Women's Ordination Sidetrack Topic on Trinity, EGW, etc...

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Sure, it will cause havoc with your prior understanding, but it fits and because it agrees with EVERY word for the [Holy] Spirit in the old testament is a female noun.

Would you say this view of yours has anything to do with your reason for supporting WO?

[Kevin H]

Quote:

Kevin H... they don't know what his view of the trinity was, that [the Trinity] was a topic that he tended not to speak on or say much about.

And this was no doubt due to James White's belief that the doctrines on the Godhead, whether Trinitarian or not, were were not tests of fellowship or Christian character. There were some SDA ministers at that time who believed in the Trinity, and these were never asked to change their view or cease being ministers. Ellen White herself was undergoing changes in her view of the Godhead, a fact that is well documented and traced in Jerry Moon's paper, "Ellen White's Role in the Adventist Trinity Debate."

It's clear to me that God was slowly leading Ellen White and the Adventist church along to a fuller understanding and appreciation of who God is and of the relationship between "the Three Holist Beings of heaven."

Yes indeed John

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: It's clear to me that God was slowly leading Ellen White and the Adventist church along to a fuller understanding and appreciation of who God is and of the relationship between "the Three Holist Beings of heaven."

Quote:

Woody: Just as He is on the topic of this thread. But change is difficult when people want to follow the traditions of men rather than the ways of God. Scripture is clear on the issue of WO but many are stuck in the traditions of old.

The big difference is that the Bible clearly supports the Trinity doctrine as SDAs understand it, whereas the Bible does not clearly support WO as far as the SDA church can see up to now. If the SDA church as a whole had seen the Bible support for it, our church would have accepted it a long time ago.

Perhaps the Bible does support WO, but if so, where is that support? So far, we have been told it's found in Romans 16: 1, 2, 7 and in Gal. 3: 28.

Dr. Rich has told us that there's support for WO in his view that the Holy Spirit is a female and the mother of Jesus. He's also said that Paul is a false apostle and therefore cannot be trusted in what he wrote about women, because not only was Paul a false apostle but also a misogynist.

Tom Wetmore believes that Phoebe was an "overseer," and that she held this position over the Apostle Paul as well as the other members of the church, although almost all scholars supporting WO believe she was a deacon. Tom also believes Romans 16: 7 is proof that a woman was among the apostles, although the sex of this person is throughly debatable.

Nic has stated that Gal. 3: 28 is strong evidence that God wants WO.

[Woody]

And don't forget that Ellen White was an ordained pastor.

[John317]

Quote:

Kevin H: And then Elder Wheeler talked about that letter he found that James wrote at the end of his life that the arguments for the trinity were starting to make more sense than the arguments against it.

I wish I could find that letter. Do you suppose the Ellen White Estate would have the letter in their computer files? Today I'm going to the Loma Linda branch of the Estate and will ask them about it. I'll let you know what I find out there.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You made the following numbered statements:

1.

Quote:

Yes, the Trinity doctrine as SDAs understand that doctrine and express it in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, is certainly in the Bible, as well as in the SOP. This has been discussed at length on the Adventist Forum.

I know that we have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. My question is: Can you sustain such belief by the use of the Bible only?

2.

Quote:

I would only point out that our pioneers were not error-free and they were changing.

Are we error free now? Have you read what Ellen White wrote about this in her Counsels to Editors book?

3.

Quote:

The Holy Spirit was not an impersonal power but is the third person of the Godhead, just as Ellen White says. (Ev. 617).

4.

Quote:

In the first volume of Sermons and Talks, Ellen White spoke of "the Three holiest Beings of Heaven," and "the three Great Worthies in heaven."

Can you conclude from this that the HS is equal to God the Father in authority and power? Is there any evidence in the Bible that the HS was ever worshipped?

How do you explain the fact that both in Daniel and in Rev. Chapter 1 the Angel Gabriel is the instrument used by God to reveal prophecy? Wasn’t that the work of the HS?

5.

Quote:

If you'd like discuss this subject more, please begin a discussion of it on another thread.

I did not bring up the Trinity into this thread! You mentioned it and I reacted. I am more interested in editing my doctoral dissertation than anything else. But the posting on this thread are piling up. I counted this morning 50 Email notifications of new postings and two hours later I found 65 in spite of the fact that I had read answered where needed and deleted ten of them. If someone starts another thread on this topic, I will probably choose not to participate. I see the issue of abortion as more urgent than the role of the HS. Children are not dying as a result of a misconception about the HS.

[Dr. Rich]

Tell me, what is worship? Does not the ten commandments say something about not having any other gods other than God? Is this God the family of God acting as one? Does not Jesus explain this as found in John 14-18 (chapters) in the bible?

[Dr. Rich]

Nic, I forgot to add that we have been told to worship the Creator and the Holy Spirit was associated with creation.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I know that we have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. My question is: Can you sustain such belief by the use of the Bible only?

Yes, it can. As I said, this has been discussed at great length on other threads. You might want to check out those threads and see what evidence was presented. If you ever want to discuss it with me and with others on the Forum, you could begin another thread, and I'll be glad to take part.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3: 17: I would only point out that our pioneers were not error-free and they were changing.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are we error free now?

My point is that we should not view the Adventist pioneers as our doctrinal standard. I enjoy studying them and I do highly respect them, but they themselves would not want us to look to them as our standard of doctrine. They would be the first to urge us to study the Bible with the the Holy Spirit as our teacher, in order to find the truth.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic: May I remind you that even though Graham Maxwell rejects the traditional forensic view of the atonement, he still believes that Jesus indeed needed to die for the universe to be saved. He goes beyond the forensic view of eye for and eye and sees that even the unfallen world and angels needed the death of Jesus to save them. Even if Adam and Eve did not fall, for the universe to understand about the nature of God and the nature of sin Jesus eventually and in some way (not necessarly on the cross) have to die the second death to save the universe.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: In the first volume of Sermons and Talks, Ellen White spoke of "the Three holiest Beings of Heaven," and "the three Great Worthies in heaven."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Can you conclude from this that the HS is equal to God the Father in authority and power?

We can conclude from this and other statements from Ellen White that she believed the Holy Spirit was the Third Person of the Godhead (Ev. 617), and that the Holy Spirit is as much a person as the Father and Christ are persons. She refers to the Godhead as "the eternal Godhead," and to "three great personal diginitaries of heaven." See Lift Him Up, p. 148; SDA BC Vol. 7, page 959, par. 8.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Is there any evidence in the Bible that the HS was ever worshipped?

The Holy Spirit doesn't attract attention to Himself but He points everyone to Christ as the object of people's worship and adoration. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: How do you explain the fact that both in Daniel and in Rev. Chapter 1 the Angel Gabriel is the instrument used by God to reveal prophecy? Wasn’t that the work of the HS?

If God chooses to use angels sometimes to help reveal prophecies, God is perfectly free to do that.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: John, you have your opinion, but please do NOT make fun of what is clearly stated by Jesus in the bible! You have been doing this for a long time now and I have not said much about it, but isn't it about time you take off your rose colored glasses and examine another view without chastisement and then attempting to back it up by using words from people who have NO authority except by you?

Where do you find that I have ever made fun of anything Jesus said?

Here is what I wrote:

If that's what you call support for the idea that the Holy Spirit is Christ's mother, then it's certainly true that there is no valid support for it, which is the reason the church has never viewed it that way, and why the SDA church in particular does not view it that way. But if you want to keep thinking of it that way, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, be my guest.

It's unimportant whether Jesus is recording as calling Mary his mother. He said many things unrecorded. But the more important fact is that the Bible itself calls her His mother (John 19: 26), and tells us that Jesus was a descendent of Adam and David. That couldn't have happened if Jesus was not a man related to David and Adam through His human mother, Mary. It is also why the Bible traces Jesus human geneology back to Abraham and even to Adam, which it would not have done if He wasn't related to those people through Mary. Jesus was indeed the Son (descendent, according to the flesh) of David. Jesus' favorite title for himself is "Son of man," which has reference to His being a descendent of Adam.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: My main point is that God did not need to see his Son crucified in order to forgive sins. Jesus did forgive sins more than once, and he never said that said forgiveness was contingent on his death. The same can be said about forgiveness in the OT.

Allah of the Koran forgives sinners without the shedding of blood. It says Jesus never was put to death on the cross but that it was someone else.

What do you believe would have happened if Christ had refused to die? Would we have salvation and God's forgiveness today?

The reason God sent His one and only Son into the world was that God loved us and wanted to forgive us. But God could not forgive us and save us without the death of His Beloved Son. There was no other way.

Therefore, our salvation was certainly contingent upon the perfect life, death, resurrection, ascension, and High Priestly ministry of Christ. Each was necessary for our salvation. His work in the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ pleads His blood on our behalf, is just as essential for our salvation as was His death on the cross.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Killing the innocent does nothing to restore the balance of justice; it actually compounds the injustice.

Why, then, did God command the sacrificial system in which millions of innocent animals were slain, and why did God plan that Christ would come to this earth as an innocent God-man for the purpose of dying?

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You made the following numbered statements:

1.

Quote:

I know that the conjuction that is usually translatted "when" in v. 10 may also be translated as "if."

Yes, which means that we do not know for sure which choice is the right one. Given Ellen White's view of the cross as stated in Education and other sources, I believe that “If” might be the correct one.

Quote:

Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christs agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. [Education page 63]

The above explanation for the cross is the best theory of atonement I have ever read. The suffering of Jesus did not start when Jesus took human form, but rather when sin broke the harmony of heaven. In this sense, God’s lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Quote:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [Rev. 13:8]

If God’s lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and if the pain and suffering of Jesus started when sin and rebellion marred the harmony of heaven, then I conclude that there was no need for God to require any additional suffering by the Son of God. He had suffered enough since the beginning watching those he had created suffer and die by the millions.

2.

Quote:

Even if you translate it with the conjuction, "if," it means the same thing. It means that if Christ wanted to see his seed, prolong his days, and if the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hand, he would have to make his soul an offering for sin.

Yes, you can interpret that way, and I can interpret the other way.

3.

Quote:

"Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

Do you really believe that the “eye for an eye” is the rule in heaven? My understanding is that the eye for an eye was a way of placing a limit on vengeance like taking the life for an eye, or two eyes for an eye.

Forgiveness is defined in my dictionary as forfeiting the right to exact payment for a debt. If I promise to forgive a debt, I cannot later on claim the right to collect on said debt. If God demanded the right to see his Son die as a condition for forgiveness, that destroys the true meaning of forgiveness. How can God say, I forgive, and later say, I demand that the penalty be paid. There is a serious problem here. I hope you see it!

It was the Devil and the mesmerized devil possessed crow who claimed: “Crucify him.” They were not doing God’s will! Let’s stop placing the death of Jesus on the shoulders of Almighty God.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich:

1. Your view of the God-head and family makes one to believe they all are males and live in a homosexual heaven.

Jesus is the only man, the God-man, and He's been glorified. The other two persons of the Godhead are neither male nor female.

All three are totally righteous and free of all sin. They are the Three Holiest Beings in heaven.

No practicing homosexual will be in heaven. 1 Cor. 6: 9-11

But praise God, there will be many there whom God forgave and who washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: Even if you translate it with the conjuction, "if," it means the same thing. It means that if Christ wanted to see his seed, prolong his days, and if the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hand, he would have to make his soul an offering for sin.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Yes, you can interpret that way, and I can interpret the other way.

Do you believe the Bible teaches Christ could have saved the world without dying and shedding His blood? If so, how?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: "Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you really believe that the eye for an eye is the rule in heaven?

No. And that is not the signifance of the verse in Scripture.

What is the meaning of the verse in the context of Hebrews 9: 22, 23?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Below, you'll find some links that are relevant to the Openness of God theology. Please notice especially the relationship between Teilhard de Chardin, Omega Point, Whitehead, Evolutionary Theory, Process Theology, Pannenberg, and Open Theism among SDAs.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I try to build my understanding of God not on the basis of what other theologians have thought, but rather from my own reading of the Bible.....

I reject the theology of Teilhard de Chardin. He attempted to combine the message of the Bible with the theory of evolution—an impossible task given the clarity with which the Bible writers have revealed their belief in a Creator. I have no need to accept the theory of evolution and the Omega Point in order to entertain some of the features of the openness of God and some of the elements of process theology.

I do pay very little attention to what the theologians you named have taught and try to understand God’s activity and character from my personal reading of Scripture and what Ellen White has written.

I do read all those men but I don't accept their belief systems. Like you, I accept only the Bible and Ellen White as my authorities.

I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that I'm suggesting you believe what those men wrote. My intention was only to show you what all those men taught because their belief systems are interrelated.

Teilhard de Chardin was greated influenced by the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin.

Chardin was a great influence on Whitehead. Chardin came up with an idea called "Omega point," which is an idea that is related to Ellen White's statement about the Alpha and the Omega.

Whitehead was a great influence on process theology.

Process theology was a great influence on Pannenburg's theology.

Pannenburg was a great influence on Richard Rice and the "Openness of God."

I rejected Teilhard de Chardin's theology the first time I heard it, half a century ago.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic, I forgot to add that we have been told to worship the Creator and the Holy Spirit was associated with creation.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

I rejected Teilhard de Chardin's theology the first time I heard it, half a century ago.

Teilhard de Chardin's theology and evolutionary views have crept into the churches through the back door. They influenced Whitehead and Pannenburg, men who influenced Richard Rice and the Openness of God theology.

I once personally asked Pannenberg if he believe in a "personal devil." His answer was that he would first have to define what "personal" means. And this from a man who had written many pages in his books on the meaning of "personal." He simply didn't want to answer the question straightforwardly.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that Teilhard de Chardin's major contribution to theology was what he called "the Omega point." It's had a great influence on both the New Age and various Christian theologies, including process theology, which in turn influenced the Openness of God theology.

Notice these lines from the wikipedia:

Omega Point is a term coined by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to describe a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe appears to be evolving. Teilhard's term recurs in both intellectual works and popular culture, especially the cosmological theory proposed by the mathematical physicist Frank Tipler.

Central to Pannenberg's theological career has been his defence of theology as a rigorous academic discipline, one capable of critical interaction with philosophy, history, and most of all, the natural sciences. Pannenberg's theology has much influenced the American theoretical cosmologist Frank Tipler, most notably his theories of a closed universe and the Omega Point; see Tipler (1989, 1994, 2007).

The Openness of God theology does not accept the Immutability of God, or the concept of God as One who cannot change. It also denies that God is all-knowing.

Immutability: God cannot change in any way. Augustine argued that because God is immutable he cannot even speak in time, using created beings to utter eternal words. Immutability did not allow God to be affected in any way by time or by his own creatures.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I know that we have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. My question is: Can you sustain such belief by the use of the Bible only?

Yes, it can. As I said, this has been discussed at great length on other threads. You might want to check out those threads and see what evidence was presented. If you ever want to discuss it with me and with others on the Forum, you could begin another thread, and I'll be glad to take part.

John,

I have no burden to convice any body to adopt my views on this side issue. You are the one who mentioned the Trinity and I reacted. I have no interest in starting a thread on the topic. I believe that there are other more important issues like abortion. Innocent babies are being killed by the thousands every week and we Adventists are doing nothing to stop this madness.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Did not most translators chose "the Spirit of God" because of the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Had most translators been non-trinitarian we would probably be reading said passage as: "God's presence" instead of "the Spirit of God."

An argument right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses' books.

I've studied their books off and on since the early 1970s and spent about a year and a half studying with them recently. Most of that time I just asked them questions about their beliefs. As far as the Godhead (or, as they say, Godship) is concerned, they have a lot in common with the beliefs of our Adventist pioneers.

[Dr. Rich]

Genesis 1:26=Then God said "Let US make mankind in OUR image according to OUR likeness...27=...in the image of God was created male and female....

So, did God have a mouse in His pocket? What is it with the words US and OUR that people don't understand? God is the name for the family of God, not just the "God Almighty" or "The Lord God"

Are not we told that God is a jealous God and that we are not to worship any other gods other than God the Creator--as in "OUR"?

All one has to do is add all of this up and it is easy to see that the Holy Spirit must be the female part of the Trinity/Family of God.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

I accept only the Bible and Ellen White as my authorities.

Why do people continue to have EGW as an authority when she said not too?

Such statements bring the SDA church into cult status!

EGW is an authority and when it is shown she was credentialed as a pastor, the gymnastics begin.

Speaking of gymnastics, what happens in political attack adds, take two unassociated 'facts', put them together and low and behold we have an entirely new story....so called truth! What we have been seeing here, WO= Gay Pastors and Evolution!! Is that supported by EGW or the Bible? Yet the above quote say both are the only authorities! Very confusing, to say the least. Bring in the gymnastics.

Truth is very subjective as shown by the many pages on this subject though out the whole forum. Each persons truth is their own interpretation of events, words and history. To not acknowledge that is simply to live in denial of reality.

Co-Aspen,

For the majority of Adventists, the writings of Ellen White continue to be considered as authoritative, although not infallible. The Bible is supreme.

[Dr. Rich]

Nic, and we all have read what happens to the majority who jump on that wide road to destruction too. Why can't we all just get along together??? why--because people don't take the words of Jesus alone. When they co-mingle others words, then you will never have unity as Jesus prayed for.