Leaderboard

A point of clarification: * Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Sabbath occurs on the day commonly named Saturday in the English speaking world. They do not believe that the Sabbath has been changed to another day. * Current belief of Seventh-day Adventists, who understand the history of the event, believe that the claimed change of the Sabbath involves much more than either any Roman ruler or any Pope.

Rachel said in the quote below: The fact that Ellen White had a faulty understanding of the Trinity demonstrated the truth of her statements to the effect that the Bible was the standard and Ellen White's writings were to be judged by the Bible. We today, as in the time of Ellen White are to go to the Bible to see what the Bible teaches as a standard of our doctrinal beliefs. This does not mean that we are to exclude what EGW said from our consideration of doctrinal understandings any more than we should exclude what I may say in a sermon on Saturday morning. Hopefully, both what I may say in that sermon as well as what EGW may have written will have some value in our consideration of a doctrinal position. However, regardless of that, both EGW and my Saturday sermon are to be subjected to the authority of the Bible and if the Bible disagrees with what either of us has said, we are wrong and the Bible is correct..

Stan and Gregory operate a well oiled machine with this Forum. Initially I didn't think I would last very long here but I'm glad I was incorrect about that. Running a Forum of this scope takes a lot of experience and frankly smarts. I commend the owner and Management on a Job extremely well done.

Romans 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” 2 Corinthians 5:18 “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,” The goal and reason for the incarnation of "the Son" was to reconcile human beings to "the Father" through a revelation of His love - to show His love. The cross - I believe, was the greatest love message ever sent. The Father is not reconciled to us. He has always loved us. We are reconciled to Him. How are we reconciled to Him? We respond when we realize how much He loves us. 1 John 4:19 “We love Him [God] because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:9 “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” 1 John 4:10 “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Romans 8:3 “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” 1 Corinthians 1:9 “God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with His son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” Galatians 4:4 “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,” Who “sent” His Son? Answer: God the Father. 1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” John 5:30 “I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.” John 6:38-39 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” There are 17 verses which say that God the Father sent His Son. We humans, especially parents, can understand the love of parent for child and of a father for a son. We can hear and feel God the Father's great love in sending His Son, and then giving up that Son to be physically and mentally tortured until He died. We can know by this, that His love for us is enormous! When you change the story to say that three divine beings/persons of a "heavenly Trio" or Trinity, decided among themselves which one would assume which role - Father/Son/or Spirit, it takes away from the message of love. It muddies the waters. It is difficult for humans to understand the love message, and men are not "reconciled to the Father". This is why I believe it is so important, and why I continue to argue against God as triune, or trio, or trinity. Did you notice how many times "God" is spoken of using the singular pronoun "He", and the singular possessive pronoun "His" ? Jesus had no problem using the plural "We" or "Our" but he was speaking of Himself and His Father, not of a trio. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Just my opinion

He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mat 3:11 NAS)

I don't agree, either. But - as you stated: So what existed before "time" (or the reckoning of time)? Eternity, correct? So in that sense, Jesus existed before time began. I believe that the "wisdom" described it Proverbs 8 is actually Jesus. "“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind." (Prov. 8:22-31) Notice that the above speaks nothing about "wisdom" being created. I perused all English translations, and the term "created" is never used. The terms "brought forth", "born", and "begotten" are used. All of those terms imply that jesus is the same substance as the Father - "God stuff". And since Jesus was brought forth before the reckoning of time, in that sense, He was 'brought forth" in eternity.

Mine as well. Many people us Matt. 28:19 as a proof text for the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Yet, nowhere else in the Bible is it documented that people were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - In the book of Acts, they are all baptized in the Name of Jesus. Yes, there are verses that talk of being baptized in the Spirit. But in every case, who does that baptizing? Christ and Christ alone.

The word translated as "power" actually means "authority" - not some actual physical or spiritual divine strength. NIV John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." He received the "command" before He incarnated. Here are a few verses which make it plain that God the Father resurrected His Son. Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,” Ephesians 1:17-20 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.” 1Thessalonians 1:10 “ ... and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Acts 3:15 “ ... and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” (Acts 4:10) Acts 13:30 “But God raised Him from the dead.” Romans 6:4 “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.”

Christ did not empty Himself of divine power. Christ, in speaking of what kind of power He had. John 10,18: "No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father" Christ absolutely had the power, but being the "eternal Son" He ALWAYS (as in eternally) did the will of The Father.

Jesus spoke much of this as a human being. When the Son of God incarnated, He "emptied Himself" of divine power. As a human he became mortal, and flesh. The Father had to raise Him from the dead, or He would have remained dead. As a human being, the divine power He accessed was that of His divine Father. He said Himself, "The Father who dwells in me does the works." Jesus healed no one by His own divine power. The Father's life poured through Him. It is the same today. The Father's life and spirit are poured through His Son, to us.

That is a major reason why I no longer have confidence in Ellen White as a "messenger" of God to "His remnant". How could God allow His messenger to teach, write, and endorse one truth for 50 years, only to teach a different truth in "her later years"? I must go to the Bible only for my understanding.

I could reasonably agree with you had Ellen not said these things. Notice the statement she makes about "Substance". "Jesus says his Father is the only true God but Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and the Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Now were I, on going into a place, to inquire for a minister of the Gospel, and one were to inform me that Roger Roe was the only minister of the Gospel in the place, and another were to tell me that two other persons were just as truly ministers of the Gospel as Elder Roe, surely the later would contradict the former. And precisely so do Trinitarians contradict the Savior in in this text. " And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible. Any one who is familiar with the teachings of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements:- 1. They place the Father first in the trinity, and the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. If they are all equal, why do this? 2. They have a mediator between men and the Father, but not between men and the Son or the Holy Spirit. Then they do not themselves regard them as equals. 3. The Son prays, but the Father does not. 4. The Son has a body, but neither the Father nor Spirit has, according to them. 5. The Son died, but neither the Father nor the Spirit have seen death. 6. They do not pray to the Son in the name of the Father, as they do to the Father in the name of the Son. 7. The Father does not plead with the Son, as the Son does with the Father. 8. They do not offer any sacrifice to the Holy Ghost, as they do to the Father. 9. Their continual effort to prove the Son equal with .the Father is virtually proof that he is not. They never try to prove the Father equal with the Son. According to Trinitarians,- 10. Greater and less imply perfect equality. " My Father is greater than T." John 14: 28. 11. The Sender and Sent are both one. " Thou didst send me." John 17:8. 12. The self-existent God has a Father. John 20: 17. 13. The expressions one and three mean the same. Eph. 4: 6. 14. The Father and Son are the same. Matt. 3: 17. 15. Christ prayed to himself. 16. Jesus was that Father who sent him. 17. He was that God who gave him. 18. They teach that God sent himself, came out from himself, prayed to himself, thanked himself, bore witness of himself, went back to himself, sits at the right hand of himself, is his own Father and his own Son, pleads with himself, left Heaven, and was there all the time. 19. Jesus is very God and very man. 20. He is the invisible God, but was often seen. 21. He is the immortal God, but he died. 22. He is the omnipotent God, but an angel strengthened him. 23. He is the omniscient God, but did not know the day and hour of his appearing. wMark 13,: 32.w w 24. He is equal with the Father, and yet is the Father. 25. He is the Son, but is as old as the Father. 26. He is as great as his Father, though his Father is greater than he. John 14: 28. 27. He is the begotten Son, and the unbegotten God. 28. He has a Father, and is the God who has no Father. 29. Divinity and humanity were united, never to be divided (so say the creeds), yet the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross. 30. They are never to be divided; yet one was dead, the other living. 31. God has no body, yet " he took again his body."-Creeds. 32. God is eternal, but was " begotten before all worlds." 33. The Son has a Father, but the Father has no Father. 34. The Father has a Son, but the Son has no Son. 35. God never gives thanks, but the Son does. 36. The Father is never second, but the Son always is. 37. God does not receive his power from another, but the Son does. 38. The Father was never crucified, never forsaken by his God, and did not receive his life from another, but all this is true of the Son. Trinitarian creeds contradict the word of God thus :- 1. Trinity. God. •Gen. 1 IL 2. Triune. 3. God is three. OG(nde. is ono. Gal. 3: 20. 4. God is three Lords. God is ono Lord. Dont. 6: 4. 5. His name is three. His name is one. Zech. 14 :9. 6. Holy three. holy One. 12 : 6. 7. God the Spirit. The Spirit of God. Gen. 1:2. 8. God died for us. The Son of God died. Matt 27:54. 9. Worship the Trinity. Worship (Soot. Rey. '22: 9. 10. When ye pray say, " Holy When ye pray say, " Our Fa- Trinity."-Ep. Pr. Book. then'' Luke 11 :2. The Bible says nothing about the trinity. God never mentions it, Jesus never named it, the apostles never did. Now men dare to call God, Trinity, Triune, etc. It is a great thing to name our God. We may name our horse, our child; but who presumes to name God? The child should not name its father. We should not name God. God is self-existent, and the source and author of all things,-of angels, of men, of all the worlds,-of everything. Thus Paul says, "For. of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." Rom. 11: 36. He is the source of all life and immortality. Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, " Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approachunto." 1 Tim. 6: 16. Notice that this glorious God is the only one who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source' of all life and immortality, Even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, derives his existence and his life from the Father, for so he himself says, " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57. "For as the Father bath life in himself ; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself, and in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed that the Father is the one from whom the gift came. Ellen helped write this.

I will suggest that we be careful as to reading back into the writings of EGW thought that she may never have had. Her formal schooling was that of the 3rd grade. I can not think that she, in speaking about the nature of God, was considering some of the issues that we attach to that study today. I do not think that she was even aware of them. Regardless, SDAs do not consider her writings to be verbally dictated by God with the intent to be on an equal level to Scripture. However, in actual fact, all denominations do at times write in a manner that is not understood well by others. I will quote a passage of Roman Catholic teaching that on the surface seems to be similar to what Gustave is saying related to his cited passage from EGW. I do not believe that this Roman Catholic passage does teach what Gustave seems to believe the EGW passage teaches. My point is that one could consider it to be similar. 460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": 78 For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." 79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." 80 "For the only-begotten son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." 81 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana. NOTE: If my comment above is faulty, I will welcome any correction by Gustave.

8thdaypriest, I agree with the description Gregory gave as to his understanding of the Trinity and also agree with his assessment that much of what Catholic & Orthodox people say (specifically religiously educated) is devoted to what God is NOT. I also can say i completely agree with JoeMo - that we as finite creations of an Infinite God can't fathom the Nature of the One who set everything we can observe, into motion. I can't over stress this point JoeMo accurately stated. My own understanding of this subject is, as a Catholic, I'm at liberty to believe ANYTHING - provided it doesn't contradict Official Church Teaching, Because Official Church Teaching has communicated that Jesus' two Natures were NOT BLENDED or Mixed any statement to the contrary of that would generate a reaction from someone who accepts the historic Christian Councils. Lutherans & Methodists accept the first 7 Christian Councils - not because they believe the Pope can't make a mistake, but because they recognize the theological statements coming out of those Councils as systematizing Sacred Scripture. Your Question: I'll "try" to address your question about the difference between Catholic and SDA teaching on the Trinity. My admitted limited understanding is this. The SDA's have a "statement" about God that can be be used to justify heretical positions. Understand, I agreed with what Gregory said about 'The Substance' of God and from what I could tell he would subscribe to the fairly articulate position Shawn Boonstra of the SDA "It Is Written" program promulgated. If you want to better understand what Gregory said I think he said I would strongly encourage you to watch the following (fairly short) video on the Trinity. Now, because of the way the SDA Church is set up I can't confirm that Boonstra's stated views are "Official SDA Church Teaching". He clearly states the Council of Nicaea was VALID and ORTHODOX thereby according to Boonstra, systematized Sacred Scripture. Boonstra goes through quoting many Scriptures in support of the conclusions of both the Catholic Synod of 269 and the Council of Nicaea. Boonstra is explicit that both the Synod and Nicaea 'reflected the Tradition of the Apostles & compliant with Scripture'. If Gregory agrees with Boonstra as to the Oneness of God being The Substance I can easily say I agree with Gregory in this. The issue as I see is that the SDA statement of Fundamental Belief would allow a Mormon to be able to say they are Trinitarian. I'll try to illustrate what I mean by this by referring you to an article in the Review and Herald (which is the general SDA Church Paper). On page 6 there is an article titled, "Our Source of Confidence and Hope" , which states: "A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father." http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19961031-V173-44.pdf#view=fit This article describes the "Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally" This is describing 3 God's, who ADOPTED "alien roles" (to eradicate sin & rebellion from the universe] to restore harmony and peace. The article claims that all of this took place prior to sin. The God who adopted the role of Son "in a sense" became subservient (submitted) to the Father. This description cannot be reconciled in anyway to be complaint with the Doctrine of the Trinity. The article goes on to attribute the oneness to the incredible degree on which the 3 god's put themselves into character and were able to hold everything together - i.e. they were one in purpose and mind: "The Father / Son relationship involved great responsibilities and sacrifices on the part of both. The Father would be called upon to permit His Son to be humiliated...……." Official Church Teaching would prevent a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian from being able to accept that as anything other than a heretical teaching. A Lutheran, Baptist or Methodist (Churches that accept the 1st several Christian Councils) would be horrified by that article. Because the Official Teaching of the SDA Church allows such belief it's my understanding that the author of that article is at total liberty to assert what he did. You also questioned the belief of the Eastern Church whereas the text I quoted from the book "The Christian Faith" illustrates the difference between the Western & Eastern views with the Eastern view. \ "In the patristic theology of the East the idea prevailed that the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with him his divine life. This conception had the merit of being based on Scripture, but it could lend itself to misinterpretations." was the above what you had a question about? If it was I'll try to answer it the best I can. The conception that the one God is God the Father, and that the Son and the Spirit share with him his divine life DOES have merit of being based in the Scriptures with the caveat that concepting of it in that way COULD (not does) lend itself to misinterpretation. God the Father IS the source of ALL and the Son and Holy Spirit DO SHARE with the Father His Divine Life (This was the general Eastern Church View). OR (not verses) The Father has always been the Father, ETERNALLY. The Son has always been the Son, ETERNALLY. The Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit, ETERNALLY. The Son is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father by an act of eternal generation and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded ETERNALLY from the Father & The Son. (Western Church view) View / Understand the ways the Eastern and Western Church explained the same thing using different way to explain it. The Eastern way of "explaining it" seemed to be more responsible for giving birth to heresies than did the Western and as time progressed and additional views which contradicted the Tradition of the Apostles rose their heads more specific theological terms were made to set up what essentially were marker buoys to keep the faithful from led astray into odd teachings which were contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles. Of course an Eastern Orthodox would probably take issue with my statement that the Eastern view was responsible for more heretical views than the Roman Catholic (Western Church ways of explaining it) but until an Eastern Orthodox shows up and takes me to task this is the way I'll say it is 8thdaypriest, was this your question and did this answer your question?

So ... you are now the arbiter of truth on this website? You are right and the rest of us are wrong? WOW!

Using Ezekiel's Temple as a reference, we should expect that part of the work of the human population of the New Jerusalem and the New Earth will be to raise animals for sacrificing to YHVH. YHVH, not a being made of flesh and blood, does, according to Moses, rather enjoy the smell of burning flesh. The animals will not be used as sacrifices for repentance of human transgressions, but partly as a source of food for the priests and partly for the olfactory enjoyment of YHVH. Ezekiel's Temple has a significant area set aside for cooking food and slaughtering animals, kind of like a fresh-food restaurant. Since the priests in the Temple of YHVH have no place to raise their own food, they must rely on the tithe given by the rest to sustain themselves. Certain areas in the Temple may very well be a super clean area where dust cannot enter, so the priests must never leave. The Temple may very well be the communication\control center of the universe.