advindicate

Open full view…

The Godhead and Dualism — ADvindicate

Wed, 06 Aug 2014 03:29:51 GMT

collins
Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:52:47 GMT

"If the holy spirit is God – but as you said, the scripture never says so." -Richard Thomas "And God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.'" (Genesis 1:26) "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19) "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized and these powers will cooperate with the obedient.” (In Heavenly Places, 336)

Richard Thomas
Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:59:35 GMT

> @rgw1957 > Just because Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped (or held onto) does not mean that this equality did not (or does not) exist. Nor does it mean it does exist. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth as well as our co-creator. Scripture tell us his Father gave him this authority. The only thing in existence (seen and unseen) that does not fall under his authority is God the Father - this Jesus also stated as you well know. > @collins > “And God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.’” Actually this reads, "And Gods said, Let us make man..." Gods being YHWH - Father and Son. > @collins > "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized and these powers will cooperate with the obedient.” I take issue with this statement only because this is Catholic terminology instituted around 350 AD. Furthermore, calling God a person is calling God a human being. This is no honor bestowed on God. Just because it is a habit or tradition and everybody is doing it is no excuse to continue. So I would only change EGW's first sentence to start out: There are three living all-powerful eternal beings ...

Doug Yowell
Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:48:35 GMT

Interestingly enough,the latest volume of Proclamation Magazine runs an expose of Adventism's complicity in the support of abortion. Author Coleen Tinker attributes that support of abortion to our failure to understand the "dualism" of human nature. Though fraught with factual errors and obvious historical and spiritual contradictions, (not to mention missing the boat completely on what constitutes a living "soul") Tinker does get the fact that Adventists do a lousy job of teaching a clear Biblical account of HUMAN nature. Not sure why "dualism" is also attached to the nature of Divinity?

collins
Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:26:59 GMT

"Actually this reads, “And Gods said, Let us make man…” Gods being YHWH – Father and Son." -Richard Thomas A plural is 3 as easily as it is 2. "I take issue with this statement only because this is Catholic terminology instituted around 350 AD." -Richard Thomas No. Its merely English language. The RCC holds no ownership on language or terms. It is unfortunate to stumble thereupon. "Furthermore, calling God a person is calling God a human being." -Richard Thomas God is a Divine Person. You and I are human persons. The definition, I believe, is a little wider than you have allowed.

Richard Thomas
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:18:56 GMT

> @collins > God is a Divine Person. You and I are human persons. The definition, I believe, is a little wider than you have allowed. per·son ˈpərsən/Submit noun noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person 1. a human being regarded as an individual. "the porter was the last person to see her" synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; personage, character, customer; informaltype, sort, cookie; informal,body, dog; archaicwight "that person over there is the one who called the police" used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual. "the entrance fee is $10.00 per person" an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing. "she's not a cat person" an individual's body. "I have publicity photographs on my person at all times" a character in a play or story. "his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop" 2. GRAMMAR a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person. 3. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity. Origin Middle English: from Old French persone, from Latin persona ‘actor's mask, character in a play,’ later ‘human being.’ -person combining form suffix: -person used as a neutral alternative to -man in nouns denoting professional status, a position of authority, etc. "chairperson" Ok, there is the definition of the word person. Definition # 3 Came from the following historical events: In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".[37] [38] The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being". Again there is no Biblical record of any prophet, priest, or apostle referring to God the Father or the Holy Spirit as a person. That was an invention of the Catholic Church and not a very honorable one by using the same term to indicate a sinful human being and the Holy God. The world (Satan) has done the same thing with the word love. Agape is love yet most use the word to also describe much less honorable human traits. The apostles never did such a disrespectful thing with the Greek language. They used other words as we could easily do as well. Satan must love it, we don't use God's name, we describe God with the same terminology we describe sinful man, and we use the same word for God's greatest commandment as we do for fornication. All this seems so natural to the conditioned casualties of culture. Come out of her my people.

Ronald G. White
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:43:25 GMT

From Merriam-Webster online, defining the noun "person:" 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians

collins
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:40:48 GMT

"Again there is no Biblical record of any prophet, priest, or apostle referring to God the Father or the Holy Spirit as a person." -Richard Thomas Jesus did. You have been shown this clearly. You have an important choice to make. I hope you make the right one.

Ronald G. White
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:35:36 GMT

Christ determined that when He ascended from this earth He would bestow a gift on those who had believed on Him and those who should believe on Him. What gift could He bestow rich enough to signalize and grace His ascension to the mediatorial throne? It must be worthy of His greatness and His royalty. He determined to give His representative, the third _person_ of the Godhead. This gift could not be excelled. He would give all gifts in one, and therefore the divine Spirit, that converting, enlightening, and sanctifying power, would be His donation... {ML 36.3}

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 06:18:58 GMT

> Before the entrance of evil there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--*the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God*. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. {GC 493.1} The only being in all the universe? Would there not be two, Christ and the Spirit? This was in the 1911 edition. > It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guid ing men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13. {AA 51.3} > The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1} If it is not essential to be able to define exactly what the Spirit is, then is it essential to quash the non-trinitarian? Perhaps they are more correct than our current fundamental beliefs, published in 1980, state? This again is in the 1911 edition. Both the GC and AA quotes published after the book Desire of Ages. >The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. {1890 EJW, CHR 21.2} This was published by Waggoner in 1890. Ellen White certainly had to know this about Waggoner, and he was not alone. Most of the Adventists of this time believe like this. Yet we find no reproof in the SOP on the subject. Why?

doug matacio
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:32:03 GMT

Apl7, are you sure that attending the "counsels of God" was in the Holy Spirit's job description? The Council of Peace was between two persons only: the Father and the Son. The SDA doctrine of the trinity does not demand that there can be no separation of the three persons. So, the Father and Son could be at that momentous council without the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has other things on his work agenda.

collins
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:55:56 GMT

"{ML 36.3}" -Ronald G. White Great quotation! Thanks.

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:59:40 GMT

doug - ...and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Zech 6:13) Is the Spirit not one with the Father? One in nature? One in character? Only one being in all the universe could enter into the counsels of the Father, Christ. "Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden." {AA 52.1}

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:16:21 GMT

An odd-sounding sentence - do you then discount it, she did not really mean it? It certainly is a forceful statement. Waggoner - perhaps you recognize the source of this quote, that being the chapter where he asks the question - is Christ a created being? He answer of course is no.

collins
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:19:48 GMT

"This was published by Waggoner in 1890. Ellen White certainly had to know this about Waggoner, and he was not alone. Most of the Adventists of this time believe like this. Yet we find no reproof in the SOP on the subject. Why?" -apl7 Not trustworthy. Forcing an argument between "begotten", and, "created" is constructing a 'fanciful view'. I find the SOP rebukes that idea. Your first quotation does it, GC 493. "'Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.'" (GC 493 That is an odd-sounding sentence. She certainly upholds 'the heavenly trio' in many other places, quite explicitly: "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ." (Evangelism, 6 15) And, concerning Christ... "Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.—The Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900. "He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.... He is the eternal, self-existent Son.—Manuscript 101, 1897." (Evangelism, 615)

collins
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:25:44 GMT

"An odd-sounding sentence – do you then discount it, she did not really mean it? It certainly is a forceful statement." -apl 7 No, I'm not going to discount it. I simply don't understand precisely how she's intending the meaning of the term, as she uses it here. I would speculate (for what its worth) that she may be distinguishing Christ as having a body of some kind (not human, yet) and the Holy Spirit as a Person "disembodied"...

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:22:00 GMT

quoting: collins >“This was published by Waggoner in 1890. Ellen White certainly had to know this about Waggoner, and he was not alone. Most of the Adventists of this time believe like this. Yet we find no reproof in the SOP on the subject. Why?” -apl7 >Not trustworthy. Forcing an argument between “begotten”, and, “created” is constructing a ‘fanciful view’. ?I find the SOP rebukes that idea. Your first quotation does it, GC 493. ?“'Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.'” (GC 493) There is no rebuke of of Waggoner in GC493. I do agree, EGW speaks of the heavenly trio! Never does she call it the *Trinity*. This term has too much baggage colored by the Catholic church to be safely used. It bring in confusion. >“Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God… In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.—The Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900. AMEN. This statement can easily be applied to the thought that Waggoner wrote in his book _Christ and His Righteousness._ >”He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent… He is the eternal, self-existent Son.—Manuscript 101, 1897." Hebrews 1:4-8 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he brings in the first-begotten into the world, he said, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he said, Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. I read in vs 4-5, the heritage that Christ had before coming to this earth. >"I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. "He that believeth in Me," said Jesus, "though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?" {DA 530.3} John 5:26 _For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself;_ This is life original, underived, unborrowed, Christ is self-existent. And still compatible with what Waggoner wrote, and EGW never contradicted.

Ronald G. White
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:39:56 GMT

There seems to be a repeating pattern of using the silence of God (which is what the failure of His special messenger to directly correct a specific error would be) as justification for saying that an error, though rather obvious, cannot really be an error after all. I have seen this used to justify Sunday keeping among us, in certain South Pacific nations. I have seen it used to justify setting Christ before the people as one having the propensities of sin. And now I am seeing it used to justify Arianism, or semi-Arianism. In every case, this is a fallacious argument.

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:05:00 GMT

Yeah, I see you need to be a fallacious argument. Do you disagree what many of those living at the time of EGW were non-trinitarian? If this is such an important doctrine, and so many were in error, why was it not corrected? Do you agree that the trinity doctrine as taught by the Catholic church is wrong? Why would the SDA church use such a loaded term as the trinity in our fundamental beliefs? Confusion!

Ronald G. White
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:34:03 GMT

> @apl7 > If this is such an important doctrine, and so many were in error, why was it not corrected? You may take that up with God in the hereafter. I, for one, do not purport to be able to explain all of His decisions. Certainly, the fact that He allows an error to continue among us does not prove the error to be correct after all. We may not be able to receive the truth on some points, just yet. To suppose that God could successfully correct us, on any point, at any time, is just pride, in my books.

apl7
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:01:44 GMT

I agree with you, we may not be able to receive the truth on some points... And to over-ride the information we have been given on the subject may just be pride or ....

previous
next
last page