"SDAs should worship Allah"

[John317]

In my opinion it's a fruitless argument (is God going to penalize someone for not knowing how many "persons" he is? will one miss out on anything from having the wrong number? what if we're all wrong and God is pi?), and one that we shouldn't discuss to the point of doubting that others are true Christians over a mathematical difference.

EDIT: On the "God is pi" note, I suppose since the Bible says that pi = 3, I guess trinitarians do believe that God is pi.

I agree with you to the extent that I don't believe anyone will be lost simply because they don't accept the Trinity, nor do I believe that people will be lost because they believe in the Trinity.

That is why neither Ellen White nor James White taught that the Trinity doctrine should be a test of character or fellowship.

Yet that is different from saying it doesn't matter what we believe about Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible does teach that it's esssential for us to understand aright who Christ is.

Jesus Himself said, John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

Compare Exodus 3: 14--

Exodus 3:14

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.' "

And:

Romans 10:11-13

For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." [12] For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. [13] For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

[SivartM]

Sure, but every belief about the nature of Jesus (and anything else theological and abstract) gets lost in metaphor, speculation, and fuzziness very quickly. If he was God, what does that mean? That he and God have the same nature? Okay, what is a nature? Well...

Et cetera. Words upon words, endless definitions, and no end in sight.

[John317]

What is Hebrews 1: 3 saying?

Hebrews 1:3

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint [copy] of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Why does it matter if Jesus is God or not?

[John317]

John, so you're saying God didn't have a son until Jesus was born?

No, not at all. Jesus Christ is the eternal, infinite, self-existent Son of God. There has never been a time when Christ was not in close relationship with the eternal God. There are three living persons in the eternal Godhead, that is, in the heavenly trio. trio=three=trinity.

The idea of Son is not more literal than the idea of "Lamb" or "Door" or "Light" or "Water" or "bread."

"Son of God" is a metaphor just like Lamb and Bread or Water, etc. We don't say those things are meaningless if they are not literal.

Ellen White herself says that Christ became the Son of God in a new sense when He was born as a human being at Bethlehem. At that point He became literally the Son of God. At that time, Jesus the man had His beginning. But of course Jesus Christ the divine Son of God had lived with God "from ALL eternity." As John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The New English Bible renders it accurately, "And what God was, the Word was." It is saying that the Word, the pre-existent Christ, was everthing that God was. Ellen White wrote, "Christ is God, essentially, and in the highest sense."

So, then, in what sense was Christ always the Son of God?

In 3 essential ways:

1) Christ was in the form of God and was always what the Invisible God has to say to the intelligent universe. In other words, Christ was always the One who perfectly represented the Godhead to the created beings. There was no one else in all the universe who could do this, and there still is not. However, after the Incarnation, Christ is forever in the form of man, God's servant, and is no longer in the form of God.

2) Christ is the heir of God, which means that everything that is God's is Christ's, and the Godhead offers everything of theirs to the heirs of Christ through faith. This includes eternal life.

3) Christ was always in close, loving relationship with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. That loving relationship is like that of sons with their fathers. The Son willingly and even joyfully submits to the will of His Father, and this was especially seen in the Incarnation.

[Dr. Waite]

So called Christians who believe in the trinity doctrine DO NOT believe that God begat a divine son way back in eternity where the "way back" cannot be calculated in human figures. However, the "way back" did IN FACT occur based on Proverbs chapter 8 where the Son of God is the "wisdom of God".

[Dr. Waite]

John's quote: "What believers in the Trinity reject is the notion that Jesus Christ is a created being or that He derived His life from any source outside Himself. We believe as both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach, that Christ is eternal, infinite, omnipotent, and self-existent."

However, Christ himself stated that the "life within himself" was given to him from his Father. See John 5:26

Are you going to believe what Christ says or believe someone else?

[Dr. Shane]

The idea of Son is not more literal than the idea of "Lamb" or "Door" or "Light" or "Water" or "bread."

"Son of God" is a metaphor just like Lamb and Bread or Water, etc. We don't say those things are meaningless if they are not literal.

Right on! Preach the Word, Brother.

[John317]

So called Christians who believe in the trinity doctrine DO NOT believe that God begat a divine son way back in eternity where the "way back" cannot be calculated in human figures, but never-the-less did IN FACT occur based on Proverbs chapter 8.

This is an important topic to consider but it is not necessary to the subject of the discussion about the Qur'an.

Seventh-day Adventists don't believe that Proverbs teaches that Christ had a beginning, but even so, there are many Trinitarians who believe that Christ is eternally generated by the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is generated by the love between the Son and the Father. So my point here would be that it is not a necessary part of the Trinity doctrine to believe that Christ never had a beginning.

The Trinity doctrine is simply that there is One God and that this God is manifested in three divine, equal, eternal persons.

Whether Christ was begotten-- or had a beginning-- out of God at some point in eternity is not at issue here, because it wouldn't change the fact that the Qur'an rejects the Trinity and rejects the teaching of the Bible that Jesus Christ is divine and lived in heaven with God before being born as a baby on earth.

I will comment briefly also on Proverbs 8.

First, please notice that Proverbs is speaking about wisdom, and that Proverbs says wisdom is a female who lives with another female named Prudence (v. 12). But of course Christ was not a woman and certainly did not live with a woman named Prudence. Therefore, it is self-evident that the chapter cannot be taken literally. If we take it literally, we end up with a female Christ who stands on a hill and cries out to all the people going by the entry of the city. Christ also would be a woman who built her house and hewed out seven pillars (Prov. 9: 1).

Second, if we take Prov. 8 literally, it would mean there was a time when God did not have any wisdom, and I doubt anyone would find such an idea acceptable.

Thirdly, Prov. 8: 22 doesn't suggest that Christ was either created or begotten in the sense of having a beginning of his existence. The NJKV says, "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way before His works of old."

"Possessed" here is not the same as "begotten," "born," or "generated." How then was Christ "possessed" by God? How was He "set up" or "established" or "brought forth"? Because Christ was "established" or "brought forth" or "possessed" for the special purpose of blessing the whole universe and particularly the world of lost humanity.

If we say that Christ was literally begotten or "possessed" at the beginning of God's way, we are saying that God had a begining. Yet we know such is false.

The Bible says, "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God."

If that means God has been God without end, then we must say the same about Christ Himself, because the Bible says that Christ's goings forth have been from everlasting. Micah 5: 2.

[fccool]

That is why neither Ellen White nor James White taught that the Trinity doctrine should be a test of character or fellowship.

Yet, this is exactly what SDA church does when it asks whether person agrees to 28 principles of outlined as they are before they can go with Baptism.

It would be very dishonest to say that neither E.G.White or Trinitarian view is not a test of fellowship today.

What do you think would happen if a person would say "no" to the question "Do you believe and agree with 28th belief statements?" . I've never seen it happened yet.

[John317]

Yet, this is exactly what SDA church does when it asks whether person agrees to 28 principles of outlined as they are before they can go with Baptism.

It would be very dishonest to say that neither E.G.White or Trinitarian view is not a test of fellowship today.

What do you think would happen if a person would say "no" to the question "Do you believe and agree with 28th belief statements?" . I've never seen it happened yet.

This is getting off topic but I will answer the question as long as we don't carry it on for too many posts.

There are many people in the SDA church who either don't believe in the Trinity or who aren't sure about it. Many people also are baptized into Christ and join the SDa church before they've studied the Spirit of prophecy and come to a firm conclusion about the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White.

If a pastor is preparing someone for baptism, it isn't necessary or them to say they are certain of every aspect of the FB 28 in order for them to be baptized. Preparation for baptism is usually a matter of showing a willingness to seriously study the issues that one is not sure of. For instance, if a prospective member were to say that they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for his sins, but that he still has some questions about the identity of the Holy Spirit, and the relationship between Father and Son was still not completely clear to him, the person would probably still be baptized. The final decision whether they are ready for baptism, of course, would largely depend on the pastor and head elder.

People are not expected to understand all the doctrines and to have no doubts or questions about anything prior to baptism.

As far as the change that has taken place in the church since 1915, I think it's obvious that we are living in different times and under different cicrumstances doctrinally than were present almost 100 years ago. The SDA church did not have a settled or firm belief in regard to the Godhead in those days, and God had revealed more truth about Himself to Ellen White only a relatively few years before her death-- that is, between 1895 and 1915. Ellen White herself was not sure of some of these matters until about 1890-1900. Prior those years, the most important things to do were to organize and establish the church on the central teachings of the Word of God, the Second Coming, the Sabbath, the heavenly sanctuary, the Third Angels Messsage, etc.

It has to be kept in mind that the early SDA church was founded by people who came from various religious backgrounds and therefore did not altogether agree about the Godhead. Most of them were non-Trinitarian, and some were even anti-Trinitarian; yet there were others, including pastors, who did believe in the Trinity, and these were never asked to change their beliefs. Another important point to keep in mind is that not all the leaders agreed on the Godhead. That is, some (such as Uriah Smith and J.H. Waggoner) believed that Christ was a created being, while others (E.J. Waggoner) believed Christ was "begotten" in eternity. So there was no agreement on the details of the Bible's teaching regarding the Godhead. They agreed on the basic view that Christ was the Son of God the Father and that the Holy Spirit was Christ's helper. But there no agreement on exactly who or what the Holy Spirit-- whether an impersonal influence or power of God or whether the Spirit was a person, about this the church as a whole had made no firm decisions.

That would only occur over a period of years-- from about 1888 to 1920-- beginning with the 1888 Message and such publications by Ellen White as the Patriarchs and Prophets and the Desire of Ages. About 1913, the Review and Herald published its first article (written by the editor, Wilcox) that the SDA church believed in the Trinity. The change in the church in regard to the Godhead was directly owing to the work of Ellen White. What she wrote caused many in the church to study the Bible's teachings on the Trinity, and what they found was that the Bible does indeed teach that there is one God who is manifested in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Ellen White called them "the three holiest persons of heaven," and "the three living persons of the heavenly trio." She called the Holy Spirit the "third person of the Godhead." And if the third person, then there must be a first person and a second person of the Godhead, and we know who they are. See Evangelism 614-617.

[John317]

Thank you. Feel free to jump right in any time. :-)

[John317]

John's quote: "What believers in the Trinity reject is the notion that Jesus Christ is a created being or that He derived His life from any source outside Himself. We believe as both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach, that Christ is eternal, infinite, omnipotent, and self-existent."

However, Christ himself stated that the "life within himself" was given to him from his Father. See John 5:26

Are you going to believe what Christ says or believe someone else?

Remember that Christ was/is both God and man. He is the God-man. He is not half God and half man but fully God and fully man, two natures in a single man. When he said he was hungry or tired, was He speaking as God-- or as a man? Surely only as a man, not as God.

The eternal God is neither hungry nor tired nor tempted by sin. But the man Christ Jesus certainly experienced all three of these things.

Christ said that He could not do anything at all without God, and that includes raising the dead and even raising Himself from the grave. As a man, He was completely dependent upon the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as upon the angels, and even upon other humans.

Yet as God He was infinite and omnipotent. And as God, He had life within Himself before He came to live on this earth.

Notice the beginning of John 1--

John 1:1-4

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. .... [4] In him was life...

And John 2: 18--

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

The truth is that all three of the holiest persons of the eternal Godhead raised Jesus Christ from the grave:

the Father-- Acts 2: 24

the Son-- John 2: 18

The Holy Spirit-- Romans 1: 4

They all three Persons of the eternal Godhhead work together in complete harmony, as they did in both creation and redemption. This is why the Bible testimony is that God created the heavens and the earth and also why the Bible says God raised up Jesus Chrit.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

That is why neither Ellen White nor James White taught that the Trinity doctrine should be a test of character or fellowship.

Yet, this is exactly what SDA church does when it asks whether person agrees to 28 principles of outlined as they are before they can go with Baptism.

It would be very dishonest to say that neither E.G.White or Trinitarian view is not a test of fellowship today.

What do you think would happen if a person would say "no" to the question "Do you believe and agree with 28th belief statements?" . I've never seen it happened yet.

Adrian Ebens, down in Australia was forced to give up his preaching credentials when he quit believing in the trinity.

[Guest]

The idea of Son is not more literal than the idea of "Lamb" or "Door" or "Light" or "Water" or "bread."

[Dr. Waite]

The acceptance of the trinity doctrine was NOT because of what Mrs. E.G. White wrote. Between 1898 and 1915 she wrote a lot of anti-trinitarian doctrine statements. These statements are overlooked by those who support the trinity doctrine. The acceptance of the trinity doctrine by the leadership of the SDA church was mainly because of Leroy Fromm.

[Dr. Shane]

The acceptance of the trinity doctrine was mainly the work of Leroy Fromm.

God bless him!

[Dr. Waite]

Good point. Just like there is NO bible support for the change from the seventh day to the first day of the week as being the sabbath there is NO bible support for the worship of the holy spirit as a separate being from the Father and the Son.

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." "And Jesus increased his wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted. {YI, July 7, 1898 par. 2}

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

The acceptance of the trinity doctrine was mainly the work of Leroy Fromm.

God bless him!

The information about the holy spirit in the book "The coming of the comforter" mainly came from non-adventists who supported the trinity doctrine.

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." "And Jesus increased his wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted. {YI, July 7, 1898 par. 2}

Did Leroy Fromm get his information about the holy spirit from "the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent ????

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

The acceptance of the trinity doctrine was mainly the work of Leroy Fromm.

God bless him!

[John317]

Adrian Ebens, down in Australia was forced to give up his preaching credentials when he quit believing in the trinity.

SDAs wouldn't give their tithe to pay for pastors who teach contrary to the Bible and to the church's doctrines. That is also why Desmond Ford lost his credentials.

But he and Ebens are still members of the SDA church.

[John317]

The idea of Son is not more literal than the idea of "Lamb" or "Door" or "Light" or "Water" or "bread."

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

So in other words, you're saying that Jesus is the son of God in name only. He's not really God's son. Right?

"Son of God" means that Christ is of the order of God, as "son of man" means that Christ is of the order of man. Christ is both God and man.

Were "the sons of the prophets" really and literally the sons of the prophets? See 1 Kings 20: 35. Or does "the sons of" mean "of the order of" the prophets?

Were "the sons of the singers" really and literally the sons of the singers? See Neh. 12: 28. Or does "sons of the singers" mean "of the order of" the singers?

The answer is obvious.

The Jews understood that when Christ said he was the Son of God, He was saying He was equal to God. "Son of God" does not refer to His origin or how He came into existence, but it refers to His nature and His relationship to God. He is God. And this is exactly what Hebrews 1: 3 says. He is the exact copy of the Father's nature. John 1: 1 makes the same point: What God was, the Word was.

He is the Lamb of God (and the Son of God) in the sense in which those titles are meant by the Bible. Just as the Bible is not saying that Jesus is a literal lamb, so the Bible is not saying that Christ is a literal son in the sense that humans are sons who come out of the body of their parents. So Christ is really God's Son in the sense that the Bible is using that term.

There's nothing in the Bible that shows it is signifying that the pre-existent Christ derived His existence from the Father in the way that human sons derive their existence from their father.

On the contrary, she says that "in Christ, is life original, unborrowed, underived." (DA 530) Ellen White is saying here that the life of Christ originated with Himself, not with anyone ourside of Himself.

When the non-Trinitarian, SDA pastor, M. L. Andreason, saw this statement in Desire of Ages, he knew what it meant, and therefore he at first couldn't believe that Ellen White wrote it. So in 1906, he went to Ellen White's home and stayed there for several days. He saw this statement in her own handwriting and after talking with her personally, Andreason became convinced that Ellen White had written the statement in DA 530. He studied the Bible and found that Ellen White was right. M. L. Andreason went on to become a convinced Trinitarian. There is no way that the statement on DA 530 can support the idea that Christ derived His life from the Father. No one can derive an underived life from someone else. Christ's life is original with Himself. As Ellen White said, Christ was in close relationship to the eternal God from all eternity, and there was never at time when Christ was not with God. This is exactly what John 1: 1 is saying.

Think of the names of Christ: the word of God. Is Christ a literal word? No. But does that mean He is not really the word of God? No. It just means that He is the word of God in the sense that the Bible is using that term. The same principle applies to all of Christ's titles or names: "Alpha and Omega," "the offspring of David," "the Lamb of God," "the Root of DAvid," "King of kings and Lord of lords," "Son of man," "Son of God," "the Water of life," "the door of the sheep," "the bread of life," "the archangel," etc.

[Dr. Shane]

Did Leroy Fromm get his information about the holy spirit from "the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent ????

I suspect he got it from the Bible. That is where I get mine.

[Woody]

Well I listened to Dwight twice today ... and he didn't repent for what he said last week.

[John317]

Where in the Bible or the SoP, does it say That Jesus or the Father loves the Holy Spirit, or vise versa

I just saw a passage by Ellen White that speaks of the Holy Spirit as "loving." She says, "The Holy Spirit loves to address the youth, and to discover to them the treasuries and beauties of God's word." See COL 132. So we have a clear SOP statement that the Holy Spirit loves the youth and loves to help them discover the beauties of God's word. Obviously the Holy Spirit could not "love" if He wasn't a living person, or living Being. And if the Holy Spirit loves the youth, can anyone seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit loves Christ and the Father? The fundamental characteristic of the entire Godhead is LOVE.

There's overwhelming evidence in the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is not a thing or an influence or a power, but a living person, as much a person as Jesus and the Father are persons. Ellen White says plainly that the "Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead." So she says straightforwardly that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Ellen White also wrote that the Holy Spirit has a personality and is a distinct personage, the same as God and Christ each have a personality and the same as "Christ and God are two distinct personages." (5 BC 1148) (See also Ev. 614-617 & 9 T 68)

The Godhead is eternal. God is also unchangeable, or immutable. Therefore, the Godhead is not three today but two at some point in the past or at some point in the future. The Godhead is eternally three persons. God doesn't add to or subtract from the eternal, immutable Godhead. Since the Holy Spirit is a person, and "the third person of the eternal Godhead" whose very essence is AGAPE/LOVE, it follows that all three of these "holiest persons of heaven" love each other. God can do nothing else but love because that is the very nature of God.

The "eternal God" and the "eternal Godhead" are one and the same. When Genesis 1: 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, it is talking about the triune God and the work that all three persons of the eternal Godhead did in creating the world. This Godhead included the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three of these holiest persons of heaven were involved in the creation of the universe and the world. `So when it says that God is love, it has reference to all three persons of the Godhead. Both the Bible and Ellen White show that they are "one in purpose, mind, and character." 8 T 269 When we see Christ, we are seeing the purpose, mind, and character of all three persons of the heavenly trio. Their most basic character, according to the Bible, is love.

[John317]

Where does it say that we should worship the Holy Spirit? If the HS is complete in and of himself, and fully God, just like the Father and Jesus, would he/it not be due the same worship as them?

Ellen White says that the Holy Spirit is "all the fullness of the Godhead." Ev. 617 She also says that the Father is all the fullness of the Godhead and that Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead. So there can be no question that the Holy Spirit is complete in and of Himself just as the other two persons of the Godhead are complete in and of Themselves.

Remember that Christ said that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will point us to Christ and not to Himself. The Holy Spirit seeks worship for the Father and for Christ, not for Himself. The Holy Spirit is completely selfless, just as the Father and Christ are selfless.

However, the fact that the Bible doesn't command us to worship the Holy Spirit is no indication that the Holy Spirit is any less God than the Father or Christ. There is plenty of evidence in Inspiration showing that the Holy Spirit is as much God as the other two persons of the eternal Godhead. It simply means that His work is different from theirs and therefore our relationship to the Holy Spirit is different than our relationship to the Father and the Son.

But when we sing "Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," aren't we worshipping the Holy Spirit? (Ellen White sang this song often and said she wished all SDAs would sing it.)

The following verses certainly involve worship of the Holy Spirit:

Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

2 Cor. 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

NOTE: Is anyone able to have fellowship with a thing or with an influence or impersonal power? This is one more proof that the Holy Spirit is indeed a divine person, truly the third Person of the Godhead, just as Ellen White has written.