This post is prinicipally addressed to Bobby, as it seems I can't confirm my replies to short answers! Hi Bobby, I have enjoyed reading some of your posts; I have had an ironic chuckle over the views presented with some. I replied to your post on your article `Impeccable, Immutable, or NOT?', but being new to this forum, I did it through `yahoo' in my e-mail alerts, and I think it disappeared into the internet ether! So here is the gist of what I originally wrote about that particular post, for I agree with you when you state that it is ironic that Trinitarian Adventists who hold to the `peccability' view, or post-lapsarian view of the human nature of Christ, are completely illogical in what they hold to be a true tenet of belief. What they fail to understand is that while the `impeccability' view, or pre-lapsarian view on the human nature of Christ is a further doctrinal expression of the Nicene Creed, and thus finds expression in the Chalcedonian Creed, the `peccability' view originated with the theology of Arius, whose non-Trinitarian position on the human nature of Christ is (rightly so) anathema to them. Thus, if they were truly consistent in what they believe, they would align themselves with Arianism, or semi-Arianism, instead of classifying themselves as Trinitarians - when the `proof of the pudding', so to speak, which defines their so-called Trinitarianism, is their position on the human nature of Christ!
Although the Church hierarchy has from time to time released various articles that are slanted toward the Chalcedonian Creed in an attempt to convince laypersons on this unofficial version on the human nature of Christ which is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of pastors, as yet, the Church has not made a definitive declaration that the Chalcedonian Creed is the official position on the human nature of Christ, as it further establishes the Nicene Creed. I think that if the organisation continues on its present course, then this is inevitable, as it's a bit like the `establishment' clause in the American Constitution - while the first half of this amendment states that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion', the second half of this amendment explains the intent of the first half of this amendment, by declaring that the `establshment' of one religion over all others in fact abrogates the freedom of religion by `abridging the freedom of speech, . . . . the press [and] the right of the people to peaceably to assemble . . . .' The Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds work in the same manner. While the Nicene Creed states the ontology of God, the Chalcedonian Creed further explains and defines this relationship in a doctrinal statement on the human nature of Christ. But when Trinitarians express the belief that there can only be two systems of belief, one based on Arianism, which presents us with a `Christ' Whose divinity is subsumed by the Father - thus leaving us with a semi-divine Christ Who cannot save us (for the reason that only a fully divine Being can save us), and one based on Athanasianism, in which the divinity of Christ is upheld by the dogma of the Nicene Creed, this argument is in fact naive, for texts such as John 5: 26 indicate how the Son can be a literal Son to the Father in His human incarnation - yet remain completely divine. Another is Hebrews 7: 9 - 10, which infers that just as Levi was accounted as existing `while he was yet in the loins of Abraham when he met Melchisedek', so also is Christ accounted as being `in' the Father from eternity, when at some time before time existed, He was (as Ellen White put it) `torn from the bosom of the Father' in much the same sense that Eve was taken from the side of Adam.
This `in Christ' motif can be further seen in all of Israel being accounted as being `in' the High Priest on the `Day of Atonement', which is also represented by all of humanity being `in' Adam when he first sinned, and all of humanity being `in' Christ at Calvary. To my mind, a correct perception of the `in Christ' motif leads to a correct perception of Christ as `the second representative Man' of the entire race, which, while initially drawing upon the theology which Arius first postulated on the human incarnation by identifying Christ with the fallen race, at the same time avoids the obvious pitfalls of presenting Him as having a fallen nature Who had His divinity accorded to Him in advance, by reason that the Father foresaw that He would be `good' (salvation by `works' - obedience to the law), and presenting Him as having a `beginning' and having an entry into time, thus declaring that although He is a literal Son to the Father, He cannot be fully divine. I think you will agree that although the Bible teaches that the relationship of the Father to the Son is hierarchical in nature, all that is Christ, including His divinity has been given to Him by His father , for both share the same `essence' , or mind. Thus, I can quite confidently declare that Christ is `Homoosion' (of the same substance as the Father), while at the same time view Him as a literal Son to the Father, for the entire gospel hinges upon the giving of the Son to all humanity by the Father for eternity. To deny the Sonship of the Son to the Father is to deny the gospel, and is antichrist. This conception of Christ, which many non-Trinitarians are coming to believe, would have thrown the Council of Nicea for a loop, and restores the balance between the two opposing tensions that are found in Arianism and Athanasianism.
In answer to your reply to my reply to my reply on `Elijah, the Voice of God', I have never read anything by Fred Wright or Fred Allaback - apart from some incidental stuff when he was allied with Lynnford Beachey and Allen Stump back in the mid 90's when I first began to consider Trinitarianism to be abject heresy. The only input I have on the Fred Wright movement, is by a brother who was in that movement, and informed me that over time, apparently Wright set himself up as a virtual prophet of God. Pretty sad, really.
Due to a set of circumstances which prevailed in my life at that time, I lost my faith completely for ten years and went out of the message completely, at which I lived in the bottom of a bottle. The Lord called me back in a miraculous set of circumstances two years ago, principally to write - which I have been doing ever since in the form of writing for some websites which I am building. As a result, I have no idea what happened to Fred Allaback; any information you have on this would be appreciated. As for the argument that `God does not kill'; while I agree that basically we all choose our own destinies, and God honours our choice if we choose to reject Him, there are many incidents in the Bible that demonstrate that God takes particular care in preserving truth in the remnant of His people, so that a knowledge of Him might not be lost completely, and that what He regards as Holy is not defiled by the profane or the ignorant. Such as entering the `Most Holy Place', or touching the `Ark of the Covenant' .
As for LeRoy Froom, he basically ignored Jones's presentations on the human nature of Christ, and declared Waggoner a Trinitiarian, with some unfortunate lapses of judgment on the Sonship of Christ to the Father having an entry into time. He then believed that the outpouring of the Latter Rain would then re-commence when the Seventh Day Adventist Church accepted the Trinitarian Holy Spirit, at which the Latter Rain would be poured abundantly upon the Chosen People of God by the Third Person of the Godhead. We are still waiting!