again was the entire thesis of the video that you guys clipped. You should have used the other video, gentlemen. and criticized or critiqued my my use of of walking through Adventist history, but it

Wouldn’t have worked for your your claims here because you’re literally just reiterating a bunch of things I’ve said myself, which makes me wonder if you’ve actually heard the objections. And this is the problem I have with these guys. Just own that you guys mean something different. Stop trying to act like you believe the same thing we do when very clearly you don’t. I get so tired of the silly runaround where they just use the same words. They know they don’t define those words the same way, but then they act offended when you point this out. No, it’s dishonest and it confuses

People. And instead of owning that, they try and change the definition, making it more broad and generalized when it’s actually very specific, and then try and and say their, you know, broadening of the term is now the correct definition. No, doesn’t work that way. But at the tail end of his claim, Dr. Lake said, “The relational unity of the heavenly trio does not preclude their ontological oneness.” Dr. Lake, I I again, I literally said that in the video you guys are clipping from because you’re just paring Jerry Moon’s paper. But nevertheless, remember what

We read from Augustine and and John of Damascus. By one being Christians mean one will, one mode of existence, one power, one authority, etc. These scholars want us to believe that Adventists believe in the same God as Christians. So their authoritative source documents should reflect this then. Correct? Spirit of Prophecy Volume 2, page 9. 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 uh 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. No, this isn’t compatible with Orthodox Trinitarianism. Jesus was not and is not next in authority to God the Father, who is the great lawgiver. For starters, this is prior to the incarnation. And Ellen has Jesus eternally subordinate to the Father, which could get us down a whole trail of talking about eternal functional subordination and ESS and the differences there, etc.,

Which essentially says that the word has eternally been subordinate or of a possessing of less authority if you will than the father. But on top of that, that isn’t co-equality and authority and power ontologically in the heavenly trio. The father is a greater authority here. Furthermore, this is one of her many many statements where she says Jesus is in the express image of God the father, not just in features but character. For those that are regulars, you know that this is in reference to God the Father having a physical body. Something else we’ll look at later with regards to

How they define person. Another quote, we look at this all the time. Quote, God is the father of Christ. Christ is the son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He’s been made equal with the Father. All the councils of God are open to his son. Close quote. This is said in the chapter where Ellen White is literally discussing the way that the heavenly trio is one. After citing Hebrews 1 regarding Jesus taking his throne, she says, “Christ has been given an exalted position and was made equal with the father. There is no way to make this

Compatible with the onlogical unity of God.” I am sorry, gentlemen. You can try and say it’s all this, you know, cryptic and impossible to understand without an approved SDA handler there to hold our hand and walk us through it, but it doesn’t change the facts. Christ was not given an exalted position and made equal with the father. Made equal, gentlemen. The statement does not comport with trinitarianism. Do you all denounce this as heretical? Is this not considered authoritative? The woman codified in your fundamental beliefs as divinely inspired who received visions allegedly

Confirming your guys’s understanding in not just this area but this area included. And even if you want to try and take it and go the route of no no, she’s talking there about after the incarnation. That was only as a man that he was exalted and made equal with God the Father, which is one of the other defenses given for this. Okay, here’s prior to the creation of the earth and the incarnation. very beginning very beginning about the the fall of of Satan in this pre-earth origin story chapter 1 very beginning quote Satan in heaven before his rebellion was

A high and exalted angel next in honor to God’s dear son yeah no his countenance like those of the other angels was mild and expressive of happiness his forehead was high and broad showing a powerful intellect 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 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. Close quote. For those that do not know, this is one of the books that went on to be become essentially the great controversy. She says Satan was next in authority to Jesus, meaning Satan was higher in rank than the Holy Spirit, who at this time they didn’t even believe was a person. Whoops. But she says the Adventist Jesus was one with the father before the angels were around. Ah, so the Adventist Jesus was there before the angels were. For those that watch the funeral stream of the pioneers, you know that at that time of

Of writing this, their belief was that Jesus was brought into existence, not created, not created, but he had a beginning. But he was brought into existence at a point so far back that it’s practically eternal. But just because that was the case doesn’t mean that the Adventist Jesus in this narrative was ontologically equal with God the father. We already saw in part two of the same book. Jesus was next in authority to the great lawgiver. And here we see that she says this is what triggered Lucifer to become Satan and start the great controversy.

Command was devolved to Christ from the father. The word devolved means authority or power given from a higher rank to a subordinate lower ranking authority. Which is why she then goes on in the very next paragraph to describe this further. We’ve looked at this about 5 million times. Quote, “The great creator assembled the heavenly host that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his son. The son was seated on the throne with the father and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The father then made known that it was

Ordained by himself that Christ his son should be equal with himself. So that wherever was the presence of his son, it was as his own presence. The word of the son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the father. His son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was his son to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. The father’s will would be fulfilled in him. Close quote.

Prior to the incarnation, before the earth was even created, supposedly the Adventist Jesus had special honor conferred on him and he was made equal with the father. He was invested with the authority over the angels of heaven. He did not always possess this authority. It’s like to try and claim that invested means he always had it. Made equal means he always was. It’s not only desperate, but it’s pathetic. And that’s the defense that the Adventists try to give to this. It’s so silly. They try to retrofit their current church’s understanding which their own scholars

Re re recognize. Well, what we believed early on and what the pioneers believed and there were some rocky roads and what we believe now isn’t what the pioneers, you know, are actually saying. And there’s actually multiple understandings of the Trinity and Ellen White’s writings. So you’ll get Adventists that won’t own this that at this time, yes, that is what they believed. Yes, this is what they taught. Not this idea that, well, when she says he was made equal, it means he always possessed it. No, you’re retrofitting and trying to anacronistically redefine

History. After this was given to Jesus, he was to be obeyed as though it were the father giving the command because now they had the same authority. And this made Satan jealous and he began to rebel. Not at all compatible with the onlogical unity of the one true God. Fellas, I’m sorry. Again, John of Damascus, John of Damascus is quote, put forth what Christians mean by one being that includes one authority, not a greater and lesser one to then invest into one making it the same. But furthermore, gentlemen, why why would God the Father need to assemble all of the angels to

Let them know this information when the angels know that the triune God, Father, Son, and Spirit is their creator. And this brings us to yet another crucial juncture that evidences the SDA church is not trinitarian. Because the other thing that John of Damascus was getting at in his quote was what is called the doctrine of inseparable operations which is the belief that within the act of creation and redemption, father, son, and spirit act inseparably. Not like a team or or like a band that cooperates together. You know, like a band has different members

That all come together for a a specific cause or goal and then cooperate together to create an end goal or end product like a song. Now, the Triune God literally acts as a single being. A team is not a single being, but that’s what your guys’ website says. And as we’re going to see in one of the later parts when we get later into their video and probably part two, you’re going to see how they try and and use this silly excuse that, well, you know, theologians didn’t put our website together and I know we have damnable blasphemous heresy on our website, but cut us some slack,

Man. Just crazy. But in your guys’s great controversy paradigm, God the Father called all the angels together to let them know that Jesus, who’s also their creator, was now to be obeyed as though it was if the father were giving the command, even though the one true God is father, son, and spirit. All right? It’s fine if you guys want to de dismiss all of that as tech uh, you know, all of that technical stuff, you know, as Greek and pagan philosophy or what have you, but it doesn’t change the facts. doesn’t change the facts. Later on in the same

Book, quote, “Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could by causing man’s fall pull down the Son of God from his exalted position.” He told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man’s nature, he could overpower him and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation. Close quote. So, Satan allegedly rejoiced when man fell because he knew this allowed him to pull down Jesus from what? His exalted position, which as we just saw is what triggered his jealousy in the first place, leading to the great controversy allegedly even starting. Again, Darkness

Before Dawn, page two. quote, “Instead of seeking to make God supreme in the affections and allegiance of his creatures, it was Lucifer’s endeavor to win their service and homage to himself and coveting the honor which the infinite father had bestowed upon his son.” This prince of angels aspired to power which it was the prerogative of Christ alone to wield.” Close quote. Over and over and over again, the same thing is being said. Jesus was bestowed with honor from an infinite who father. The father’s the infinite one. And he bestowed honor on the adventist Jesus

Which led to Lucifer becoming jealous and coveting that honor since he was next in authority to Jesus and he wanted to be the one that was exalted. But Ellen White claimed to be shown this stuff from God. Not that this is just some beautiful sounding novel that’s just, you know, a supplement for people to feel loveydovey about the Adventist Jesus. No, this is all allegedly a peak behind the curtain to what was going on in heaven before the earth was created. And it allegedly gives the SDA church special insight into the fabric of reality at a level that no one else

Has. You guys do mean something different when you use the word trinity. You guys do mean something different when you say three persons. which has been my entire contention all along. But Dr. Lake, everything you said so far, I state in the video you guys clipped, nothing that you said disproves the two objections that you guys heard me mention. To reiterate, one, person is defined differently, which is a major issue. And two, the oneness of God is incorrectly defined. And even with Fernando Canal’s caveat that it doesn’t preclude a oneness of ontology, well,

Now you have problems because that’s going to contradict your prophetus when she’s talking about a greater and a lesser authority and authority being devolved and given and exaltation and all this stuff. It’s like on the one hand, you guys want to give lip service to orthodoxy, but at the same time, you’re stuck having to uphold the great controversy fiction. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways. You either embrace orthodoxy, which is biblical, and reject Ellen White and the great controversy lie, or you defend and stand by Ellen White and reject

Orthodoxy and what scripture teaches. You can’t have it both ways. The two do not fit together. And as Jerry Moon also points out in the paper that we looked at, the Adventist development in understanding the Godhead came by way of Ellen White and her visions.

Quote, “In previous research, I have traced the development of the Adventist doctrine of God from opposition to the Trinity doctrine as traditionally formulated to acceptance of the biblical concept of one God and three persons. I’ve also traced the clear progression in Ellen White’s visions from 1850 onward, showing that her visions gradually formed her concept of God until 1890 or until by 1898. When she published Desire of Ages, she held a trinitarian concept. Close quote. It wasn’t Bible study that formed her view. It was supposed visions. So Christian, don’t fall for it when

They claim that all their doctrines come from exhaustive, you know, deep Bible study. They’re just, oh man, they just they study the Bible so much more than everyone else. They’re just, wow, it’s just incredible. Just no one else actually reads the Bible. They really read the Bible. And because of that, they were rewarded with all this extra light that God gave them through Ellen White, who could confirm the things they were studying in scripture. Moon admits in this paper that the current Adventist understanding, the current understanding was informed by this doctrinal

Development that he traces in the paper and it was influenced by Ellen’s alleged visions. And what does he say by 1898? That she held to a trinitarian concept. not the trinity but a trinitarian concept. These guys essentially admit and and go on to say this themselves later on. And since this movement likes to appeal to Protestantism in this area, just to really make sure our bases are covered, let’s look at some uh sources with regard to this that show the Protestant response to sex like Adventism. Notice John Calvin here. This is from his French confession. He

Writes, quote, “These holy scriptures teach us that in this one soul and simple divine essence whom we’ve confessed, there are three persons, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, first cause, principle, and origin of all things. The Son, his word, and eternal wisdom. The Holy Spirit, his virtue, power, and efficacy. The Son begotten from eternity by the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from them both. the three persons not confused, but distinct and yet not separate, but of the same essence, equal in eternity and power. And in this we confess that which

Has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sex and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors such as St. Hillary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, and St. Serill. Close quote. Amen. Superbased take by John Calvin. Equal in power and authority. Not Jesus being given more authority and power to be made equal with the father. No, Adventists are not heirs of the reformation in any way, shape or fashion from the Belgic confession. Article nine, the scriptural witness of the trinity. This is the tail end of the article which summarizes what

Was said previously. Quote, “This doctrine of the holy trinity was always or has always been maintained in the true church from the time of the apostles until the present against Jews, Muslims and certain false Christians and heretics such as Marian, Monty, Praius, Selius, Paul of Samoda, Aras and others like them who were rightly condemned by the holy fathers. And so in this ma in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds the apostles nyin and aanation as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them always maintained did not need reworked or

Rethought in the 19th century by a bunch of sectarians who up and deemed themselves to be the true return you know to the bible and then had a woman who received a bunch of visions to steer their development of a trinitarian concept. concept. And well, God showed her early on one concept. And well, as she started to better develop over time, there was a different concept that he showed her. And man, the Adventist God is the most abysmal communicator in the world. The Trinity is fundamental to the Christian faith as defined in the Petristic era, not your own personal

Definition informed by a worldview that was concocted in the 19th century. It’s like you don’t just get to up and use the term and then entirely redefine it. 39 articles Anglican confession quote there’s but one living and true God everlasting without body parts or passions basically just meaning that God’s emotions are not like you can be in a good mood in the morning and then you know an hour later you’re in a horrible mood and then you’re in an okay mood and then in a bad mood again etc. God’s not like that. That’s what it means by passions of infinite power, wisdom, and

Goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed virgin of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, hypothetic union, never to be

Divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried to reconcile his father to us and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt but also for actual sins of men. one power, no authority given to the son from the father like in the great controversy narrative which is more authorative more authoritative than any individual SDA scholar. But also notice something else that’s vital in this folks. The 39 articles speak of the hypothetic union. The two natures of Christ united in the single person 100% man 100% God to never

Be divided mixed etc. This is coming from the Nying creed. Adventists do not teach this about Christ. And here’s why. They claim he set his divine nature aside while on earth. And we’ve looked at this before. This is from the paragraph on the page where they bold the letters. In the paragraph before saying this, Jesus is 100% man, 100% God. Then literally in the next paragraph they say Philippians 2 6-8 says that even though Jesus is God, he set his divine nature aside and took on human nature. So they give the kosis interpretation of Philippians 2 which is

Incompatible with the hypothetic union after claiming it’s like they inherited this sort of thinking from Ellen White because that’s exactly what she would do. She’ll say one thing and then literally the next paragraph she just contradicts herself. But even with that aside, what does the SDA church teach about death? The Adventist Jesus set his divine nature aside. He was only a man while on earth. And what does the Adventist church teach about death? That you essentially cease to exist. Your properties of humanity such as consciousness entirely cease. You

Only exist as a memory in the mind of God who remembers your character perfectly to then infuse it into a new body that he will make for the righteous in the future. So when the Adventist Jesus died, he ceased to exist for three days. He was only a man on earth. He had no conscious activity for three days, which flies in the face of the hypothetic union. There’s no division at that level. You would have had a division in the hypothetic union. So even on that page where they try to pay lip service to it, they don’t see how it doesn’t even comport with the rest of their

System. Like Adventist theology, folks, is not an integrative system. It It’s not a system where the people that concocted this up actually understood how certain doctrines impact other doctrines. It’s just this big grab bag of all over the place. And then when they get criticized and get criticism, oh, they scramble and they come up and like they try and put a bunch of band-aids and fix things and tape it up. Okay, now we fixed it. And they’ve done that in like 500 areas. And now it’s just even worse than it was when they I mean the people in the movement who say

We need to go back to the pioneers. Yeah, you do. You do if you want to be consistent. They’re more consistent than present day Adventism, which is a mess. I mean, it was a mess back then, but it’s even worse now because they try and talk out of both sides of their mouth. But in harmony with this same use of Philippians 2, this is after the desire of ages, gentlemen. After the desire of ages, which Jud Lake, Jerry Moon, and others appeal to to say it was by that point the Adventist church had everything sorted out. Quote, “The eternal word gave

Himself, he did not aspire to be equal with God. Did not meditate a usurpion of the throne of the universe. See Philippians 2. 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.” Think what? 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 to the

Universe to 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 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. Ah, so the Adventist Jesus took on an angelic nature, not just the role of a

Messenger. You know, they love to say, “No, no, no. The Adventist church has never taught that Jesus was an angel, just that he was an angel in the sense of the term the angel means messenger.” Yeah. No. They’re saying here in Signs of the Times, an angelic nature. He took on an angel nature and became Michael the archangel. And he did this allegedly to try and save the angels that rebelled, but they rejected him. So then he took on the nature of a man seeking to redeem humanity. And in doing so, like we saw from the website, 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 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 host 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 man, his name befitted the nature which he took by virtue of his birth into our human family. That name was Emmanuel, 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 humanity to the universe or harmony to the universe, that name must indicate that God is in him and with him on the very plain and

The very nature of the class of beings to whom he is 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 he preserved in the name that he bears as an angel. Close quote. I I mean, come on, man. Wow. Same thing is said here. And this demonstrates that even when this organization uses the word God, they

Don’t mean the same thing Christians do. That as an angel with an angelic nature, Jesus was still God on that plane. And they utilize the same interpretation of Philippians 2, like I said, that we just saw on their website to this day to try and support this heresy in this issue of Signs of the Times, just like they did in the previous year. On top of that, as if that isn’t bad enough, from the Seventh Adventist belief, fundamental beliefs book, quote, Jesus asserted his omnipresence with the asurances, lo, I 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 ability of omnipresence, the incarnate Christ has voluntarily limited himself in this respect. He’s chosen to be omnipresent through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-18. Close quote. So the Adventist Jesus isn’t truly omnipresent. By taking on the nature of humanity, he limited himself in this capacity. And of course, this is ultimately coming from Ellen White. Quote, “The Holy Spirit is Christ’s

Representative, but divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. Cumbered 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 lo of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the spirit, the savior would be accessible to all. In this sense, he would not he would be nearer to them than if he had not ascended on high. Close quote. So, she contradicts herself here

Because like Jerry Moon recognized in his paper and we’ve looked at before, she 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. Close quote or or begin quote sorry. In the 1890s when she became convinced of the individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal 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 mind.” Close quote. But in Desire of Ages, she claims that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative in his physical absence and is divevested of personality of humanity. The same thing found in the fundamental belief book. None of this stuff, gentlemen. None of it comports with trinitarianism. And this is only scratching the surface for the sake of time. And until you guys are ready to denounce the signs, sign of the time,

Signs of the times, Ellen White, your own church’s website, and a mountain of other primary source documents, this problem will persist, and I will continue to make the claims that I have for myself. Um, the Trinity is something that was always very clear in my mind from the very onset of my Christian experience. Um, I grew up in the United Methodist Church and I remember uh singing the doxology, praise, father, son, and holy spirit. And so when I became an Adventist as as a young man, um it just it was a concept that that while I certainly couldn’t explain in all its

Details and nuances, it it was there. And as I have grown in my Adventist experience and study of scripture and Ellen White and just thinking about this great subject, uh the idea that um I would be a tritheist is just something I could not comprehend. Um I’ve always understood the oneness of God. In fact, that’s probably the best way to describe it is is this basic trinitarianism at its very basic level. You have the oneness of God and the threeness of God in in a divine tension relationship. God God is one one God. Yeah. But God is three. Yeah. Three persons, one being.

Dr. Lake, it’s fascinating that you mentioned growing up in the Methodist church and understanding the Trinity because of that. Like we looked at in the video Dr. Lake is responding to again from Jerry Moon’s paper documenting the doctrinal development of the Adventist heavenly trio in contrast to orthodox trinitarianism. Quote in maintaining that the father and the son are two distinct literal tangible persons. James White certainly did not doubt that God is spirit. John 4:24. 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. Meaning if they don’t have a physical body, they must be unreal and 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 early Adventists quoted fairly often was that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Ellen White’s Church of Origin. That creed says in part, “There’s but one living and true God, everlasting without body

And parts.” This the early Adventists vigorously refuted, citing several biblical passages that portrayed God as having both body and parts. Close quote. Folks, Ellen White’s understanding and teaching on the heavenly trio was different than what she was taught in the Methodist church. Her along with all the po pioneers, they didn’t understand divine simplicity, another uh key aspect that we’re going to look at later regarding trinitarianism. And they didn’t understand what the Nying creed means when it says God is not made up of body or parts. That he’s a simple being,

Meaning he’s not 50% love, 20% holy, 5% almighty, etc. Nor can he be pieced apart like a human who, you know, I have two ears, two eyes, a mouth, a nose. These are all composite pieces that when brought together make a human being. God’s not like that. You can’t piece God apart like that. But Dr. Lake, Ellen White was allegedly shown this stuff from the one true God himself, who showed her that the Methodist teaching was wrong. Yet that’s what you appeal to for your own personal understanding. She literally reports. Well, we’re going to get to it here in a moment. Ellen

White’s doctrinal development is what informs the SDA church’s official position, not yours. Moon continues in the same paper. Quote, in 1850, she reported, “I’ve often seen the lovely Jesus that he is a person.” There’s that word person. I asked him if the father was a person and had a form like himself. Instead, Jesus, I’m in the express image of my father’s person. Thus, her visions confirmed, her visions confirmed what her husband had written in 1846 that the father and the son are two distinct literal tangible persons. The visions also disprove to her mind the claim of

The Methodist creed that God is without body or parts. Thus, these early visions steered her developing view of God away from credle trinitarianism, though they offered nothing directly contrary to her later statements of what I’ve called biblical trinitarianism. Close quote. So, Dr. Leg’s prophetus claims she was shown God the Father and Son both have physical bodies by nature, which is what they mean by the term persons. But notice Moon also points out that these visions, not the Bible, but visions, steered her developing view of God away from orthodox

Trinitarianism. So, Dr. Lake, if you embrace what Methodists do about the Trinity, you have a serious problem here because you guys claim Ellen White’s function and role was that of confirmation. Your pioneers were studying the Bible, we’re told. They claimed the Nying creed was wrong and that they could point to all sorts of passages where God was shown to have both body and parts. And then to confirm this that they were correct, Ellen supposedly received a vision and direct access to speak straight to Jesus face to face where she asked him and he told

Her this was true which gave you guys the divine confirmation your movement that the nine creed is incorrect. He said basic trinitarian trinitarianism in its very basic level. You have the oneness of God and the threeness of God in a divine tension relationship. This is why the creeds exist. Now that isn’t trinitarianism. Put simply. Put simply, the triune God is one being that exists in uh as three co-eternal and co-equal persons, namely the father, son, and the spirit. The triune God is one being that exists as three co-eternal co-equal persons

Namely the father the son and the spirit and defining those terms God being person foundational not a divine a divine tension relationship at first heard I’m like what are you talking about dude It’s like, who even knows what that’s supposed to mean? And I like Dr. Lake. He’s a nice guy. It’s been a while since I’ve I’ve really seen him or talked to him, but it’s just like he he has a a a running track record of just saying these sort of like theological word salads. It’s just like what? Like when he said Jesus is was the it’s like the story of the

Great controversy, he said is the is really the true underdog story. Like what? Jesus was the underdog to Satan. Wow. Wow. But this is the irony of all of this, gentlemen. The entire purpose of Nika was to clarify with precise specificity what Christians mean by these terms because that’s what was needed. The heretics were using all similar language. It’s like folks just study the second, third, fourth centuries. Just study. They were all using the same language. So specificity was needed to really make clear what’s being said because it matters. Not just

That you’re saying all the right words. But they want to try and say, well, the trinity is really just a general term and they basically are trinitarian because of that. No, totally backwards. My entire point has been that definitions matter, not simply using the right words. And all we got here was more of that. Dr. Lake forcefully saying, you know, God is one, but God is three. That tells us nothing. That doesn’t tell us anything. And if you guys don’t want to hear the charge of tritheism, then get more specific and stop just using Christian language. Define for the

Audience what you guys mean by the words person and being and God. But then notice the final statement there from Matthew. Three persons, one being. friend Matthew, this is where you come to a fork in the road. Okay, quote, “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, 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 in 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. It’s the great controversy. Page 493. Jesus was the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the councils and purposes of God. So the father’s a distinct being and the son is a distinct being. Furthermore,

When Adventists try and point here to claim, see, she said they have the same nature. Yeah. Well, we just saw where this organization’s claiming that Jesus had an angelic nature. So the father and the holy spirit also have angelic natures. I guess total mess of confusion. This is why I’m so harsh on this organization, gentlemen, because we’re supposed to believe that all of this is divinely inspired. Selected messages, book three, page 122, paragraph 2. This book is supposed to be great controversy. Is one of the books that’s supposed to be barricaded by a thus sayeth the

Lord. It allegedly bears the stamp of the one true God himself. Yet, this whole narrative, specifically this part of the story line, completely contradicts who the one true God is. Jesus wasn’t given access to some special councils that he didn’t previously have access to. Yet, this is what she claims was part of what he gained in his exaltation to be made equal with the father, which made Lucifer jealous. Signs of the Times 1900 after Desire of Ages supposed to all be ironed out by this point. Quote, Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent son of God.

In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. Close quote. Yet, no, no, Christ is not self-existent. That’s what the term being encompasses, mode of existence. Father, son, and spirit are the single self-existence. Yet, Ellen White says Jesus is self-existent, which would mean that he has his own being, the father has his own being, etc. Hebrews 1 explains Jesus is the radiance of the father similarly to what light is from the sun. The light proceeds from the sun and is substantively the same. But it can’t

Exist apart from the source. So think of Jesus like the light rays proceeding from the source, the sun. You can’t have the rays without the source. The rays are not self-existent by themselves. But even though the sun is the source of the light, the sun cannot be the sun without the light proceeding um or the light that is produced also being present and proceeding from it to be what it is. So the father’s the son in this analogy here the su n the son the s o n the word is the radiance of the father but the father cannot be the father without the son

Think about that how how are you a father without in this case the son you wouldn’t be both are dependent upon one another a father isn’t a father without the son which is why god the father has eternally been a because his son eternally proceeds from him. And this is why the Nying creed says light from light, God of true God. And the church fathers had a far better understanding of scripture than Ellen White and the SDA pioneers. You guys are free to disagree with that. But the point remains the same. The SDA organization does not mean the same

Thing Christians do in this area. Period. speaking about the heavenly trio at an Adventist baptism in 1906 after the desire of ages. Quote, “Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in. After your baptism, you’re baptized into the na in the name of the Father and 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 sanction and 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 and God close quote beings plural. again in the Australian Union Conference record in 1907 after the desire of ages. Quote, “Those who have by baptism given to God a pledge of their faith in Christ and their death to 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 or efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus.” Close quote. Three powers plural. No, gentlemen. I’m sorry. Your organization’s not

Trinitarian because this is an authoritative source possessing more authority than any of you guys individually. Your guys’s own private views, etc. are not what this platform is about, nor what the video is about that you clipped. And Ellen White holds more authority than you guys and your own private views which contradict her allegedly desp uh divinely inspired ones. So you either need to admit she was wrong, which poses a whole new set of problems, or you need to agree with her and just own and admit that the Trinity has a very distinct definition and you

Guys disagree with it. Use your own term like heavenly trio. Yeah. And I think it’s important to note there’s a couple of the early church heresies. So tritheism is this idea of having like three separate gods. You know, this sort of polytheistic kind of approach that there’s a whole bunch of different gods. And um Adventists I’ I’ve never run across where Adventists believe that. Maybe there’s some exception out there somewhere, but that’s never been normative for the church. And where there have been concerns about the trinity, it’s only usually because of the term trinity with

Catholic association of the term trinity and that would develop a process because of the 19th century. But but you look at the earliest himnels of our church, they have the doxology praise father, son and holy ghost. You see very clearly that there were hymns worshiping um the three divine persons but that they were also one. And so this theological concept would take some time to explore and understand as many other ideas have throughout our Adventist history, our Adventist past. Uh but that should not surprise us that uh our church pioneers would grow in their understanding and

Clarification. But in terms of three divine persons and then the central idea of them being one, that that’s an idea. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. And I you know I think uh what we’re trying to describe here is uh really a progression in Adventist history in the very very beginning and it’s really important to understand I think the cultural context out of which Adventism emerged and that is this restorationist movement and for Adventists you know really that meant let’s go back to the absolute basics let’s not take church history for granted let’s try and start over and

That is a personally I find that to be a very beautiful idea, right? Let’s try and start over 1,800 years after Christ. Also, I think we can look back and say also a little bit naive, right? It’s hard to just chuck out everything and start over. And they started over on some things like the like the the Godhead, like the Trinity that I wish they wouldn’t start over on. You know, some things you can you can build upon. But I but I think I can appreciate the the intention there. And so, the idea was let’s start over. Let’s not take anything for granted. They discovered

Sabbath, right? They rediscovered Sabbath from the from the Seventh Day Baptists. And this was this was the fruit of that of that willingness to go back to the Bible and start over. It’s what did we miss? What lies beneath the tradition that we have inherited that that maybe should be brought back to the forefront like Sabbath and like some of these other ideas. Now, as a part of that process, of course, that that also means kind of uh getting a softer on on some topics we that later on, I think we firmed up on, like the Trinity. And so, I think it’s important to understand

That that cultural background of what the pioneers were trying to do. They just wanted to go back to scripture. All right. So, Michael Campbell said, “Triism has never been normative for the church.” Well, that just begs the question, Dr. Campbell, because I never claimed this. If you guys watched the video, I said functionally, I’ve always said this, functionally, the organization is tritheistic, because it is. That’s the whole reason I brought up that visual and that chart because I’m utilizing the definitions put forth by scholars in your own

Movement in conjunction with Ellen’s visions. You guys have three beings that are united in a mission together and since they aren’t ever at cross purposes, they’re one God. That’s what Jerry Moon tells us. That’s not the trinity. But you guys try and call it such because you keep boiling things down to general terms. He kept saying they’re divine persons. We believe they’re divine persons. We we sang about father, son, and holy spirit. Gentlemen, that doesn’t make you trinitarian. Just because you use those words like do you not understand that

Aras talked about the father, son, and spirit. Selius talked about the father, son, and spirit. This idea of just this general like look, we use all these same words. You guys mean something entirely different. I’m going to keep saying this like at maybe at maybe the 10 and1th time it’ll click and a light bulb will go off. The the core issues that I’ve I’ve brought up haven’t been addressed. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. So, I’ll say it again. What you guys call the Trinity isn’t. Not that it’s some conspiracy where I’m saying you guys are lying and secretly

You believe in tritheism but you don’t want to tell people. No, it’s how you guys define things which we haven’t gotten any clarification on. But then he said it shouldn’t be surprising that the SDA pioneers grew in their understanding of this doctrine. No, actually that should be very surprising. That should be like super surp I mean major red flags. Red flag alert. Because when you come along, 1900 years later claiming to be raised up by the one true God as his last day people with a unique and special mission and message that no one else has, but you don’t even believe in the

One true God. Uh yeah, that’s a problem. The pioneers idea of starting over and just going back to the Bible, like Matthew pointed out, really meant embracing a bunch of ancient heresy that God had already settled within the first few centuries of the church’s history. Because the Adventist pioneers were a bunch of theological noviceses that didn’t understand Christian theology 101 and had zero business doing what they did. Which is why we’re now left to believe that the true God used a group of people that actively were hostile toward him, rejected him as being a pagan deity and

Concept, and formed an idol in their own minds and likeness to spread to multitudes of people and preach damnation on people who didn’t accept it. But then 120 years down the road, they straightened up and now allegedly believe in this one true God that Christians believe in for 1900 years before this movement was even a blip on the radar. So it just came full circle. Apparently God raised up a bunch of heretics who didn’t believe in the one true God to then bring that movement of people to eventually just accept what Christians have always believed.

Anyways, okay. It’s like this is reason 13,01 why I could never be an Adventist. It’s like one must suspend critical thinking to do so. But Matthew, it’s not a beautiful idea to try and start the Christian faith over 1900 years removed from Jesus and the apostles because restorationism is actually sectarianism which is not beautiful at all. Jesus hates it. But he also talked about the restorationist mindset of the pioneers and that it led them back to the Bible and they found doctrines that had been missed. Right? And Matthew says who? Says who? Why are you right and the pioneers

Wrong? This is from George Knight’s search for identity. Is he a qualified Adventist source on SDA history? Gentlemen, for those that do not know, George Knight is an Adventist historian, lauded light of the Adventist movement. Notice what he says. Quote, “One branch of the restorationist movement had special importance to Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Connection.” James White and Joseph Bates, two of Adventism’s three founders, were members of the Christian Connection. Beyond that, Joshua Vheims, the second most influential Millerite leader, was also a connectionist

Minister. All in all, the Christian Connection made an extremely large impact on both Millerite Adventism and later Sabotarian Adventism. Beyond general thinking patterns, two examples will have to suffice. The first is that Joseph Bates, the apostle of the Sabbath, would frame the seventh day Sabbath as as one of the things needed to be restored to the church before Christ could return. A second is that Bates and James White brought anti-trinitarianism into Adventism from their restorationist background. Certain restorationists pointed out that the Bible nowhere uses

The word trinity. They eventually came to regard the Trinity as one of those doctrines Christianity adopted during the Middle Ages as a product of the great apostasy from scripture. Close quote. Well, according to these guys, Bates was right about the Sabbath, but he and James were wrong about their back to the Bible discoveries when it came to the Trinity being a product of the great apostasy that made the uh restoration of the true church necessary in their minds. But why? Why are the anti-trinitarian and anti-heavenly trio folks in your movement wrong and you guys are right?

It’s these same pioneers that they’re pointing to and agree with you. They claim the pioneers just went back to the Bible and rediscovered the truth of the Sabbath and that the trinity was a pagan corruption of truth from the Middle Ages. Heck, the pioneers were so adamant about this that as George Knight notes, the truth of this needed to be restored before Jesus could return. Now, Matthew tried downplaying the fact that these guys were dogmatic idoltors, preachers of a false god, preaching curses and damnation on the actual body of Christ, claiming they

Worshiped a false god and the Adventists were restoring the true church. He tried painting it like they were just these noble individuals that because they were genuine, it excuses all of this. Yeah. Not quite. Um. Yes. And uh, of course, they were aware of the creeds. And, uh, instead of focusing so much on the creeds as the human authority, they wanted to go back to the word of God. And so that’s what they did. And in doing that, they they uh stripped the Trinity of some things and and and certainly went further than we go today. Uh yeah. Well, I find it’s interesting to see

Where they put their energy, you know, cuz Yeah. And Dr. Lake, look at what your fellow colleague Jerry Mood admits in his book about the heavenly trio.

Quote, “More recently, a further question has arisen with increasing urgency. Was the pioneers belief about the godhead right or wrong?” As one line of reasoning goes, either the pioneers were wrong and the present church is right, or the pioneers were right and the present 7th Adventist Church has apostatized from biblical truth. Close quote. And this puts you guys in quite the bind. Which of you truly went back to the Bible? Which group of you went back to the Bible? You tell us that’s all the pioneers were doing. They just made these discoveries based on going back to

The Bible. George Knight tells us the same thing. And that one of those discoveries was that the Trinity was a pagan product of the Middle Ages that crept in as a part of the great apostasy from scripture. So that would mean that you guys today aren’t in line with the Bible because you don’t agree with them on this and said they stripped away things that they shouldn’t have. Or you’re saying the pioneers weren’t in line with scripture. They weren’t actually just going back to the Bible. And you guys today are allegedly the correct representation of

That. Again, you guys are supposed to have the great controversy theme, the theological God particle, the mind of God, the antidote to theological division. You’re not supposed to have any doctrinal confusion. This is supposed to give you guys the key to unlock everything, making you guys completely distinct and separate from the rest of us Babylonians. Yet, at every turn, it’s theological confusion and division. Gee, almost as if Adventism is the exact thing it projects onto everyone else. We’re talking about a restorationist movement. You’ve got a group of people

Who are coming out of a lot of other faith traditions and have a certain level of assumption between well, we all agree that Jesus is our savior and we believe in the Bible and we believe. It’s it’s funny that the the fundamental pillars that we really put our energy on in those early years was things like Sabbath and the sanctuary and state of the stuff we really did differ on with these other churches is where we put all of our focus. The Trinity wasn’t one of those, right? And if we knew if we were intentionally or knowingly changing our doctrine of the Trinity, we would have

Put a ton more energy towards that, I would think. Yeah. Because otherwise we if we weren’t saying much different then we were just going to keep moving on. Yeah. Right. The focus of the SDA pioneers was the Sabbath esquetology including false date setting. The state of the dead stuff they really differed on with Christians. Those are their pillars. Not the Trinity. Not whether or not you have a false god. Nope. Not as important as being on board with false date setting leading to an entirely novel worldview predicated upon a false understanding of

God, which was allegedly given by God himself. Gentlemen, this has red flags all over it. That admission is enough to say, “Yeah, hard pass on the Adventist movement. I’m going to I’m going to move along.” when the defense is given that sure, you know, the avenous pioneers were christoologgical heretics. But it’s because that really wasn’t one of their focuses. It was esquetology, date setting, the state of the dead, etc. Friend, looking back with hindsight to say, had they known that the doctrine of the trinity would change, they would have put more effort into it. No, see,

This is the problem. There shouldn’t have ever been any need for this. This was settled a long time ago. The Christian church hasn’t and wasn’t in universal apostasy for 1900 years worshiping a false god. This is Christianity 101. Building block catechetical level parts of theology starting points. I mean, five-year-olds at my church are taught this stuff, folks. This is around long before the Adventist pioneers. The problem was not like, well, they were sincere and they, you know, no, they were a bunch of heretics that up and deemed themselves because of

Their own pride that they were some special movement and some special move of God, etc., when they had no business being involved in any of

This. You shouldn’t wish that they would have foresaw the doctrine of the movement changing. You should wish that they would have repented and turned to the true God before they perished under his just condemnation. And I think something that’s really come out in uh in subsequent generations of scholars who have studied early adventism in the trinity is that part of their rejection for the trinity is is uh you noted Michael is that they didn’t like the word. Okay. But also I think they fundamentally misunderstood what the trinity actually taught. I mean a

Number of them did. Uh Joseph Bates for instance at one time said if you can convince me that that we are one in this sense talking about him and his father his earthly father being one that you are my father and I your son and that I am your father and you my son then I can believe in the trinity you know so he’s looking at his own dad saying you know we have this father-son relationship but we’re not like one one in this sense and what he’s referring to here is he’s he’s really dealing with modalism that’s what he’s that’s what he’s really trying to

To to push back against which he associated with the trinity and I think clearly in this case he didn’t really understand what the trinity was and I think that that accounted for for his rejection of it. Um you know he said in one case uh respecting the trinity I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the lord Jesus Christ the son of the father was also the almighty god the father one in the same being. It’s like no the trinity isn’t saying they’re one in the same being. Like that’s this is that’s the point. So it’s it’s really fascinating that we

Have some of these statements where they’re rejecting the trinity and what they’re really rejecting is you know in this case modalism or you know in another case Lboro said if if father son and holy ghost are each god it would be three gods. He’s trying to reject polytheism or tritheism right? That’s what he’s trying to get rid of in rejecting the trinity. And I think once we realized what the trinity actually was, uh, you know, I I it was natural for Adventism to to embrace it. It’s just there was these misconceptions. I think early on they were actually rejecting the things that

Trinity doctrine was established to reject. Modalism, tritheism. I mean, that’s what they were trying to reject. They just unfortunately associated it with trinitarianism somehow. No, they aren’t one being. That’s not what they’re saying. That’s not what the Trinity is saying. Did you catch that? Matthew, I don’t even think you know what you’re talking about. He just said earlier, three persons, one being. Now, here he’s talking about Bates, Joseph Bates, and his developing view. And that, well, he wasn’t actually rejecting trinitarianism. He was

Actually rejecting modalism. He just didn’t understand what the trinity was. And he talks about the analogy of the father and the son, etc., And if they’re the same being, yada yada. But then he says, “No, it’s not saying that they’re the same being.” Yeah, it is. Yeah. They’re not the same person. They’re the same being. But Matthew, this is why you guys should have chosen to respond to our presentation focused on the SDA pioneers and their historical development of the Trinity in Adventism because we read the quotes that you’re referring to and

Countless others. How is any of this actually responding to the 22nd clip of me that you guys played? You guys haven’t defined person. Remember what my objections were in the clip that they played? The way they define things is errantly defined. I then proceeded to in the following hour and a half after that explain my case using their own sources to define things. They’re not engaging with this. It doesn’t even appear like you guys know why I even brought up those quotes either because I don’t think you guys have seen that presentation either.

I brought them up to say, “Don’t you think it’s problematic that Bates believed in a false god?” He was a pioneer allegedly raised up by God to help restore the true church, but didn’t actually believe in the real God. Worshiped an idol and thought he knew better than the entirety of the Christian church, and that their creeds, which enshrine what the Bible teaches about the true God, were an abomination. This doesn’t seem to concern you gentlemen, which is extremely unfortunate. But furthermore, how is any of this again addressing anything I’ve

Said? I was told that I was only being mentioned here incidentally despite Dr. Campbell at the beginning saying the focus was to listen to me and hear if Adventism was accurately represented. I wasn’t talking SDA history in the clip you played, but even in the context in which I do, I’ve shared all the information that you guys have said so far. Literally none of this stuff is new. Jerry Moon’s paper on historical development, James White, Bates, Loftboro, Ellen, Madison, and so on. We looked at it all. That presentation was four hours long. It should greatly concern you that these

Pioneers didn’t understand what they were even rejecting and that tons of infighting and division resulted because of this even up to the present day. Even after Ellen White’s death where you have people like EJ Wagner teaching Jesus had a beginning. I know he wasn’t created but he had a beginning. that’s still popping up post Ellen White’s death being taught to people. It’s like Christians hear something like this, which is what that presentation was for, and I don’t think Adventists understand how oddly it hits their ears. You’re talking about the founders

Of your movement having zero concept and understanding of the true God. But you want us to believe the true God raised them up to restore apostolic Christianity. What? And the defense for the pioneers is well they actually did embrace the trinity. They just didn’t know it or call it that. They were just trying to reject modalism, tritheism, etc. But they fundamentally embraced the beliefs. Uh yeah, except for that pesky great controversy narrative that your organization is stuck with. And foundational to that is the exaltation and giving of authority to

Jesus who was made equal with his father. The pioneers were teaching things like Jesus had a beginning. That’s not just trying to reject modalism. That’s not using the best vocabulary, you know. It’s not like, you know, they’re trying to put forth this this like they are here that, well, they were just trying to reject modalism and they just didn’t use the best vocabulary to do so. No, that isn’t a belief and explanation that one states to try and say they’re rejecting tritheism. It’s just outright heresy. How did I misrepresent Adventism? I haven’t misrepresented anything. I

Explained what I meant by the words I used in the small clip of me that you guys played. And I did so with primary source documentation. You guys played that and now are rambling on about SDA history that I’m not only aware of, but I’ve shared with others. All these quotes, all this stuff are not only in that video, they’re on our website.

All four of them are still just using standard Christian terminology but not defining when the center of my objections are on precisely that. Even in the small clip they played it was on definitions. We haven’t heard anything about definitions except we heard Dr. Campbell there talk about divine persons and we saw in Jerry Moon’s paper how that’s defined because it was confirmed by Ellen in vision having literal tangible form and then Ellen confirms it by talking to Jesus himself. But unlike them, I’m utilizing authority source documentation to

Support my claims. sources that they have to try and retrofit with their modern modified view to say what they believe and seek to make it harmonious with their modern position because Ellen White’s early beliefs are in line and supportive of the early pioneers. She then develops further and moves slightly away from there with caveats things like well the father alone is the great lawgiver but both father and son are. You know, early on she was saying the father alone is the great lawgiver. But then that changed later. It’s like, oh well, they’re both the great

Lawgiver and things like, oh, you know, the Holy Spirit’s an actual person, meaning has a literal tangible form. But she did not start out having an identical view to the four gentlemen on screen, which is why what they want to claim is out of harmony with many statements. And they have to try and redefine what’s meant from their present vantage point and act as though they’re consistent with that. The quotes that those quotes from previous before their current position developed that those previous quotes are actually in line with their current

Vantage point. They have to try and redefine everything and say, “Well, you have to, you know, you don’t you don’t really know what she’s saying there.” They can dismiss James and Bates and Loftboro, but they can’t do that with Ellen. They’re stuck with her. And gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but present truth is not going to get you out of this one. Okay. Yeah. And that’s that’s kind of an interesting detail you say there. The pioneers didn’t always agree. It’s true. They didn’t always they didn’t always speak about these topics like the

Trinity in the same way. You know, Bates has his view in here, but he’s he’s fighting modalism. How do you how do you explain are early pioneers varying viewpoints here and then put that towards some sort of a consensus later on? Because I know by, you know, the 1870s, um, Adventism is starting to actually kind of narrow down the field. certain people who had been anti-trinitarian are shifting slightly. Um even Ella White is making stronger statements towards a more traditional view here. Uh what what starts to happen in at least that early to late pioneer

Time frame the that made us start to kind of agree on some things. I think what you mentioned there, Greg, is is key. It’s the trajectory, you know, where what where all of this was heading and and where it is today. And that’s that’s what people outside of Adventism as well as within need to to do is look at the big picture and to see where we’ve ended up today. Um the trajectory that’s gotten us here and and you just hit the uh you know the nail on the head with with the evolving understanding uh throughout the 19th century. And of course Ellen White played a key role um

Even in in those early years. You can see she was on a a different trajectory in terms of the trinity than her colleagues, but she was always careful in her wording with that. And uh she became more pronounced, more specific uh as as the years went on, especially when you get into the latter part of the the 19th century. And I think we all know that the the desire of ages that was like the turning point. Um yeah, 1898 when that was published. Uh and uh that that classic statement um that uh I got it here somewhere un un Yeah. Well, in Christ was life original. Yeah.

Unbared, underived. And that and then at the same book she said that the Holy Spirit was the third person of the Godhead. And uh that that was the turning point. And you see a a a significant change after that, a new trajectory on the Trinity that has has continued to evolve even up into to recent years. And what I think is important with regard to what we saw with answering Adventism about that what is called a false trinity that is not the Adventist trinity. And and if you follow Adventist theologians even uh in in the latter part of the n 20th century

I think of Raul Deteran probably the most influential theologian in Adventist theologian in the 20th century and in 1970 he published a extremely important seinal uh article in Andrews University seminary studies called the do a reflection on the doctrine of the trinity and in that article and I’ve heard it seen that’s cited so often in the years since then. Uh he is so clear on the oneness of God and the the three persons of the Godhead. In fact, I have a on a screen over here, one of my screens. Let me read to you a statement on pageuh 16 of that. And I’m

Going to turn away here. Forgive me just a moment, but I’ve got it over here. I’ve got a bunch of stuff on these screens. But he says, “Therefore, we must confess,” this is page 16 of of this this important article. Therefore, we must confess that the Trinity is one indivisible God and that the distinctions of the persons do not destroy the divine unity. This unity of God is expressed by saying that he is one substance. Nevertheless, in the divine unity, there are three co-eternal and co-equal persons who through though distinct are the one undivided and

Adorable God. This is the doctrine of scripture and that is the teaching of seventh day adventism this day to this day I should add it’s its theological nerve center if you listen to contemporary Adventist theologians and those sense deterrenine uh this the idea that God is one in his essence in his substance but three persons that is standard that is quite standard so that depiction we saw at the beginning is categorically false and and a far cry from what reality is and and mainstream Adventist theological thinking on the triune God. Oh, far cry from Adventist theology in

The mainstream. He says, and the chart that I showed is is misrepresenting, he says. No, this isn’t a misrepresentation. We will get to Dr. Derin in a moment. As we saw earlier, she said, because that’s what this was being based off of. Because remember folks, what does he talk about in that paper? That Ellen White’s view, these guys tried to say where was the trajectory? Where was it going? Yeah, Jerry Moon already told us away from orthodox credle trinitarianism, but also away from where the pioneers were. Gee, almost like I uh was saying that it’s a unique

Concept. She said the sun is the eternal self-existent one. This was in 1900, gentlemen, after the desire of ages when all this stuff was supposed to be ironed out. She said that the heavenly trio’s three beings, that Jesus was the only being that could be led into the councils of God the Father, which implies the Father is a distinct being. And by person, you guys mean having a literal tangible form. But Dr. Lake says she chose her words very carefully. Yet none of this comports with orthodoxy. The visual is to try and show the difference visually between what

Christians are saying and what Adventists or Adventism proper is saying. You guys are not saying what Christians are as depicted in this image. This is a fact. You aren’t because you consistently can’t. It does not comport with the great controversy narrative. And I’d love to actually discuss this with you face to face, Dr. lake and see who is and isn’t misrepresenting. This is why this notion that all you guys did here was engaged in SDA history is misleading because no, you weren’t. You’re making claims about my cred credibility. But the appeal to

To Raul Dedan, the poster child of of SDA scholars that they’ll point to and say exactly what Lake did. He proves Adventist theology proper is orthodox on Christology and the Trinity. We will circle back around to this after we work through some of his other claims which demonstrate why this appeal does not save them. For starters, this isn’t a subject that one needs to be getting more specific on in the 19th century. Dr. Lake, and that’s why I’m not really sure that you guys understand or hear the real issues. Gentlemen, I have said all of the stuff you are saying from this

Platform. Nothing you’re saying is actually addressing any of the objections I’ve made or shown that I’ve misrepresented Adventism. You played a one minute clip, 20 seconds or so of it. Saying you were listening to hear if Adventism was misrepresented and all of this was leading to the claim that one has to see where the trajectory and development was going and that Ellen wasn’t in line with her cohorts. Now, what did we look at earlier? Jerry Moon recognizes the two flavors of the heavenly trio theology in her writings. That’s what you mean by Ellen

White was going somewhere. Yeah, she was confused and had zero business claiming to receive thousands of revelations from the one true God that she clearly did not know or understand. In the clip you played, I went on to support my claims and define them clearly showing why I was making the claims I did. And Adventist history has nothing to do with the point that was being made there because functionally you guys are not trinitarians. Key word functionally. It isn’t enough to just say the word when you fundamentally mean something different with regards to Dr. Lakes

Defense that the point they’re getting at is the trajectory of where they are today, which was basically to say, “Yeah, we we know the Pioneers were off, but Ellen White was led by God early on and course corrected, and now they have it correct, even though early on they weren’t.” Dr. Lake, one would only give this apologetic if they didn’t understand the core problem with this. It didn’t need clarified in the 19th century. We didn’t need somebody to come along and formulate some concept that was going somewhere. This is ancient theology, sir. They shouldn’t have had any

Confusion on this matter. It’s been clear and clarified for roughly 1500 years before your pioneers even existed. He said the desire of ages was the turning point. Like I said earlier, and we saw in Jerry Moon’s paper. Yeah, Dr. Like we know this because in the video you’re reacting to we looked at that same quote that we looked at earlier and it doesn’t help you because the Jesus in the desire of ages is not the real real Christ. It is a counterfeit a counterfeit a pseudo Christoy. Notice from Moon’s paper quote finally in 1897 Ellen White wrote that

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. This affirmation received wider circulation and more permanent form in the desire of ages 1898. At the same time, her belief in the absolute and eternal equality of Christ with the father was made uh un unequivocally emphatic. In Christ is life, she wrote original, unbared, underived. There’s the quote they were mentioning. With this clear articulation of the unity of God and a plurality of eternal divine persons, her trinitarianism is essentially complete. All that remains for her capstone statement is to affirm explicitly that

The three eternal heavenly dignitaries, the three living persons of the heavenly trio are one in nature, character, and purpose, but not in person. Thus, there is a clear progression from the simple to the complex, showing that Ellen White’s understanding did grow in chains and change as she received additional light. Close quote. Right? Not from Bible study. Let that be clear again. This development was not coming from Bible study. It came from visions which Moon admits in the conclusion of the paper is one of the key influences in this development that Dr. Lake is

Trying to put forth as a defense. It developed based on visions. Furthermore, Moon doesn’t get into definitions here. He appeals to the same thing Dr. Lake does that. She said Christ is eternally equal with the father which again to the SDA pioneers meant Jesus came into being. He wasn’t created. He had a beginning but it was his coming forth and having a beginning was so far back in the in the past that to us it’s essentially eternal. He says Ellen White’s capstone statement says the heavenly trio is one in nature, character, and purpose. And we just saw how by nature that includes

Having a physical tangible body and then apparently also an angelic nature like we also saw. But even if we put all that aside, all of it, Ellen White’s capstone statement doesn’t save you all, Dr. like because she claimed all the statements came from God, including the earlier ones like we saw in Spirit of Prophecy Volume 1. And your organization still upholds these statements as direct revelation from God himself. And Ellen White claims she never wrote a single sentence of heresy. One straight chain of truth. That is, sir, unless you’re willing to go on record and say she was

Wrong, which I highly, highly doubt since you enjoy your job. But the movement’s early stage Christology is necessary for your great controversy narrative and worldview, gentlemen. That’s why I’m constantly hammering this because it is the theological elephant in the room that has you all in a catch22. Either Ellen didn’t receive the early statements from God, which means she’s a false prophet, or she did, and the latter statements contradict the previous ones. But either way, it doesn’t work, and God didn’t reveal this stuff to her. It’s like when Adventist

Scholarship tries to act like all of Ellen’s blunders are par for the course. No different than the biblical writers, etc., All they evidence is the weakness of the avenous gods because the true god isn’t the world’s worst communicator. She wasn’t a historian. That’s the newest defense of her historical blunders. It’s like once again ignoring the elephant in the room that she was allegedly getting a direct download from God himself. She claimed the words in great controversy patriarchs and prophets and desire of ages are barricaded by a thus sayeth the

Lord. It’s like the messages book three page 122. and great controversy is chocked full of alleged history. But on top of all of that, Dr. Lake, this 1898 being the turning point claim isn’t even entirely accurate. Folks, notice the transcript from the 1980, not 1880, 1980 General Conference in session, which is documented for us in the April 23rd, 1980 issue of the Adventist Review. This is some of the delegates going back and forth over how the word uh how to word their fundamental belief on the scriptures. Within that discussion, current the the current GC president uh

Ted Wilson, his dad Neil Wilson, who was the then GC president, he asked the question, who has some help for us on this or some question with regard to the godhead or trinity wherein they go on to discuss the belief. Leif Hansen says, quote, “In this discussion of the Trinity, which is always a difficult matter to discuss, I wonder if a certain misunderstanding could be eliminated eliminated by saying a unity in purpose so that the matter of physical unity may be eliminated.” Neil Wilson then says, “I see your point there. Maybe we ought to make it a unity and purpose rather than

A physical unity.” Bennett then says, “The statement about the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the pronoun he later as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are discussed. We use the same pronoun he. I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but I would have little difficulty in applying the pronoun he to the Trinity or the Godhead. For me, this has deep theological implications.” Dr. Lake and gentlemen at the Adventist History podcast. Your guys leaders are still trying to figure this stuff out in 1980. It’s like almost a hundred years

After Desire of Ages supposedly settled things. You still have people in your movement at this point that are trying to figure out how your movement wants to word things on a subject that’s been understood by Christians for 2,000 years. If this movement would humble itself and just accept this and embrace orthodoxy, you wouldn’t have these issues. But a movement built on pride begets more of the same thing. But for those in the audience, go and read this transcript for yourself, folks, and see the division and confusion for yourselves and how Ellen

White and her wording is appealed to as the language that needs to be embraced for the wording of their belief. And with hindsight, we can see that’s what happened. And Jerry Moon recognizes such in his paper. That’s what Ellen White’s visions that guided them. It was Ellen White’s visions that ultimately guided them because they seek to use language in accordance with her and her language came from supposed visions, not Bible study. Do not fall for the bait when an Adventist claims all of Adventist beliefs are based strictly on the Bible. No, they’re not.

I know Adventists out there may genuinely believe that and I’m not dismissing that. I too believe that same thing when I was an Adventist and I used to tout it to all sorts of people. I’d get asked constantly, “What’s the Seventh Day Adventist?” “Oh, we just believe the Bible.” It was always my go hammered in my head. Hammered in my head because I believed I could point to a proof text somewhere. And just because I could point to a proof text, I was justified because if I can. But then I actually learned the facts and I changed my belief because

Jesus Christ is the truth and truth aligns with facts, not affinity or allegiance to an organization. But furthermore, let’s look at some stuff from Desire of Ages and test this theory further. They want us to believe that Adventists believe in the same God as Christians and Desire of Ages onward proves it. Notice verse what Moon says. Quote, “She clearly rejected any view of the Trinity that makes God impersonal and unreal, but embraced a literal biblical view of one God and three persons who are relationally united in character, purpose, and love.”

These affirmations of belief in one God and three persons were sufficiently influential that by 1913 during her lifetime was published the first explicitly trinitarian belief statement among 7th Day Adventists. So for starters this is what Moon recognizes as Ellen White’s post desire of ages view of what they call the trinity. a literal biblical view which means three physical tangible forms that are relationally united in character, purpose and love. It doesn’t matter if they use the word persons or say divine persons because what they mean is the real

Issue. And remember what we saw earlier. I want to read this again. Quote, in 1890, in the 1890s, when she 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.” Yeah. Not trinitarian. Trinitarians do not believe that God has a body or that there are three of those that look like our form. Because Ellen said in the great controversy to be made in God’s image isn’t just in character but also in form and feature. It’s like so do the Adventist gods have reproductive organs? I mean she claimed man being made in God’s image means in physical features as well. And again great controversy supposed to be barricaded by a thus sayeth the Lord. Quote in the beginning man was created in the likeness of God not only in character but in form and

Feature. So based on all of what we’ve seen so far, they claim father, son, and spirit all possess the same nature. They all possess physical literal forms. And these forms look like human forms because we are made in the image of God. And there’s three of those. Now, don’t tell me the chart that I showed is not consistent with with what’s being put forth here. Your own personal anecdotes and your own personal opinion are not what that video was about. But there’s three of those there. There’s three physical tangible forms. And she couldn’t behold the fathers cuz

He was too glorious. Jesus isn’t though. She could behold Jesus. And the Holy Spirit, he has a physical tangible form. when he was walking around in Australia in the 1890s, but he’s invisible physical body like us, but is invisible. Except, well, not really, cuz she said the Holy Spirit was divested of personality and is Christ’s representative in his absence because incarnate he couldn’t be omnipresent. And that’s in the desire of ages. These statements are one year apart from one another. And the Adventist Jesus apparently has a divine nature, an angelic nature, and a

Human nature, but they all share in the same nature.

It just like when the SDA pioneers argued God having a physical body by nature, they thought to deny this and claim God is not contained to a physical body meant that you weren’t that you were advocate advocating for pantheism, which is just ridiculous. But Moon talks about this in his paper, too. Notice talking about Ellen White here. In a follow-up letter, she zeroed in on the core issue. This is talking about her. He’s talking about here her her back and forth with John Harvey Kellogg. The Lord Jesus did not represent God as an essence pervading nature, but as a

Personal being. Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. Kellogg countered by arguing that if the Holy Spirit could be everywhere at once, as even the anti-trinitarians believed, and if the Holy Spirit were also a person, as Ellen White had asserted in Desire of Ages, then God could be allervasive without being impersonal. He tried to convince church leaders that the pantheism of living temple was simply a scientific version of the same doctrine of God that Ellen White had expressed in Desire of Ages. Ellen White, however, insisted that

Kellogg’s concept of the Trinity was not the same as her concept, and as the conflict dragged on into 1905. She exposed the matter to the church in such stark lines that she could not be misunderstood. the most scathing indictment she ever wrote against a false view of the Trinity. This manuscript labels Kellogg’s view as spiritualistic, nothingness, imperfect, untrue, the trail of the serpent and the depths of Satan. Close quote. So, John Harvey Kellogg wasn’t a pantheist, by the way, folks. He was more akin to a panentheist. Pantheism versus pentheism.

Two different things. But when arguing with him about the nature of God, Ellen White argued that because Jesus represented God to the world in the incarnation and he was personal, meaning he has a physical tangible form, that has to mean the Father and the Holy Spirit do too because God has a personality as verily as Jesus is. Are you seeing this? Don’t tell me I’m making things up and misrepresenting things, Dr. Lake. And how ironic the most scathing rebuke she ever wrote was against a false view of the trinity when she herself had a false god. But it is this sort of meu

That their their claims about the ning creed arose out of the creed gets saddled as being like Kellogg’s impersonal view when it says God is without body or parts. It spiritualizes God away and makes him impersonal and unreal because it removes the physical tangible form from God which we saw in the previous quote from page 146 of Moon’s paper which Ellen White rejected which would mean she had to reject her own conception of the Holy Spirit in Desire of Ages because she said the Holy Spirit is divested of personality of humanity. So I guess the Holy Spirit was unreal

And imaginary. Nevertheless, while Kellok’s theology was wrong, he wasn’t wrong in that regard. That God does not possess a body by nature, and that isn’t what makes God a personal being. God is a personal being by virtue of possessing the ability to speak, be spoken to, etc. What makes God God isn’t a set of eyes and ears and a mouth, etc. Like I said earlier, if you piece apart a human body, you no longer have a human body because a human body is a composite creation made up of various parts. God is not like this. He’s not made up of made up of parts such that he could be

Taken apart and then no longer exist. And let me just also say, gentlemen, I don’t buy this excuse from SDA critics of Christianity that everyone learns and grows, etc. because the facts are the information was readily available in the days of these pioneers. It has been common Christian catechetical knowledge for nearly 2,000 years. These guys will go on, and we’ll see this in part two, where they try and defend the pioneers heresy by saying, “Well, they were basically ignores, so cut them some slack.” They were allegedly arguing against things they didn’t actually

Understand correctly, something Matthew said earlier. And in Ellen White’s case, she was allegedly uh, you know, getting this directly from God himself. Yeah. Totally ludicrous. This is such a horrible defense in the context of trinitarian theology. They should have made sure they actually understood what they were anathematizing and preaching damnation against, calling pagan, etc. I mean, they weren’t even bright enough to learn basic Christian terminology, such as what the creed means when it says God is without body and parts. And I also don’t buy the excuse that not

All Christians today necessarily understand that language. You’re comparing a modern lay Christian with a group that claim to be pioneering God’s last day remnant church with the fullness of the truth and preaching damnation on everyone else but their small little sect. Yeah, not a fair comparison. It’s like if you’re going to do something that radical, you better understand what you’re talking about. and every pew sitting, you know, Christian isn’t making such a radical claim and going out of their way to do what the pioneers did. Now, with regards to God being

A simple being, not a complex or composite being, this is why divine simplicity is another vital doctrine in this discussion. Something that, of course, you guessed it, the SDA church rejects. First, let’s listen to a small clip from Dr. Sinclair Ferguson who explains divine simplicity and its significance with regards to trinitarian theology. Then we’re going to read a statement from a paper put out by the Adventist Biblical Research Institute. Standby. What do we mean when we speak about the simplicity of God? This doctrine that has been held and

Expounded by almost all the great theologians of the Christian church from Irenaeus in the early centuries through Augustine and Anelm and Thomas Aquinas and the great Puritans and the great Orthodox reformed theologians. What do we mean by the simplicity of God? We mean something so stunning, so singular as to say that God, as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, that God is pure spirit, that he is without body parts or passions. Or to put it in other terms echoing what we have already heard today that God is without origin that God is

Without composition that God is without becoming. He is and in a sense that is the first and the last word that is to be said about God. He is as God and he is all he is always that he is. As the older theologians used to say, there is no potential in God. God is all that he is. And of course the beauty of that is that God reveals himself in such simple fullness to us in the wonderful mystery but the beautiful interconnectedness of his tripal being so that we might say it is never boring for God always to be all that he is. And that as God enjoys his own being

In a personal way, it is not as though we speak like the philosophers of a merely monadic monocromic unmoved first mover, but of our glorious tripersonal God who in Father and Son and Holy Spirit as it were interpenetrate one another’s joys in one another and share together all that it means for God to be all that he is all of the time. So when Ferguson uh when he says that God is all that he is always that he is he simply means that God is love just merciful omnipotent etc and always has been what he is eternally like I said earlier that’s also what not having passions is in

Reference to God is not like a fallen man who waivers or loses faith and fluctuates and falters etc. He’s eternally consistent. But this movement doesn’t understand that because they inherited I know they talk about well our pioneers have moved along and you know we’ve grown since the pioneers etc. Yeah. Not in this area you haven’t. And they I still hear them utilize this false understanding of well the creed says that God doesn’t have passions which means he’s not actually relatable. He doesn’t have any emotions. No. That’s what these silly pioneers didn’t understand.

That Adventists unfortunately in the modern day have inherited. But now notice from God in three persons in theology which was put out in uh 2015 by the Adventist Barri. Quote, “The notion of divine simplicity meant among other things indivisibility and undifferentiation.” It meant what? Indivisibility and undifferiation. The challenge the Orthodox party faced was to show how Jesus and the Holy Spirit could be divine entities and still maintain divine simplicity. The Nyine Constantinople creeds apparent solution was to predicate one essence of God ensuring that it is intellectual in

Nature. John Zazulus who is a Greek Orthodox bishop reading of history would suggest that the Capidosians advance this thought a little bit further away from the materialistic connotation in the idea of divine essence by recasting Usia in personal terms. He takes the view that St. Basil primarily and St. Gregory of Nazanzis and St. Gregory of Nissa that’s a misspelling on this guy’s part with him took the classical language of Greek ontology Usia hypostasis etc and redefined it in personal and relational terms. The basic nature of reality was no longer substance but relationship on

Account of this traditional understanding of the oneness of God in the trinitarian formulation. It seems clear that when Adventists affirm that God is one, they mean something different than what the tradition affirms. Without a burden to define r uh rationally God’s oneness, Adventists are uncomfortable with interpreting or defining it with reference to substance in such terms as simplicity, undifferentiation, etc. close quote. Yeah, Dr. Like I didn’t misrepresent anything in the video of me that you were clipping. My thesis was clear. Show Christians that

What Adventists mean by trinity isn’t what Christians mean. We have yet another scholar in this movement who was an associate director at the BARRI. one of the highest body of theological gathering in the Adventist church who tells us what Adventists mean when they talk about the subject is different than what Christian the Christian church means. So why do you guys keep publicly trying to act like you do gentlemen? Stop trying to postulate that people like myself are misrepresenting. This has nothing to do with understanding there was historical

Development within Adventism. We know for crying out loud. We know. And what it developed into isn’t trinitarianism. That’s the entire point. And I get so bent out of shape about this because it’s dishonest. And then you project that onto people like myself that we’re the ones that are misrepresenting and we’re dishonest. No, I’m not. No, I’m not. And I’m going to respond when you guys claim such. Don’t tell me I’m being dishonest. I could go on and on and on with more and more sources. That’s why I think you guys actually don’t want to have face tof face discussions because

You know these receipts are going to get pulled out and you’re going have to find a way to defend them. What we just read there, this is what I was saying. We’d circle back to Raul Ded confused mess. We just read or we just heard Dr. Lake earlier say that well Rald Dedan he’s this big poster child of of of Adventist Christologology that it’s orthodox one essence. Yeah. And then we have a scholar here that’s like well technically we uh we reject divine simplicity on terms that it eliminates the the relatableness and personality of God because again they define person

Differently than Christians do. And just like Ellen White was going back and forth with Kellogg, if he doesn’t have a physical body, then it makes him unreal and imaginary. Just use your own term. The heavenly trio trinity is taken. Sorry fellas, it’s off limits. Sorry. Find a different term. That’s the point. And then start defending that. Then we can have discussions around you defending your God up and against the true God like Elisha did with the false prophets at Baal or with Baal. And then we can go to scripture and see whose god can actually be

Supported from scripture. But again, they’re not going to use the term heavenly trio. They’re going to keep using the term trinity because I suspect if they did use heavenly trio that wouldn’t resonate with who the organization is trying to target and proilitize, which is Christians. Christians would hear that term and go, “Huh? The what? The what?” And the SDA organization doesn’t want that. So, they keep up this act of borrowing language, but under the surface means something entirely different to try and appear like just another Christian group. And

I’m sure some of these people, probably some of these gentlemen, they’re probably genuine. You’re going to you’re going to see in the later parts, they go on to bo, you know, b and scoff and laugh amongst themselves like conspiracy. Yeah, I’m not the one that brought up conspiracies, which is rather rich coming from Seventh Day Adventist. Like, you guys are the last ones that should be laughingly joking around about conspiracy. Yeah, I never claimed it was a conspiracy. My claim is that you guys are deceived, oftentimes well-meaning people. And what you think you’re

Saying, you think is the same as Christians. And I keep telling you it isn’t. I’m not going to be budged on this until you’re ready to denounce the Barri, Ellen White, the Pioneers, Ministry Magazine, Signs of the Times, and all these other sort the website. I’m going to keep making these claims because it’s true. just own it. You guys are saying something different. The SDA organization rejects divine simplicity as extra biblical philosophically imposed you know ideas onto the text that you know not realizing the giants of the faith that Dr. Ferguson mentioned Irenaeus, Sirill,

Augustine, Thomas Aquinus, they all utilize scripture to argue this against actual pagans and their extra biblical philosophies. And if you read this paper, God in three persons, you’ll see how the picture is painted that the Nying creed isn’t predicated on the Bible, but on philosophy that dehumanizes God. Because in their model, God is like a man. They literally look like us and have bodies by nature. So, because the early church didn’t humanize God, that meant they weren’t really starting with scripture. Yeah, sure. Some of them tried using language at times that they

Thought would reach a certain demographic of people, but Adventists in the modern day do this exact same thing. Heck, that’s literally what these guys are doing. You know, they’ll point to some of these individuals and be like, “Look, they’re using Greek philosophy.” Yeah. Because they’re trying to reach and evangelize pagans. What they’re fundamentally saying is what the Bible teaches though. It’s not just they they paint the picture like it’s just Greek philosophy and Aristotilian. And then it’s like you go and read these people. I’m reading St. Gregory of

Nisses on the he was one of the Capidosian fathers. So Eastern church which poses a whole set of problems for this movement by the way. You know this is one of the few places I’ve seen where you have an Adventist scholar that’s even recognizing the Eastern Church. Not saying they don’t know it’s around but it poses serious problems for a lot of their historical claims. There’s sort of conspiracies around the Western church and Roman Catholicism. It’s like, dude, you have to take up all of this stuff as well with the Assyrian church of the East, the Marionite churches, the

Orthodox churches, Greek. It’s like these claims just fall so flat. But I’m reading St. Gregory of Nissas on the on the soul and resurrection right now. And in the book, he’s literally arguing against actual paganism. Actual paganism. And yet, you’ll get people like this. He’s, and by actual paganism, I mean he’s arguing against actual Greek philosophy, philosophical paganism. He’s arguing against all of that. And yet, he’s somebody that this organization will label as he believed Greek philosophy. No. Sometimes these individuals used language like that

Because believe it or not, they actually wanted to try and reach the people they were talking to and they were essentially doing what Paul did, becoming all things to all people type thing. And not all of them did this. It depends who we’re talking about. But the point being, this is further evidence the SDA church means something entirely different by the term trinity. Their gods are time bound. We haven’t even gotten into that. with that are individual beings with bodies made up of parts and they’ll point to places in scripture like the pioneers did like

Daniel 7 to claim that it’s referring to God the father having a body a physical body by nature because the ancient of days was sitting on the throne and when Daniel saw in vision the son of man approaching the ancient of days that proves God the father has a physical body by nature that’s like ours And as Jerry Moon pointed out earlier, this was allegedly confirmed by God himself who gave a vision to Ellen White where she asked Jesus himself and he told her so. Except no, Daniel 7 is a vision and God can manifest in his creation however he sees fit. That doesn’t mean he has a

Physical body by nature. Jesus is unique in that in the incarnation and now this gets into the economics versus the uh essentially the ontology versus the economics of the trinity. The economics being where yeah there is unique differences about them that’s not like the others like Jesus is the one that incarnated not the father or the spirit but that doesn’t mean that ontologically they’re not equal. It just means they’re taking different roles in redemption. So Jesus is unique in that in the incarnation he added unto himself a human nature that he will uh forever

Retain as the God man. But then continuing with desire of ages. Then we have this dastardly statement. I bring this up all the time and Adventist don’t don’t bring up Jesus saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” He’s citing from the Psalms. He’s not saying what’s what’s being said in this quote. 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 as coming forth from the grave of 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. Yeah. No, there’s no possibility of separation. But that’s what they teach in this model because that’s what Ellen White taught is that Jesus came and all of heaven held out its breath as the sun was here and he could have potentially fallen and if he would have it would have sent the whole cosmos into chaos. Yet no, that goes against the communication of the attributes. It goes against the hypothetic union things that the SDA church like we said or like I said earlier and showed earlier tries to

Claim they affirm but it’s only lip service. But based on this quote the Adventist Jesus didn’t have unwavering faith. He doubted because Satan was able to twist his heart while he was on the cross which caused him to be unsure if his sacrifice would be accepted or if he would be resurrected. And doubt is unbelief and unbelief is a sin. And this doesn’t even get into the problem of Jesus incarnate has two wills. What is called diaphism because if he didn’t truly have a will as a man in his human nature, then he wasn’t truly human. Because part of being truly human means that you have

A will. But Jesus also shares in the singular divine will as he’s 100% divine. So God has one single will, father, son, and spirit have one single will. Jesus also has a human will that his human nature possesses. So according to this quote in his human nature, now remember they they’re saying he was only a man on earth. But even if we wanted to grant to them, okay, well, they affirm the hypothetic union. This statement in conjunction with that means that there was division in the minds in the sorry in the the will of the father or or rather the the the son in his divine

Nature and his human nature like was he wavering as God? Well, no. No, it’s as a man. Okay. So he was divided. Then it just there’s so many blunders with all this nonsense. That’s why we don’t need all this extra biblical nonsense that just this does not comport with trinitarian theology at all. It comports with the Adventist system which they label trinitarian. But remember a trinitarian concept. Like he reiterates in the conclusion of his paper. 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. He then goes on to give a laundry list of reasons why they aren’t Orthodox Trinitarians, which again, not trying to be a one- string banjo, but that was my entire thesis of the video that these gentlemen clipped. It’s like what’s so ironic about this is Moon says her developing view is essentially trinitarian. Yeah. The root of the word essential is essence. And that’s exactly what we’re talking about when we talk about the being of God. Yet

They don’t want to get specific on the essence of God and what makes him essentially one only how they relate relationally. But here he has no problem saying Ellen essentially came to accept the Trinity. So this is from the October 28, 1890 issue of the review and Herald. The same decade Ellen White’s visions corrected error of the hol on the Holy Spirit all of a sudden being a person. Now from under the heading that asks is the Holy Spirit a person? Quote, “Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person the same as the Father and the Son? Some claim that it

Is, other that it’s not, others that it’s not. Answer the terms Holy Ghost are a harsh and repulsive translation. It should be Holy Spirit. Hagon Numa in every instance. This spirit is the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ. The spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the father and the son. Rather, it is shown to be a divine influence from them both. The medium which represents their presence and by

Which they have knowledge and power through all the universe when not personally present. Close quote. Well, what did we see earlier from Desire of Ages? The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. Cumbered 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 the Adventist Jesus that’s supposed to be the same Jesus that the Christian church worships isn’t omnipresent as a man because cumbered with humanity he couldn’t be. And this is in line with their kinosis interpretation of Philippians 2 which says Jesus was only a man on earth and he set his divine nature aside. So the Holy Spirit is Christ representative but divevested of personality of humanity and independent thereof. So

Much for the Holy Spirit having a physical body walking around invisibly at Aenddale College in the 1890s. Both claims cannot be true. Yet both allegedly came from God himself. We could go on and on and on which I have before. The SDA church is not trinitarian. You don’t get to come along in the 19th century and take a term, redefine it, and then insist that you agree with those who do actually affirm what the term means. This why the doctrine of the trinity was hammered out was for specificity. Appealing to Raul Dedin doesn’t help you guys, Dr. Lake, because

The plethora of statements that we looked at, and there’s a mountain of others, do not comport with orthodox Christologology. So appealing to someone like him who Adventists love to point to to claim that he proves Adventists are orthodox only highlights the glaring contradictions. And at the end of the day, Dr. Dedim was still beholden to the great controversy worldview. The man had to have cognitive dissonance going on. I just interviewed Heraldo Kamacho a few weeks ago and it premiered on the on the channel. He was a student of Dr. deterren and he pointed

Out the same thing. He said it flabbergasted me how somebody who was sound on christologology could then still believe and and pedal the great controversy lie which is the exact problem. I’ve never claimed there’s not a single Adventist out there anywhere that believes orthodox Christologology. I’ve never said that. And Dr. Deteran either internally had to accept that it was wrong, the great controversy worldview, and he knew the truth but wanted to make the peace and not lose his livelihood or he didn’t actually understand and believe orthodox

Christology. Period. There is no in between. Nothing I said in that clip was disproven. And anyone that goes and watches the whole thing will see me demonstrate my claims with more than just assertions, which is all these gentlemen did here was make a bunch of assertions. Ellen White has more authority than Raul Dedan or any other Adventist theologian, living or deceased. And all appealing to Dr. Dan does is show the doctrinal contradictions that have to be upheld in order to keep your system in order to try and uh you know play both sides of the

Fence. You guys want to be taken as Orthodox Trinitarians who worship the same God as Christians do. But at the same time, you guys allegedly uniquely have the great controversy theme, which is supposed to be the antidote to theological division, direct access to the mind of God. Yet, by saying that you guys are in the mainstream proves that there are there’s division. There’s other streams in Adventism. At the end of the day, you guys just need to own up that you have your own novel views on all this stuff and defend it, not play word games and

Semantics to try and make it seem like you believe like we do, but you don’t. Again, Moon ends his paper that Dr. Lake was paring by laying out all the differences between what Christians believe and what Adventists believe with regards to the Trinity. And that’s why he had to appeal to saying, “Well, she holds to a concept of the Trinity, right? A unique view that was informed by supposed visions.” Gentlemen, we will continue responding to their critique in a few weeks and address the other clips from my presentation that they play and listen to and seek to respond to. As always,

May God richly bless you in the grace and peace won by Jesus Christ and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah.