SDA Teaching on the Trinity

[Gustave]

Quote

Well, you also struck out on this one. I actually have 100% confidence in her writings and I use them all the time. I have two threads here on this forum where thats almost all I use. Methinks you read between the lines too much both now with me, and also back in history with our pioneers. You cant just take one or two snippets from their writings, (or mine) and say thats what we believe. Its actually not fair, and its not right

More like struck a nerve. If you have 100% confidence in her writings & believe she wasn't in error when she said the sanctuary was a Pillar of Adventism why do you believe she was in error when she said the Personality of God was also a Pillar within the same sentence? Past that I note that you never provided any meaning / definition of the Personality of God doctrine that countered what I showed the Pioneers defined it to be. 

 

Does this mean you are finished with me? lol I see you used the word "were."

I assumed you were / would be finished. Mea Culpa.

 

 “You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself". Ellen White Letter 300 1903 to JH Kellogg

I've answered all the questions you asked me and provided quotes in the process. 

Please ( since you are eager to discuss this ) provide me with your understanding of what "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" Doctrine meant to SDA's from 1846 through to the death of Ellen White & please provide quotes. 

You say you use Ellen's writings all the time and have 100% confidence in them so surely you can school me as to the definition of the Personality of God doctrine. 

 

Thanks for being a sport! 

 

 

[Gustave]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:17 PM, The Wanderer said:

Well, you also struck out on this one. I actually have 100% confidence in her writings and I use them all the time. I have two threads here on this forum where thats almost all I use. Methinks you read between the lines too much both now with me, and also back in history with our pioneers. You cant just take one or two snippets from their writings, (or mine) and say thats what we believe. Its actually not fair, and its not right.

Does this mean you are finished with me? lol I see you used the word "were."

For being such a "witty sport" I'm surprised that you haven't offered any evidence I interpreted all those quotes incorrectly... Perhaps you're working on a rejoinder? 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

No. No nerve was struck at all. As I said above on April 28th, Ellen White would condemn the way you are trying to use her writings here. She would never approve of it in a million years. She was not really in the habit of defining specific definitions such as you are demanding. Infact, she would often just declare something without trying to prove it. And that is something that scripture does all the time when talking about The Personality of God.

It's true that Ellen wasn't really in the habit of defining specific definitions - the Pioneers defined exactly what the terms they used meant. 

Ellen was / acted as - the prophetic endorsement of those things the Pioneers defined.

This is why that August 2nd, 1878 Anti-Trinitarian article Ellen & James White helped D.M. Canright  write is so important in understanding this issue.

There was no issues / questions within the S.D. Adventist Church about the Personality of God in 1878 - it was a bedrock doctrine. 

Prior to Dr. Kellogg accepting the Trinity Doctrine he OPENLY wrote against it as the following November 25, 1880 Review and Herald article clearly shows.

"correct. As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point".

We all know what happened after the above article - in about 10 years Kellogg ACCEPTED the Trinity Doctrine, the SDA health club burns down and Kellogg writes a book hoping that it's sale would help to rebuild the health club. There was NO PANTHEISM in the book however James White and the other Pioneers taught that "THE TRINITY" Doctrine WAS PANTHEISM. 

Kellogg now believed in God The Father, God The Son & God the Holy Spirit. Kellogg had now written a book - a book that according to Ellen White "DESTROYED THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". Ironically THAT is the same thing James White said about the Trinity Doctrine (i.e. it destroys the Personality of God). 

SDA Bible Home Studies, Signs of the Time, February 8, 1910: THE DENIAL OF GOD HAVING FORM IS PANETHISM

That is precisely what Kellogg did when he accepted the Trinity Doctrine - Kellogg claimed God the Father DIDN'T have a body of flesh AND claimed the Holy Spirit WAS GOD as much as The Father - in other words Kellogg had annihilated the Personality of God. 

Scripture does NOT use the term "PERSONALITY OF GOD", the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White used that term and it had a specific theological meaning - that ONLY the Father was "GOD" & that the Father HAD A BODY OF FLESH, organs, members and bones. 

I'm pretty sure Gregory Mathews who made the O.P. knows this - this is why I believe that so many SDA's are forming offshoots and attempting to return to the theological positions of the Pioneers which Ellen White confirmed as being accurate in their teachings, specifically THIS TEACHING.

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

No. I am sorry. It has not helped one bit. Its like I already said. You can dig up all the quotes you want and it does not prove anything about the trinity, in fact one of the examples you chose to use was Kellogg who was not an Adventist in the end. Your continued use of EGW writings in a manner that she would never support is duly noted.

Dr. Kellogg WAS a Seventh Day Adventist in GREAT STANDING when he wrote that article - he became a bad-ventist AFTER he accepted the Trinity Doctrine in / around 1902 which was more than 10 years after he wrote that article "for the S.D. Church". 

 

 

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

lol,  in great standing. OK

But just so people know, it was because of his pantheistic leanings that he ended up where he did. And you still have not proved anything about official Adventist beliefs.regarding the trinity One, or two or three individuals writing personal opinions have NEVER been the way our official beliefs were established, and as I have said, EGW would never approve of how you are using her writings here. Her writings do not define Adventist beliefs or sources She, like many Christians, had varying views as they studied and learned more, but none of the quotes you have provided or will provide prove one way or the other what is official Adventist Belief

I read Living Temple, if you have than certainly you could show me where the Pantheistic teachings are? I didn't find any there.

If you can't accept what your own Church scholars say about the Founders of your church being non Trinitarian I suppose you're right - I have no chance convincing you LOL.

It appears however that there are mobs of folks that have left the Official Seventh Day Adventist Church and joined non-Trinitarian groups that accept Ellen White as a Prophet. 

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Well, that may very well be that some have left to do that, however I did not say that none of our founders believed differently. I said that their differing beliefs did not and do not define the official beliefs. It really is that simple.

Would you say its true that today the SDA Church defines its official beliefs? 

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, Gustave said:

Would you say its true that today the SDA Church defines its official beliefs? 

I would say that the 28 Fundies define the Trinity as an official church doctrine.  That being said,  I don't think the denomination is going to disfellowship anyone if they are not Trinitarians unless such folks disrupt their congregations over it.  There are several members of our congregation who are not Trinitarians (including me); but we don't make it a divisive issue in our church.

[Gustave]

37 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I would say that the 28 Fundies define the Trinity as an official church doctrine.  That being said,  I don't think the denomination is going to disfellowship anyone if they are not Trinitarians unless such folks disrupt their congregations over it.  There are several members of our congregation who are not Trinitarians (including me); but we don't make it a divisive issue in our church.

Thanks JoeMo, that was a forthright answer & I appreciate your candor!

If I could ask you - do you believe the current position of the SDA Church on the Trinity runs counter to what the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White taught? Also if I could ask if you or the other like minded individuals understand that issue to be a salvation issue. 

Thanks again for speaking up.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Also if I could ask if you or the other like minded individuals understand that issue to be a salvation issue. 

It can be if an individual makes it so.  For example, the Sabbath is a salvational issue for me because it is so wrapped up in my relationship with Jesus.  Obviously, it's not a salvational issue for most Christians, since they choose to worship on Sunday. For me the Trinity is not a salvational issue.  That the Father and Son are God is salvational.  I believe the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of Christ" or "the Spirit of the Father".  My faith in Jesus is strong enough that, when I have my little discussion with Jesus, if He says that the Holy Spirit is a Person, I will become a Trinitarian so fast it will make your head spin!

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

 

I know you are trying to make a different point, but this is a simple matter of realizing that "present truth" is not static, it is dynamic. The current position of the church on the trinity is much different than what SOME of the pioneers had believed at one time or another. The church, after ongoing study, realized the Biblical soundness of the trinity doctrine, and accordingly, many of those pioneers did change their stance. But the Adventist church has never had as an official belief, the allegation that the trinity is not a valid doctrine. It has just never happened that way, and I think you are trying to say that it has. History is clear. That has never been the official stance of the church.

May I ask what your definition is of "a salvation issue?"

What I'm saying is when Ellen was alive the Personality of God Doctrine WAS static because Ellen white was PRESENT was it was being taught.

The Pioneers were significantly older than Ellen White & I'm unaware of any SDA Pioneer who "changed their stance" - who of the Pioneers outlived Ellen? 

Report of the Educational Department of the Southern Asia Division / Eastern Tidings April 15, 1923

As soon as our schools are opened the first difficulty we meet is what to put into the hands of our, children, in their mother tongue, as they progress in its study. There are many "Readers" produced by the C. L. S and by Indian educators. In our school at Prakasapuram, we have used many kinds, but we prefer the latest publications of the C, L. S. to all the previous ones. In the former C. L. S. Beaders we have come across certain anti-Scriptural expressions here and there on the personality of God, immortality of the soul, and the fate of the wicked. In such cases we  draw thick  lines over those expressions. 

If the education department was drawing thick lines over statements in Christian books which affirmed "immortality of the soul", "fate of the wicked" AND "anti-Scriptural expressions about the PERSONALITY OF GOD one would logically conclude that Seventh Day Adventists "present" did NOT believe that the immortality of the soul or forever burning in hell were valid doctrines and when the P.O.G. is right next to those other two things it's difficult to imagine the Trinity WAS A VALID DOCTRINE to those SDA's present at that time. 

Seriously, can you imagine a 1923 Catholic Education Department in Rome ordering educators to draw thick lines over any mention of prayers to the Virgin Mary? 

"I entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ." Ellen White, RH, August 31, 1905

 A salvation issue is something a person believes must or must not be believed or done to be saved - Example: Some Christians believe if they give up Christianity and adopt Hinduism or Islam then they would not be saved / some folks believe that if they believe in MANY God's as opposed to ONE then they will not be saved / some folks believe that they must go to church on one specific day or they will not be saved, stuff like that.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, JoeMo said:

It can be if an individual makes it so.  For example, the Sabbath is a salvational issue for me because it is so wrapped up in my relationship with Jesus.  Obviously, it's not a salvational issue for most Christians, since they choose to worship on Sunday. For me the Trinity is not a salvational issue.  That the Father and Son are God is salvational.  I believe the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of Christ" or "the Spirit of the Father".  My faith in Jesus is strong enough that, when I have my little discussion with Jesus, if He says that the Holy Spirit is a Person, I will become a Trinitarian so fast it will make your head spin!

I understand, thanks again.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

A salvation issue is something a person believes must or must not be believed or done to be saved - Example: Some Christians believe if they give up Christianity and adopt Hinduism or Islam then they would not be saved / some folks believe that if they believe in MANY God's as opposed to ONE then they will not be saved / some folks believe that they must go to church on one specific day or they will not be saved, stuff like that.

 

I agree with your initial definition of a salvational issue.  Could you clarify your examples?  In my humble opinion, everyone who receives eternal life MUST ultimately put their faith solely in the God of Israel and His only begotten Son - not Allah or Krishna.  I will clarify that this may not happen in this age.  There are too many people through the ages who never had a chance to hear about Jesus; and there are too many people with mental disabilities or died at too early an an age to "understand" Jesus.  I am currently of the opinion that among the "rest of the dead" that are resurrected after the millennium will be those who never had the opportunity to make an informed, conscious decision to accept Christ as Savior.  They will see Jesus and how He runs His government on one side; and satan and how he runs his government on the other side.  People will make different choices based on how they want to live (just like now).  Those who choose satan will ultimately and literally end up as charred toast.

This is just my opinion, shared with at least one other esteemed poster on this website.  It is the only way I can wrap my head around God being fair to all mankind in their choice for or against Christ.  We have a free will.  To exercise it properly, it seems to me that we need sufficient information to make an informed choice.  How can God condemn people who never even got a clue about who He is, or made a conscious decision to believe or not believe?  Yeah, yeah; Romans talks about the Character of God being evident in nature.  Show me where the sacrifice of Jesus is evident in nature.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

1/ Thank you Gus for the effort in replying here. Lets just say for a minute, for purpose of explanation, that you are right, and this quote, that you claim so stridently to be written by Ellen G White in 1923 shows the point you are trying to make. Now, with this being said, I have a challenge for you, and all anti-trinitarians: "Why do you insist so strongly on using Ellen G White's writings to "prove" what Adventists used to believe or do believe?"

Can you answer this question and give a Bible answer for your misuse of her writings in this way? Why would you insist on using non-scripture to prove anything about the trinity or The Holy Spirit or The Adventist Church's official teachings? Thats a pretty simple question. You should be able to answer it with a scripture passage or two in support of.Certainly, Ellen G White would never in a million years support the way you are using her writings. So you must be able to prove from scripture why thats OK to do here?

2/  I would invite people to check out the following link, which shows the entire, document you claim to be quoting.

READ SOURCE  

[this can also be found in  5T 101.5 as well as two other places in her writings.]

The quote you claim so forcefully to be in this paper, is actually NOT in that paper, nor can I find it anywhere in the writings of Ellen G White, and I have them all. In fact, most of that paper consists of short articles and reports from the Southern Asia Division Of Seventh-day Adventists, and I do not see anything here actually written by EGW except for a few short quotes that were inserted by conference officials who wrote the paper. Just a few short months later in another issue of eastern Tidings, a quote  regarding The Holy Spirit also reveals EGW as saying the complete opposite of what you tried to claim with this purely fictional quote:

"Messages of warning, dictated by the Holy Spirit, are borne by the servants of God, defects of character are presented before the erring; but they say, 'That does not represent my case. I do not accept the message you bring. I am doing the best I can. I believe the truth.' That evil servant who said in his heart, 'My Lord delayeth His coining,' professed to be waiting for Christ. He was a servant, outwardly devoted to the service of God, while at heart he had yielded to Satan. He does not, like the scoffer, openly deny the truth, but reveals in his life the sentiment of the heart,— that the Lord's coming is delayed. "Faith in the soon coming of Christ is waning..." Eastern Tidings, June 1st 1923, pg 2) [this can be found in  5T 101.5 as well as two other places in her writings.

3/  It is painfully apparent that you are cutting and pasting "apologist" quotes from somewhere (one of three sites that I have seen with this same material) which IS actually false, and that the paper you "quoted" in evidence thereof is actually saying the opposite, how

are what was being written about. At the time, there were struggles trying to get and use sabbath school materials in "the common vernacular," (according to this paper), and so of course, as EGW DID SAY The Holy Spirit would DICTATE the needed truths. So as far as EGW and this paper, is concerned we find that it actually says the opposite of what you claim; and just a few months later, after the issue you supposedly quoted we find:

 Pg 2, Eastern Tidings April 15, 1923 "Unless we are daily advancing in the exemplification of the active Christian virtues we shall not recognize the manifestation of The Holy Spirit in The Latter Rain"  ({ also found in FLB 333.6}

The quote you claim to be in this paper is NOT THERE. You can go to the link yourself and do a search on the word "schools" and you will find 99 total mentions of that word but NONE mention the quote you say is there. I searched the entire document and cannot find it. Why don't you tell us where it is?

4/  Even IF I did somehow miss that quote you gave us, nothing else I said or will say is wrong. Its all well-documented. Another challenge for you would be that if you are going to attempt to "prove" anything for or against "The Trinity" or The Holy Spirit, why can you not seem to be able to do it based ONLY on scripture? Is it not time to scrap your EGW smear tactics and dust off your Bible?

The only thing you were right about was that some of our pioneers did not see anything in several of what are now major pillars of our beliefs, including seventh day sabbath and trinity. But even when those numbers were at their highest, we have never had as an OFFICIAL belief from  the Arian camp's version of God, and even THAT is not just about The Holy Spirit!!.

What you have done here is misquoted her writings, and used them in the very way she spoke against the most. And in a way that the Bible would speak against
 

 

1:  I didn't claim Ellen wrote anything in 1923, she was already gone by that point. 

2: I'm not an anti-Trinitarian.

Why would you insist on using non-scripture to prove anything about the trinity or The Holy Spirit or The Adventist Church's official teachings? Thats a pretty simple question. You should be able to answer it with a scripture passage or two in support of.Certainly, Ellen G White would never in a million years support the way you are using her writings. So you must be able to prove from scripture why thats OK to do here?

I am a Trinitarian - are you asking me for my Biblical reasons for believing the Trinity Doctrine is right? If that's what you're doing here start a post for Biblical / theological reasons for the Trinity and I'll absolutely be glad to participate in that. This thread is for confusion within the SDA Church about the Trinity & I'm providing you the WHY. 

The quote you claim so forcefully to be in this paper, is actually NOT in that paper, nor can I find it anywhere in the writings of Ellen G White, and I have them all. In fact, most of that paper consists of short articles and reports from the Southern Asia Division Of Seventh-day Adventists, and I do not see anything here actually written by EGW except for a few short quotes that were inserted by conference officials who wrote the paper. Just a few short months later in another issue of eastern Tidings, a quote  regarding The Holy Spirit also reveals EGW as saying the complete opposite of what you tried to claim with this purely fictional quote:

Your attempts to IGNORE "the words" on page 8 of your April 1923 Link are noted but I am used to having folks do what you just did. 

 

Again, I didn't attribute the article to Ellen White, you did.

Ellen died in 1915, no? 

The allegation, if I'm not mistaken, is it was AFTER Ellen died that the SDA Church began migrating away from their "foundational" or "Pillar" Doctrines. Thus, you'd need to come up with some pre 1915 Ellen quotes that has her rebutting what her husband & his friends hammered home with a sledge hammer in the SDA papers. If you had something to bring to the table I'm thinking you would have already done so. 

 

It is painfully apparent that you are cutting and pasting "apologist" quotes from somewhere (one of three sites that I have seen with this same material) which IS actually false, and that the paper you "quoted" in evidence thereof is actually saying the opposite, how

I pull my own material from my own document library - I'm not a cut and past apologist - I do my own work - which is why you're having such difficulty. 

Ellen repeatedly said what her husband and the other Pioneers said about the Personality of God in the papers was RIGHT - what was said in the papers was that this was THE CRITICAL doctrine, period. The Sabbath was even subservient to the Personality of God according to the Pioneers. 

I read everything in context and I can appreciate why you would get upset that Ellen White was an anti-Trinitarian. I have credited the SDA Church for accepting the Trinity Doctrine and even posted a video from the It Is Written SDA Program that I thought was excellent. It's time however to admit Ellen was simply the final stamp of approval for what James White and the other Pioneers were hyping. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I agree with your initial definition of a salvational issue.  Could you clarify your examples?  In my humble opinion, everyone who receives eternal life MUST ultimately put their faith solely in the God of Israel and His only begotten Son - not Allah or Krishna.  I will clarify that this may not happen in this age.  There are too many people through the ages who never had a chance to hear about Jesus; and there are too many people with mental disabilities or died at too early an an age to "understand" Jesus.  I am currently of the opinion that among the "rest of the dead" that are resurrected after the millennium will be those who never had the opportunity to make an informed, conscious decision to accept Christ as Savior.  They will see Jesus and how He runs His government on one side; and satan and how he runs his government on the other side.  People will make different choices based on how they want to live (just like now).  Those who choose satan will ultimately and literally end up as charred toast.

This is just my opinion, shared with at least one other esteemed poster on this website.  It is the only way I can wrap my head around God being fair to all mankind in their choice for or against Christ.  We have a free will.  To exercise it properly, it seems to me that we need sufficient information to make an informed choice.  How can God condemn people who never even got a clue about who He is, or made a conscious decision to believe or not believe?  Yeah, yeah; Romans talks about the Character of God being evident in nature.  Show me where the sacrifice of Jesus is evident in nature.

 

I agree with you JoeMo, we MUST put our faith in the Father & Son.

For those who died after Christ's Resurrection they will be judged by Natural Law and that happens immediately at death.

God is fair to be sure. 

Clarification: 

I believe that those who have MORE or better said more accurate information pertaining to the deposit of Faith once delivered to the Saints will be judged more harshly than someone who is just being judged by natural law. We MUST make what we believe OUR OWN - we simply can't just take what someone else says because that's someone else's faith and not our own. Its possible that what may be a salvation issue for me isn't for you and vise versa - I don't know for sure. 

 

 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

everyone's definition of "sufficient information" is different so what do we do with that?

I don't have an answer for that.  Only God knows the heart; and only He can judge. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims and Hindus that currently believe they have sufficient information about choosing their gods.  But how many of them ever got a chance to really get to know Jesus?  For that matter, how many members of man-made Christian denominations ever get a chance to really know Jesus?

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I was jesting a little with my comment to you

I figured.  Nonetheless, it is a valid question. I know lots of people who think you need to have every point of doctrine correct in order to be saved.

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I see you believe in two Gods

The SON of God is not above His Father.  He is not equal with His Father.  God the FATHER is "above all".

 Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

The Son of God does His Father's will.  He always has.  He always will. 

1 Corinthians 15:28 "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

I do not worship the Son of God, as God "above all".  I worship Him (as the Son of God) because the Father has commanded that we worship His Son. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:40 PM, JoeMo said:

  On 5/8/2018 at 8:32 AM, Gustave said:

A salvation issue is something a person believes must or must not be believed or done to be saved - Example: Some Christians believe if they give up Christianity and adopt Hinduism or Islam then they would not be saved / some folks believe that if they believe in MANY God's as opposed to ONE then they will not be saved / some folks believe that they must go to church on one specific day or they will not be saved, stuff like that.

A "salvational issue" determines whether one will be saved or lost.  The only important "salvational issues" are the ones our God regards as such - salvational - can't be saved without. 

Just because Muslims or Hindus believe that certain issues are salvational for them, doesn't make them such - to God. 

Knowledge and ignorance play a BIG role.   Those who know more, are held to a higher standard, and will be judged by that standard. 

James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

The Sabbath, for instance - might not be a SI (salvational issue) for those ignorant of its importance, but could BECOME a salvational issue - for those who have studied and are convicted. 

Which commands are absolutely must-do?   What must one do - to be saved?    It really depends on the person and his education and experience. 

What are the BOTTOM LINE - can't get into Heaven without - issues - which apply to everyone??  Cause if there are no such, then we're talking universalism (God will "save" everyone.)

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" (John 3:3 NKJ)  To be "born again" is to be indwelt by Christ.  "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:27).

To be "born again" one must believe (in God and in His Son).  But believe WHAT?? 

And so we're back again to our belief ABOUT God (Trinity or no) and His Son (literally begotten before the world was - or - coequal/coeternal).  

Can one "believe IN Him", without understanding much ABOUT Him?? 

Can one feel/experience a conviction from the Spirit of God - and respond to that conviction - WITHOUT understanding much ABOUT the God who brought the conviction??  Enough to be "saved" finally, in the Kingdom??  Can one resist such a conviction (without knowing much ABOUT the God who brought the conviction) and be "lost"?

It's a little murky - trying to DEFINE just what the salvational issues are. 

Now the church membership "issues" (28 Fundamentals) - that's a different thing entirely.  

[8thdaypriest]

25 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Does true "worship" happen because we are ordered to do it, or for some other reason? What are the possibilities outlined in scripture. Pls note that when I said "two Gods" I was not defining my belief, but was asking about another person's belief because of a statement they had posted.

True worship happens when one is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. 

"God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, 'Abba, Father!'" (Gal 4:6 NKJ)  The same Spirit that cries out "Abba, Father!" sings praise to that Father, and gives thanks to that Father, and worships that Father. 

The Spirit of the Father flows through His Son, into us, and returns to Him in our praise, and worship. 

[8thdaypriest]

31 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Does true "worship" happen because we are ordered to do it, or for some other reason? 

God's command that we worship His Son, is more like permission to worship Him.  It's like the Father was saying, "You can give my Son praise and service, without offending me."

Hebrews 1:6 “But when He [the Father] again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.”'

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

A "salvational issue" determines whether one will be saved or lost.  The only important "salvational issues" are the ones our God regards as such - salvational - can't be saved without. 

AND who is it, according to Scripture, that has the authority to determine WHAT is a "salvational issue" and WHAT isn't?

Just because Muslims or Hindus believe that certain issues are salvational for them, doesn't make them such - to God. 

Agreed, provided the Muslim or Christian wasn't originally a Christian.

 

Knowledge and ignorance play a BIG role.   Those who know more, are held to a higher standard, and will be judged by that standard. 

Agreed

James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

The Sabbath, for instance - might not be a SI (salvational issue) for those ignorant of its importance, but could BECOME a salvational issue - for those who have studied and are convicted. 

What about the individual who is "convicted" an error is a truth?

Which commands are absolutely must-do?   What must one do - to be saved?    It really depends on the person and his education and experience. 

What are the BOTTOM LINE - can't get into Heaven without - issues - which apply to everyone??  Cause if there are no such, then we're talking universalism (God will "save" everyone.)

That's what the Moral or Natural law is all about.

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" (John 3:3 NKJ)  To be "born again" is to be indwelt by Christ.  "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:27).

To be "born again" one must believe (in God and in His Son).  But believe WHAT?? 

And so we're back again to our belief ABOUT God (Trinity or no) and His Son (literally begotten before the world was - or - coequal/coeternal).  

Can one "believe IN Him", without understanding much ABOUT Him?? 

This side of heaven WE CAN'T understand much about God ( Father, Son & Holy Spirit ).

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3,16

Can one feel/experience a conviction from the Spirit of God - and respond to that conviction - WITHOUT understanding much ABOUT the God who brought the conviction??  Enough to be "saved" finally, in the Kingdom??  Can one resist such a conviction (without knowing much ABOUT the God who brought the conviction) and be "lost"?

It's a little murky - trying to DEFINE just what the salvational issues are. 

Now the church membership "issues" (28 Fundamentals) - that's a different thing entirely.  

 

 

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Does true "worship" happen because we are ordered to do it,

I don't really know what true worship is ... is it a "feeling"?  Is it being lost in the wonder of God?  If it is, the closest I ever get to true worship is in private prayer and during the music part of the service.  Is it a "conviction" - like being committed that the Father and Son are the only "true" Gods; and there are no others no matter what may happen to you or what the future holds?  IMHO, it is the latter.

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Can one "believe IN Him", without understanding much ABOUT Him?? 

Absolutely!  Scripture says God is beyond our understanding; that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways; that our wisdom is foolishness to Him.  Practically speaking, I "believe" in my computer and my satellite TV; but I don't understand them at all.  But that shouldn't stop us from learning as much as we can about Him; except ...

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Knowledge and ignorance play a BIG role.   Those who know more, are held to a higher standard, and will be judged by that standard. 

James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

 

This scriptural reference has sometimes discouraged me from studying further into some questions.  It almost sounds like - in God's realm - ignorance IS an excuse. 

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Thats exactly why I asked the question above. It seems to me that if one is following all the light they have to the best of their ability, thenG od accepts said positions and predicaments just as much as He would a theologian. (John 6:37 is one place to start.

JoeMo said that.

 

My attempt to figure out how to reply inside another persons quote didn't work out so well.

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, JoeMo said:

This scriptural reference has sometimes discouraged me from studying further into some questions.  It almost sounds like - in God's realm - ignorance IS an excuse. 

If one is willfully ignorant, then one is held responsible for what one could have known.   Avoiding study won't get you a pass.  But you know that. . . .

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, JoeMo said:

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Can one "believe IN Him", without understanding much ABOUT Him?? 

Absolutely!  Scripture says God is beyond our understanding; that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways; that our wisdom is foolishness to Him.  Practically speaking, I "believe" in my computer and my satellite TV; but I don't understand them at all.  But that shouldn't stop us from learning as much as we can about Him;

    I Thessalonians 3:16   [Persecution by Jews and pagans] “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,”

        To paraphrase Paul, "The Gentiles are in an unsaved condition.  If we don’t speak to the Gentiles about Christ, they cannot be saved.”

You must HEAR the truth - to BELIEVE the truth - to "be saved".

 It appears there is a minimum amount of information (about the Father and His Son) that one must HEAR, in order to "be saved". 

Discerning what that information is - the Gospel - might tell us the "salvation issue".  What is it, that one must "believe" in order to "be saved"?

How much of the truth - about Jesus - must one HEAR, before one can "believe on Him"?