Hello friends,
I thought you might be edified by a communication that I had with Joel Ridgeway. He was a non-trinitarian who became a trinitarian again and wrote a book entitled “Understanding the Godhead: My Personal Journey.” I have read his book but will not give a critique of it right now. Instead I will share a communication I had with this brother back in 2018 with a few slight edits for clarity sake.
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity: A Reply to Joel Ridgeway
Jason wrote: So what do you think Joel Ridgeway? Am I an heretic? Or should the SDA church accept me as a member in good standing? [End Quote]
Joel wrote: As for fellowship in the SDA church, if you are willing to accept the 28 fundamentals then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be accepted into fellowship. But I dare say that you won’t accept them, for reasons you have listed above.
If the church let people in to fellowship and leadership without some kind of doctrinal standard to keep consistency the church, the whole church would fragment. Thats why the 28 fundamentals are a test of fellowship. [End Quote]
Dear brother Joel,
I appreciate your honest answers myĀ friend. While I am not surprised by it I am still a bit disappointed though. This is not because I reject the idea that the church must have some kind of doctrinal standard but because the church itself is contradictory on this particular doctrine.Ā
First up, if they enforcedĀ this consistently that would be one thing but they do not. I cannot tell you how many leaders I know who are in outright denial of certain truths but I digress. Yet an even more serious problem here than inconsistency in application is that this is really a form of traditional creedalism that has crept in. I say this because the veryĀ doctrine in question is, by the admission of many trinitariansĀ themselves, an assumption! Do you not see the problem here? What cannot be proven by Godās Word has been made into a test question. This is traditional creedal thinking, beyond a doubt, and this is what I amĀ protesting. Now letās get into the meat of this subject.
Joel wrote: Jason Smith I respect your position, but I think its too close to Catholic theology for me to acceptā¦.[End Quote]
Oh dear, my brother! My position is too close to Catholic theology? To quote the proverb āphysician heal thyself.ā What I mean by this is that you are just as liable to this claim. Since you accept the SDA Fundamental belief on this subject I contend that you are actually closer than I am. Now while you might beg to differ letās do a comparative analysis.
You see it is very common for certain SDA pro-trinitarian defenders to say that the SDA non-trinitarian position is the same as the Catholic trinity. You have not said that yourself but a similar thing because you claim my position is ātoo close.ā
The very great irony here is that my view is based on explicit statements of inspiration, whether Godās Word or the testimonies. The components that I hold to, some of which you reject, are viable Biblical possibilities and I can quote the Scriptures thatĀ show this. Yet, according to mainline Seventh-day Adventism, I am a supposed heretic. On the other hand, the position that my SDA trinitarian brethren hold to is not only quite similar to the Catholic trinity in certain aspects but some of them are not found in the BibleĀ at all. And I say this because I have been asking numerous scholars andĀ pastors to show them to me for years now and not an one has. Yet theyĀ are still accepted as SDAs in good standing. I kid you not! Max Hatton, aĀ leading SDA trintiarian, is outright teaching that the testimonies ofĀ sister White are wrong and out of harmony regarding the trinity. Yet who is openly repudiating him? I know not any except for SDAĀ anti/non-trinitarians. The irony here is almost overwhelming!Ā
As it stands right now, at least from my experiential perspective, you can believe what is not [explicit] in the Bible about God, Christ, or the Spirit and be quite fine within Seventh-dayĀ Adventism, so long as you say you adhere to the fundamentals. Yet, if you believe what is [explicit] in the BibleĀ about God, Christ and the Spirit [and openly say as much] you can actually be kicked out ofĀ Adventism, because you hold Scripture higher than the fundamental and cannot affirm them because of it.
Now I realize that this is an incredibly serious thing to say so please allow me to illustrate what IĀ am speaking about. And this information should be very useful in helpingĀ people to discern the similarities and differences between the CatholicĀ trinity view, the SDA trinity view, and the SDA non-trinitarian view.
First up there is positive usage of the word ātrinityā or the phrase āthe doctrine of the trinityā itself.
A) The Catholic position here is that they believe in the doctrine of the trinity. They use the word and phrase positively. No one can honestly dispute this. Itās all over theĀ place so I will not document it but take it for granted.
B) The SDA position here is thatĀ they too believe in the doctrine of the trinity. They use the word andĀ phrase positively. Again no documentation is needed here to prove thisĀ labeling within Adventism.
Note: Here we see that both the Catholic view and mainline SDA view have their terminology in common for they both openly claim to believe in the doctrine of the trinity. Now while we might say this is a superficial comparison I would note thatĀ all I have done here is take the exact same approach that certain SDAĀ pro-trinitarians frequently do with their non-trinitarian brethren. TheyĀ say that because we believe that the pre-incarnate Son of God wasĀ ābegottenā and Catholic theology teaches that He was ābegottenā too,Ā therefore it is the same doctrine.Ā They completely ignore the fact that our Catholic friends believe inĀ eternal generation [thereby removing the material aspect of the begetting] whereas we do not. So if a superficial, surface level criticism is sufficient for them to use the guilty by association argument against us then I suppose it is equally valid for it to be usedĀ against themselves. By their own standard I will evaluate them. And since you have said a similar thing then I will say this of you. Why shouldnāt your view be too similar to Catholicism too for anyone to accept? You use the same terminology here donāt you?
C) The SDA non-trinitarian position here is that we do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. We do not use the word or the phrase to describe our belief.
Conclusion: The SDA trinity position is similar to the Catholic trinity position in this respect whereas the SDA non-trintiarian position is not.
[PS: Please do not feel obliged to respond to this point unless you want to. I realize my own counterargument would effectively serve your purpose too but Iām just trying to open your eyes to the unfair argument we face continually.]
Secondly there is more than superficial similarity here though because the core concept is the same:
A) SDA Statement:
āThere is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship,Ā adoration, and service by the whole creation. (SDA Fundamental Belief #Ā 2)
B) Catholic Statement:
āThe mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (āCatechism of the Catholic church line 261)
āThe Catholic Church teaches that the fathomless mystery we call God has revealed himself to humankind as a Trinity of Personsāthe Father, the Son, and the HolyĀ Spirit. The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of CatholicĀ faith. Upon it are based all other teachings of the Churchā¦The ChurchĀ studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries ofĀ clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: in the unity of the Godhead there are three Personsāthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritātruly distinct one from another (Handbook for Todayās Catholic pg 17, 18)
Note: Here we see deeper similarities donāt we? Please note that the āone God,ā according to the SDA fundamental belief, is āa unity of three coeternal Personsā yet the statement continues on to refer to these Three with the singular pronouns āHeā and āHis.ā That truly makes it sound like we are dealingĀ with one Divine Being. Now the Catholic statement refers to God as anĀ āhimselfā (singular pronoun too) and also refers to the āunityā of theseĀ Three. Itās the same core idea.Ā
The difference though is that the Catholic church openly teaches one Being while the SDA statement only implies it. However, the SDA statement does not overtly deny one Being and thus numerous SDA scholars teach it. Also, the SDA statement doesĀ not explain anything about the inner relationship of unity among these 3Ā Persons ā how or why They are Father, Son and Spirit. That was actually an issue that was purposefully avoided when framing the belief. The result though is that one can explain the SDA belief as the same as the Catholic view and [this is accepatable within Adventism (more on this shortly).Ā Or then again you can say it is not that way and that is acceptable too.Ā The Catholic doctrine though explains a very specific relationshipĀ between the 3 as we touched upon, in part, previously (i.e. eternalĀ generation and also eternal procession). The salient point here though is that there is a very clear similarity in concept here ā both viewsĀ hold 3 Persons that are unified as one God and use singular pronouns.
SDA non-trinitarian statement:
1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalms 139:7 – Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist⦠(SDA Fundamental Principles 1872-1915)
Note: This statement of belief about the āone Godā is in harmony with explicit Biblical statements. The One God is the Father and the singular pronoun āHisā is referring to Him alone. And He is the One who created all things by Jesus, who is His Son. When we compare this with the two aforementioned beliefs we see disharmony.
Conclusion: The SDA trinity position is similar to the Catholic trinity position here whereas the SDA non-trinitarian position is not.
Moving on our third point will be assumption vs. explicit statements.
If you will, please notice, in the statement from the Catholic handbook that our Catholic friends are very up front that they ādecided to stateā this doctrine after 4 centuries of clarification. Now if you know anything about this process you know that the canon was closed so they were actually making assumptions that arenāt in the Word of God to define their trinitarian dogma. In fact, by Catholicismās own admission, it isnāt an explicit Bible doctrine yet that isnāt a problem for them because they have another source of authority (tradition) which is actually viewed as superior (but thatās another study). Thus we read, as a part of their challenge to Protestantism:
Catholic Statement:
āOur opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture . . . . But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, as the Trinity, for which there no such precise authority in the Gospelsā (āAssumption of Mary,ā Life magazine, October 30, 1950, p. 51).
SDA Statement:
āThe concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed.ā (Handbook of SDA Theology page 138)
“The role of the trinity in a doctrine of God always raises questions. One reason is that the word itself does not appear in the Bible, NOR IS THERE ANY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE IDEA.Ā But the Bible does set the stage for its formulation, and the conceptĀ represents a development of biblical claims and concepts. SOĀ EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS NOT PART OF WHAT THE BIBLEĀ ITSELF SAYS ABOUT GOD, IT IS PART OF WHAT THE CHURCH MUST SAY to safeguard the biblical view of God.” (Richard Rice, The Reign of God, AnĀ Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day AdventistĀ Perspectiveā, page 89, ‘A constructive proposal’, 1985)Ā
Note: It is a fairly commonly held belief, among trinitarians and even some SDA trintiarians, that the doctrine is not explicit within Godās word but is an assumption. And Richard Rice actually echoes the Catholic sentiment in that it is what the church says!
SDA non-trintiarian statement:
āYou ask what we teach about the Trinity. Inasmuch as we find no such expression in the Scriptures, we do not teach anything about it. But as to the Being of God,-the Godhead,-Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, we believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else. No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity. Therefore, in discussions about the Trinity, about the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are manifestations of gross presumption (E.J. Waggoner āThe Present Truth 18, 6 [1902])
Note: Contrary to the trinitarian assumptive view, the non-trintiarian view claims to ābelieve and teach just what the Bible says.ā I would make that same claim myself. Now while I think that can be legitimately challenged on some points (particularly my view of God and time and also the interpretation of certain verses) I do find in general that the non-trinitarian belief overwhelmingly goes by actual Biblical data instead of assumption.
In brief illustration:
1) One God is the Father (see 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Mark 12:32; John 17:3)
2) The pre-incarnate Son of God was begotten/set up/brought forth before Godās works, from everlasting, before this world was (see Prov 8:22-25; Micah 5:2; John 1:14, 15)
3) The Son of God was the only begotten/firstbegotten before this world was. He was Godās appointed Heir, the brightness of His glory and His express image (Heb 1:1, 2; see plain reading of John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Heb 1:6)
4) The Son is God (John 1:1; Heb 1:8; Matt 1:23)
5) The holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and Christ (Isaiah 63:10; 1 Thess 4:8; Eph 4:30; Psalm 51:11; 1 Cor 12:3; Matt 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11; 1 Pet 1:10,11; 2 Pet 1:20, 21; John 3:34; John 17:21-24)
6) The holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (see John 15:26; Rev 5:6; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:5,6; Eph 2:18; Gal 4:6)
7) The holy Spirit has cognitive and emotive capabilities (Rom 8:27; Eph 4:30; 1 Cor 12:11)
8) The Bible mentions Father, Son and Spirit together thus indicating an heavenly trio (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4,5)
Now my understanding of some of these verses might be disputable but when we look at the totality I believe the case is fairly clear. Even some of the trinitarian brethren will admit as much. Take for instance this admission from brother Prewitt:
āMy non-trinitarian friends are certainly right that there is only one God, the Father. (See John 17:2-3). The word God is used that way very many times in Scripture. AndĀ in those many cases it means āthe ultimate executive of the universe.āĀ So there is just one, and that is the Father.
ā(There is another sense to theĀ word āGodā that means simply āone with the attributes of Divinity.ā ThatĀ sense would include Jesus as you see in John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8. AndĀ the Spirit is the third person of the āgodheadā in that sense. That isĀ why our bodies are temples to the Spirit.)
āBut we shouldnāt deny to ourĀ non-trinitarian friends the pleasure of showing us that there is One True God, again, in that ultimate sense. (Eugene Prewitt āThe GodheadĀ for Seventh-day Adventists)
You see it is this particular pointĀ that many of my trinitarian friends will not admit and I do think brotherĀ Prewitt still has some room to grow here too. I believe he is correct that there is āone Godā in the ultimate sense yet I do not think heĀ understands completely why this is. My answer is because God, that is the Father, is the One of Whom are all things. And His begotten Son, whoĀ is God too, is the One by Whom He made all things.
Conclusion:Ā The SDA non-trinitarian position can support its view with directĀ Biblical statements and it accepts the totality of the Bibleās witness.Ā The SDA trintiarian position does not appear to be able to do the same but is built upon assumption and even seemingly denies explicit BiblicalĀ data.Ā
Where in Godās Word are we ever told that the āone Godā is anĀ unity of 3 Persons? That is assumptive. And why should we deny theĀ exclusive sense of the one God as seen in Scripture? Where are we ever told that the 3 collectively should be referred to as an āHe.ā While youĀ can make an argument for corporate Divine nature being referred to in the singular due to the Fatherās Headship that is not made clear in the fundamental belief and many, many SDA trintiarians actually deny theĀ pre-incarnate Headship of the Father! There goes that particular justification for āHeā in the fundamental. Also, does not referring to the 3 Persons as an āHeā and āHisā create erroneous theological implications? I must concur with J.G. Bennet who issued the followingĀ disclaimer about the wording of the fundamental belief back in 1980.
“J. G. BENNETT: The statement aboutĀ the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the pronoun He. Later as theĀ Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are discussed, we use the same pronounĀ He. I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but IĀ would have a little difficulty in applying the pronoun He to the TrinityĀ or the Godhead. For me this has deep theological implications (ReviewĀ and Herald, April 23, 1980 pg 11)
Next up, there are the claims from both churches that the two hold this doctrine in common:
First I will document SDA claims.
A Statement by SDAs to the Protestant/Evangelical World:
I. IN COMMON WITH ConservativeĀ Christians AND THE HISTORICAL PROTESTANT CREEDS, WE BELIEVEā ā¦. 2. ThatĀ the Godhead, the Trinity, comprises God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Questions on Doctrine pg 21)
A Statement by a SDA to the World Council of Churches:
āThe member churches of THE WORLDĀ COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTSISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THEĀ FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AS SET FORTH IN THE THREEĀ ANCIENT SYMBOLS (Apostolicum, NICAENON-CONSTANTINOPOLITUM, ATHANASIUM).Ā This agreement finds expression in UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF THEĀ DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY and the Two-Natures.ā (So Much In Common, p. 107Ā (1973) Co-authored by B.B. Beach and Dr. Lukas Vischer- Faith and theĀ Order Secretariat of the WCC.)
A Statement by the SDA (BRI) to a Representative Group of Roman Catholics:
āNature of God. A reading of theĀ above statements will show that with respect to their doctrine of GodĀ SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE GREAT CREEDAL STATEMENTSĀ OF CHRISTENDOM, including the Apostles’ Creed, NICEA 325), and theĀ additional definition of faith concerning the Holy Spirit as reached inĀ CONSTANTINOPLE (381)ā. (George Reid, Seventh-day Adventists: A BriefĀ Introduction to Their Beliefs, Biblical Research Institute)
A Statement by a SDA to the Methodists:
ā…In an odd sort of way, theĀ somewhat isolated, anti-ecumenical Adventists, thanks to theirĀ proselytizing success, BECAME ECUMENICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WEREĀ ABLE, THROUGH THESE CONVERTS, TO TAP INTO THE GREAT TRADITION OF THEĀ ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. (Woodrow Whidden: AndrewsĀ University Berrien Springs, MI (USA) A Paper Presented to The TenthĀ Oxford Institute of Methodist Theol. Studies Working Group: History ofĀ Wesleyan Traditions: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries August 12-22,Ā 1997 Oxford University Somerville College
A Statement to SDA church members studying with other Christians:
In the book Studying Together byĀ Mark Finley we read that āthe Godhead or the Trinityā is one point ofĀ ādoctrinal beliefs heldā by SDAs āin common withā the followingĀ denominations:
āthe Baptists⦠non-denominationalĀ Bible churches ā¦Catholics ā¦Episcopalians ā¦.Lutherans ā¦.MethodistsĀ ā¦.Nazarenesā¦.Presbyterians ā¦.Seventh-day Baptists (see pgs 123, 127,Ā 131, 143, 163, 164, 166, 182, 190, 204)
Yet these churches are creedalĀ trintiarians! And the Methodist creed and Presbyterians overtly teachĀ that God is without body and parts! Do SDAs really have this belief āinĀ common withā them? Is that an impression we want to make?
A Statement to SDAs:
āā¦THE CATHOLIC SIDE RECOGNIZES inĀ the document the Christocentric character of our beliefs, AND ESPECIALLYĀ OUR BELIEF IN THE TRINITY, as well as ecclesiological identity of theĀ Church, a status affirmed by an act of the Polish Parliament. On ourĀ part, we spoke of a need to change attitudes toward our denomination andĀ recognized the openness of the Catholic Church, especially in recentĀ times, toward the Bible,ā Lyko explained. [āAdventist Church Cannot beĀ Treated as a Sect,ā Say Adventists and Catholics in Poland, Feb, 14,Ā 2000]
A Statement to SDAs:
āAdventists value unity just as GodĀ does. Unity is grounded in the existence of God the Father, God theĀ Son, and God the Holy Spiritā¦. Unity is dear to the heart of God. TheĀ whole plan of salvation demonstrates Godās determination to unite HisĀ divided and dispersed family, which He created in His image. Unity isĀ grounded in the being of God who is Trinity: a unity in Trinityā¦.Ā Seventh-day Adventists support Christian unity as they join the TriuneĀ God who is determined to gather people He created in His image. (GanouneĀ Diop āWhy Adventists Participate in UN and Ecumental Meetings)
Now I will document the Catholic claim:
A statement to Catholics and others:
āSeventh-day Adventists AGREE WITHĀ MANY CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, INCLUDING THE TRINITY, with many ChristāsĀ divinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection ofĀ the dead, and Christās Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism.Ā They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching thatĀ one can never lose oneās salvation no matter what one does (i.e., they correctly reject “once saved, always saved”). (catholic.com/tract/seventh-day-adventism)
Note: Nowhere will you ever read from SDA non-trinitarians that our belief is the same as creedalĀ trintiarianism. That is completely impossible. Thus when certain SDAĀ pro-trinitarians use a superficial similarity to make this claim theyĀ are being highly illogical. Yet, as I have demonstrated above, their own doctrine actually has more similarities than the doctrine they oppose and numerous statements from both SDAs and Catholics affirm this.Ā
Not only that but there are a few statements from SDA leaders openly claiming that the two beliefs are identical! This has not only been published in various places but it has also been stated a few times by certain SDA ministers from the pulpit to the confusion of many. On top of all this I can pull up quotes from SDA trintiarian experts like RaoulĀ Dereden, Fernando Canale, Ekkehardt Mueller, Max Hatton and others whoĀ claim that the 3 Persons are indivisible or inseparable. That is nowhereĀ in Godās Word, at least that I can find, but it is in the Catholic creeds isnāt it? Thus, as a result, certain SDAs today believe it wasĀ impossible for the Son of God to lose His eternal existence even if HeĀ had sinned. This is a heresy close to that of the heresies of immaculate conception and impeccability (i.e. the idea that Christās humanity was such that He was incapable of sinning which therefore means He could have never have faced the wage of sin which is the 2nd death). Yet whether the Catholic view of theĀ immaculate conception, the Protestant view of the impeccability or Christ or the SDA view of Christ incapable of losing His existence, all of these things contradict the Bible which tells us that the wages of sin is death,Ā that Christ became like us in all points and that He prayed to God asĀ the One who was able to save Him from death. In short, itās a sip fromĀ the cup of the wine of Babylon.
Conclusion: While SDAs interpret the fundamental belief differently (i.e. 3Ā separate God Beings vs. 1 indivisible God Being) the weight of evidenceĀ clearly indicates that the SDA trinity doctrine is much closer to theĀ Catholic trinity doctrine than the SDA non-trinitarian doctrine. Thus any charge against SDA non-trintiarians, that their view is wrongĀ because of a perceived similarity to the Catholic trinity isĀ simultaneously a tacit admission of guilt on the part of the one whoĀ made it, presuming he or she is a SDA trinitarian. Also, the SDAĀ non-trinitarian view is built upon explicit Biblical data whereas theĀ SDA trinitarian view is built upon assumption. This is not to say thatĀ every aspect of the SDA trinity view is false (there is certainly anĀ oneness between Father and Son taught in Scripture but it is not definedĀ and since Bible evidence suggests that the holy Spirit is the Spirit ofĀ God and Spirit of Christ there must be an unity of sorts among the 3Ā Persons). However, with that said, its denial of the exclusive sense ofĀ āone Godā overtly taught in the holy Scriptures is where I believe itĀ denies Godās Word.
Appeal:Ā The title of this document is a famous phrase in Protestantism. The best information I have been able to find suggests that it traces backĀ to 17th century Lutherans but not one seems certain about that. WhereverĀ or whenever it was composed I believe it reveals a great truth,Ā particularly relevant to this discussion. āIn essentials unity, inĀ non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.ā None of us can explainĀ the mystery of God, His Son and His Spirit. While I am convinced that the current SDA trinitarian belief, because it denies the exclusiveĀ sense of the āone Godā that is clearly revealed in Scripture, is wrong, I am not convinced that it is all wrong. I am united with the brethren in terms of believing in the existence of Father, Son and Spirit but I believe the Scripture teaches a different conception for the 3 than is currently believed. Thus I believe that the church needs to return toĀ its previous statement which allowed for flexibility in terms of the conception of the heavenly trio. This will allow for all parties to formĀ their conceptions of God from His Word without a belief that serves as a creed that does not allow for the āone Godā to be the Father and forĀ His Son to be the only begotten.
“Let the Scriptures be read in simple faith, and let each one form his conceptions of God from His inspired Word” {Lt214-1903, par.9}
2 Responses
I agree!
Exactly!