SALVATION BY THE SABBATH

[Keith Mullins]

Yes, house churches was all there was back then. Agreed.

The early Church met in houses on the first day of the week. Agreed.

Hebrews 10 makes it very clear that it was an Apostolic Command for Christians to assemble "themselves" together - Christians could not assemble themselves together at a Synagogue or the Temple.

Are there any Sabbatarians who keep the Sabbath that don't meet for collection / church on the same day?

Just to be clear, I do not believe that keeping the Sabbath is a requirement today. Nor do I keep it. To legalistic for me. Nor do I believe that the church met in the synagogues or temple.

So if the instruction to gather "themselves " together forbids gathering with or at a synagogue because Jews would be there, wouldn't it also forbid gathering with nonbelievers since they would be outside of the "themselves" gathering?

 

[1689Dave]

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” 1 Timothy 1:9–10 (KJV 1900)

Do you need death threats from God to act in a civil manner?

 

[pythons]

I don't believe that keeping the equivalent of a Gregorian Saturday is a requirement for Christians either and like you I also don't believe that the early Christians assembled "as a Church" in the Temple or Synagogue.

What I'm saying is that there is an Apostolic command for Christians to "assemble themselves" together and that both Scripture, Christian history and secular history affirm that this took place on the 1st day of the week.

 

[Alex2165]

You realize that Apostolic era Christians were not assembling as Christians in Sysngogues, right?

That would have been a violation of Christ's command.

Additionally, religious Jews today nor at the time of the Apostles would have dared...
...To carry their collection (money) with them on the sabbath day.
...This is hard evidence Christians were assembling on the 1st day for worship.
...Exactly as Scripture and Secular history say they were.

Of course such command never existed, and Keith absolutely right

Above all, Jesus every Sabbath conducted His teaching in the synagogues, because there was no other place to do it, and sometimes together with His disciples.

Of course Jesus also teach under open air, and in many other places available, but He never missed the Sabbath Day.

And despite the fact that some of the leaders hate His teachings, the majority of the people were ecstatic to hear Him.

Luke 4.15
15.He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.

And this is very small example out of many when the people and even some of the leaders of the synagogues praised Jesus and have been astounded at His teaching.

Jesus teach not only in synagogues but even in the Temple, almost every day!

Luke 21.37-38
37.Every day He was teaching in the Temple, and at night He would go out and spend the night on the mount of Olives as it was called.

38.And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to Him in the Temple.

Home churches also have been established very quickly, and we know such examples from the Bible, but it took a long time until the churches purposely built as a place of Christian worship.

Church in NT literally means a place of gathering and does not mean the actual physical building as we know it today.

Actually in Antioch for the first time believers in Christ called as Christians.

Acts 11.25-26
25.Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul,

26.and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

There are two known Antiochs, one in Syria and another in Pisidia.

Antioch of Pisidia.

A city of southern Asia Minor in Phrygia, situated just north of the territory of Pisida. Antioch was an important first-century commercial center and an important center for the spread of the Gospel.

Founded by Seleucus I Nicator (about 300 B.C.) and named for his father Antiochus, it became a great center for commerce and was inhabited by many Jews.

The Apostle Paul preached in this city's synagogue and founded a church there during his first missionary journey (Acts 13.14-49). Just as Antioch exerted great cultural and political influence over the surrounding area, so also it became a strong base from which to launch the church evangelistic outreach (Acts 13.42-49).

In reaction to Paul's success, the Jews at Antioch caused some influential women to turn against the Gospel and had Paul driven out of the city (Acts 13.50).

(Nelson's Compact Bible Dictionary. Ronald F. Youngblood, F.F. Bruce, R.K. Harrison.)

At that time all the worship was conducted on the 7th Sabbath Day, as the Law of Moses required.

Until crooked, dishonest, and hypocritical "Christians" changed to Sunday, not the GOD.

 

[rstrats]

Delete.

 

[rstrats]

Delete.

 

[AustinC]

The OP reminds me of Hebrews 4 where the preacher to the Hebrews talks about entering into God's rest.

Hebrews 4:1-11
God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” So God’s rest is there for people to enter, but those who first heard this good news failed to enter because they disobeyed God. So God set another time for entering his rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David much later in the words already quoted: “Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts.” Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God. For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall.

There is still a Sabbath rest for us who believe, but meanwhile we walk in the wilderness toward the Promised Land of God's rest.

 

[rstrats]

[QUOTE="pythons, post: 2751714, member: 15513

Additionally, religious Jews today nor at the time of the Apostles would have dared...
...To carry their collection (money) with them on the sabbath day.
...This is hard evidence Christians were assembling on the 1st day for worship.
...Exactly as Scripture and Secular history say they were.[/QUOTE]

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest. And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.

And the Acts reference might very well have had them getting together on the first to break bread with Paul because he happened to be in town and wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again.

 

[Yeshua1]

[QUOTE="pythons, post: 2751714, member: 15513

Additionally, religious Jews today nor at the time of the Apostles would have dared...
...To carry their collection (money) with them on the sabbath day.
...This is hard evidence Christians were assembling on the 1st day for worship.
...Exactly as Scripture and Secular history say they were.

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest. And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.

And the Acts reference might very well have had them getting together on the first to break bread with Paul because he happened to be in town and wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much ALL historical references from early Church fathers and non Christian sources showed early Christians observed Sunday as Lords Day now!

 

[rstrats]

[QUOTE="Yeshua1,
Pretty much ALL historical references from early Church fathers and non Christian sources showed early Christians observed Sunday as Lords Day now![/QUOTE]


That generally seems to be the case. I was merely countering pythons' assertion by pointing out that scripture is silent with regard to that.

 

[pythons]

Of course such command never existed, and Keith absolutely right

You're incorrect.

Hebrews 10,23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

That's a COMMAND no matter how badly it offends your programming.

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest. And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.

And the Acts reference might very well have had them getting together on the first to break bread with Paul because he happened to be in town and wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again.

Pretty much ALL historical references from early Church fathers and non Christian sources showed early Christians observed Sunday as Lords Day now!
[/quote]

Actually, you've grossly miscounted.

1st Corinthians 16,1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

According to Paul there was more than ONE Church in Galatia and what he had ordered the CHURCHES of Galatia he was also obliging the Corinthians to do as well. That would have been A LOT OF GATHERING going on - on Sunday. Furthermore, Christians assembling themselves with Jews practicing Judaism WOULDN'T be an assembly of Christians THEMSELVES but as a Sabbatarian you have to pretend that part of the text isn't there for your Doctrine to work.

As for Acts 20, 7 the text is simply telling you WHEN the Apostles tradition was to meet or assemble themselves together.

Acts 20, 7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The Apostles were spread out, preaching the Gospel - it was on the 1st day of the week that the disciples CAME TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD.

Now, SDA's and other non-Trinitarian Adventists will claim this was only the Apostles "having lunch" - this isn't what Secular history says, it's not what Jewish history says and it's not what early Church history says. According to Scripture ANY DAY is appropriate to dedicate to the Lord - claiming there is something magical or "binding" about Saturday is simply hogwash and comes from the same camp that advocated that God the Father has a large intestine, testicles and liver.

 

[Keith Mullins]

You're incorrect.

Hebrews 10,23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.



Actually, you've grossly miscounted.

1st Corinthians 16,1
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

According to Paul there was more than ONE Church in Galatia and what he had ordered the CHURCHES of Galatia he was also obliging the Corinthians to do as well. That would have been A LOT OF GATHERING going on - on Sunday. Furthermore, Christians assembling themselves with Jews practicing Judaism WOULDN'T be an assembly of Christians THEMSELVES but as a Sabbatarian you have to pretend that part of the text isn't there for your Doctrine to work.

As for Acts 20, 7 the text is simply telling you WHEN the Apostles tradition was to meet or assemble themselves together.

Acts 20, 7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The Apostles were spread out, preaching the Gospel - it was on the 1st day of the week that the disciples CAME TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD.

Now, SDA's and other non-Trinitarian Adventists will claim this was only the Apostles "having lunch" - this isn't what Secular history says, it's not what Jewish history says and it's not what early Church history says. According to Scripture ANY DAY is appropriate to dedicate to the Lord - claiming there is something magical or "binding" about Saturday is simply hogwash and comes from the same camp that advocated that God the Father has a large intestine, testicles and liver.

Am I permitted to say AMEN on these boards?

 

[pythons]

Reasoning with Adventists can be done provided one knows a little about their programming...
...Knowing about this lets one walk in their shoes for a bit to better understand them.
...In all honesty - IF I believed Ellen White was a Prophet I would have to agree with them.

Adventists are a group of Churches that express Arianism in their worship...
...A Jehovah's Witness IS AN ADVENTIST - they are just not Seventh Day Adventist.
...Same goes for a Christadelphian, WWCOG adherent, etc.

In the Case of SDA's they will claim "Sola Scriptura" but this is patently false as the following demonstrates.

Ellen White
At that time [1843 -1851] one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

&

Ellen White
"In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many Scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the Word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of Scripture to Scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by point." (Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 38)



Allow the above to sink-in. "COMPANIES" of devoted men and women (some of them medical Doctors and "Ministers") would search the Scriptures seeking truth but COULDN'T get confirmation if the Doctrines being presented were true or not - then, suddenly, Ellen White clenches her fists, fall on the ground - has a "vision" & subsequently DEFINES what Doctrines they would be accepting or rejecting. Does this sound like Sola Scriptura to anyone here? This is frankly more doctrinal authority than is claimed for the Pope speaking from the Chair of St. Peter!

As Ellen White clearly stated above, THAT was how the points of SDA Faith were established - the Circus histrionics employed by Ellen being attributed to "THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT". Because SDA's believe that the power of God came into Ellen and that she was empowered to identify truth and Define Doctrines what Ellen says usurps Scripture if Scripture disagrees with the distinctive doctrines Ellen White confirmed (allegedly) under the spell of the power of God. The next quote will probably explain what I'm here saying better than I can express in my own words.

1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God

What Ellen just said is that the Scriptures are God's word and are to be respected BUT DON'T YOU DARE gather a mass of Scriptures together that disagrees with the distinctive doctrines Ellen White has already confirmed UNDER THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. IF the Scriptures say the opposite of Ellen White - you had better stick with Ellen White because her words are clearer than those Bible writers from thousands of years ago. Examples following.

Ellen White
The Bible is written by inspired men, but IT is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen." (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers")

That's pretty clear - below you will see how Ellen describes her work and contrasts it with the above.

Ellen White
Before I stand on my feet, I have no thought of speaking as plainly as I do. But the Spirit of God rests upon me with power, and I cannot but speak the words given me. I dare not withhold one word of the testimony.... I speak the words given me by a higher power than human power, and I cannot, if I would, recall [retract] one sentence” (1MR 28).

Ellen White
There are those who say, ‘Someone MANIPULATES her writings.’ I acknowledge the charge. It is One who is mighty in counsel, One who presents before me the condition of things” (1MR 30).

Ellen White Selected Messages 3.83
“Men may get up scheme after scheme and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, BUT all who believe the Lord has spoken through Sister White and has given her a message WILL BE SAFE FROM THE MANY DELUSIONS THAT WILL COME IN THESE LAST DAYS.” (same quote can be found in “YE SHALL RECEIVE POWER p. 238.5)

There are literally scores more I could quote but they all say the same things just in different ways.

Understand the above is what is racing through a Seventh-day Adventist's mind subconsciously - you can show them clear New Testament Texts that say Christians are not at all obligated to observe todays Gregorian Saturday as a Sabbath BUT no matter how many texts you show them Ellen's interpretation of the Scriptures and her visions of Biblical themes TRUMP anyone else's interpretation. This is just how it works.

 

[37818]

Adventists are a group of Churches that express Arianism in their worship...

They are Trinitarian. They believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are wrong about the second death and on their view of the 7th day Sabbath.

 

[pythons]

They are Trinitarian. They believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are wrong about the second death and on their view of the 7th day Sabbath.

Many folks believe this & I've encountered some (a few) SDA's who do - however this isn't the norm.

James White ( Ellen's husband )
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. The Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

The creed of a Trinitarian does not agree with the testimonies of Ellen White is the way I'm reading this.

That and perhaps the most vicious article ever written in the Sabbath Herald against the Doctrine of the Trinity was edited and revised by Ellen White & her Husband James.

 

[37818]

Many folks believe this & I've encountered some (a few) SDA's who do - however this isn't the norm.

James White ( Ellen's husband )
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. The Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

The creed of a Trinitarian does not agree with the testimonies of Ellen White is the way I'm reading this.

That and perhaps the most vicious article ever written in the Sabbath Herald against the Doctrine of the Trinity was edited and revised by Ellen White & her Husband James.

You gave no case examples of denying one God and three distinct persons who are that one God. There are more than one view of a Biblical Trinity. At least four I know of. All of which affirm only one God and three distinct persons who are that one and the same God.

 

[37818]

What Adventists Believe About the Trinity - Adventist.org

 

[pythons]

What Adventists Believe About the Trinity - Adventist.org

Yes lol, I'm aware of what they say.

The following book written by a Mormon addressing if Mormon's are Christians Are Mormons Christians: Robinson, Stephen E.: 9781570084096: Amazon.com: Books says:

"If by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity."

"However, if by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence–then Latter-day Saints do not believe it"

In this conversation THIS (the above) is where the road terminates with the SDA's.

SDA Sabbath Herald, November 10, 1859
"We have read over and over again, passages that show that Christ has been sent of his Father; which certainly implies that the Godhead is NOT united with the humanity. Why speak of being sent from the Father, when it was the Father himself that came and dwelt with human flesh ? It either implies, as we have seen before, that God has sent the humanity, or else there are two distinct persons. We believe it is impossible for trinitarians to reconcile this matter. We find however, other expressions, that prove that they are not one person."

"We might here add that the orthodox view of' God as expressed by them in several " Articles of Faith," is, that " God is without body, parts, passions, centre, circumference, or locality." It would be a very easy matter to prove that such a view is exceedingly skeptical, if not -atheistical in its nature. It certainly appears that such a God as this, must be entirely devoid of an existence".

Ellen White
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

If you would prefer a more contemporary citation I offer the following. 3 God's who adopted roles

Seventh-day Adventist Review & Herald
A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father."

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/do...C.pdf#view=fit
page 12

But make no mistake, I agree with you that the SDA's openly state they believe in the Trinity.

 

[37818]

Yes lol, I'm aware of what they say.

The following book written by a Mormon addressing if Mormon's are Christians Are Mormons Christians: Robinson, Stephen E.: 9781570084096: Amazon.com: Books says:

"If by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity."

"However, if by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence–then Latter-day Saints do not believe it"

In this conversation THIS (the above) is where the road terminates with the SDA's.

SDA Sabbath Herald, November 10, 1859
"We have read over and over again, passages that show that Christ has been sent of his Father; which certainly implies that the Godhead is NOT united with the humanity. Why speak of being sent from the Father, when it was the Father himself that came and dwelt with human flesh ? It either implies, as we have seen before, that God has sent the humanity, or else there are two distinct persons. We believe it is impossible for trinitarians to reconcile this matter. We find however, other expressions, that prove that they are not one person."

"We might here add that the orthodox view of' God as expressed by them in several " Articles of Faith," is, that " God is without body, parts, passions, centre, circumference, or locality." It would be a very easy matter to prove that such a view is exceedingly skeptical, if not -atheistical in its nature. It certainly appears that such a God as this, must be entirely devoid of an existence".

Ellen White
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

If you would prefer a more contemporary citation I offer the following. 3 God's who adopted roles

Seventh-day Adventist Review & Herald
A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father."

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/do...C.pdf#view=fit
page 12

But make no mistake, I agree with you that the SDA's openly state they believe in the Trinity.

Ellen White is a false prophet.
The Mormon Trinity is tritheism. Not the Trinity.
Your citations do not, presented them, to make a clear case.

So is SDA what they believe from the Bible.
Or
SDA the Bible plus Ellen White writings equal as Scripture?

 

[pythons]

Ellen White is a false prophet.
The Mormon Trinity is tritheism. Not the Trinity.
Your citations do not, presented them, to make a clear case.

So is SDA what they believe from the Bible.
Or
SDA the Bible plus Ellen White writings equal as Scripture?

Ellen White is considered a more sure word than what Scripture appears to say. If there is a dispute between Scripture and Ellen White SDA's are to stick with Ellen White.

I agree with you that Ellen White was a False Prophet.

I agree with you that the Mormon Trinity is tritheism.

I showed you multiple quotes from both the founders of the SDA Church as well as contemporary quotes that are irreconcilable with the Doctrine of the Trinity . I'll try to unpack one of the ones I posted to see if you can see what I'm seeing.

Ellen White
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

Christ is ONE with the Father IN THE SAME WAY that Christ was one with His Disciples.

The word "PERSONALITY" here means hominid flesh body with parts, organs bones and blood. As in The Father has an esophagus, intestine, etc.. What that quote is saying is that Christ ISN'T God and that God and Christ are one in the same manner that Christ & His disciples are one - i.e. the disciples are not God.

Perhaps below will illustrate better what I'm attempting to convey

Adventist Signs of the Times, March 21, 1878
Bible question to the editor

Q. But does it not say that the Word was God?

A. Yes, and it says that he was with God. Being the Son of God of course he is properly called God. This is his name, but he was NOT THE VERY and ETERNAL God Himself for it says that he was with God

&

Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept 12, 1893
Was Christ the God of Israel?

Who was this being who thus called Moses to this important mission? Was it God the Father or God the Son? Was it "THE KING ETERNAL, IMORTAL, INVISIBLE, the only wise God" OR was it Immanuel?

If you can reconcile these affirmations with the Doctrine of the Trinity I'll not argue with you - we'll just have a differing view.