Bro David,

Quote:

---

"No, not trying to trap you; just trying to figure out what you're saying. But you do seem a bit defensive for one claiming to stand on solid ground. Anyway...

Glad to hear it, thanks. If I seem defensive, maybe I am. People have not always been straight up in their writing or questioning and have twisted what I have said. Or taken only part of what is said and made it seem as if I have said something totally different than what was said.
Make sense?
I do believe that I am on solid ground.

---

Just a comment on "procedural" matters before going on. I understand what you said above. I have seen it on all forums, including this one. But this is one of the few forums I have found where people can disagree without becoming adversarial.

In particular, look at some of my exchanges with Tom Ewall (esp. in the nature of Christ thread). We have had disagreements on significant points, and we have also had significant misunderstandings. We ask a lot of questions because we want to better grasp what the other is saying. We may still disagree in the end, but at least we have a clearer picture of what we're disagreeing with.

I'm sure you believe you are on solid ground, as I believe I am. And I also trust that you are ever willing to correct your errors, as I am to correct mine. If we ever come across a point of disagreement, you can expect a lot of questions from me as I try to get a good view of your point. If your ground is more sold than mine, I would like to find out so I can move. If mine is more solid, it is my privilege as a watchman to let you know.

Quote:

---

When God's people are at ease, and satisfied with their present enlightenment, we may be sure that He will not favor them. It is His will that they should be ever moving forward, to receive the increased and ever-increasing light which is shining for them. {GW 300.2}

---

Bro. Arnold

I will have to agree with your last post to me. It is well written. I on the other hand have some difficulty putting my thoughts plainly in written words, which at times has caused some misunderstanding.
Thank you

Peace and Grace
David

What about the statements in the SOP that say there is a present truth for every generation? That would seem to indicate to me that Heaven still has some unpacking for us to do. Jesus did not even give all His teaching (John 16:12). We also have a statement that says that the prophets prophesied more for us (upon whom the end of the age is coming) than for themsevles (1 Peter 1:12). Texts like these suggest that we need to be attentive to what God is doing. I would not want to be a part of a church that felt it had arrived and that there is nothing further for it to understand since 1915. But then some of the points that are held by some so-called HA are in clear contradiction to EGW, so they must draw the line long before 1915 (death of EGW).
LK

So if this trinity doctrine or three gods is new light and it is correct then the “new” light would have to be accepted right?

Well, this “new” light (three gods in one, triune gods or trinity) is not very “new” it has its foundation so very strongly in paganism that it is sickening. Babylon had their triune gods and the child was born on 12/25. The Bible even speaks about the weeping for this child.
Egypt has their triune gods and one of them is also a child.
India has some 3 million gods and one in particular is a triune god that has one body, six arms and three heads.

In every pagan religion they have their triune, trinity, three gods in one. The Catholic Church even claims that this “trinity” doctrine is the foundation of all their dogma.

I find this quote from Sister White very interesting
1858 Great Controversy page 187 “They gave up their earthly treasure and their anxious gaze was directed to heaven, expecting to see their loved Deliverer. A sacred, holy joy beamed upon their countenances, and told of the peace and joy which reigned within. Jesus bade his angels go and strengthen them, for the hour of their trial drew on. I saw that these waiting ones were not yet tried as they must be. They were not free from errors. And I saw the mercy and goodness of God in sending a warning to the people of earth, and repeated messages to bring them up to a point of time, to lead them to a diligent search of themselves, that they might divest themselves of errors which have been handed down from the heathen and papists. Through these messages God has been bringing out his people where he can work for them in greater power, and where they can keep all his commandments.”

Notice that the saints diligently searched themselves and they threw off the errors that had been handed down to them n\and these errors came from where? Paganism and the catholic church.

Is this triune god “new light”? No it is not it is very old light.

Now if you would like to discuss new light (new light does not disagree with the old light) lets talk about it, I am open to new light.

Interesting that you pointed out the date 1915 why is that? I am a Historic Seventh day Adventist, I hold to the teachings of the founders and the Holy Word of God.

I have a question for you; are you implying that since 1915 the church has had “new light”? Could this “new light” be from leaders in the church that have been educated in catholic / Jesuit schools? Such as James Standish of the religious liberty dept., or the Pres of the GC who for at least one year was taking his doctorate of divinity from a catholic school where one of the teachers was the current pope? Or from such men as L. R. Froom who bowed down to the ecumenical men like Barnhouse and others and changed our religion? Arthur S. Maxwell who brought spiritualism into the “the bible story” books? Men who where involved and wrote the book “questions on Doctrine” which does away with the Ten Commandments and nails them to the cross. How about men like Prescott who force the new perversions of the Scriptures in the writings of the publishing houses of the SDA church.

If there is new light then it does not and will not go against the old Light that God and His Son and His Holy Spirit has given.

Do you have and or know of any “new light”? For there will be new light but there is a standard by, which it must be judged.

Peace and Grace

David

Only something which exists can be corrupted, only something which is real can be counterfaithed. That someone else believes in a less perfected view of the trinity or that the trinitarian theme exists in other religions is no proof that the concept is false. If you where to be consistent on that line of arguement and throw out from your chiristian faith everything that also appears in the babylonian religion in a more or less degenerate form, you can just cut out everything before Abraham from genesis.

I am not here to defend the "Trinity" doctrine. I do believe, after extensive study of the biblical materials that there are three persons in one Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The biblical evidence is abundant and conclusive, even coercive. If you want to throw out the New Testament it will be much harder to prove.

Do you want to do that?

And then you will have to get rid of the testimony of the writings of Ellen G. White. Perhaps you are not one who has a significant knowledge of the life and ministry of Mrs. White. I mentioned that date because Mrs. White died in 1915.

It is testimony to your bias that you point to all negative things and no positive things from about that time to the present. Can you not think of any positive developments since the time you have (as Arnold has pointed out) arbitrarily chosen as the "Historic Adventist" period?

I have spoken and written against many of the things you have mentioned. I believe there is much light in certain points highlighted by M. L. Andreasen which he published in 1937. But I neither identified or labeled anything as "new light"--I simply pointed to the testimony of inspired writings that affirms that every generation is to be tested and there is to be a development of truth in that generation.

To be honest, few things are as heart-sickening to me as self-righteous critics marching around in their ignorance and painting the whole church darkly with their brushes. The only way we can move away from the three persons in one Godhead teaching would be to go into opposition of the writings of Ellen G. White, which the church (since 1980 I might add) insists are to be upheld as a "continuing and authoritative source" of truth.

You know not what road you are on or are endeavoring to lead others on. You would lead them away from God's light in the SOP and out of His church. LK