Leaderboard

Not what i expected, but, from the standpoint of Ethics, important. https://atoday.org/the-dark-side-of-adventist-life/

I've not presented myself as an expert on SDA belief by any means - what I've done is present what I've read in the archives. In the case of the Personality of God it started out with something years ago that I read from Ellen White, here it is: "The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4} Those two sentences struck every SDA I asked as being odd ( as in they didn't know what it meant ). Reason being is because Personality is generally understood to be: I then asked myself did Ellen White think people thought that the unity between Jesus and His disciples destroyed the state or quality of Jesus or the disciples being actual persons? Did Ellen think people thought the unity jeopardized the personal existence of Jesus or the disciples? I thought to myself it couldn't be an individuals emotional characteristics or distinctive -WHICH is the first thing I thought she meant and everyone else I asked about it - that clearly WASN'T it. I thought that Ellen certainly DIDN'T mean that people thought that Jesus' association with the disciples could have destroyed Jesus' reputation or renown. Gregory, understand NO ONE I asked ( and I asked many SDA's ) could tell me what this meant. So, I did a word search in the General Conference archives and realized that the term "PERSONALITY OF GOD" had a specific theological meaning to Seventh-day Adventists that had been taught with velocity since 1855. James White was adamant about it. It had such an importance to the SDA Education department that prior to making their own books for school they would draw thick black lines through the sections of books that contradicted the PERSONALITY OF GOD Doctrine that kids at their schools were reading. What I did was download EVERY Review & Herald that had the words "PERSONALITY OF GOD" of in it and built a timeline chronology. The articles that were lengthy I thought held more importance so I read 2 or 3 Review papers AFTER and before those articles to see if people were writing in or discussing the Doctrine - THAT IS HOW I FOUND that Ellen assisted in revising Canright's anti-Trinity articles on both the Personality of God and the Holy Spirit. So, I'm not copying and pasting stuff I post from anti-SDA sites, I've done my own research and frankly I've not seen my points on ANY anti-SDA websites - if you know of any PLEASE let me know as I'd like to see what they are saying. Peace

Gustave, you present yourself as an expert on SDA belief and the writings of Ellen G. White. In actual fact, your misrepresent such. There is room for debate within Adventism on many issues related to the development of the SDA denomination. You are not wrong in everything that you post. But, your posts present you as being ignorant of much of the historical and theological studies that have been made of our developmental period. You reach conclusions that more accurately represent your bias and what you want to read into the material that you cite, rather than what it actually says.

I am plenty comfortable and firm with my belief. But it is faith, not knowledge. IMHO, faith always involves a measure of doubt. When faith becomes fact through explicit evidence, there is no more room for doubt. I do NOT accept the Personage of the HS; but I used to. Before, I was a Trinitarian; but my mind was open to others' theories. Before, I was a Catholic, now I'm not. My faith has evolved over the years, hasn't yours. The nature of God is beyond my or your understanding. So I don't KNOW that God is not a Trinity; but I BELIEVE He/They are not. Do you pray separately to the Father and Jesus, or do you just pray to the Father? I pray ("talk") to both of them separately sometimes. It depends what I'm praying about. I used to pray to the HS, but I don't do that any more. I pray for the spirit and in the spirit, but not to the spirit.

Was or is Jesus subservient to the Father; or are they co-equal? If Jesus is subservient to the Father, is it based upon mutual respect and unity, or is it required? If the HS is an actual being rather than the spirit (or breath) of the Father and the Son, is the Holy Spirit subservient to the Father and/or Son? Or have both (or all three) mutually agreed to always agree? Or if "God is One", is agreement among them equivalent to agreeing with one's self; so it's a moot point? Is this a bizarre question?

So far, what I'm hearing is that the word "Trinity" has no clear agreed upon definition. Therefore "God" (if "He" IS a Trinity - is NOT clearly understood as such). Folks who believe that God is a Trinity, do so because that is what they were taught, not because they clearly understand what that means. "God" - in the Greek, means "divine being" - divine as opposed to human. "God" is not a name. "God" is a type of being, with personal characteristics - characteristics we associate with personhood. Sentient will (as opposed to instinct), communicative, responsive to the actions and emotions of His created beings (whether spirit beings or human beings). Pronouns like he, him, his, and who are used to refer to "God". "God" has powers beyond those of human beings. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Yahweh, the "God" of Israel, IS the original and always existent divine being - one being, who beget a second divine being from Himself, before THEY created anything. The second being is also divine, and is therefore "God". Is this not what John wrote?

There are many things in Scripture that are hard to understand, and/or have not been clearly stated in fullness.: * Perhaps God wants us to spend some time and effort in study of some issues? * Perhaps, some issues are not as important as we make them to be. * Perhaps it is O.K. for Christians to differ on some points. * Perhaps [You fill in the space.} :)

My "problem" with the doctrine of the Trinity, is that there IS NO clear definition of the term. How can one espouse a doctrine, which is not clearly defined? SDA pioneers and Catholic theologians each individually understood the term differently. It's like wrestling with smoke. You can't get a good grasp of anything. The immediate excuse is that it's just too far beyond our ability to understand. How can we believe in something that is beyond our ability to understand - even at the most basic level? No wonder the agnostics think they have a good excuse. Why even spend time discussing whether "God" is a Trinity - if you cannot define "Trinity" ? You would think, if "God" really IS "a Trinity", that He would have left some strong statements to that effect.

“That three are one, and one is three, Is an idea that puzzles me; By many a learned sage ‘tis said That three are one in the Godhead. The Father then may be the Son, For both together make but one; The Son may likewise be the Father, Without the smallest change of either. Yea, and the blessed Spirit be The father, Son and trinity; This is the creed of Christian folks, Who style themselves true orthodox, All which against plain common sense, We must believe or give offense.” ~~ The Review & Herald, March 12, 1857.

Jeff Sessions' 'religious liberty task force' part of a dangerous Christian nationalist campaign of discrimination Conservative Christians have convinced Trump that they are being oppressed. And LGBT Americans and religious minorities will pay the price. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jeff-sessions-religious-liberty-task-force-part-dangerous-christian-nationalist-ncna895941