Through the Bible: Genesis

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: This is an entirely different subject. We're not talking about "the angel of the Lord." We're talking about the Holy Spirit-- specifically when Ellen White uses the words, "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: You told me that you consider the authority of the Bible to be supreme, yet you come back to what Ellen White said at every turn. This suggests that your supreme authority is not the Bible but rather Ellen White.

I talk with you about Ellen White's beliefs because I believe it's important for Seventh-day Adventists to understand what she taught, and you've used her as an authority at times also. If you weren't SDA, or didn't also claim to believe in her, I wouldn't even mention her writings to you. A review of the posts on this discussion show that we've discussed the Bible's teachings in some detail on the subject. But if you object to discussing what Ellen White wrote on the Godhead or the Holy Spirit, I won't mention her writings any more but will only discuss the Bible with you.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: "The Holy Spirit [Gk to pneuma to hagion] said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

Is this an angel? Is an angel telling humans to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the angel for the work that the angel called them to do?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I believe that the Lord is speaking to his church either directly in an invisible manifestation of his presence or else through the angel of the Lord, or through an angel. Most likely it is Jesus himself communicating with his church in an invisible way.

Do you believe an angel would say, "Set apart for me these men for the work to which I have called them"?

Doesn't that sound like something God would say, and not a creature? Can you point to any other place in Scripture where a creature talked this way to humans?

If it was Jesus speaking, why doesn't it say it was Jesus talking?

Is Jesus and the Holy Spirit one and the same person? Jesus Himself called the Holy Spirit "another [or a different] helper," and said this helper would not come until Jesus went away to His Father.

You said:

Quote:

I conclude that whenever God’s power or presence is manifested in a visual manner, quite often the expression an angel or the angel of the Lord is used; while when said manifestation is invisible, then the phrase the Holy Spirit or God’s Spirit is utilized. This is so simple I am amazed you keep ignoring this.

Your conclusion here is contradicted by the fact that Jesus spoke invisibly to Paul, yet it refers to the voice as that of Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I'm amazed you keep ignoring this fact.

Should it be any surprise to us that when the voice is from an invisible being, it is often called "the Holy Spirit"? After all, the Holy Spirit is invisible. The third person of the God has never been seen by human eyes. So it makes perfectly good sense that when the voice is coming from the Holy Spirit, we won't see anything.

As it turns out, it is none other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Acts 13: 2.

There's really no need to be confused about the identity of who was talking. It tells you straightforwardly. It's only when we try to avoid the truth that it becomes mysterious and confusing.

[Nic Samojluk]

Notice that Psalm 33 is a poem and that the language is poetic. On the other hand, Gen. 1: 2 is part of an historical narrative.

[Nic Samojluk]

Notice whatEllen White has stated regarding this:

Quote:

Led of God, but Not Infallible.--We must not think, "Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge." The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. {CW 33.2}

Quote:

But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. "Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."--Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. {CW 34.2}

Quote:

Many Gems Yet to Be Discovered.--New light will ever be revealed on the word of God to him who is in living connection with the Sun of Righteousness. Let no one come to the conclusion that there is no more truth to be revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth will find precious rays of light yet to shine forth from the word of God. Many gems are yet scattered that are to be gathered together to become the property of the remnant people of God.--Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 34. (1892.) {CW 35.1}

Quote:

Investigation of Doctrine.--There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. {CW 35.2}

Quote:

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CW 37.1}

Quote:

But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion. {CW 38.3}

Quote:

The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what. {CW 39.1}

Quote:

Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. . . . {CW 40.3}

Quote:

Continual Search for Greater Light.--Whatever may be man's intellectual advancement, let him not for a moment think that there is no need of thorough and continuous searching of the Scriptures for greater light. As a people, we are called individually to be students of prophecy. We must watch with earnestness that we may discern any ray of light which God shall present to us. We are to catch the first gleamings of truth; and through prayerful study, clearer light may be obtained, which can be brought before others. {CW 41.1}

The Holy Spirit was stirred with pity. The Holy Spirit can be "grieved."

[Nic Samojluk]

John3:17: In order for a single angel, say Gabriel or Lucifer, to be referred to under the title "THE Holy Spirit," it would mean that whatever angel is being referred is in some sense holier than other angels.

[Nic Samojluk]

Are you referring to what's described in Daniel 8: 16 and 9: 20-27, where the angel comes to Daniel for the purpose of instructing him about the vision he had had?

[Nic Samojluk]

What will you do with 2 Cor. 13: 14?

[John317]

[quote name='John 3:17: What will you do with 2 Cor. 13: 14?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Here is the text:

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ' date=' and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

And here is my way of reading it:

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of God’s invisible presence, be with you all." [/quote']

Notice, first, you had to change the wording, and you had to change it in a way that tou hagiou pneumatos is never translated anywhere in the Bible.

Second, why do you understand "the Holy Spirit" here to be an invisible presence when elsewhere you understand "the Holy Spirit" to be the angel Gabriel?

Third, when you put all the Bible texts about the Holy Spirit together, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is a person and that He has a will and a personality. The Bible gives Him all the characteristics of a person: intelligence, a will, affections, performing the actions that only a person can do, etc. These descriptions show the Holy Spirit to be distinct from the Father and from the Son, yet acts in concert with them.

This is exactly what Ellen White says directly. "The Holy Spirit has a personality." "The Holy Spirit is a person." "We need to realize that the Holy Spirit is as much a person as God is a person." Ev. 616, 617. "The Holy Spirit... personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality." {20MR 324.2}

Is God the Father's "invisible presence" real and actual?

If God the Father is not actually here with us, how can we have "the fellowship" [Gk koinonia] with that "presence"? Having "fellowship" or "communion" with the Holy Spirit is only possible if the Holy Spirit is an actual person.

And if the "invisible presence" is God Himself, why doesn't it simply say, "fellowship of God"?

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

You need to understand the Hebrew mind. Read the Psalms and notice how often a term is restated a second time for emphasis.

Yes, it's called parallelism. They conveyed the same idea by using different expressions, but this doesn't mean that the two lines are saying exactly the same thing. They are variantions on the same theme or concept.

For instance, they might compare "lying lips" and "a deceitful tongue," but obviously lips are not the same as a tongue. The idea that is being conveyed is dishonesty.

Similarly, at Ps. 51: 12, although "the joy of God's salvation" is not identical to God's "generous Spirit." they are related, but not identical. The Spirit brings joy of salvation.

In v. 13, neither is "teaching transgressors God's ways" identical to "conversion." Again, they are related, but not identical. Teaching God's ways may bring about conversion.

Similarly, at Ps. 51: 11, while "God's presence" is not identical to God's "Holy Spirit," they are certainly related. God's Holy Spirit is God, and therefore, when we have the Holy Spirit with us, God is with us.

Notice that when Jesus was on earth, we had God with us. Matt. 1: 23. But when He left, He and the Father sent a different Comforter to be with us, and He is also God. Therefore, through the Spirit, God is truly with us in a literal sense.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Notice also the following NT text:

"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." [1 Thes. 5:23]

Would you conclude from this text that the terms spirit and soul here refers a separate entity capable of existing apart from the body?

No.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Doesn’t this represent a Catholic way of thinking.

Not only Catholic but the way of thinking of anyone who believes that people have immortal souls.

Quote:

If we deny such a conclusion when the reference is to the human spirit, why should we assign a separate existence for the Spirit of God?

Are you saying you see no fundamental difference between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit? Do you see the Holy Spirit as comparable to the human spirit?

We assign a separate and distinct personality to the Spirit of God because both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy do.

You even recognize this when you sometimes say that the Holy Spirit is a reference to the angel Gabriel.

We also do it because Bible makes it plain that it's talking about various aspects of a single human being. The Bible also makes it clear that we worship One God in three separate and distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these is called "God" or "Yahweh." That's completely different from "the spirit, soul, and body" of humans. It requires all three of these components to make a living person. Without one of the components, the individual is no longer a living person but a dead soul.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Here is another text I want you to look at:

"Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," [Phil. 1:27]

Would you assign a separate existence and a separate identity to the human spirit.

Again, no.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: If you won’t, why do you insist that I assign a separate identity and a separate existence to God’s Spirit?

Because both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say so. The Bible shows there's a clear difference between the Holy Spirit of God and the spirit of man. The spirit of man is neither eternal nor immortal, nor is the spirit of man ever called "God." On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is omnicient, eternal and "God." Huge difference.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are you being consistent in the way you read all these passages of Scripture?

Yes, Seventh-day Adventists, including God's prophet, are being consistent. I'm sincerely sorry that you can't see this.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Catholics are more consistent than you are. They do assign a separate existence both to our human spirit and to God’s Spirit.

So, then, you evidently think that Catholics in their view of the immortal soul are more consistent than Ellen White and the whole Seventh-day Adventist church. It's sad that you have convinced yourself of this. You've come to this point-- where you think God's prophet and God's remnant church are less consistent on this topic than the Catholic Church-- because you resist the truth about the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: The Holy Spirit was stirred with pity. The Holy Spirit can be "grieved."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: God is Spirit and can be grieved. God's mind can also be grieved.

But that is not what Ellen White is saying. She says that the Godhead was stirred with pity, and she specifically mentions the Holy Spirit as one of the persons of the Godhead. Then she says that the Father and the Holy Spirit "gave Themselves" to the working out of the plan of redemption. She wouldn't say this if the Holy Spirit was the same person as the Father, and it only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a distinct person with a separate will from the Father, just as Jesus is.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God's mind?

The Holy Spirit can only be "grieved" or made sad if the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, just as Ellen White says He is.

It goes without saying that God is Spirit. But God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are each called "God" in both the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White.

When we say God is grieved, isn't it the same as saying God's mind is grieved?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: : Matt. 1: 18, 20 is not saying that Mary was found to be with child of the holy breath. She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Are you trying to prove that Jesus was fathered by the alleged third member of the Trinity?

I'm merely proving that the Bible says Mary was discovered to be pregnant from or by [Gr ek] the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 1: 20 says, "... what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Lit. "what is being generated in her is of [the] Holy Spirit."

1: 18 says "she was found to be preganant through or by the Holy Spirit."

The Greek is saying that the Holy Spirit was the source of the pregancy.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do not forget that everything that exists was created by the word of God. It was God's word which brought the universe into existence, and it was God's word which created baby Jesus in Mary's womb.

Where does the Bible say God's word created baby Jesus in Mary's womb? If you have such a verse, I will accept it and believe it.

The Bible does not say God spoke baby Jesus into existence. It says clearly that the baby Jesus was born as a result of Mary's being found "to be pregnant" [Gk en gastri ek] through the Holy Spirit. V. 20 also says "what is generated in her" [Gk to genneethen en autee] is from [Gk ek] the Holy Spirit. The preposition ek plus the genitive= from, of, by.

Ek here denotes origin or source. (See Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, p. 62.)

God the Father was the holy child's real Father, and the Holy Spirit was the origin of that generation within the body of the baby's mother.

Quote:

John3:17: Anyone should be able to see that Jesus wasn't led up into the wilderness by God's breath.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Jesus was led into the desert by God's order, by his will, and by his word. You can also say that he was led by God's Spirit, provided you do not equate the term Spirit with an imaginary third member of the Godhead.

Notice, Nic, that the New Testatment does not say God commanded Him to go.

Matt. 4: 1 says that Jesus was led [Gk anago] by the Spirit into the desert. This is the same verb that is used to describe a boat being "launched out" to sea, as in Luke 8: 22.

Also please note the use of the preposition hupo (by). Hupo + the genitive = by, by means of, at the hands of.

So this verse is telling us that Jesus was led into the desert by means of the Holy Spirit.

What are your thoughts?

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: But since it [the Bible] contains some errors does it mean we don't place our complete confidence in it as God's inspired word?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: God's inspired? Yes! Infallible or dictated? No! It does contain some errors, and this is acknowledge by the internal evidence and by even Ellen White.

You'll notice I start out my question with the acknowledgement that "the Bible contains some errors."

Seventh-day Adventists don't believe that God dictated either the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy.

But Ellen White does describe the Bible as "an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience." Then she quotes 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17.

"Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through His word, has not rendered needless THE CONTINUED PRESENCE AND GUIDING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our Savior, to open the word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings. And since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word." GC, page 9 of Introduction.

Please notice several points here:

1) We need the continued presence of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit is God's presence (rather than the third person of the Godhead), then it would be the same as saying we need the continued presence of the presence of God. Make sense?

That would be like saying "the power of the Holy Spirit" is the same as "the power of the power." These things make it plain that the Holy Spirit is not merely the impersonal presence or power of God.

2) She says we need the continued GUIDING of the Holy Spirit. That shows the Holy Spirit guides and teaches us. Only a person can guide and teach a person.

3) She does not say that God inspired the Bible but that the Spirit of God inspired it. Is there any difference? I see the Spirit of God as a distinct, separate being from God the Father. It's through the Holy Spirit that the Father and Christ accomplish their will. In other words, the Holy Spirit executes the will of the Father and is the personal representative of Christ. That is why He is also called "the Spirit of Christ." even "the eternal Spirit."

I'm interested in your thoughts, Nic. :-)

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Notice whatEllen White has stated regarding this:

"Led of God, but Not Infallible.--We must not think, 'Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.' The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." {CW 33.2}

Sure.

Also notice what she does not say here: she doesn't say that we will one day discover that the main pillars of our faith are a mistake. What she is saying is that we will learn more truth, not that we will learn that Ellen White misled us into false doctrines and teachings.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. "Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."--Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. {CW 34.2}

Yes, I completely agree. Every generation of SDAs must study the doctrines for themselves and know what the Bible says and why they believe what they do.

But as long as you are quoting Ellen White's statements on this subject from Counsel to Writers and Editors, it's best to also consider the following:

"The waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His word AND THE TESTIMONY OF HIS SPIRIT."

"As a people we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith..."

"No line of truth that has made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are, is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth, experience, and duty, and we are to stand firmly in defense of our principles, in full view of the world."

"I was shown three steps,-- the first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my accompanying angel, 'Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.'"

"In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. WHERE SHALL WE FIND SAFETY UNLESS IT BE IN THE TRUTHS THAT THE lORD HAS BEEN GIVING FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS?" (Written in 1905) CW 52, 53

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): Many Gems Yet to Be Discovered.--New light will ever be revealed on the word of God to him who is in living connection with the Sun of Righteousness. Let no one come to the conclusion that there is no more truth to be revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth will find precious rays of light yet to shine forth from the word of God. Many gems are yet scattered that are to be gathered together to become the property of the remnant people of God.--Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 34. (1892.) {CW 35.1}

Yes, indeed. But again, Nic, she's not contradicting her statements in CW 52, 53.

Ellen White elsewhere says that if God has truth for His church, He will reveal it to more than one person. "God does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body." See 5 T 291

Also, she says that when we have truth that we want the church to know, we should bring it before experienced brethren in the church and set it before them, then accept their counsel. If they see no light in what we believe is "new light," we should set it aside. "The only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to the brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment." 5 T 293.

Have you ever done this with regard to your idea about the Holy Spirit being an angel, angels, the angel Gabriel, etc.?

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): Investigation of Doctrine.--There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. {CW 35.2}

This is true. We need to really investigatve deeply the Bible doctrines.

But again, Nic, she is not contradicting what is found in the same book on pages 52-54. For instance, is she talking about the foundational pillars of our faith like the Sabbath and the Second Coming, the state of the dead, etc. Absolutely not. God will certainly help us understand those doctrines more clearly, but it won't be a matter of God showing someone that the Sabbath or the Investigative Judgment-- or truths that God revealed to Ellen White, such as the health message--- are false.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CW 37.1}

This also is true, of course. I know some, however, who interpret this to mean Ellen White is saying her writings are the "ideas" and opinions" she refers to. But when you read what she's written about this topic-- as in 1 SM 26-48--- we see that she means no such thing. Ellen White here is talking about "cherished views," "ideas," and "opinions," not the foundational pillars of our faith. Again, we have to consider everything she says on this topic, including CW 52, 53.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion. {CW 38.3}

Yes, this is true. We need to talk with each other about the teachings of the Scriptures and about the doctrines of the church. That's why I often discuss these things.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what. {CW 39.1}

True.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. . . . {CW 40.3}

Yes, but see some additional quotes below.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): Continual Search for Greater Light.--Whatever may be man's intellectual advancement, let him not for a moment think that there is no need of thorough and continuous searching of the Scriptures for greater light. As a people, we are called individually to be students of prophecy. We must watch with earnestness that we may discern any ray of light which God shall present to us. We are to catch the first gleamings of truth; and through prayerful study, clearer light may be obtained, which can be brought before others. {CW 41.1}

Great quote.

Put all those quotes from Ellen White with the following:

"Brethren, as an ambassador of Christ, I warn you to beware of these side issues, whose tendency is to divert the mind from the truth." 5 T 292

"All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture... Introduce nothing that will cause dissension, without clear evidence that in it God is giving a special message for this time." TM 106

"I was shown that the truth once published now, will stand, for it is the truth for the last days; it will live, and less need be said upon it in the future." EW 253

"Men and women will arise professing to have some new light or some new revelation whose tendency is to unsettle faith in the old landmarks. Their doctrines will not bear the test of God's word, yet souls will be decieved." 5 T 295

"Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren." 5 T 291.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Now I will ask you a few questions. Read the following texts and tell me how you interpret them:

"So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." [1 Cor. 14:15]

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." [1 cor. 14:14]

Let's look carefully at 1 Cor. 14: 14, 15:

verse 14: ean gar proseuchomai glossee, to pneuma mou proseuchetai, ho de nous mou akarpos estin. 15 ti oun estin; proseuxomai to pneumati, proseuxomai de kai to noi. psalo to pneumati, psalo de kai to noi.

Literally, it reads, "for if I am praying in a tongue, my spirit is praying, yet my intellect is unfruitful. When then is it? I will pray by means of the spirit, yet I will also pray by means of the mind. I will sing by means of the spirit, yet I will also sing with the aid of the intellect."

to pnuema mou [my spirit]

to pneumati

to pneumati

Constrasted with

ho nous mou [my intellect, mind, understanding]

to noi

to noi

Paul here contrasts his own spirit with his intellect. "My spririt" is our higher being, that is, our spiritual nature, which is the passive instrument of the Holy Spirit's operations. "My intellect" is the conscious mind or understanding. Both, of course, are part of the same person.

Paul is discouraging people in the church from speaking tongues if they aren't used for the edification of the whole church. Some believers were using the gift of tongues for their own edification instead of helping others understand the gospel.

Verse 14-- "my intellect is unfruitful" means that unless he also prays with his intellect and not merely "in the spirit," his mind bears no fruit for the benefit of the church.

Have you checked out the book, Bible Readings for the Home ? It has a lot of good information in there about the meaning of the words pneuma and ruach.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: "My spirit finds its joy in God, my Savior," [Luke 1:41]

Does the expression "My spirit" in the texts I cited mean that there is am entity called spirit which exists apart from our physical body?

Certainly not.

The difference is that in the Bible "the Holy Spirit," "the Spirit of God," and "the Spirit," are shown to be a distinct person, and our own spirits are not. Ellen White also says plainly that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. On the other hand, the Bible shows that "our spirit" is a part of us, not a distinct person. For instance, "our spirit" doesn't have a will of its own. But the Holy Spirit has a will that is seperate from the will of the Father or the will of the Son. This is shown in many Bible texts.

[Nic Samojluk]

You don't need to be. All you need to do is recognize the fact that that there is perfect agreement among all the ancient manuscripts in regard to Matt. 28: 19.

[Nic Samojluk]

Now look at what else I found from the same Internet source:

Quote:

Is this true? Let's examine the Scriptures to prove all things.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." [baptism is to be performed in His name for the remission of sins because "...he had by himself purged our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3)].

Acts 8:16 "For as yet he [it] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16 "... arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1Cor 1:12-15 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."

1Cor 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Rom 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Gal 3:27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

NOTE: In Matt 28:19, the word translated "in" in the phrase "in the name of..." is the Greek word "eis" which means "into." The above two scriptures show what we are truly to be baptized into---not the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit ---but, into Christ and His death. "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr.5.24)--'for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ'."

(Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom [which] the Father will send in my name..."

[Note: How does one receive the holy spirit? In the name of Jesus!]

Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

[Note: This verse ties directly with Matt 28:19 (preaching the Gospel among all nations) and Acts 2:38 (repentance and remission of sins, which comes in the name of Jesus Christ), and as we see here, both are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ---not in the name of a "triune god".]

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is some more from the same Internet source:

Quote:

In the light of Scripture, we see baptism was never performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost," but rather, in the name of Jesus Christ alone. Bullinger comments, "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text."

"As to the Greek MSS., there are none beyond the fourth Century [Of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS. are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words." (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, p.48)

Why is it that no Greek MSS. exist from prior to the fourth century? It is due to the fact that in 303 AD Diocletian ordered all the sacred books to be burned. Church historian, Eusebius, wrote, "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place." (H.E. viii 2).

This has left a large gap of three centuries (a time of great apostasy, which was already starting in Paul's and Jude's day - II Thes 2:7 & Jude 4), from which there are no known complete Greek MSS--from the first century, in which Matthew recorded his Gospel account, until the fourth and fifth centuries. This left plenty of time for perversion of the text to occur.

Fred Conybeare notes, "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew." Hibbert Journal, 1902, Fred C.Conybeare

Is it possible that the destroyed manuscripts and these missing pages may have included a different reading of Matthew 28:19---a reading that would agree with the above listed Scriptures, which show baptisms performed in Christ's name alone? Let us examine some of the writings of the so-called "early church fathers", who had access to older manuscripts.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

And here is more!

Please note that we are NOT turning to them for any theological doctrine. The "early church fathers" were pagan converts who did not truly convert, rather they "Christianized" their pagan doctrines by applying Christian names and ideas to them. The only real value of these writings lies in the fact that their authors had access to these missing manuscripts, and they quoted from them quite frequently---so much so that almost the entire New Testament could be gathered from these sources alone. What text did their manuscripts contain? How did they quote Matt 28:19,20? We shall see.

Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you'." (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare). Eusebius's rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS [Jesus's] NAME among all nations).

Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages, except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'.

Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136): "For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says: 'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasise the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name'." (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius)

Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing, until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works, written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice." (Hibbert Journal, p.105).

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Read this as well:

Quote:

This has led scholars to suspect that he was persuaded to replace the original text.

"The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities (Hibbert Journal)."

So what is the true "Great Commission" of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Matt 28:19,20 should read as such:

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My name: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen."

http://7thday.web.officelive.com/matthew_28_19.aspx

From this evidence, I conclude that the original reading of Matthew 28:19 was in the name of Jesus only. This is why Eusebius has 18 quotations of said text where the threefold name is not used. Why did he, after the Council of Nicea cited said passage with the Trinitarian version of said text on five occasions? Evidently someone convinced him to alter his former practice.

If Jesus in fact ordered his followers to use the triune baptismal formula, then common sense tells me that we should find in the NT at least a couple of examples where said baptismal formula was used by NT Christians. We find not a single such case. Do you have a reasonable explanation for this enigma?

[Nic Samojluk]

The statements about two or three witnesses have to do with convicting people of wrongdoing.

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, true. We can't allow tradition to determine doctrine. But that is what you do when you take the word of an early church historian named Eusebius instead of a text that appears in all of the Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures.

Wrong conclusion! Jesus ordered his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost.” Nobody used said baptismal formula in the NT. Doesn’t this tell you something?

How come the early Christians dared to disobey what Jesus had ordered? This represents a serious enigma! Eusebius has a reasonable explanation for this.

If Eusebius had said nothing about this, I would still believe that it is safer to follow the example of the early Christians who consistently baptized in the name of Jesus.

[Nic Samojluk]

Notice well what she says here: "... reject them." She is saying if she writes things that are contrary to the word of God, REJECT THE TESTIMONIES. She is not telling you to accept some and reject others.

[Nic Samojluk]

Interesting that you mention 1980, which was when Desmond Ford brought his false teachings into the church, including his beliefs about Ellen White being merely "pastoral."

[John317]

Notice well what she says here: "... reject them." She is saying if she writes things that are contrary to the word of God, REJECT THE TESTIMONIES. She is not telling you to accept some and reject others.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Do you accept everything Ellen has written without question or do you study the Bible in order to determine whether what she is saying is biblically correct?

I accept everything just like I accept all of the Bible. We have to consider time and place and circumstances.

Sure, I study the Bible. I study the Bible a lot more than I do Ellen White writings.

I compared her writings with the Bible a long time and have already determined to my satisfaction that she agrees with the Bible. That doesn't mean there aren't some things hard to understand in her writings, just like there are in Paul's writings. But it also means we don't throw her out or throw out what she wrote simply because we find something she wrote to be hard to understand. She wrote a great deal about things that aren't even in the Bible. That should be expected. But if you need everything she said to be verified in the Bible, then you lack real trust in her. It would be like needing everything your father said verified by research before you'd believve him. If you did that, I'm sure you father would wonder if you really trust Him.

Well do we really trust that God gave Ellen White visions and inspired her by the Holy Spirit to write God's messages? I do.

I know Ellen White and her writings very well, having known her grand-daughter and also having read most of her writings and several biographies of her, as well as a number of books written againt her.

But the point here is that she wasn't saying we should accept some things and reject others. She is saying to test her to see if she a true prophet or a false one, and if she is false one, reject her. She isn't suggesting that every person individually test every statement to see if they agree or disagree with it. That would be total chaos, and the church wouldn't be speaking with a single voice but with millions of different voices, which would only cause confusion in the minds of those who would hear the contradictory voices.

If I had what I perceive to be your idea of Ellen White and what it means to believe in her and accept her as a prophet of God, I would have jettisoned her and her books a very long time ago.

The fact that she was a genuine prophet of God doesn't mean she never made any mistakes. It also doesn't mean everything she ever said or wrote was inspired. That would be insanity to think it would mean that. She never claimed such a thing.

But the fact that she was not infallible and that not everything she wrote in her lifetime was inspired causes some people to think she's not trustworthy. That's foolishness. If that's the case, then nothing is trustworthy.

Nic, thanks for the exchanges on this fascinating, important, and interesting subject. I have to go to bed but will be back up in about 4 hours. :-) John