RE: Father, Son & Holy Ghost....3 gods.

[Gustave]

Gustave; I don't think you are in any way qualified to go beyond the pale of holy scripture and to predict the exact nature of Christ, by His having both the divine and the human nature when He was Incarnate.

[John317]

We need to lay aside our ideas and opinions when we find they conflict with plain statements in the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Do you assign the same authority to Ellen White's writings as to the Bible?

No. Ellen White's prophetic ministry and her writings are judged by the Bible. She can't correct the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Did not she state that the Bible is supreme?

Yes. Are you saying that you believe Ellen White's writings contradict the Bible? If they do, she is a false prophet.

It's one thing for her writings to contain things not found in Scripture; it's something else altogether different for her to've claimed God revealed things to her that contradict God's previous revelations.

[John317]

...

Quote:

Mat_4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Nic will have a lot of problems explaining this one because he teaches that the Holy Spirit is really just Jesus...does Mat 4:1 "really" say then, that Jesus was led by Himself "into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil?"

Good question.

The same kind of question could be asked in regard to Acts 1: 2---

".... [Christ] was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

If the Holy Spirit is Christ, this verse could read, "Christ was taken up, after he had given commands through Christ to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Did Christ give commands to the disciples through Jesus Christ?

[Overaged]

Gustave; you are trying to compare apples with oranges here. 1 John 4:3 has nothing to do with the physical make up of the Godhead. it only states the Incarnate condition of Christ.

I think also you are misunderstanding official Adventist teaching on the nature of Christ; when one copies materials from anti-Adventist "apologetics" industries, and isolates individual EGW quotes from their context and intentions; then, of course, it will be made to appear that Adventists believe something that they do not. Consider the current, official belief of Seventh-day Adventists on the subject; and Ellen White is subject to the general Conference on this, she does not determine our official beliefs; she only points us to whatever the Bible says about same!

Quote:

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.-Fundamental Beliefs, 4

Nic will also have a hard time explaining this one, as he teaches that the Holy Spirit is really just Jesus; yet, Christ Incarnate was "conceived" by The Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. How could Jesus conceive Himself? The Holy Spirit has to be a separate Person in order to do this.

[John317]

Notice what Ellen White said about biblical doctrines:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support." {GC88 595.1}

We need to test human opinions by what we find firmly established in Scripture.

Yes, I agree.

Ellen White's writings are not "human opinions," Nic. However, we do need to test her writings by the Bible.

Everything in Scripture is firmly established truth. The entire Bible is God-breathed.

[Overaged]

Good question.

The same kind of question could be asked in regard to Acts 1: 2---

".... [Christ] was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

If the Holy Spirit is Christ, this verse could read, "Christ was taken up, after he had given commands through Christ to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Did Christ give commands to the disciples through Jesus Christ?

Exactly; there are dozens and dozens of texts that show in a similar way, the fallacy of Nic's teachings here on the nature of Christ, and the third person of the Godhead, The Holy Spirit.

[John317]

...In addition, we have the testimony of the New Testament by the fact that all the references to baptism do not include the threefold formula.

That is based on the assumption that Christ commanded his disciples to repeat the words "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But is that what Christ said? It isn't necessary to list each Person in the Godhead by name in order to preach and baptize in His authority. All Three have one Name, just as Matt. 28: 19 itself says.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Then we have the question of the absence of the Holy Spirit in the book of Daniel, especially its absence during the three weeks when Daniel was praying and fasting.

There's no reason to expect that the Holy Spirit must be mentioned in the book of Daniel any more than the Holy Spirit must be mentioned in any other book of the Bible. That is like saying that the Holy Spirit must not exist because He is not mentioned in John 1: 1. Some people make the same argument against the existence of Christ during creation because He is not mentioned by name in Genesis 1 and 2. It's childish thinking.

[Gustave]

Gustave; you are trying to compare apples with oranges here. 1 John 4:3 has nothing to do with the physical make up of the Godhead. it only states the Incarnate condition of Christ.

I think also you are misunderstanding official Adventist teaching on the nature of Christ; when one copies materials from anti-Adventist "apologetics" industries, and isolates individual EGW quotes from their context and intentions; then, of course, it will be made to appear that Adventists believe something that they do not. Consider the current, official belief of Seventh-day Adventists on the subject; and Ellen White is subject to the general Conference on this, she does not determine our official beliefs; she only points us to whatever the Bible says about same!

I don't copy anything from anti-SDA websites Overaged....

...I do all my own research and gather all my own material.

My sources:

Scripture.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Catechism of the Catholic Church

E.C.F's All volumes

Biblia Clerus

Strong's

*and in this case* General Conference of SDA Archives

& Ellen White Estate plus some very old 1st edition books of Ellen White.

I do my own stuff which is why you don't find the points I make about SDA's...

...on anti SDA websites - What do you think about that?

[Overaged]

John317 wrote:

“Why do you allow Eusebius to dicate for you what the Bible teaches? That is what you've done. Yet you give evidence here that Eusebius is not worthy of your trust.”

I do not place the opinion of Eusebius above the Bible. I lean towards his testimony because it makes logical sense. Isn’t it rather strange that in merely three centuries all the old original manuscripts disappeared?

Eusebius and all of his "testimony" mean nothing in comparison to Holy Writ; I think you should also practice your advice to us and use only Scripture:

This whole business of the Holy Spirit really just being Jesus is extremely far-fetched. Nic is very wrong on what he is saying here. Of all the doctrines to pick on; this is likely the worst one he could have chosen to attack. There is just so much evidence to the contrary in Scripture; to deny it is not reality.

Jesus said of Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

(Luke 4: 18,19).

How then can the broken-hearted be healed without the Third Person of the Godhead; without The Holy Spirit, who sent Jesus to do this? Does the Bible say "Jesus sent Himself?" How then can the Holy Spirit really just be Jesus? How is it possible that Jesus would send Himself?

Jesus, the "first Comforter" was to ascend to heaven; and the "second Comforter" ("another Comforter") has taken over this ministry, as Christ is currently in ministry, in the heavenly sanctuary. (Heb 7:25)

The ministry of The Holy Spirit, when properly understood, shows Nic's teachings to be very unBiblical. "Comforter" may not really be the best translation for the word "paraklete;" in John 14. Paraclete is better translated as "advocate;" according to most scholars. paraklete can also mean things like representative; intercessor, pleader, consoler, etc. While paraklete is not an easy word to translate; it is worth noting that it is the exact same word as used of Christ with reference to His work before the Father, in heaven:

"My little children; these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; And if any person sin, we have an Advocate (paraklete) with the Father: JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS." (1 John 2:1)

And so there it is in Holy Writ. Christ is our Advocate with The Father; and The Holy Spirit is Christ's Advocate with us. As Christ pleads for us with the Father; so the Spirit pleads for Christ in our hearts.

Given these and many more important Bible facts; how can it ever be so that The Holy Spirit is not the Third Person of the Godhead? The character and ministry of The Holy Spirit leads us directly into the facts from Scripture showing us the Spirit's personality. I will discuss His personality, from Scripture, in my next post.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

John317 wrote:

“Why do you allow Eusebius to dicate for you what the Bible teaches? That is what you've done. Yet you give evidence here that Eusebius is not worthy of your trust.”

I do not place the opinion of Eusebius above the Bible. I lean towards his testimony because it makes logical sense. Isn’t it rather strange that in merely three centuries all the old original manuscripts disappeared?

Eusebius and all of his "testimony" mean nothing in comparison to Holy Writ; I think you should also practice your advice to us and use only Scripture:

This whole business of the Holy Spirit really just being Jesus is extremely far-fetched. Nic is very wrong on what he is saying here. Of all the doctrines to pick on; this is likely the worst one he could have chosen to attack. There is just so much evidence to the contrary in Scripture; to deny it is not reality.

Jesus said of Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

(Luke 4: 18,19).

How then can the broken-hearted be healed without the Third Person of the Godhead; without The Holy Spirit, who sent Jesus to do this? Does the Bible say "Jesus sent Himself?" How then can the Holy Spirit really just be Jesus? How is it possible that Jesus would send Himself?

Jesus, the "first Comforter" was to ascend to heaven; and the "second Comforter" ("another Comforter") has taken over this ministry, as Christ is currently in ministry, in the heavenly sanctuary. (Heb 7:25)

The ministry of The Holy Spirit, when properly understood, shows Nic's teachings to be very unBiblical. "Comforter" may not really be the best translation for the word "paraklete;" in John 14. Paraclete is better translated as "advocate;" according to most scholars. paraklete can also mean things like representative; intercessor, pleader, consoler, etc. While paraklete is not an easy word to translate; it is worth noting that it is the exact same word as used of Christ with reference to His work before the Father, in heaven:

"My little children; these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; And if any person sin, we have an Advocate (paraklete) with the Father: JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS." (1 John 2:1)

And so there it is in Holy Writ. Christ is our Advocate with The Father; and The Holy Spirit is Christ's Advocate with us. As Christ pleads for us with the Father; so the Spirit pleads for Christ in our hearts.

Given these and many more important Bible facts; how can it ever be so that The Holy Spirit is not the Third Person of the Godhead? The character and ministry of The Holy Spirit leads us directly into the facts from Scripture showing us the Spirit's personality. I will discuss His personality, from Scripture, in my next post.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

“God either has absolute foreknowledge or God doesn't....

...Sacred Scripture / Sacred Tradition is absolute that God does indeed have it.”

You are going beyond what the Bible teaches. Give me biblical references in support of God’s absolute foreknowledge about the minutest details of human life thousand of years before the events.

“That doesn't say some sort of hybridized god was manifested Nic...”

My comment had nothing to do with the nature of Jesus Christ. What I said dealt strictly with God’s alleged absolute foreknowledge.

"Then you clearly worship a vastly different God than I do...."

I worship the God of Abraham, Jacob, and all the saints found in Scripture.

“...I would be willing to bet that you even worship a different God than John317 does.

...I don't even think John317 would say what you just did.”

I highly respect John317, but I consider the Bible as the source of my beliefs.

“You realize that is yet another heretical affirmation you just made about God, right?’

Accusing of heresy those who try to stick to the Bible instead of accepting human tradition and human philosophical speculations is a sign that you are loosing the argument.

[Gustave]

You are going beyond what the Bible teaches. Give me biblical references in support of God’s absolute foreknowledge about the minutest details of human life thousand of years before the events

[Overaged]

Well' date=' what I think is that you don't know the internet too well. But that's beside the point. I made that remark as a parenthetical comment, and you make it a major point, conveniently skipping the major point I made which was in keeping with the OP. Let me refresh your memory:

Quote:

Gustave; you are trying to compare apples with oranges here. 1 John 4:3 has nothing to do with the physical make up of the Godhead. it only states the Incarnate condition of Christ.[/quote']

[Gustave]

Well, what I think is that you don't know the internet too well. But that's beside the point. I made that remark as a parenthetical comment, and you make it a major point, conveniently skipping the major point I made which was in keeping with the OP. Let me refresh your memory:

It should be a major point to you as well...

...The Scriptures are very CLEAR that the Incarnation of God is a "mystery".

...How is it that God could become man without ceasing to be "God"?

I don't know Overaged - I only know Scripture says this is the greatest mystery...

...And instead of safe guarding that mystery Ellen White and the other anti-Trinitarian SDA's.

...Drilled down into the nature of Christ to the point they affirmed Christ mutated from not able to sin.

...To a new Nature that was fully able to mutate.

All this even though the Scriptures said over and over that God has always been ( and forever will eternally be ) "GOD"...

...And God can't fail, period.

This must be difficult for SDA's, when they realize that Scripture is crystal clear...

...That Jesus was eternally the Christ, God Almighty that could never fail.

...Then they read the multiple affirmations of Ellen that God could have failed.

And if God did fail then big God would extract the conditional deity from little god...

...And little god ( creature christ ) would be a dried up eternally dead son of God.

I've backed up everything with Scripture and solid logic....

...To date no one out of the SDA camp on any forum has been able to show me from Scripture.

...How it is that God could deny himself and fail.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Well, what I think is that you don't know the internet too well. But that's beside the point. I made that remark as a parenthetical comment, and you make it a major point, conveniently skipping the major point I made which was in keeping with the OP. Let me refresh your memory:

It should be a major point to you as well...

...The Scriptures are very CLEAR that the Incarnation of God is a "mystery".

...How is it that God could become man without ceasing to be "God"?

...How it is that God could deny himself and fail.

Well; now you are mis-quoting me. The "parenthetical" comment I made was related to where you are getting your anti-Adventist materials from. And you still have not answered my question re your innapropriate use of 1 John 4:3

[Overaged]

It should be a major point to you as well...

...The Scriptures are very CLEAR that the Incarnation of God is a "mystery".

...How is it that God could become man without ceasing to be "God"?

When Jesus hung upon the cross; He said: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The human mind cannot fathom such a thought! God by God forsaken! But the Bible declares it, and no one can undo it. Not even the Roman Catholic Church. If your church teaches that this is not true; then it is definitely not Biblical.

[John317]

The man Jesus of Nazareth could die, and therefore by definition, Jesus was not immortal. One of the main reasons the Word became flesh was in order to die. If He had come here in the form of God as He was in heaven, He couldn't have died for man's sins.

So the eternal Son of God, who lived in heaven prior to becoming a man, was immortal, since He was Deity. Deity, of course, cannot die.

The man Jesus was conditionally immortal just like Adam. Christ didn't receive His immortality and glorious new human body until His resurrection from the grave.

[Kevin H]

The man Jesus of Nazareth could die, and therefore by definition, Jesus was not immortal.

However, the eternal Son of God, who lived in heaven prior to becoming a man, was immortal, since He was Deity. Deity cannot die.

The man Jesus was conditionally immortal just like Adam. Christ didn't receive His immortality and glorious new human body until His resurrection from the grave.

Amen, fantastic post!!!

[Gustave]

When Jesus hung upon the cross; He said: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The human mind cannot fathom such a thought!

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

“On what Authority did you set aside the explicit commandment about Circumcision as found in the Law of Moses?”

I did? When did I say that I set aside Moses circumcision commandment? Are you confusing me with Paul?

“You seem to have zero problems accepting elements of Arianism and semi-Arianism heretical tradition...”

I have never studied the doctrines of Aryanism nor their traditions. I have limited myself to the study of the Bible.

“And Eusebius affirmed that the both the holy Council and Symbol of Faith from Nicaea was VALID...”

Yes, likewise Galileo did agree that the earth was flat!

“...So even if Eusebius had problems with the Doctrine of the Trinity....He laid his concerns at the feet of Jesus' Blessed Church.”

Thousands of Christians did the same to save themselves from persecution, torture, and death.

“...Knowing that it was the Church that was the bulwark of the Truth.”

The bulwark of Truth is found in the Bible—not In the decisions of councils and politicians. The church incorporated a lot of pagan practices into their dogma.

“Than you have MORE than one God Nic.....”

I have only one God, and this Almighty God has a Son, and this Son of God is One with his Father.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“I don't think Nic should be classed as a "Historic SDA."”

I don’t care how you classify me. But I do care about the Lord’s opinion.

[Nic Samojluk]

Kevin H wrote:

“While I believe that God sees the end from the begining, I understand it to be through a transending of time and space rather than being limited to our time and space”

The theory that God transcends Time and space is based on a philosophical speculation which has no basis on reality. Time is a mental construct; a mnemonic device we use to establish the sequence of events.

There was no need for God to create Time; the moment there were two events in the universe, a sequence of events was established and there was no need for God to create Time as an independent entity apart from those events. If all events were to cease, there would no Time.

“God had an experience of everything, and that experience included the chance to fail.”

A chance to fall implies a lack of absolute foreknowledge, I believe.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“The Bible teaches us that Jesus was endowed with both natures. While with us Incarnate; Jesus *chose* to not use His divine nature to live; and Jesus *chose* to go through all his trials in the same way that we have to. He was treated AS WE DESERVE that we might be treated AS HE DESERVES...

Gustave; I don't think you are in any way qualified to go beyond the pale of holy scripture and to predict the exact nature of Christ, by His having both the divine and the human nature when He was Incarnate. Adventists only repeat what Scripture says, that Jesus had Both natures. We do not profess to know what that means in terms of His physical makeup; only that the Bible declares it. You cannot deny that the Bible declares Jesus had both natures at once. Neither can you know or predict exactly what that means in terms of the physical makeup of the Godhead.

The only reason the Bible; (and Adventists) declare this about Christ, is nothing to do with the nature of, or the physical make up of the Godhead; It is to point us all to Christ and Him crucified. The dual natures of Christ have been pointed to in scripture; not to tell us about the physical properties of the Godhead, but to point us to our redemption; and what Christ has done for everyone in both our respective Churches.

Jesus, because when he was Incarnate; He *chose* to use only His human nature, was "led by the Spirit;" just as we are to be led by the Spirit today:”

I fully agree with everything you have stated up to this point!

“Nic will have a lot of problems explaining this one because he teaches that the Holy Spirit is really just Jesus...does Mat 4:1 "really" say then, that Jesus was led by Himself "into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil?"”

Here I digress! The Bible talks about God’s Spirit and Jesus spoke about his Spirit. When the Bible refers to the Spirit of God, this most likely is in reference to the presence and power of God. This means that Jesus having decided not to resort to his own divinity as a human, he was entirely dependent on God the Father’s presence and power.

This is illustrated with the following biblical passages:

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

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? [Psalm 139:7]

You are probably familiar with the following feature of Jewish poetry. It is called parallelism, where one idea is reinforced by another parallel statement. In the two passages I quoted above, you have the Holy Spirit identified with God’s presence.

This is why I define the Holy Spirit as God’s presence and power. If you read the Bible again without the Trinity lenses, you will probably notice that whenever God’s presence is manifested in a visible form, the “Angel of the Lord” expression is used; but if God’s presence is felt, but unseen, the phrase “Holy Spirit’ is utilized.

See how simple this Truth is? The Holy Spirit is, I believe, God’s presence and power, sometimes visible, as in the case of Moses in the desert or Gideon and Samson’s parents, but most often simply felt.

As you can see, there is no need to invent the Trinity doctrine, which was borrowed from paganism.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: John317

The man Jesus of Nazareth could die, and therefore by definition, Jesus was not immortal.

However, the eternal Son of God, who lived in heaven prior to becoming a man, was immortal, since He was Deity. Deity cannot die.

The man Jesus was conditionally immortal just like Adam. Christ didn't receive His immortality and glorious new human body until His resurrection from the grave.

Amen, fantastic post!!!

I second that

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Yes. Are you saying that you believe Ellen White's writings contradict the Bible? If they do, she is a false prophet.”

Wrong conclusion! Both Moses and Paul believed that God is sovereign and had the moral right to harden the heart of Pharaoh in order to manifest his power on him. Do you accept such teaching? Does it follow that Moses and Paul were false prophets?

David stated under inspiration the following:

Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! [Psalm 137:9]

Do you accept what David said in said passage? Babies are innocent, aren’t they? What moral right does anybody have to vent their vengeance on innocent babies? Contrast this statement with Jesus’ requirement that we love our enemies. Can I conclude that David was a false prophet?

“It's one thing for her writings to contain things not found in Scripture; it's something else altogether different for her to've claimed God revealed things to her that contradict God's previous revelations.”

You are assuming that everything she wrote was either dictated or revealed to her in vision. She had about 500 books in her personal library, and she was an avid reader. It has been demonstrated that she borrowed entire chapters, including titles and illustrations from other authors. Can we assume that all this voluminous material was given to her through a visionary experience?

Do you really believe that every time Ellen said “I was shown” it meant that she received the information directly from heaven?

Didn’t her son or grandson admit that Ellen did tell him that the Lord had given her the wisdom to select from other authors valuable material which she used to build the church? Does this mean she became infallible in this task?

You seem to be unwilling to admit that Ellen might have made a mistake when sitting down to read and write. Moses and Paul could err, but Ellen must be infallible? Does this make sense?