A Research Paper On The History Of The Trinity Doctrine Within The .

1y ago
7 Views
2 Downloads
6.05 MB
1.2K Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Nixon Dill
Transcription

A research paper on the history of the trinity doctrinewithin the early Christian Church and within Seventhday AdventismSection 1 - An introductionSection 2 - Notes and observationsSection 3 - Heaven inspired counselSection 4 - The trinity – an assumed doctrineSection 5 - The trinity doctrine – differing views and conceptsSection 6 - The trinity doctrine explained – orthodoxy and non-orthodoxySection 7 - Councils and creedsSection 8 - Two schools of thought – two opposing theologiesSection 9 - The establishing of trinitarianism within ChristianitySection 10 - Rude awakeningsSection 11 - Understanding the issuesSection 12 - The trinity doctrine impacts both the incarnation and the atonementSection 13 - The power of the gospel (Infinite risk, infinite sacrifice, infinite love)Section 14 - A real Father and Son sacrificeSection 15 - Ellen White and the ‘begotten faith’ of Seventh-day AdventismSection 16 - The Son of God – the eternal presenceSection 17 - KenosisSection 18 - Truly human – truly our exampleSection 19 - Current theology – objections to kenosisSection 20 - Non-trinitarianism and anti-trinitarianism within Seventh-dayAdventismSection 21 - Seventh-day Adventists challenged regarding the divinity of ChristSection 22 - Misunderstandings regarding Seventh-day Adventists and thedivinity of ChristSection 23 - Non-trinitarianism – a landmark belief of both early Christianity andearly Seventh-day AdventismSection 24 - The early 1900’s crisis – controversy concerning God and Christ1

Section 25 - The early 1900’s crisis – Kellogg and the trinity doctrineSection 26 - The early 1900’s crisis – Kellogg and the Holy SpiritSection 27 - The early 1900’s crisis – Ellen G. White condemns three-in-oneillustrations of GodSection 28 - Warnings of apostasy – is the trinity doctrine the omega?Section 29 - The 1905 General ConferenceSection 30 - Historic Seventh-day Adventism – God and Christ two separatepersonalitiesSection 31 - The pioneers and the Holy Spirit – part 1Section 32 - The pioneers and the Holy Spirit – part 2Section 33 - Ellen G. White and the Holy Spirit – part 1Section 34 - Ellen G. White and the Holy Spirit – part 2Section 35 - The 'secret' 1919 Bible Conference - part 1Section 36 - The 'secret' 1919 Bible Conference – part 2Section 37 - Non-trinitarian books and articles – part 1Section 38 - Non-trinitarian books and articles – part 2Section 39 - Non-trinitarian books and articles – part 3Section 40 - Ellen G. White, non-trinitarianism and The Desire of AgesSection 41 - Daniel and the Revelation – a once prized workSection 41 (a) - The Sonship of Christ – a continuing belief within Seventh-dayAdventismSection 42 - The 1936 Sabbath School Lesson StudiesSection 43 - The Eckenroth experienceSection 44 - A changed Holy SpiritSection 45 - Transitional timesSection 46 - Accommodating the new theology part 1 – the General ConferencedecidesSection 47 - Accommodating the new theology part 2 – making a pronouncementon doctrineSection 48 - Voices in the wildernessSection 49 - Seventh-day Adventism – once considered a non-Christian cultSection 50 - The 1950’s acceptance by the evangelicalsSection 51 - Questions on Doctrine2

Section 52 - A disputable historySection 53 - Refuted evidences of trinitarianism within early Seventh-dayAdventism – part 1Section 54 - Refuted evidences of trinitarianism with early Seventh-dayAdventism – part 2Section 55 - Where we are todayBonus Section - What did the following leading pioneers of Seventh-dayAdventism all have in common with each other?Section oneAn introductionThis research paper concerns both the history and the theology of the trinity doctrine. Thisis the doctrine that most Christians believe is the central belief of the Christian faith.Allow me to share with you in one brief statement the overall purpose of this study.If like me you are a Seventh-day Adventist, you will no doubt realise that within ourdenomination for many years (far too many some are saying), there has been an ongoingdebate regarding the trinity doctrine. This is the reason why this study has been published.It is to help those who are interested, which in the main will probably be Seventh-dayAdventists, to understand the issues involved.Like a jigsaw puzzleThese ‘trinity issues’ are quite complex. This does not mean that they are difficult tounderstand but rather that they are so closely interrelated they are inseparable.I liken these issues to the various pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. This is because when theyare correctly portrayed and ‘fitted together’, a correct overall picture will be formed. Incontrast to this, if any of the pieces (meaning the various issues) are not correctlydepicted, a misrepresentative picture will be created. This is why each of these variousissues must be dealt with in its own right. It is also why it is important that they are not in any way - misrepresented.In this study the various issues in this trinity debate are investigated. This is why it is solengthy. It also means that to read it a great deal of incentive is required but what pricecan be placed on the discovery of truth?As the wise man said3

“Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.” Proverbs23:23Jesus told the story of a merchant man who found a pearl of great price. So great was hisdesire to possess this pearl that he sold all he owned to purchase it. The principle is veryclear. How much we value something will be shown by how much we are prepared toinvest or even sacrifice in acquiring it.It is no different today regarding this trinity debate. The value we place on understandingit will be seen in the amount of time and effort we are prepared to give in the study of it.If we are prepared to do our part in personal study, we can be sure that God will do Hispart in revealing the truth. Those who in sincerity seek for truth, God will always honour.A divisive debateIn this trinity controversy, just as happens in every dispute, people are taking sides. Someare saying that the trinitarian concept of God (three-in-one) is a correct way ofunderstanding how He has His existence whilst others, because they regard this teachingto be misleading, believe to the contrary.Taking a completely different tack altogether, some are saying that because theScriptures are totally silent on this mystery it is best to leave the entire subject alone. Trueto say is that if this debate did not exist to the extent that it does today, this would havebeen the best advice to heed but unfortunately, because it has now permeated the lengthand breadth of Seventh-day Adventism, there is a decided need for the various problemareas to be defined. In brief, it is ‘far too late in the day’ to be silent.It is more than likely that regarding who is correct in this controversy and who is wrongthere are many in our church that are still undecided. This is even though there has been‘volumes’ written concerning it. This is one of the reasons why this study has beenpublished. It is to help those who are interested to make intelligent, informed decisions.This paper is not intended as a Bible study although because we need to understand whythis trinity controversy exists we do need to understand the theology involved in thisdebate. This is why throughout this paper the various beliefs are detailed. This includesmy own personal thoughts and conclusions.Before we begin this study, I would like to share with you some personal details.Personal detailsMy name is Terry Hill and I live in England. This is the place where I was born and wherefor almost 33 years I have been a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.4

My initial encounter with our denomination was at the age of 30 in 1973. This happenedwhen I met the young lady who was to later become my wife. At that time she had beena Seventh-day Adventist for about five years but as for me, I could only admit to beingthen of no religious persuasion.Two years later this situation changed. This was when I was baptised into Christ andbecame a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.This makes me today a person of 65 years of age, who, with regard to the Scriptures aswell as to Seventh-day Adventism, has acquired more than 34 years of experience andknowledge. I have also spent the last eight years in the study of this trinity controversy.Allow me now to say something regarding the importance of knowing our denominationalhistory.The importance of our denominational historyIn the past there have been those who have – ether intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented our church history. This is particularly as it relates to the trinity doctrine.Some are still doing this today. This has led to a number of very seriousmisunderstandings, especially concerning the theology held by early Seventh-dayAdventists. In later sections we shall consider these misrepresentations.It should go without saying that it is of absolute necessity that these misrepresentationsare corrected. Today we need to face the future having a correct knowledge of the past.If in any way this knowledge is lacking, perhaps even misunderstood, then as sure as‘eggs are eggs’ we shall have a perverted view of this present trinity debate. None of uscan afford to be in that situation.The truth of the matter is that throughout the entire time of Ellen White’s ministry (1844 1915), our denominational faith was strictly non-trinitarian but very soon after she diedthere was a decided ‘push’ by some to change our ‘long held’ beliefs.This change did not take place overnight. It happened very gradually over decades.Particularly it was our beliefs concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit that underwentchange. Needless to say, this did eventually result in the acceptance of the trinity doctrinethat is now currently professed by our denomination. This transition from nontrinitarianism to trinitarianism was slow but sure. We shall also see more of this in latersections.Over the years and during my studies, I have developed a certain fondness for - also anadmiration for - Benjamin Wilkinson’s ‘Truth Triumphant’.5

Wilkinson (1872-1968) was a Seventh-day Adventist minister. He was also dean oftheology at Washington Missionary College (later Columbia Union College – nowWashington Adventist University). His latter named book was published by ourdenomination in 1944. He had previously written a much-debated book called ‘OurAuthorized Bible Vindicated’ (1930). In this publication, - also for various reasons - hedecried certain versions of the Scriptures other than the KJV. Whilst we shall not pursuethose thoughts here, this book, along with Wilkinson’s ‘Truth Triumphant, can be readonline.In his ‘Truth Triumphant’ there are a number of thought provoking statements. I will nowshare a few of these with you. They are very applicable to our present trinity controversy.In a chapter called “What is the church in the wilderness?” Wilkinson wrote“The present can never be properly understood without correct information concerningthe past.” (B. G. Wilkinson PhD, ‘Truth Triumphant’, page 11 chapter ‘What is the Churchin the Wilderness? 1944’)This is so simply said yet so very true. Those who fail to have a correct understanding of ourdenominational history, which will probably mean not having a correct understanding of our pasttheology, will certainly not understand anything of this trinity debate. Whether it concerns thepast or the present, truth is absolutely essential. This is why we cannot afford to be lacking in itor misunderstand it.Wilkinson then went on to say“Those who have been taught falsified history or who have had their minds filled withtwisted interpretations of events gone by, stagger like the blind with a darkenedmind” (Ibid)Again this is very true. It is also very relevant to our present trinity debate. This is becauseconcerning our denominational history, there are many Seventh-day Adventists who havebeen led to believe error. This is also why it is more than likely that they are wanderingthrough Seventh-day Adventism having an incorrect understanding of this controversy. Ifthey continue this way it could be fatal, hence a very good reason for understanding ourdenominational history.On the next page Wilkinson concluded“It is equally true that a person who has distorted views of the present cannot build fora better future.” (Ibid page 12)6

I would like to think that most Seventh-day Adventists would agree that as a denominationwe need to “build for a better future”. It follows therefore, regardless of whether we actually‘like’ our past history or not, we must face it with all honesty. Certainly there is no timeremaining to pursue any other course of action. In other words - to make our history ‘moreacceptable’ (meaning what we would like it to have been), we must not in any way attemptto ‘revise’ it. We must not make any attempts either to hide it.Allow me to share with you now our very first quote from the writings of Ellen White. Thisis the lady whom Seventh-day Adventists believe was given the gift of prophecy. This isthe very same gift that inspired the Bible writers.On a number of occasions, Ellen White told Seventh-day Adventists that they shouldregard their denominational history as being of the utmost importance.In one such often quoted statement she said"The work is soon to close. The members of the church militant who have proved faithfulwill become the church triumphant. In reviewing our past history, having travelled overevery step of advance to our present standing, I can say, Praise God!” (Ellen G. White,General Conference Daily Bulletin 29th January 1893, see also General Conference DailyBulletin 20th February 1899 ‘Extracts from Testimonies’, also Review and Herald 12thOctober 1905 ‘Lessons from the Life of Solomon No. 5 (Order and Organization)’ alsoLife Sketches page 196 ‘Burden Bearers’ 1915)When Ellen White initially made this statement, the Seventh-day Adventist Church wasstill a predominantly non-trinitarian denomination. In 1893, this was still ‘part and parcel’of its “present standing”.She then went on to say“As I see what God has wrought, I am filled with astonishment and with confidencein Christ as Leader.” (Ibid)There was no doubt in Ellen White’s mind that God had been leading our pioneers. Thisis even though they were strictly non-trinitarian.She then added (this is the most often quoted part)“We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord hasled us, and his teaching in our past history”. (Ibid)Here, because it is a reminder of how God has led us in the past, we are told that everySeventh-day Adventist should regard their denominational history as being of paramountimportance. It is for this reason that it must never be misunderstood or forgotten.7

In the light of this statement it only stands to reason that we should not be afraid of beingreminded of our history. Let us therefore seek to have an unbiased knowledge of it sothat in all good conscience we may face the future with confidence and with honesty.To put all this in brief, if we have a correct understanding of our denominational history, itwill more than likely be that we shall have a very good grasp of this present trinity debatewithin our denomination. If this history is not understood, we shall not only be misinformedbut also very confused. With the prophesised last-day events and the return of Jesus sovery near, none of us can afford to be in that latter group. Today, more so than everbefore, is not a good time to be confused or misled. The devil is very active in preparingthe world for his one last onslaught to deceive.A once non-trinitarian denominationNeedless to say, the underlying reason for the present ‘trinity rebellion’ within ourdenomination is because up to the time of Ellen White’s death (1915) and even beyond,we did not, as Seventh-day Adventists, profess the trinity doctrine. This means that duringthis same time period, by our own members and those of other denominations, we wereconsidered a non-trinitarian denomination.This fact, coupled with the belief that it was God Himself who had given our pioneers theirfaith (beliefs), is the prime reason why today there are those amongst us who are urginga return to the early 1900’s faith of Seventh-day Adventism.In other words, the non-trinitarians are saying that in the early 1900’s whilst Ellen Whitewas alive, our denomination was teaching the truth regarding the Godhead. Obvious torelate, the trinitarians disagree. They say that we were then teaching error concerning it.This is something else we shall see very clearly in later sections.In an extremely small nutshell, these are the various reasons for this present trinity debatewithin our denomination. The leading question is though, who in this debate is correct andwho is wrong? This is why answers must be sought. This is also where complexities arise.Personal studies initiated by ‘trinity - omega’ claimsRegarding this trinity controversy, there is one conclusion of which we can all be sure.This is that there is a very steady increase in the number of Seventh-day Adventists whobelieve that the trinity doctrine is an unscriptural view of the Godhead. There are eventhose who believe it to be ‘the omega’ that Ellen White said in 1904 would eventuallymake its way into Seventh-day Adventism.8

This is when she warned the early 1900’s Seventh-day Adventists“Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits anddoctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will beof a most startling nature.” (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies Series B, No. 2 page16, ‘A Letter to Leading Physicians’, July 24th 1904, ‘Teach the Word’)The initiating factor behind the studies you are now reading was the claim that the trinitydoctrine is this “omega” although I must admit that my first response to it was one of totaldisbelief. Without going into detail here, this constituted my very first encounter with our‘trinity debate’. This has led me to write out various studies on this subject, one of whichyou are now reading. My prayer is that they will be a blessing to those who read them.In the above ‘alpha and omega’ testimony, Ellen White was warning Seventh-dayAdventists not to depart from what was then, in 1904, their denominational ‘faith’. If thisis not what she was doing then the warning doesn’t make sense. I say this becausewhatever it was that Seventh-day Adventists were then teaching in 1904 which issomething we shall discover as we progress through these studies - it is only reasonableto conclude that Ellen White did believe it to be the truth that God had given to His remnantpeople. If this had not been the case then it is only too obvious that neither she nor theother pioneers would have been teaching whatever it was that they were then teaching.This I believe is a reasonable conclusion. Remember this one thing - when Ellen Whitesaid this in 1904, we were still a non-trinitarian denomination.Needless to say, Ellen White fully understood what constituted “the faith” of Seventh-dayAdventists. It is also obvious that she expected her readers to understand. If they did notunderstand it they would not have had a clue as to what she meant by this warning. Thiswould not make any sense at all.Even more reasonable to conclude is that if Ellen White had not believed that this 1904‘faith’ was a correct faith - meaning a faith that had been given to them by God - shewould not have been warning Seventh-day Adventists not to depart from it. I would like tothink that most would agree with this reasoning because when all is said and done, it isonly common sense reasoning. Certainly it is not ‘rocket science’. This means that it isnecessary for us to understand from what it was that Ellen White was warning Seventhday Adventists not to depart.This having been said, it must be remembered that there is such a thing as a development(growth) of the truth. In other words, truth can be expanded and magnified upon althoughbeing the truth it must always remain the truth. This would mean that even after beingdeveloped, it can still be said that it was once the truth and still is the truth. We shall9

return our thoughts to this in section ten because it is very important. It is also very relevantto our present denominational trinity debate.It is because of these ‘reasonable conclusions’ that throughout this study we shall beseeking to discover just what it was that constituted our once non-trinitarian 1904denominational faith. In particular, we shall be taking a look in detail as to what EllenWhite said concerning it. This being done we can then move on to see if by our ‘changedtheology’, this same faith has been expanded and magnified upon or whether it has beenrejected as error. As we have just noted, if it was once the truth then it is still the truthtoday. To put this in another way, if it was not the truth in 1904 it could never become thetruth. This is because error can never become the truth no matter how it is developed.In 1882 Ellen White wrote“The truth of God is not in harmony with the traditions of men, nor does it conform to theiropinions. Like its divine Author, it is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today, andforever.” (Ellen G. White, 5th Volume Testimonies, page 62, ‘The Testimonies slighted’)She then added“Those who separate from God will call darkness light, and error truth. But darknesswill never prove itself to be light, nor will error become truth.” (Ibid)Ellen White was here referring to the testimonies that God has seen fit to place in Hischurch but the principle is very clear. Error can never become the truth – that would beimpossible.As she also explained“Falsehoods are not changed into truth by being circulated for many years. In spite oftheir age, they are still falsehoods.” (Ellen G. White, Letter to Bro. Evans, 8th July 1901,‘Neglect of the Southern Field’)After we have completed our studies, we shall be in a much better position to answer thequestion as to whether the trinity doctrine is “the omega” that Ellen White warnedSeventh-day Adventists not to receive (see above) or whether it is something else. Weshall also be in a much better position to see if Ellen White was a trinitarian or not. Asmost will realise, some Seventh-day Adventists (obviously the trinitarians), are saying thatshe was a trinitarian whilst the non-trinitarians are saying that she was not. Today this is10

a much-debated question within Seventh-day Adventism.Obvious to relate, if this “omega” is considered to be the trinity doctrine, then it must beconcluded that Ellen White was not a trinitarian but if she is considered to be a trinitarian,then these trinity/omega claims need a very serious re-think.Whatever is decided regarding “the omega”, it must remain a very serious warning toevery Seventh-day Adventist. This is why it needs to be thoroughly investigated.The alpha of heresies and the omegaIn the above warning, take particular note that Ellen White said the “omega” (whatever itis) would be of “a most startling nature”. This clearly reveals the seriousness of what thismessenger of the Lord saw was coming upon Seventh-day Adventists.This “alpha” and “omega” warning was not the only one of its kind sent through her byGod. There were others - all of which in one way or another were akin to it. All cameduring the early 1900’s.When warning Seventh-day Adventists of false sentiments concerning the presence andpersonality of God, Ellen White wrote in 1904“"Living Temple" contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega wouldfollow in a little while; and I trembled for our people.” (Ellen G. White, SpecialTestimonies Series B, No. 2 ‘The Foundation of our Faith’ Page 53 1904)Note that Ellen White said that because of this coming “omega” she “trembled for ourpeople” meaning Seventh-day Adventists. Note too that she said that it would appearwithin Seventh-day Adventism “in a little while”. This was in 1904, over 100 years ago.We must ask therefore, has this “omega” already arrived within our denomination, withmost Seventh-day Adventists not even realising it, or is it still future? Some will reasonthat 100 years is a very long time and not just “a little while”.She then added“I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over thepresence and personality of God. The statements made in "Living Temple" in regardto this point are incorrect. The Scripture used to substantiate the doctrine there set forth,is Scripture misapplied.” (Ibid)To every Seventh-day Adventist today, these warnings should be regarded as a matter11

of extreme importance. This is because as most will realise, the trinity doctrine concernsthe “the presence and personality of God”. Note too Ellen White said that regarding thismatter, the author of “Living Temple” was misapplying Scripture. It is therefore onlyreasonable to assume that this would also be happening with “the omega”. Themisapplication of Scripture is very often the vanguard of false teachings.Ellen White also warned in 1904“In the book "Living Temple" there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. Theomega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed thewarning God has given.” (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies Series B No. 2, page 50,letter, August 7th 1904 ‘Beware’)From the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Ellen White saw something ‘theological’coming upon Seventh-day Adventists that made her tremble with fear. This is why shegave these warnings with such clarity. We must ask therefore, as God’s remnant people,can we today afford to ignore them?From what we have just read it does appear that the “omega” concerns the Godhead. Isay this because in an effort to justify what he had written in his book, John HarveyKellogg said that he had come to believe in ‘the trinity’. There is obviously a connection.The doctrine of ‘the trinity’ appears to have been central to Kellogg’s thinking. This wasa doctrine that up to that time was not professed by Seventh-day Adventists. Thereappears to be a link therefore between “the alpha”, “the omega”, “the presence andpersonality of God” and the trinity doctrine.Note very importantly Ellen White said that this “omega” would be received by those whoare “not willing” to heed the warnings that had come from God. This means that it will bea matter of personal choice as to whether or not we allow ourselves to be deceived by it.For this reason we need to study and heed the warnings else we shall be amongst thedeceived. This is the testimony of Jesus.A serious denominational crisisIn later sections we shall see that in the early 1900’s within Seventh-day Adventism, therewas a very serious crisis. This was when certain of our beliefs, particularly thoseconstituting the landmarks and pillars of our ‘faith’, came under attack from Satan.12

Listed briefly, these beliefs concerned the sanctuary, the separate personalities of Godand Christ, also certain prophetic interpretations. The gift of the spirit of prophecy, asmanifested in and through Ellen White, was also very seriously challenged. All of theseattacks came from within our church and not from outside of it. This is why it was a crisis.We shall return to this thought later.During the early 1900’s, the warnings that came from Ellen White to Seventh-dayAdventists were in abundance.To the delegates at the 1905 General Conference Session she warned“Let not any man enter upon the work of tearing down the foundations of the truth that havemade us what we are. God has led His people forward step by step though there were pitfalls oferror on every side. Under the wonderful guidance of a plain, "Thus saith the Lord," a truth hasbeen established that has stood the test of trial. When men arise and attempt to draw awaydisciples after them, meet them with the truths that have been tried as by fire.” (Ellen G. Whiteto the delegates at the 1905 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, TakomaPark, Washington D. C., May 24th 1905, "A Warning against False Theories," MR 760)At this conference, Seventh-day Adventists were being told that the “foundations of thetruth” that had made them what they were was the truth that had “stood the test of trial”. Thisis why Ellen White said that those who would attempt bring in wrong teachings that would leadour people astray, should be confronted with “truths that have been tried as by fire”. Note thatthis was in 1905, the year following the alpha and omega warnings.Then, after quoting Revelation 3:1-3 (which was God’s message to Sardis telling them tohold fast to their beliefs) she said“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not rememberinghow they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove thepillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ,are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of Godadrift without an anchor.” (Ibid)Notice the two areas that Ellen White said were under attack. One was the sanctuarywhilst the other was the separate personalities of God and Christ. This was when nontrinitarianism was the standard (regular) belief in Seventh-day Adventism. We shall showthis very clearly in later sections. Notice too Ellen White said that the teachings somewere attempting to bring into the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism were “uncertainties”.These were obviously teachings that may or may not be true (speculation).13

Amongst other things this could have included teachings regarding the Godhead, or as some saythe trinity. This is because as we shall see in section four, the trinity doctrine is only an assumeddoctrine, meaning that in the Scriptures it is not explicitly stated. It is built on speculation.In the very same testimony in which she gave one of the alph

A research paper on the history of the trinity doctrine within the early Christian Church and within Seventh-day Adventism . Section 1 - An introduction Section 2 - Notes and observations. Section 3 - Heaven inspired counsel Section 4 - The trinity - an assumed doctrine. Section 5 - The trinity doctrine - differing views and concepts

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.