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

[Gregory Matthews]

John said:

Quote:

There's a lot of misunderstanding on this point. We are to test her by the Bible, but once we have tested her and become convinced that she is a true prophet of God, it isn't necessary to go back through all the biblical tests for a prophet before we accept what God's prophet has said. Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth.

NOTE: I accept EGW as a kprophet from God sent to lead the developing denomination in its early days (That is when she lived.). I accept her writings as containing messages from God for the people of this denomination until the ckomming of Christ the second time.

If John intends to imply that because she has been accepted as a true prophet of God we do not need to test what she has said by the Bible, he is simply wrong.

EGW was a human being who had personal opinions which did not come from God and can be seen in her writings. Sometimes they were corrected and sometimes they were not. She was not infalabile and God did not work to make her such. In my personal opinion, John has failed to recognized this and has, at times, used statements that she has been made in a manner that is inappropriate. But, as I have stated, I believe he has done such with other authors.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Could God have saved us apart from the shedding of Christ's blood?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The answer is “Yes” because the Lamb of God was already “slain from the foundation of the world. Do not forget how Ellen White described God’s suffering, which began, not on the cross, not when Jesus took human form, but rather when sin and rebellion broke the harmony of heaven. God’s suffering is not the result of a legalistic arbitrary demand that the penalty be paid, but rather the natural result of rejected love.

The Lamb wouldn't have been slain from the foundation of the world if the Lamb never would have come to this earth and been slain.

Ellen White never implies that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world simply because he was sorry that sin entered the world.

He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world because of His voluntary agreement that He would come here and die-- give up his life, shedding his blood-- in order to save all who should come to Him in humble faith.

If Jesus hadn't shed his blood, how would He have been resurrected for us?

How, then, too, would He have ratified the New Covenant?

How, also, would He have bruised the head of the serpent?

And finally, if Christ hadn't died, with what blood would Christ have cleansed us and cleansed the heavenly sanctuary?

Is it possible that what we see and draw meaning from after the fact is evidence that God is the master of taking anything, including the devil's "success" in trying to mess up God's plans for his people, and transforming it to his ultimate purpose? It didn't turn out as He had planned but He still made it work for His ultimate plan of salvation. He had a contingency plan for no matter what the devil does to try to thwart God's purposes.

[Tom Wetmore]

I agree.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is suggested in the statement, "Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth." A lie requires a motive to decieve. A perfectly honest person can say things that are not the truth. And a complete liar can speak the truth.

Being a prophet is not about perfection and once qualified as a prophet it does not mean that prophet's words are always the correct and complete message intended by God.

[Nic Samojluk]

The Godhead transends male and female. All three members have male and female qualities. All three are sometimes refered to in female terminology and other times in male theology. In the New Testament we have God the Parent, The woman wisdom, the great Logos as the man Jesus, and in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is always put in the Greek terminology of a real MALE person. We cannot go any further than this.

To limit the members of the Godhead to one sex or the other is to limit them and thus idolotry.

As for the woman of Revelation 12, it is an incomplete story. The woman runs into the wilderness and you should see coming across the screen "To be continued"

The story continues in Revelation 17. In Revelation 12 God's pure woman runs into the wilderness being chased by the red dragon, in Revelation 17 a woman rides a red beast from the wilderness. When John saw who she was he was baffled and shocked. It was the same woman! In the Old Testament a pure woman is God's people at their better times and God's people are pictured as whores at their worst times. This is continued Old Testament immagry of Judio-Christianity. It is not two different women, it is the rest of the story, full of the same imagry, Revelation 17 is the rest of the story that was started in Revelation 12.

Once again too many Christians because of the rapture doctrine are expecting to be raptured away before the Antichrist comes. Thus they don't have the study to keep their guard up.

Kevin,

Great idea! This explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks! I hope I remember this.

[Nic Samojluk]

John, or whoever is in charge of this forum,

Can someone tell me why I keep receiving notifications for material I get the message "Access denied"?

Here is a copy of the last one I received today:

*********

"No need to reply to this email.

Hi Nic Samojluk,

Musicman1228 made a new post at Adventism's Leading Forums - Club Adventist

You can view the post by clicking this link. The post contents are shown below:

*********

[Nic Samojluk]

John or whoever is in charge of this forum,

Here is a copy of another notification I received which I cannot access nor reply:

*********

No need to reply to this email.

Hi Nic Samojluk,

Dr. Rich made a new post at Adventism's Leading Forums - Club Adventist

You can view the post by clicking this link. The post contents are shown below:

Dr. Rich: Re: Women's ordination is officially a "dead issue"

Nic, ME TOO! I think this is being done to keep people like you and me from posting replies that upset John317. I could find your post Nic, and I hope I can reply to it, but who knows in the future?

*********

When I click on the link, I get the anwer:

"Access denied."

[Nic Samojluk]

John or whoever is in charge of this forum,

Did I do something wrong? Did I break one of your rules? I keep being denied access to this forum! Why? I am not aware of having done anything amiss! Here is the third time I am getting the "Access denied" in a row:

*********

Hi Nic Samojluk,

Musicman1228 made a new post at Adventism's Leading Forums - Club Adventist

You can view the post by clicking this link. The post contents are shown below:

*********

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

But is that what is meant by "slain from the foundation of the world"? Doesn't it mean that Jesus Christ had agreed and promised to come to this world and die for sinners from the very foundation of the world?

The correct answer is both. God felt infinite pain when Lucifer and Adam rebelled as a result of his infinite love. He also committed himself to submit to an unjust death if necessary in the event of rebellion by those he had created as free moral beings. Both potential outcomes were open before God.

2.

Quote:

It seems to me you are saying Christ need not have died to save the world if the Jews had accepted Him. Am I understanding you aright?

Yes, this is my understanding. Of course, my opinion is not infallible. I could be wrong. I do not see why would Jesus need to die if the Jewish nation had decided to welcome Jesus as their Messiah and rightful King. Jesus would have occupied the throne of David as promised to Mary by the angel and would have liberated the Jews from the Romans. Wasn’t this what Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, and David did?

Weren’t they a prototype of the coming Savior? The role of Jesus was similar to that of these men. Moses and the others saviors led the people to repentance, confession, forgiveness, and freedom. Jesus mission was the same: to free people of their sins first by repentance and confession, and then by freeing them from their oppressors.

Of course, when the Jews rejected and killed the one sent to free them from their sins and from oppression, then they sealed their own doom. In a few years, Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman army, and the one sent to save them was not there to protect them.

[Stan]

Nic

I suspect that it is a topic you are subscribed to that has been moved to one of the full membership forums.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

Quote:

If you examine all the English translations of the NT-- or even just the ones that are readily obtainable-- you'll find that almost every legitimate way the NT can be translated has been published.

You were talking about the NT, of course. Would you say the same about the OT? Sometime ago, in our SS class, we attempted to produce a new translation of Genesis 1. We didn’t get very far, but I concluded that a better translation of Gen. 1:2 would be:

Quote:

... and God’s presence moved above the waters.

Instead of “... and the Spirit of God moved above the face of the waters.”

Are you aware of any translation which reads this way? Why do I prefer said translation? Because I do not believe in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. Of course, most Bible translators do believe in said dogma and would probably never dare to translate it my way.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

If you're referring to Gen. 1: 2, the word ruach is translated as either wind, spirit, or breath. I don't think I've ever seen it translated as "presence."

I did. I can’t locate it now, but I did once see that as one of the connotations given for “ruach.” I saw it at “Bible sources.”

2.

Quote:

How would you translate the same Hebrew word in Ps. 51: 12 and Is. 63: 10-12? Was David saying "Take not thy holy breath or holy wind from me"? Obviously not. David is begging God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

The term “presence” would fit quite appropriately. Notice how another Psalm uses both in the same verse:

Quote:

Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. [Psalm 51:11]

I am assuming you are familiar with the Jewish use of parallelism where one phrase is repeated with another that has the same meaning for emphasis. In this Psalm, the term “presence” is equated with phrase “Holy Spirit.” And here is another example from the OT:

Quote:

Then Moses said to him, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. [Ex. 33:15]

There are other similar examples in the Bible.

3.

Quote:

And in the same way, it seems to me that it is not correct in Gen. 1: 2 to translate it as "a wind" or "the breath" from God. The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the world just as the Word was. All Three Persons of the Godhead contributed to the creation of the world.

Would you say this if you were a non-trinitarian like I am or like the early Adventist pioneers were?

4.

Quote:

Finally, there is this significant passage from the writings of Ellen White: "'When He the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16: 13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning 'was brooding upon the face of the waters;' of that Word by whom 'all things were made;' of that 'true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned." Ed. 134.

I do know that Ellen White was almost a Trinitarian. Do you believe that she was infallible? If she was, then how do you explain all she stated in her book “Counsels to Editors” where she talks about studying the Bible to discover new truths? Didn’t even Jesus state that there were other things he would have liked to tell his disciples, but they were not ready?

The term “God’s presence” as an option for Gen. 1:2 is very appealing to me, more so after discovering the qhote I gave from the Psalms. I believe that if we were to replace the phrase “the Spirit of God” or “Holy Spirit” with the phrase “God’s presence” we would make the Bible clearer, less mysterious and less complicated.

Try replacing all those references to the Holy Spirit with “God’s invisible presence” and see how much more sense the Bible makes. I am getting more sold on this as time progresses and as I keep reading God’s Word.

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church did to the dogma of the Trinity something similar to what they did to the Sabbath. They borrowed the idea from paganism and obscured what is quite simple. Remember that if the Holy Spirit is a separate entity and an equal member of the alleged Trinity, then we have many problems:

A. We need to explain why there is no reference in the Bible of worship of the HS.

B. There is no Bible support for the idea that the HS is equal to God the Father in authority and power.

C. We need to explain why God chose the Angel Gabriel to reveal prophecy to Daniel, instead of using the HS. Peter told us the HS was instrumental in the revelation of prophecy.

D. We need to explain why the HS is not even mentioned in Rev. 1:1 where the chain of revelation is God, Jesus, Angel, and John.

E. We need to explain why an angel appeared to Phillip in Acts 8 and then we discover it is the HS.

There is much more!

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: But the question remains: what would have happened to Jesus if the Jews had accepted Him? Would He never have been killed and shed His blood?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Good question. When the Lord sent Moses or Gideon, or Samuel, or David, was there a need for anybody of those saviors sent by God to be killed? They were a type of Christ! People accepted their leadership, people repented, and God freed them from both sin and from their enemies.

If we accept how Ellen White described the cross as a window to help us realize that God was on the cross since the beginning, and if we realize that God suffered infinite pain as a result of sin and rebellion, then tell me why would Jesus need to die?

Let's cut to the chase, Nic.

Ellen White said clearly that Christ had to die in order for anyone to be saved. She taught this in so many places, it's impossible to miss it unless one deliberately chooses to ignore it. For instance, she wrote, "Only by His death could the world be saved.... Only by yielding up His life could He impart life to humanity" (DA 622, 623). Notice these statements are made in the context of what occurred at the time of the Fall. Christ knew before He came here that He would have to die.

Please read the following:

Quote:

"Since the divine law is a sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin-- sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father from His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race.

"Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore.

....The angels could not rejoice as Christ opened before them the plan of redemption, for they saw that man's salvation must cost their loved Commander unutterable woe. In grief and wonder they listened to His words as He told them how He must descend from heaven's purity and peace, its joy and glory and immortal life, and come in contact with the degradation of earth, to endure its sorrow, shame, and death. He was to stand between the sinner and the penalty of sin; yet few would receive Him as the Son of God. He would leave His high position as the Majesty of heaven, appear upon earth and humble Himself as a man, and by His own experience become acquainted with the sorrows and temptations which man would have to endure. All this would be necessary in order that He might be able to succor them that should be tempted. Hebrews 2:18. When His mission as a teacher should be ended, He must be delivered into the hands of wicked men and be subjected to every insult and torture that Satan could inspire them to inflict. He must die the cruelest of deaths, lifted up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner. He must pass long hours of agony so terrible that angels could not look upon it, but would veil their faces from the sight. He must endure anguish of soul, the hiding of His Father's face, while the guilt of transgression --the weight of the sins of the whole world--should be upon Him.

The angels prostrated themselves at the feet of their Commander and offered to become a sacrifice for man. But an angel's life could not pay the debt; only He who created man had power to redeem him. Yet the angels were to have a part to act in the plan of redemption. Christ was to be made "a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Hebrews 2:9.

.... The Son of God had offered to atone, with His own life, for their transgression. A period of probation would be granted them, and through repentance and faith in Christ they might again become the children of God.

The sacrifice demanded by their transgression revealed to Adam and Eve the sacred character of the law of God; and they saw, as they had never seen before, the guilt of sin and its dire results. In their remorse and anguish they pleaded that the penalty might not fall upon Him whose love had been the source of all their joy; rather let it descend upon them and their prosperity.

They were told that since the law of Jehovah is the foundation of His government in heaven as well as upon the earth, even the life of an angel could not be accepted as a sacrifice for its transgression. Not one of its precepts could be abrogated or changed to meet man in his fallen condition; but the Son of God, who had created man, could make an atonement for him. As Adam's transgression had brought wretchedness and death, so the sacrifice of Christ would bring life and immortality.

Not only man but the earth had by sin come under the power of the wicked one, and was to be restored by the plan of redemption. At his creation Adam was placed in dominion over the earth. But by yielding to temptation, he was brought under the power of Satan. "Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." 2 Peter 2:19. When man became Satan's captive, the dominion which he held, passed to his conqueror. Thus Satan became "the god of this world." 2 Corinthians 4:4. He had usurped that dominion over the earth which had been originally given to Adam. But Christ, by His sacrifice paying the penalty of sin, would not only redeem man, but recover the dominion which he had forfeited. All that was lost by the first Adam will be restored by the second. Says the prophet, "O tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion." Micah 4:8. And the apostle Paul points forward to the "redemption of the purchased possession." Ephesians 1:14. God created the earth to be the abode of holy, happy beings. The Lord "formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited." Isaiah 45:18. That purpose will be fulfilled, when, renewed by the power of God, and freed from sin and sorrow, it shall become the eternal abode of the redeemed. "The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever." "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him." Psalm 37:29; Revelation 22:3.

Adam, in his innocence, had enjoyed open communion with his Maker; but sin brought separation between God and man, and the atonement of Christ alone could span the abyss and make possible the communication of blessing or salvation from heaven to earth. Man was still cut off from direct approach to his Creator, but God would communicate with him through Christ and angels.

Thus were revealed to Adam important events in the history of mankind, from the time when the divine sentence was pronounced in Eden, to the Flood, and onward to the first advent of the Son of God. He was shown that while the sacrifice of Christ would be of sufficient value to save the whole world, many would choose a life of sin rather than of repentance and obedience. Crime would increase through successive generations, and the curse of sin would rest more and more heavily upon the human race, upon the beasts, and upon the earth. The days of man would be shortened by his own course of sin; he would deteriorate in physical stature and endurance and in moral and intellectual power, until the world would be filled with misery of every type. Through the indulgence of appetite and passion men would become incapable of appreciating the great truths of the plan of redemption. Yet Christ, true to the purpose for which He left heaven, would continue His interest in men, and still invite them to hide their weakness and deficiencies in Him. He would supply the needs of all who would come unto Him in faith. And there would ever be a few who would preserve the knowledge of God and would remain unsullied amid the prevailing iniquity.

The sacrificial offerings were ordained by God to be to man a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of his sin and a confession of his faith in the promised Redeemer. They were intended to impress upon the fallen race the solemn truth that it was sin that caused death. To Adam, the offering of the first sacrifice was a most painful ceremony. His hand must be raised to take life, which only God could give. It was the first time he had ever witnessed death, and he knew that had he been obedient to God, there would have been no death of man or beast. As he slew the innocent victim, he trembled at the thought that his sin must shed the blood of the spotless Lamb of God. This scene gave him a deeper and more vivid sense of the greatness of his transgression, which nothing but the death of God's dear Son could expiate. And he marveled at the infinite goodness that would give such a ransom to save the guilty. A star of hope illumined the dark and terrible future and relieved it of its utter desolation.

But the plan of redemption had a yet broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded; but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice--its influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man--the Saviour looked forward when just before His crucifixion He said: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me." John 12:31, 32. The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin.

From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author. In the controversy it was to be shown whether the divine statutes were defective and subject to change, or perfect and immutable. PP 63-69

[John317]

Thanks, Stan, for that helpful explanation. :-)

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17:

There's a lot of misunderstanding on this point. We are to test her by the Bible, but once we have tested her and become convinced that she is a true prophet of God, it isn't necessary to go back through all the biblical tests for a prophet before we accept what God's prophet has said. Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: If John intends to imply that because she has been accepted as a true prophet of God we do not need to test what she has said by the Bible, he is simply wrong.

I'm saying that once we have proven to ourselves from our own personal study that she is a true prophet, we don't need to test by the Bible every statement she's made before we believe it. Many of the details that she wrote concerning the origin of sin in heaven are not in the Bible. Also, her statement that Christ could not see through the portals of the tomb is not in the Bible. Some people have claimed this statement contradicts the Bible. But we believe it, don't we? Why? Because we know Ellen White. We know that God showed her visions of those events. We know that she is worthy of our trust.

There are many things she says that are not in the Bible. But they don't need to be in the Bible in order for us to believe them. For instance, she wrote that the brain has electrical currents before there was proof of this, and it wasn't in the Bible. She said many things in regard to matters of health before science verified them, but if God's people trusted her writings and acted upon them, they had better health than those who disbelieved in them and went on living as if God hadn't revealed anything to her. Should we have refused to believe her because it wasn't in the Bible or because science hadn't yet verified what she said?

As another instance, she says that Adam and Eve were warned by the angels about the temptations of Satan. Eve was urged not to leave Adam's side, but she did, and therefore she was alone at the tree of knowledge of good and evil at the time of the temptation. This is not in the Bible, yet it also does not contradict the Bible. Do you believe what Ellen White says on this point, or do you need to have it proven in order to believe it?

There are many things of this nature in The Desire of Ages. Seventh-day Adventists certainly don't have to wait until we have proof before we believe what she wrote there.

Quote:

Gregory Matthew: EGW was a human being who had personal opinions which did not come from God and can be seen in her writings.

Of course she was a human being who had personal opinions.

Could you give some examples of where she wrote merely her personal opinions in her writings? Then we can talk about specifics instead of generalities.

Quote:

Gregory Matthew: Sometimes they were corrected and sometimes they were not.

Again, please give some examples.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: She was not infalabile and God did not work to make her such.

True. She said she didn't claim to be infallible, I've never said she was. Neither were the prophets and apostles in the Bible infallible. God alone is infallible. We SDAs don't believe the Bible to be inerrant, and therefore, we certainly do not believe Ellen White's writings are inerrant.

Quote:

In my personal opinion, John has failed to recognized this

That personal opinion is wrong, Greg. I've never said she was infallible, and I certainly never intended for anyone to think that's what I'm saying. In fact, in my posts, you will find many times where I've said she was not infallible.

You keep talking in generalities. Anyone can make a general statement and claim it to be true without showing any examples. This is what you're doing, and what you did above.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: and has, at times, used statements that she has been made in a manner that is inappropriate. But, as I have stated, I believe he has done such with other authors.

Can you give a couple of examples?

[Woody]

I agree.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is suggested in the statement, "Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth." A lie requires a motive to decieve. A perfectly honest person can say things that are not the truth. And a complete liar can speak the truth.

Being a prophet is not about perfection and once qualified as a prophet it does not mean that prophet's words are always the correct and complete message intended by God.

This is the bottom line and well articulated. Thanks Tom.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is suggested in the statement, "Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth." A lie requires a motive to decieve. A perfectly honest person can say things that are not the truth. And a complete liar can speak the truth.

When she says that God showed her visions and dreams and the Holy Spirit helped her in the writing of those dreams and visions, she was either lying or telling the truth. Unless you want to say she was mad. She couldn't have been an honest person and perfectly sane if she was wrong about those things.

In the same way, when Christ said that He was the Messiah and that He had come from God and was going back to God-- and that He would one day return on the clouds of heaven to judge the world-- He was either lying or telling the truth. He wasn't an honest person if those things weren't true.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Being a prophet is not about perfection and once qualified as a prophet it does not mean that prophet's words are always the correct and complete message intended by God.

I've never said it was about perfection. I've said many times she was not infallible. She was a sinner like you and me.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: If you examine all the English translations of the NT-- or even just the ones that are readily obtainable-- you'll find that almost every legitimate way the NT can be translated has been published.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: You were talking about the NT, of course. Would you say the same about the OT? Sometime ago, in our SS class, we attempted to produce a new translation of Genesis 1. We didn't get very far, but I concluded that a better translation of Gen. 1:2 would be:

"... and God's presence moved above the waters."

Instead of "... and the Spirit of God moved above the face of the waters."

Are you aware of any translation which reads this way? Why do I prefer said translation? Because I do not believe in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. Of course, most Bible translators do believe in said dogma and would probably never dare to translate it my way.

Well, Nic, I have good news for you. You don't have to believe in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity in order to believe the Holy Spirit is referred to in Gen. 1: 2. Ellen White also did not beleive in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. She believe in the true teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity, or the Godhead. And she believed that it was the Holy Spirit that is referred to in Gen. 1: 2. Seventh-day Adventists don't believe in the Catholic view of the Trinity, or the Godhead. Have you read her statements in Evangelism 614-617 and do you believe them?

In Gen. 1: 2, the word ruach is translated as either wind, spirit, or breath.

I don't think I've ever seen it translated as "presence." (The word "presence is usually translated from the Hebrew word, paneh, Strongs #6440, as in Ps. 51: 11). Can you show evidence that "presence" is a legitimate translation of the word ruach?

The (non-trinitarian) JPS translation (1917, 1955) renders it "spirit." The most recent JPS translation (1985) renders it "a wind." As you may already know, the New World Translation has, "active force." Robert Alter, the Jewish scholar, translated it as "breath." Do you favor these translations over the word "Spirit"? Ellen White specifically said the Spirit in Gen. 1: 2 was the same Spirit that teaches us the truth. She speaks of the Holy Spirit. See Ed 614. See end of post for quote from the book, Education.

Interestingly enough, the Septuagint (LXX) is translated from the Greek word pneuma into English as "Spirit."

How would you translate the same Hebrew word in Ps. 51: 12 and Is. 63: 10-12?

Was David saying "Take not thy holy breath or holy wind from me"? Obviously not. David is begging God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

And in the same way, it seems to me that it is not correct in Gen. 1: 2 to translate it as "a wind" or "the breath" from God. The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the world just as the Word was. All Three Persons of the Godhead contributed to the creation of the world.

Finally, there is this significant passage from the writings of Ellen White: "'When He the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16: 13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning 'was brooding upon the face of the waters;' of that Word by whom 'all things were made;' of that 'true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned." Ed. 134.

Ellen White makes it very plain that it was the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who "in the beginning was brooding upon the face of the waters." It was the same Holy Spirit that guides us into the truth. This is a person, as much a person as God the Father or the Son are persons. See Ev. 614-617. Ellen White here is in perfect agreement with the Scriptures.

Your thoughts?

[Woody]

Quote:

"Let's cut to the chase, Nic.

Ellen White said clearly that Christ had to die in order for anyone to be saved."

Problem is that Christ did not die. Jesus the man did but not Christ:

"Humanity died: divinity did not die." Ellen White in 5 BC 1113

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: "Let's cut to the chase, Nic.

Ellen White said clearly that Christ had to die in order for anyone to be saved."

Quote:

Woody: Problem is that Christ did not die. Jesus the man did but not Christ:

"Humanity died: divinity did not die." Ellen White in 5 BC 1113

As long as you are using Ellen White as an authority here, Woody, you might as well see the statement she wrote where she says "Christ died" and "Jesus Christ died."

Yes, Jesus and Christ are the same person. They are not two different persons.

It is a lie of the devil to say that Christ did not die.

The Bible as well as the Spirit of prophecy teach that Christ died.

To say that "deity or divinity did not die," is not the same as saying Christ did not die.

Read below please:

A sermon by Ellen G. White delivered at

Armadale, Australia,

November 1895

Quote:

Christ died for the sins of the world .... But Jesus Christ died upon the cross of Calvary, bearing in His body the sins of the whole world, and the gulf between heaven and earth was bridged by that cross.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

That is not what the immutability of God means. Certainly God is affected by our response to his love. But it's a mistake to think that this means God "changes" or is not immutable.

It seems that you are very knowledgeable about the pro and con arguments regarding the openness of God and that of his immutability. There is no need for us to list all these arguments. Anybody who is interested can type either “openness of God” or “God’s immutability” on his Internet browser and get all the information needed from said source.

In a certain sense God is immutable. His character of love and determination to be just, fair, and to do all he can to save sinners as unchangeable. Nevertheless, I believe that when he decided to create beings endowed with the ability to make free moral choices, by said action he set a limit on his ability to accurately predict the free choices human beings would make in the future. He is able to influence the behavior of those he created, but he does not force his creatures to act in a certain fashion. True moral freedom precludes the ability to predict what choices free individuals will make.

The concept that God is immutable originated with Greek philosophy, which I reject. The best argument in favor of the theory of the immutability of God is the suggestion that God is outside of time, which is a logical impossibility. God had no need to create time. Time is not an entity but rather a mental construct we use to establish the sequence of events. God cannot be outside something which does not have existence like time. The moment God acted either mentally or physically, the sequence of those actions became a reality without the need to create time. Two actions, even by God, created the notion of events sequence. There was never a time when time was out of existence except when there was nothing, not even God. Nevertheless, since God has eternal existence, it follows the the sequence of events always existed.

Can you visualize God, before he created anything, thinking and planning without the existence of a sequence in his thoughts and plans? This represents for me a logical impossibility. This is why I prefer the openness of God alternative. My view is that God can predict the future—the events that are under his absolute control, but the free moral choices of his children I believe are outside his view. He can take an intelligent guess, but even he can be surprised and disappointed by some events. This is why Jesus wept on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

I believe that if God had known the moral choices Lucifer would make, he would probably avoid creating him. Creating a being while knowing full well that he would do so much damage in the universe does not make sense to me. Some time ago I came across a passage by Ellen White where she expressed Lucifer’s rebellion on a contingency basis. I have attempted to locate it, but I can’t remember exactly the words she used and am unable to locate it.

2.

Quote:

In process theology, God is perceived as evolving along with His creation. That is a substantive change. The Bible presents no such view of God. Process theology also does not view God as having true foreknowledge, which is the reason it doesn't accept genuine prophecy.

Process theology and the openness of God doctrines have certain elements which are interesting, but my preference for some features of the openness of God does not mean that I accept everything those theories include.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17:

JOHN3:17: If you're referring to Gen. 1: 2, the word ruach is translated as either wind, spirit, or breath. I don't think I've ever seen it translated as "presence."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I did. I can't locate it now, but I did once see that as one of the connotations given for ruach. I saw it at Bible sources.

Ok, please locate it and then we can talk about it.

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: How would you translate the same Hebrew word in Ps. 51: 12 and Is. 63: 10-12? Was David saying "Take not thy holy breath or holy wind from me"? Obviously not. David is begging God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:The term presence; would fit quite appropriately. Notice how another Psalm uses both in the same verse:

"Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me." [Psalm 51:11]

I am assuming you are familiar with the Jewish use of parallelism where one phrase is repeated with another that has the same meaning for emphasis. In this Psalm, the term presence is equated with phrase Holy Spirit. And here is another example from the OT:

"Then Moses said to him, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here." [Ex. 33:15]

There are other similar examples in the Bible.

In both Ps. 51: 11 and Exodus 33: 15, the Hebrew word translated "presence" is paneh (Strong's #6440).

While the Holy Spirit is certainly God's presence, it is not merely an impersonal presence, but is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead Himself. The Holy Spirit teaches and guides us into the truth. He is as much a person as God and Christ are persons. He is a distinct personality.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: And in the same way, it seems to me that it is not correct in Gen. 1: 2 to translate it as "a wind" or "the breath" from God. The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the world just as the Word was. All Three Persons of the Godhead contributed to the creation of the world.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Would you say this if you were a non-trinitarian like I am or like the early Adventist pioneers were?

Not all early Adventist ministers were non-trinitarian, although all of the primary leaders were, such as Bates, James White, Loughborough, John Andrews, Uriah Smith, both Waggoners, etc.

Remember that both James White and Bates came out of the Christian Connexion, which by that time was anti-Trinitarian. But they did not agree on the nature of the Godhead, either. Some believed that Christ was created; others believed Christ was "begotten, not made." Most of them did, however, believe the Holy Spirit was in influence and not a person. All of these men were changing in their beliefs about the Godhead.

James White was still changing at the time of his death, and he did not believe the doctrine ought to be a test of fellowship, membership, or character. They frankly didn't view it as all that important. They were building a church around the doctrines of the Second Coming and the heavenly Sanctuary and the Three Angels Messages, so the Trinity was not high on their list of priorities. In fact, it was near the bottom.

Ellen White and James White did not view it the same way, but they did not argue about it, and it is doubtful they even discussed it much if at all between themselves. Ellen White refused to discuss it or argue about it with people. She said that if people didn't accept the truth when she preached it or wrote about it, there was no reason to think they would beleive it by "discussing" it. She was doubtless correct.

The bottom line is that I am not non-trinitarian because I have studied the topic and believe our early pioneers were wrong on the Godhead. They wouldn't want you to beleive as they did simply because they believed something. The truth is they didn't understand the biblcial view of the Godhead. They were fighting against the false views that many Christians held. There was the spiritualized view of the Trinity, similar to what John Harvey Kellogg taught, and it was this kind of belief that they as well as Ellen White opposed.

All this is well documented in many articles and books. See, for instance, The Trinity, by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John w. Reeve, Review and Herald Pub., 2002. It's a very thoroughly researched and well written book.

[Nic Samojluk]

Doug,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

The Bible is full of stories where God knew, what you refer to as meaningless minutia, LONG before it happened.

The Bible includes many examples suggesting that God can predict future events and also examples where God is surprised and disappointed by the turn of events. The Bible says that the Lord repented of having created man and decided to destroy all except Noah. He was also so disappointed with the children of Israel in the desert that he was determined to kill them all until Moses intervened and God repented of his intention.

Even Jesus was disappointed and wept on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. We have both, a picture of a God who can predict many events, and at the same time a God who is surprised, who repents, and who changes his mind. This suggests to me that there are things God can predict, especially the things which are under his control, and that there other things which are not under his control, especially the free moral choices people can make.

2.

Quote:

"Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they were all written, The days were fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."

God is the one who designed the genetic code; therefore he can see in the genes what we can’t. This is something God can easily predict.

3.

Quote:

How is it that Jesus knew exactly the year, month, day, hour, and manner of His death years before the event? Didn't Jesus Himself tell us that only His Father knew the exact day and hour of His second coming?

Evidently those events are under his control. Not so the free moral choices people make. This is why God got frustrated with the behavior of the children of Israel in the desert and was determined to obliterate them and create a new nation starting with Moses.

[Nic Samojluk]

You didn't read the the Scriptural references, did you? Peter,(not a lawyer)filled with the Holy Spirit, says:" Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David...being a prophet, and knowing the God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,he,foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ..." Acts 2:29-36 Note here that the resurrection occured AFTER Jesus was crucified, so David obviously understood that God's promise pretained to an after death experience.

Doug,

In the Bible we have alternative predictions about the future. Some of them picture the Messiah sitting on David's throne and all the nations of the earth coming to Jerusalem seeking a ruling from him. Others describe the Messiah suffering and dying.

This is because the future was contingent on human response. Do not forget what Ellen White wrote about what could have been the future of God's chosen nation.

And bear in mind that Ellen White did say that all God's promises and threatenings are alike conditional.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: Finally, there is this significant passage from the writings of Ellen White: "'When He the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16: 13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning 'was brooding upon the face of the waters;' of that Word by whom 'all things were made;' of that 'true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned." Ed. 134.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk]:I do know that Ellen White was almost a Trinitarian.

Do you beleive you can show that Ellen White would have disagreed with the official doctrines of the modern SDA Church as regards the Godhead? If you beleive so, could you quote anything by her that you believe contradicts or opposes these doctrines?

For instance, here:

2) Trinity:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father:

God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son:

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit:

God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: That is not what the immutability of God means. Certainly God is affected by our response to his love. But it's a mistake to think that this means God "changes" or is not immutable.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: It seems that you are very knowledgeable about the pro and con arguments regarding the openness of God and that of his immutability. There is no need for us to list all these arguments. Anybody who is interested can type either “openness of God” or “God’s immutability” on his Internet browser and get all the information needed from said source.

In a certain sense God is immutable. His character of love and determination to be just, fair, and to do all he can to save sinners as unchangeable. Nevertheless, I believe that when he decided to create beings endowed with the ability to make free moral choices, by said action he set a limit on his ability to accurately predict the free choices human beings would make in the future. He is able to influence the behavior of those he created, but he does not force his creatures to act in a certain fashion. True moral freedom precludes the ability to predict what choices free individuals will make.

The concept that God is immutable originated with Greek philosophy, which I reject.

Do you believe God knew before Satan fell that he would fall?

The Bible itself teaches the immutability of God. God is unchangeable in His character and counsel, that is, as viewed in Himself. Many Scriptures assert that God is the same, that He never changes (Mal. 3:6), that with Him there is no variation or shadow due to change (Jas. 1:17). There is no fickleness in God. By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before hint whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows (I John 3:19, 20).

The Biblical teaching on the immutability of God must, of course, not be understood as destroying all that the Word of God has to say about the objectivity and efficiency of prayer and its results. Nevertheless, if we can look at prayer from God's viewpoint, it is not a matter of human beings changing God (who is beneficent by nature and who desires the happiness of His children always), but it is a matter of human beings putting themselves into a position where God is able to bless them and to help them. Thus God told Solomon: "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their

It is freely admitted, of course, that the Bible contains many anthropomorphic expressions, such as God being sorry that He had made man on the earth, and being grieved to His heart (Gen. 6:6); that He came down to see whether the race had done according to the outcry which had come to Him or not (Gen. 18:21); that He would destroy Israel or Nineveh, but later did not do so because of prayer and repentance, (Jon. 3:10), etc. These expressions must be interpreted in the light of all the Scripture, rather than contrary to the plain didactic statements of the Bible. For example, Jeremiah speaks of God rising up early to send His prophets on their way (Jer. 44:4), but this Scripture must be interpreted in the light of that Psalm which says that God neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps. 121:4).

It's true that some Christians in the past and perhaps even in the present have been influence by the Greek view of "immutablility," but I'm talking about the biblical view. That's the view of the SDA church and of Ellen White.