But Pastor Larry, membership doesn't start nor does it continue based on a full agreement with the trinity doctrine, unless a firm line is taken. It appears persistent sharing of differing views with local members is the only way to be put under discipline after efforts to change that stance are made.

For all that, our church founders could not hold membership today, with our current teachings: Biblically correct today, are we?

Colin,
New membership in the church in 2006 is predicated on acceptance of the current set of Fundamental Beliefs, a present conversion experience with the Holy Spirit inside, adherance to what we call church standards, and affirmation via the baptismal vow of 13 points. Upholding these has been my practice as a minister since I began in the ministry in 1994. In my understanding, this is the minimum expected by the world church. By the grace of God I have seen a consistent successful ministry and a steady train of baptisms. I invest considerable energy in baptismal preparation. It makes for a stronger Christian experience for the candidate and a stronger church.

It is beside the point to compare church membership a century ago with church membership today in terms of doctrine. The world church from time to time adjusts its understanding and its statement of beliefs. No one can know for certain, given all the variables, whether a church leader who lived a century ago, in light of the development of the church's thought, would refuse to accept the current statement of beliefs, or view them as satisfactory. We are responsible for our interaction with the light currently available to us.

Nor is my intention to assert the perfection of the current statement. I believe it could be improved but that it is satisfactory.

My intent is not to challenge one's church membership, but to seek to understand what changed from that time to the present.

I have never liked the word "Trinity" and prefer the word "Godhead." FWIW the current baptismal vow requires affirmation of this statement:

"1. Do you believe there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a
unity of three coeternal Persons?" LK

Dear Roseangela:
You are right. We are to worship him that created the earth. See Rev. 14:7. God (the Father) created all things by Jesus Christ. See Ephesians 3:9 and John 1:3. However, in worshiping Jesus it is to be done to the glory of God the Father. We are not to worship Jesus if it cannot be done to the glory of God the Father. See Philippians 2:10,11.

Dr. Glenn:

The problem is that the text says, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve”.

The word “only”, Gr. monos, means

1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

Was Jesus wrong in using the word “only”?

Dr. Glenn, I agree with much of what you write. I have a couple of questions. First of all, Rosangela cited the following from the other thread:

Quote:

---

"‘The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities;’ and the Spirit, being God, knoweth the mind of God." {ST, October 3, 1892}.

---

I agree that we are not told to exalt the Holy Spirit, but my understanding of this is that this is not because He is not God, but because it is God's nature not to exalt Himself. The Father exalts the Son, and the Son exalts the Father. The Spirit exalts both, especially the Son since Christ's incarnation (or so it seems to me).

I really had trouble understanding this:

Quote:

---

In regard to the sanctuary message. It is the Father who sits on the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place. Our mediator, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, does not sit on the mercy seat since he is our high priest. I believe we have only one mediator between us and God, the Father. The trinity doctrine teaches we have one mediator between us and the triune God (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). If our mediator is "God the Son" in regard to the sanctuary message, then we really do not have a mediator since we can go directly to "God the Son". If "God the Holy Spirit" is our mediator, in regard to the sanctuary message, we really do not have a mediator because we can go directly to what the trinity doctrine advocates call "God the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit lives inside of us and if it is "God the Holy Spirit" inside of us, then we do not need a mediator to have access to this god.

---

Jesus Christ is our mediator in the sense that He reveals God to us. No man has seen God at any time. The One who knew Him best, at the Father's side, has shown us what He is like.

Jesus said, "At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
For the Father himself loveth you." (John 16:26, 27)

Jesus taught that we can go directly to the Father, because the Father Himself loves us. Our need for a Mediator stems from our unbelief.

A lot of what you wrote in the paragraph cited above seems founded on mysticism. For example, the Holy Spirit does not literally live inside of us; He illuminates our minds so we can understand the things of God.

The problem of our access to God has nothing to do with anything imposed upon us by God, but has to do with our sin and unbelief.

Glenn,
Thank you for your very straightforward and fair answer. There is much in your present belief that I cannot agree with but I appreciate the straightforward response.

1. The difference between the previous statement (1931) and 1980 on this point is limited.

2. It is true that on occasion when the statement of belief changes as in 1980 and in 2005 everyone who entered under the previous statement has not directly agreed to the newest statement. In such cases it is good to allow a certain latitude so that pre and post folk are viewed as full members of the community.

3. I have no burden to urge you to pray to the Holy Spirit or even to Jesus. Jesus taught that we are to pray to the Father.

4. It remains true that Jesus taught equivalent honor of Father and Son (John 5:21-23), while Paul joins in affirming equality (John 17:5; Philippians 2:6). Also, that Jesus accepted worship of Himself (John 20:28).

5. I am not clear what your position is. It seems to be that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct, separate person, and that Jesus is not fully God in the sense that the Father is God? Please correct me if I am mistaken of your present views.

6. Observant Jews reject Jesus as Messiah in connection with their expectation which is of a non-divine Messiah. They think that calling Jesus God is idolatry. I think we will find that either we must uphold Jesus as fully God or else hold to the Jewish viewpoint, but that intermediate positions will be found to be untenable; e.g. Jesus is not God Jr. or a seperate being from God or a shade less than God (as the JW's have it, God the Father is God Almighty, Jesus only God not-almighty). My understanding is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have always existed and have life in themselves original, unborrowed, and underived. They constitute one God yet exist as three distinct persons.

7. I have observed that others who have changed their viewpoint on these points have eventually lost faith in the inspiration of the writings of Ellen G. White. I am curious where you presently stand on that point. I wonder too whether you could share what is the situation of the person who shared this new understanding with you. Is he still a member of the church? Does he still accept the inspiration of EGW?

8. One further question. How has this situation impacted your relationship with others in your church? LK

Dear Larry:
Thank you for you much appreciated response.
You state: "I am not sure what your position is. It seems to be that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct, separate person, and that Jesus is not fully God in the sense that the Father is God?"

You also state: "I have observed that others who have changed their viewpoint on these points have eventually lost faith in the inspiration of the writings of Ellen G. White. I am curious where you presently stand on this point. I wonder too whether you could share what is the situation of the person who shared this understanding with you. Is he still a member of the church? Does he still accept the inspiration of EGW?"

You also state: "One further question. How has this situation impacted your relationship with others in your church?"

First, of all I have full confidence in the inspiration of EGW. In 1975, when attending College in Keene, Texas, I attended campmeeting there. Ben Roden of the Branch Davidians or Shephard Rod came. He was trying to pursuade me to keep all the feast days of the old testament. But, one thing I noted is that he selectively quoted EGW. He didn't put much confidence in the statements of EGW that conflicted with his doctrinal theory. I have found a similar thread among some who have tried to pursuade me to accept every point in regard to the trinity doctrine such as: "Jesus Christ was 100% God as the Father is God and he is 100% human as we are human" and Jesus Christ was not the literal divine SON before he was born of Mary. The persons who are trying to pursuade me on this point have no Bible text to provide, but only EGW statements and then only those EGW statements that agree with their theory and they reject the other EGW statements.
EGW said: "The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality." (if He is not God in personality how can he be 100% God in the sense the Father is God?)
EGW said: "Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption......The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such as one of ourselves; for it cannot be..." See 5BC 1128-1130. (I have limited space here. you need to read the full context). If Jesus Christ is not "altogether human" and I believe in the inspiration of EGW, then how can I adopt the teaching that he was 100% human when EGW said that he was not 100% (altogether) human?
You state: "My understanding is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed and have life in themselves original, unborrowed, and underived."
Jesus said: "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. The "original, unborrowed,and underived life" was given to the Son from his Father. Larry, do you accept this teaching?
I can find no statement in regard to whether or not the Holy Spirit has life "original, unborrowed, and underived". If he is not a separate being or person than that of the Father then he would have the same "original, unborrowed, and underived" as the Father because they cannot be separated just like my head cannot be separated from the rest of my body and then call either the head or the rest of the body as being a human being.
If he is a separate being and separate person than that of the Father, I can't answer that question because I do not have any Bible verse or EGW statement to base my belief upon.
In regard to the divinity of Christ, I am not of the observant Jews who think that calling Jesus God is idolatry. The Father called his Son "God" (see Hebrew 1:8). Is the Father involved in idolatry? certainly not.
I certainly believe in the divinty of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but not in the same way that some trinity doctrine advocates do. They believe that there were three divine beings and each acted a role [but really are not who they say they are]- one acted the Father, one of the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit. They do not believe that Jesus Christ was the literal begotten Son of God before he was born of Mary in Bethlehem. I believe that Jesus Christ is divine because he is the literal Son of the Father -yesterday, today and he is the "express image of his Father's person" -yesterday, today, and forevermore. I believe that this was also the position of EGW under inspiration. See the comments of EGW on Daniel 3:25. 4BC1170. See also 1SM226-227.
You state: "I am not clear what your position is. It seems to be that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct separate person...."
Well, I am still trying to form a clear opinion on this. The statments in John chapters 14 to 16 made by Jesus himself seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a separate person who proceeds from the Father. But then the statement of Jesus himself in Matthew 16:17 indicates that it is the Father himself who directly reveals truth to the believer. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned as a separate person. In John 4:21-24, Jesus seems to indicate that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him inspirit and in truth. He talks about worshiping the Father, not the Holy Spirit. He does not mention the Holy Spirit as being a separate being or person that that of the Father.
Anyway, I do not believe that the belief one way or the other is important for salvation. Jesus himself said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." To obtain eternal life, I only need to know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.
You ask: "I wonder too whether you could share what is the situation of the person who shared this new understanding with you." I will not give the name of the person. This person is an advocate of the teachings of Jones and Waggoner, but they carry those teaching to their apostacy from the SDA truths. As a historical point, Jones and Waggoner (who presented the Christ our Righteousness message in 1888) later in life rejected the sanctuary message and rejected the teaching on the investigative judgment. The person who introduced me to the new understanding regarding the trinity doctrine errors is now teaching that Jones and Waggonner later in life were correct and it is error to teach the investigative judgment and the sanctuary message and also teaching that EGW was in error.
Just because Jones and Waggoner later in life rejected the investigative judgment and the sanctuary message, does not mean that the message they brough in 1888 is not the truth. The same is for the new understanding this person brought to me regarding the errors in the trinity doctrine. I cannot say that this new understanding is not truth. In fact, the person who taught the person who introduced me to the new understanding still believes in the full inspiration of EGW and rejects the teachings of Jones and Waggonner later in life when they rejected the sanctuary and investigative judgment. He still teaches all the pillars of the SDA truths.
You ask: "How has this situation impacted your relationship with others in your church?"
I do not force my new understanding upon any other church member. Some members of my church have agreed with my new understanding. Others recognize that my understanding is different than their understanding and do not let this bother them. It has not caused anyone to seek removing my name from the church books.
I hope this has been helpful.