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

[John317]

...Ellen White said "God the Son" could have ETERNALLY ceased to exist...

...Ellen White said God the Son could ONLY keep His deity IF He continued to obey God the Father.

...Had Christ fallen God the Father would have eternally annihilated Christ.

Gustave, you're misunderstanding Ellen White's statements.

If Jesus of Nazareth had sinned, He would have been forever separated from God the Father, since the man Jesus would have been annihilated. But of course the man Jesus-- whose life had its beginning at conception in Mary's womb-- was also the eternal Son of God. He had two natures-- the human and the divine. While the man Jesus would have been forever destroyed, the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist but He would been forever separated from the Father. In other words, the Godhead was taking an almost unimaginable risk in coming into this world as a human being. Had Christ failed in His mission, it would have caused a catastrophic rupture within the Godhead itself.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“God's plans/prophecy know neither haste nor delay...all in His time, not ours.”

You are going on a tangent. You keep ignoring the plain statements found in the Bible. Daniel mourns and fasts for three weeks. Then Gabriel shows up and explains the reason for his delay in coming to his assistance on day one when the prophet began to pray.

Tell me please this: Why was Daniel forced to wait for three weeks? Isn’t revealing the future the task of the Holy Spirit, and isn’t the HS omnipresent? Why could not the HS have taken over the task of revealing the future to Daniel? Why the absence of the HS in this experience with the prophet?

You posted Dederen’s opinion that God sometimes in the Old Testament appeared as “The angel of the Lord.” The classic case if his encounter with Moses in the desert. The same thing took place in the case of Gideon and Samson’s parents. These facts lead me to believe that when God’s presence was manifested in physical form, the “Angel of the Lord” phrase was used in the Bible; but when said presence was invisible, then the “Holy Spirit” description prevailed.

“You are teaching a heretical doctrine; and I am nowhere close to being in agreement with you. Jesus and the Holy Spirit both present themselves in all kinds of ways too. You are "limiting the Holy One of Israel" and inflicting the church with heresy.”

See? I am trying to make things simple for you, but you accuse me of heresy! I hope you will recognize that when people react in this manner, it is a sure sign that they are loosing the argument. Personal attacks against an opponent are usually a sign that the Individual can’t find good arguments anymore. I hope you recognize this, and stop attacking the character of those who disagree with you.

“b.The Spirit of God in the OT. The fact that the Holy Spirit is not explicitly revealed as a divine person in the OT (Gen. 1:2) does not mean that He did not exist or act as a person before His historical introduction at Pentecost. The revelation of the Holy Spirit as a person of the Godhead became possible and necessary after the historical revelation of Jesus Christ as God the Son. The OT, consequently, does not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person different from other divine persons. However, at times it is possible to understand some OT references to the rather general designation “Spirit of God” as allusions to divine activities that properly belong to the Holy Spirit.”

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (131). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

I highly respect Dederen, but for me the Bible is above human tradition and philosophical speculations.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

"According to the "PLAN" of Him who works out everything in CONFORMITY with the purpose of His will"...

...That sounds just like Isaiah 46,9 to me Nic.

...& there is close to 100 other explicit texts that say the same thing.”

Yes, it sounds like Is. 46:9. I was not contradicting you! I was simply making a side observation of how we have often misused said text to support our belief in God’s absolute foreknowledge.

What the text is saying there is that he will accomplish his purpose regardless of any obstacles humans may place in opposition to his will. The text does not deal with human freedom, but rather with God’s purpose and will.

I doubt that God can predict what kind of ice cream an individual will choose a thousand years from now, unless God has decided to create a situation where said individual will make such a choice.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

“Then you would agree that the weight of evidence in Baptism replacing circumcision is lacking...”

I fail to see the connection between circumcision and baptism. My argument was that we find only one text using the threefold name in connection with baptism, and according to Eusebius—who had access to the original manuscripts, said text did not contain those three names; all the other references to baptism do not use said formula.

“There is PLENTY of evidence for the Trinity in Scripture.”

I do not see said evidence! All I see is human speculation and tradition.

“Matthew 28,19

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the NAME [ in nomine ] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Eusebius had the habit of citing this passage without the three names.

"You realize Eusebius formally agreed to the symbol from the Council of Nicaea...

...As being valid Christian Doctrine, right?"

When the Trinitarians started burning libraries, destroying older manuscripts, and treating anti-Trinitarians as heretics, Eusebius gave in to the pressure to save his life and reputation.

“John 10,38

But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father”

Jesus describes our relationship with him in the same manner. He said “abide in me and I in you.” The mutual spiritual abiding does not imply equality.

“John 10,30

I and the Father are one.”

One in purpose and will. Not one in essence.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“Incidentally; one of the things I did with my teaching ministry, was to teach a series on The Holy Spirit to interested church members and visitors. I remember one time when I was holding the week end seminar that I was talking about how The Holy Spirit is a Person, and can speak to our hearts, and meet us at the point of our need, when suddenly, right in the middle of it a young man stood up and said: "I want to ask Jesus into my heart." "Can we pray for the Spirit to come and help me do that?" He just threw his arms around me and cried his eyes out as he asked me that. This was clear evidence of the Holy Spirit at work; in fact half the congregation watching & listening to this young man and I were not baptised church members, and they just charged up front with us, and joined in that prayer.”

Thanks for this anecdote. Nevertheless, anecdotal stories do not establish doctrine. God’s invisible power was manifested in said event, but it does not prove that the HS is a the third person of the Godhead.

God has no need of a third member in his government. He himself is Spirit and he is also Holy. He manifests his power sometimes personally as the case of Moses in the desert, other times through Jesus, and also through one of his angels as in the case of Daniel.

“If you want to keep teaching falsehoods about how the Holy Spirit is not a person; help yourself. I know different.”

I teach using the Bible. You rely on human invention and tradition established in the third century and borrowed from paganism.

[John317]

... for me the Bible is above human tradition and philosophical speculations.

It seems to me that you substitute your human reasoning and speculations for plain statements in the Bible. Similarly, instead of accepting the plain statements of Ellen White, you reject them whenever they disagree with your opinions. So while you say that the Bible is above human tradition and philosophical speculations, the Bible is apparently not above your own speculations and personal opinions. 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.

[Gordon1]

While the man Jesus would have been forever destroyed, the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist but He would been forever separated from the Father.

Sorry John, it seems you're making up this story.

Please provide evidence that the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist, separate from God the Father.

Please provide Scripture.

Where would Christ have continued to exist - purgatory, Patmos, balmy beachfront by the Lake of Fire?

[John317]

“Matthew 28,19

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the NAME [ in nomine ] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Eusebius had the habit of citing this passage without the three names.

"You realize Eusebius formally agreed to the symbol from the Council of Nicaea...

...As being valid Christian Doctrine, right?"

When the Trinitarians started burning libraries, destroying older manuscripts, and treating anti-Trinitarians as heretics, Eusebius gave in to the pressure to save his life and reputation.

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. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence that Eusebius is correct in what he said about Matt. 28: 19. It is likely that Eusebius was merely trying to make the Catholic Church appear more powerful and influential than it was. After all, Eusebius was a supporter of the Emperor Constantine, and it was important for the Catholic Church to be viewed as the controlling power among the churches.

Actually, if you understand Matt. 28: 19 correctly, you will see that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is the same as baptizing in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All Three divine Persons have a single Name, or authority. It isn't necessary to repeat the names of all Three divine Persons in order to be citing their authority.

For instance, in Acts 3: 6, Peter tells a certain sick man to get up and walk "in the name [authority] of Jesus the Nazarene." The fact that Peter didn't cite the names of the Father and the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they weren't included in the authority by which the man was healed. They obviously were.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

While the man Jesus would have been forever destroyed, the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist but He would been forever separated from the Father.

Sorry John, it seems you're making up this story.

Please provide evidence that the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist, separate from God the Father.

Please provide Scripture.

Where would Christ have continued to exist - purgatory, Patmos, balmy beachfront by the Lake of Fire?

I'm saying this is what Ellen White's statements on the topic suggest. What Ellen White said on this subject doesn't contradict Scripture. We're not told by Inspiration where the eternal Son of God would have continued to exist if the man Jesus had sinned.

[John317]

Do you accept the statements of Ellen G. White on the topic?

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“If Jesus of Nazareth had sinned, He would have been forever separated from God the Father, since the man Jesus would have been annihilated. But of course the man Jesus-- whose life had its beginning at conception in Mary's womb-- was also the eternal Son of God. He had two natures-- the human and the divine. While the man Jesus would have been forever destroyed, the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist but He would been forever separated from the Father."

Excellent response! Thank you!

“In other words, the Godhead was taking an almost unimaginable risk in coming into this world as a human being. Had Christ failed in His mission, it would have caused a catastrophic rupture within the Godhead itself.”

Risk for whom? For God who according to most Adventist—except Richard Rice—believe in God’s absolute foreknowledge? I do believe that God did take a real risk, and because I believe this, I rather lean towards Rice’s view of God's limited foreknowledge.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“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.”

Do you assign the same authority to Ellen White’s writings as to the Bible? Did not she state that the Bible is supreme?

[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?

When you compare this with what history tells us about the destruction of old manuscripts, the burning of old libraries, the labeling of anti-Trinitarians as heretics, and the persecution against them, it all comes together.

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. 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.

When the angel Gabriel came to his aid, he stated that he heard his prayer from day one, but was delayed for three weeks in the Persian court, and he added that there was nobody else in this mission except Michael. [see Dan. 10]

Then we have the evidence from God’s encounter with Moses in the desert. God is originally introduced as “The angel of the Lord.” Then we discover that it was God himself. The same can be said about the experience of Gideon and the parents of Samson.

On top of this we have Jesus reference to himself using the third person in John 14. He clearly explains the Comforter is himself—the one who was living with the disciples, but who would come back spiritually to be with them again.

When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you end with the logical conclusion that there is no need to invent a third person of the Godhead, something which was borrowed from paganism. The Bible explains itself.

[Nic Samojluk]

John, Please read the following opinions of experts about the testimony of Eusebius:

Eusebius as a Reliable Witness

There were several men of this name. The one with whom we are concerned is known as Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea. He was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He lived in times of gross spiritual darkness, he was a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed. Here follows the opinion of historians and others concerning him.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which must have perished had he not collected and edited them" (Robert Roberts, Good Company, vol. III, page 10).

"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time... worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius...relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony" (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924).

"Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning." Ch. ii, 9... till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded" (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).

"Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament" (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).

"The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgement. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if somewhat confused, and at time not a little prejudice, erudition" (Peake's Bible Commentary, 1929,page 596).

"Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read (by Eusebius). In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose... Under the second head the most vital question if the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his material or not? The sarcasm of GIBBON (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known... the passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins... in general terms, without entering into details...but it leaves no imputation on his honesty" (Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature).

"Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded." (J. L. Mosheim: an editoral note).

"Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek MSS, from about 300-340, none is so important as Eusebius of Caesarea, for he lived in the greatest Christian library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say that from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesarea derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries" (The Hibbert Journal, October., 1902).

So much for the honesty, ability, and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the text of the New Testament. Now we are ready to consider his evidence on the text of Matthew 28:19."

Read my next posting ===>

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

Here is some more about Eusebius:

"The Evidence of Eusebius

Having introduced the first witness, it is time to ascertain what he wrote concerning the text of Matthew 28:19.

According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounce by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."

Persistent inquiry has failed to trace the compilation referred to, and Knupfer, the Editor, has left his last Canadian address without a trace. But various authorities mention "a work entitled DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPELS or QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS ON SOME POINTS IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY" and another work on THE CONCLUDING SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.

According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, 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 xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

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 Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt 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 nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle 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 should emphasize 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."

"Conybeare proceeds: (in Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105): "It is evident that this 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 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, the one, "Against Marcellus of Ancyra," the other "About the Theology of the Church," he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the council of Nicea was over to his see of Caesarea."

In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare writes: "It is clear, therefore, that the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of reading."

An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, "who argues that Eusebius found the Testus Receptus (traditional texxt) in his manuscripts, but substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarising and divulging the sacred Trinitarian formula." It is interesting to find a modern Bishop reviving the very argument used 150 years before, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5--

"Bengel ...allowed that the words (the Three Witnesses) were in no genuine MSS... surely, then, the verse is spurious! No: this learned man finds a way of escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. Under what a want of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument" --Porson (Preface to his letters)!

Conybeare continues, refuting the arguments of the Bishop of Ely. "It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius's argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my name.' For, he ask, 'in whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10."

The Ency. Rel. and Ethics states:

"The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent."

For additional valuable information, click on the following links:

1. http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

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

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

Here is some information about the baptismal formula in the New Testament:

“Every time the Bible records the name or formula associated with an actual baptism in the New Testament church, it describes the [color:#FF0000]name Jesus. All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It records that the following people were baptized in Jesus' name.

The Jews, "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" (Acts 2:38).

The Samaritans. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16).

The Gentiles. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, "In the name of Jesus Christ," as do most versions today.) Though in verse 36 of the same chapter reads that, "Jesus is Lord of all". So, the change does not nullify the word by any means.

The disciples of John (re-baptized). "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5).

The Apostles Paul. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

Luke 24:47 is a parallel verse to Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached "in his name." Jesus is the only saving name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula … was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus … which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

For additional information click on the following links:

1. http://www.zimbio.com/The+Acts+of+the+Ap...story+Scripture

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

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

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.

[Gustave]

Gustave, you're misunderstanding Ellen White's statements.

[Gustave]

Yes, it sounds like Is. 46:9. I was not contradicting you! I was simply making a side observation of how we have often misused said text to support our belief in God’s absolute foreknowledge.

[Gustave]

I fail to see the connection between circumcision and baptism. My argument was that we find only one text using the threefold name in connection with baptism, and according to Eusebius—who had access to the original manuscripts, said text did not contain those three names; all the other references to baptism do not use said formula

[Overaged]

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

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...Ellen White said "God the Son" could have ETERNALLY ceased to exist...

...Ellen White said God the Son could ONLY keep His deity IF He continued to obey God the Father.

...Had Christ fallen God the Father would have eternally annihilated Christ.

Gustave, you're misunderstanding Ellen White's statements.

If Jesus of Nazareth had sinned, He would have been forever separated from God the Father, since the man Jesus would have been annihilated. But of course the man Jesus-- whose life had its beginning at conception in Mary's womb-- was also the eternal Son of God. He had two natures-- the human and the divine. While the man Jesus would have been forever destroyed, the immortal, pre-incarnate Christ would have continued to exist but He would been forever separated from the Father. In other words, the Godhead was taking an almost unimaginable risk in coming into this world as a human being. Had Christ failed in His mission, it would have caused a catastrophic rupture within the Godhead itself.

I like the answer John, I believe that it is on the right track. Of course I see a connection with the Godhead where if Jesus sinned that it would have been forever a mark on the Godhead, a destroyed universe and a God who realized that he was not all he claimed to be.

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 and looking into the future, but that it is the eternal pressent for God and that God had an expirence of everything, and that expirence included the chance to fail.

[Gustave]

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

Perhaps you are right - I'm not sure if Nic agrees with the full blown Anthropomorphite theology...

...Of the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White.

[Overaged]

[

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

...It says "God" WAS manifested in the flesh.

...Therefore this heretical teaching about Human nature and Divine nature BLENDING.

...So that it results in a God that could have sinned and lost His salvation.

...Is absolutely a teaching of the antichrist.

[Gustave]

I like the answer John, I believe that it is on the right track. Of course I see a connection with the Godhead where if Jesus sinned that it would have been forever a mark on the Godhead, a destroyed universe and a God who realized that he was not all he claimed to be.