Is the doctrine of the Trinity logically incoherent?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Which biblical texts are more inspired: the ones who state that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh or those saying that Pharaoh hardened his heart? Are all of these texts equally inspired?

Good question. The answer is, Yes. If you look carefully at these texts, you'll find that there is no actual contradiction but only an apparent one. Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the way he chose to respond to God's activity. God knew Pharoah's character and He knew how Pharoah would respond to His activity.

Aparent contradiction? Then I must be from another planet! The rules of logic do not allow such strange interpretation!

[John317]

Speaking of a waste of time, Nic.... I'll rejoin you when you get back to the main subject and are seriously discussing it.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Obviously if EGW taught contrary to the Bible, she was a false prophet.”

Obviously? You seem to stick to the idea that there must be no errors of doctrine in the Bible, that the Bible is infallible in every doctrinal point, when Ellen herself told us that only God is infallible and that some Bible copyists did introduce a few minor errors into the sacred text when manuscripts of the Bible were few.

I provided several examples of minor doctrinal errors contained in the Bible, but you keep ignoring them. Should I list them again?

Do most Adventists agree with Paul about his idea that it was God who hardened the heart of Pharaoh in order to show his power?

Can a just God hardened someone’s heart in order to show how powerful he is? Is God’s sovereignty based on his power or on his fairness, love, and mercy?

Do we worship God because he is able to harden someone’s heart in order to show how powerful he is?

Do you want me to add other examples?

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“How does "hard to understand" EQUAL "wrong" or "uninspired" or "fallible"?”

My suspicion is that Peter was probably referring to Paul’s erroneous view that God did actually harden the heart of Pharaoh in order to show how powerful he is, a doctrine which is rejected by most Adventist. Do you subscribe to said teaching?

“Aren't there some things hard to understand in the Old Testament and in the Gospels as well?”

Of course there are! Isn’t it hard to understand how David under inspiration could say “happy are those who will dash your little ones against the rocks”? We find many examples of calls for vengeance in the Psalms. Contrast them with what Jesus said about this. Did he not say that we need to love even our enemies?

You seem to stick to a view of inspiration which I reject. Inspiration does not correct all doctrinal errors overnight. I see evidence of increasing light in the Bible with the passage of time. The death penalty for Sabbath breakers was done away with time. The call for vengeance over our enemies was replaced with a call for love. Should I go on?

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“What is false about my statement? And how is it an attempt to prove doctrine by EGW?”

There is nothing wrong with said statement, unless you imply by the way you use it to suggest that the Bible is infallible in every little doctrinal point, something Ellen White did deny.

“Are you suggesting that we shouldn't pay attention to EGW's writings or that we ought not to quote them?”

I have already answered this several times before. Quoting Ellen White is acceptable when talking to people who accept her as an authority on all doctrinal issues.

“Don't you yourself quote her on questions where she agrees with you-- such as on abortion?”

Yes, I do! Nevertheless, I believe what she said that we need to study the Bible and that there are beliefs which we will need to correct and discard as a result of said study.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

The purpose of the writings of Ellen White was not to take the place of the Bible, but is to give men and women straight testimonies bringing them back to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, of course.

And the Bible testimony on the Godhead/Trinity is quoted and discussed all the time on this Forum and on others when the subject comes up. Ellen White's quotes are also shown for the purpose of making plain what she taught on the topic. Her teachings are important for SDAs because we believe she was God's prophet and therefore taught in harmony with Scripture.

Obviously if EGW taught contrary to the Bible, she was a false prophet.

The subjection of this discussion is: "Is the doctrine of the Trinity logically incoherent?"

The issue is the doctrine of the Trinity as created by the leaders of the SDA church. What is this doctrine?

ANSWER: "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. "

Without quoting the writings of Ellen White, where in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is there a plain thus saith the LORD in which the doctrine of the trinity is stated the same as what the leaders of the SDA church have stated?

If you cannot find a "plain thus saith the LORD", is the doctrine of the trinity logically incoherent?

[skyblue888]

We don't find the word "millenium" in the Bible but we know that it refers to the period of 1,000 years spoken of in the book of Revelation. We don't find the word "trinity" in the Bible but we know that it refers to the three great Dignitaries of Heaven mentioned in 1 John 5:7 where it says that "These Three are one."

One thing we may know for sure, from the Scriptures, is that the Holy Spirit is a person for one cannot grieve a mere impersonal essence. "Grieve not the Holy Spirit."

In the book of Acts, we read, "The Holy Spirit said..."

This is sufficient to establish the personality of the Holy Spirit.

sky

[John317]

John317 wrote:

Obviously if EGW taught contrary to the Bible, she was a false prophet.

Obviously? You seem to stick to the idea that there must be no errors of doctrine in the Bible, that the Bible is infallible in every doctrinal point, when Ellen herself told us that only God is infallible and that some Bible copyists did introduce a few minor errors into the sacred text when manuscripts of the Bible were few.

I provided several examples of minor doctrinal errors contained in the Bible, but you keep ignoring them. Should I list them again?

The Bible is the rule of faith and doctrine. If you want to believe the Bible contains doctrinal errors, that's your privilege, but I don't believe the evidence shows this. Containing things hard to understand is a lot different from containing errors.

The fundamental principle that you're ignoring or refusing to accept is that God's self-revelation to His prophets are in harmony because God always tells the truth.

If the Bible contains errors in its doctrines, how do you know one of those doctrinal errors means that there is no "second coming" or that there is no literal resurrection of the dead? Perhaps the Bible's errors include its teachings regarding the character of God.

From what I've read of your posts, I believe the error is in your thinking about the Bible and Inspiration.

You're mistaken in thinking, for instance, that the minor errors by copyists resulted in doctrinal errors. There's absolutely no evidence that EGW intended anyone to draw this conclusion from here statement. On the contrary.

[Naomi]

The Bible is the rule of faith and doctrine. If you want to believe the Bible contains doctrinal errors, that's your privilege, but I don't believe the evidence shows this. Containing things hard to understand is a lot different from containing errors.

If the Bible contains errors in its doctrines, how do you know one of those doctrinal errors means that there is no "second coming" or that there is no literal resurrection of the dead? Perhaps the Bible's errors include its teachings regarding the character of God.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“The Bible is the rule of faith and doctrine. If you want to believe the Bible contains doctrinal errors, that's your privilege, but I don't believe the evidence shows this. Containing things hard to understand is a lot different from containing errors.”

I gave you specific examples of doctrinal errors found in the Bible, but instead of addressing them, you keep ignoring them. I will try one more time: Paul built his doctrine of God’s sovereignty on the basis of the biblical texts which state the it was God who hardened the heart of Pharaoh.

15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f

16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Do you accept this erroneous theory of God’s sovereignty which teaches that God had the right to harden Pharaoh’s heard in order to show his power through him? Adventists are Armenians and reject this erroneous doctrine. Please, answer this question, since this is the last time I am asking this!

“The fundamental principle that you're ignoring or refusing to accept is that God's self-revelation to His prophets are in harmony because God always tells the truth.”

This argument shows that you believe that God dictated the Bible. There is a difference between thought inspiration and dictation. I suggest that you read how Ellen described thought inspiration. She told us that God is not revealed in the Bible as an author.

“If the Bible contains errors in its doctrines, how do you know one of those doctrinal errors means that there is no "second coming" or that there is no literal resurrection of the dead? Perhaps the Bible's errors include its teachings regarding the character of God.”

You picked the wrong example. We have hundreds of texts affirming the Second Coming, while we have only one reference to God’s sovereignty the way it was taught by Paul.

“From what I've read of your posts, I believe the error is in your thinking about the Bible and Inspiration.”

I believe that my view of inspiration agrees with that of Ellen White. Besides, it agrees with the internal evidence we find in the Bible.

“You're mistaken in thinking, for instance, that the minor errors by copyists resulted in doctrinal errors. There's absolutely no evidence that EGW intended anyone to draw this conclusion from here statement. On the contrary.”

I gave you an example of a fundamental error in the teaching of Paul. This was not the result of a copyist error.

[skyblue888]

Nic, you yourself quote her on certain topics and yet you don't accept her as an authority on any topic!

As to God hardening Pharaoh's heart, God's ways are not our ways. Yes He did harden Pharaoh's heart but here is how He did it. By sending him light to correct his errors and to lead him into safe paths. But the light that was sent to him he rejected. By the rejection of that light there was a hardening that took place in his heart and the second revealing of light was less clearly discerned until the darkness increased and it was night in his soul.

This is how God hardened his heart. But when we understand the language of Heaven, we readily can see that in reality it was Pharaoah that hardened his heart.

The Bible also says that to those who do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie. (2 Thess.2:10,11) The same language and the same principle are at work here. God sends messages of light to us that we might be saved but if these messages are not appreciated or heeded, Satan comes in with his strong delusions and we fall for his lies. That is how God sends strong delusions. He first sends the light and if the light is not received, He allows Satan to deceive us. This is how the controversy works between Christ and Satan for the souls of men.

The Bible says that "God slew Saul and turned the kingdom over to David." 1 Chronicles 10:14.

But we all know that God did not directly slay Saul because in verse 4 we are specifically told that Saul killed himself with a sword. It was a case of suicide.

So we must be careful as to how we read.

Did not Jesus say, "How readest thou?"

sky

[skyblue888]

15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Again, it is the same language which is consistent throughout the entire Bible. In the face of the above passage we read, "God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34) So it appears that we have a contradiction but it is only an apparent one. When we understand the language and the principles of God's dealings with men, there is no contradiction. God has compassion and He has mercy on all for "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom.2:11; Gal.2:6). "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11.

To all men!

God has mercy and compassion on all. But if this mercy and compassion are not appreciated, there comes the time when He can no longer exercise this mercy and this compassion. But He Himself has not changed. He is still merciful and compassionate but to no avail to those who make light of His overtures. It is only in that sense that He says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

sky

[skyblue888]

"I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

The same language again. If we fail to heed the counsel "How readest thou?" if we are not careful as to what this language really means, we will end up with a picture that makes God look no better or even worse than Satan himself. This passage does not mean that God directly used ways and means by which to ensure that this Pharaoh would rebel against Him so that through him He might show His power! That would make God no better than sinful man!

This language simply means that early in his youth, even before he became Pharaoh, this man had been kicking against the pricks, resisting the influence of the Holy Spirit upon His heart and when he finally came to power, God in His great mercy, sent him the last rays of light by which he and all the Egyptians could have been saved. We know the end of the story.

sky

[skyblue888]

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

Again if we are not careful enough as to how we read this language, we could, and many have already, use these words to show that no matter what we do in life, if we have been selected to be clay in the hand of God for a noble purpose or for common use, there is nothing we can do to change that!

But this is far from the truth. This is not the teaching of the Bible because all have been given free will to choose.

The Bible says, "Choose you this day whom you will serve."

In other words, depending on choices that we make on a daily basis we are choosing either to be molded by the Holy Spirit or by the enemy of all truth.

sky

[Gibs]

For sure the doctrine of the trinity is a misnomer. Just for one statement from Jesus Himself and I reckon if anyone would know He would,

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yes for sure the Holy Spirit is God, Yahweh, and so He is Spirit. He is the only one there ever was and will be. He was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. 2 Cor 5:19.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[skyblue888]

"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself,"

What about Christ's own divinity? Are we to believe that Christ relinquished His own divinity by coming to this earth? Of course not. What He relinquished for ever was the form of God, not His own divinity. What about the glories of the form of God? "He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man... He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for a while relinquished." EGW, 5 B.C.1126.

He is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high with the glories of the form of God upon His human form. He no longer has the form of God but He has retained the glories of the form of God which are now upon His human form.

While upon the earth His own divinity was there the whole time but always kept back. Through the immediate Agency of God, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead, only the divinity of the Father appeared in His life so that through His humanity the Father spoke and worked and suffered with Him on the cross.

Are we to believe that Christ's divinity did not suffer on the cross? What about the Holy Spirit? They all suffered. Speaking of the Three persons of the Godhead, we read,

"The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption." Counsels on Health,222.

They gave themselves!

The Bible says, "God Who maketh His angels spirits." Hebrews 1:7.

We know that the angels have glorious bodies and yet they are said to be spirits. So when the Bible says that God is spirit, it is not talking about the Holy Spirit per see. It is talking about the fact that God is a spiritual Being just like the angels are spiritual beings with glorious bodies. So will the redeemed be, spirits with glorious spiritual bodies.

To worship God in spirit and in truth also means to believe that He is, not merely that He exists but that He is. That is His name. "For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6.

Therefore, it means that "God, who made the world and all things in it, seeing that He is Lord of Heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. That they should seek the Lord, if perpaps, they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He is not far from every one of us, For in Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:24-28.

So it is clear that to worship Him in spirit and in truth means to believe that He is not only the Creator of all but that He is also the life of everything that lives. If we do not believe this, it cannot be said that we are worshiping Him in spirit and in truth.

"Not only is He the Originator of all but He is the life of everything that lives. It is His life that we receive in the sunshine, in the pure, sweet air, and in the food which builds up our bodies and sustains our strength." Education,197-8.

This is a deep truth concerning our physical life.

If we do not discern this, it is impossible to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

"All created beings live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." 1 S.M.301.

sky

[Gibs]

Truly, The Father suffered with Christ on the cross and through it all because it was He that was in Him. The vestment of the Father in Him was never relinquished but laid aside that He then took no power but we can have to overcome as He did.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

How did the Father dwell in Him? By Spirit, as that is what He is, and "Christ in You" is the same power.

We are not left powerless as mere men with the battle against the powers of the darkness of this world.

But does He dwell in all men? No! Why? All men will not surrender all and fall completly broken that he can come in and be the Master. Pride, self and our will must be killed, the old man must die first.

Then what Paul states in Romans 6:1-6 is apropos, or is the case.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[skyblue888]

He does not "dwell" in all hearts of men by faith (Eph.3:14ff) but He is the life of everything that lives for "In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28. This is a fact whether we believe it or not. Mrs. White stated that this is a deep truth that we need to understand. Ed.197.

"The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood. It presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues to work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God." Ministry of Healing,417.

The power of an ever-present God is the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead. In the book Education, p.14 the Holy Spirit is spoken of as "the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all."

sky

[skyblue888]

In the book Ministry of Healing, p.416 we read, "Nature in her work testifies of the Intelligent presence, and active Agency of a Being that is moving in all things according to His will."

This Agency of God can only be the Holy Spirit, God's immediate Agency.

By comparing the next two statements, it is made crystal clear that the Holy Spirit is God's immediate Agency:

"The only key to the mysteries that surround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and power of God." D.A.606.

"The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send is the presence and power of God." EGW, Signs of the Times, Nov.23,1891.

The Holy Spirit is here clearly identified as the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is moving in and through all, moving in all things according to His will.

sky

[Umfundize]

The clearest presentation on the FAMILY OF GOD I discovered, was when I read the controversial Manuscript that a SDA Conference Evangelist sent to the General Conference for comment. Apparently they said nothing... I believe it is the second chapter. Check out www.adventistalternative.org

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Good question. The answer is, Yes. If you look carefully at these texts, you'll find that there is no actual contradiction but only an apparent one. Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the way he chose to respond to God's activity. God knew Pharaoh’s character and He knew how Pharaoh would respond to His activity.”

Apparent? You are telling me that there is no real contradiction between “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh” and “Pharaoh hardened his heart”? I did look carefully at those texts and I find there the most glaring contradiction.

I need to choose between thesed two contradictory assertions. If I choose the first one, then I have to agree with the erroneous and unbiblical doctrine Paul alluded in Romans 9. Do you accept said doctrine? Adventists don’t. Adventists are Armenian. Why is it that you keep avoiding my question?

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“You're absolutely right, pk. In fact, I've said that EGW was not infallible. Neither, for that matter, was Paul or Jeremiah. God alone is infallible. The Bible is God's infallible guide to salvation and knowledge of God, but the men who were inspired to write it were themselves fallible.”

We agree that that Bible as a whole is an infallible guide to salvation. No one needs to wonder what he needs to do to secure forgiveness for his sins.

Now my question: If the men who wrote the Bible were fallible, then how can you say that there are no errors in the Bible? What evidence to you see in what they wrote to conclude that they were fallible?

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wrote:

“We don't find the word "trinity" in the Bible but we know that it refers to the three great Dignitaries of Heaven mentioned in 1 John 5:7 where it says that "These Three are one."”

You picked the wrong verse? We do not find 1 John 5:7 in any older manuscripts than the 14th century! The evidence seems to point to the theory that said verse was a marginal note which was later incorporated into the text by Trinitarians.

Catholics needed this to make the Trinitarian pagan dogma more believable. The same applies to Matthew 28:19. Eusebius quoted almost twenty times Matthew 28:10 without the three names. If you can find a single example where the threefold baptismal formula was used in the New Testament let me know! In every instance of baptism it was done in Jesus name. Can you explain this?

“One thing we may know for sure, from the Scriptures, is that the Holy Spirit is a person for one cannot grieve a mere impersonal essence. "Grieve not the Holy Spirit."

Of course it is a person. Said person is identified in John 14. It is Jesus himself, but in invisible form.

“In the book of Acts, we read, "The Holy Spirit said..."”

Yes, it was Jesus presence manifested in an invisible manner. This is consistent with all the many times God manifested his presence in the Old Testament. Whenever the Lord manifested his presence in an invisible way, the expression “Spirit” was used; but when said presence was visible, “the Angel of the Lord” was used.

“This is sufficient to establish the personality of the Holy Spirit.”

No it isn’t! The passage in John 14 makes it clear that the Comforter was Jesus himself.

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wrote:

“Nic, you yourself quote her on certain topics and yet you don't accept her as an authority on any topic!”

You are misrepresenting what I have said about the writings of Ellen White. I believe that God used Ellen to build his Remnant Church. Nevertheless, I do not conclude that her writings are free from errors.

You need to read what she said about discovering new truths as a result of our study of the Bible. I can quote her on this if you want me to. It is found in "Counsels to Writers and Editors." She talks about rejecting certain beliefs which we have been cherished by his people for years.

God used Gideon and Jeftah, but the evidence is that they were still fallible men and made serious mistakes. The Lord used King David, but this did not make him infallible.

He was guilty of adultery, murder, and he stated that those who dash the little ones against the rocks are blessed. Contrast this with Jesus order that we must love even our enemies.

Then we have Paul who used some Old Testament statements to build his non Adventist doctrine of God’s sovereignty based on the text which says that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh in order to show his power on him. You find this erroneous doctrine in Romans 9. Do you accept this erroneous teaching?

“As to God hardening Pharaoh's heart, God's ways are not our ways. Yes He did harden Pharaoh's heart but here is how He did it. By sending him light to correct his errors and to lead him into safe paths. But the light that was sent to him he rejected. By the rejection of that light there was a hardening that took place in his heart and the second revealing of light was less clearly discerned until the darkness increased and it was night in his soul.”

You are sanitizing the Bible. This is not what Paul said. Paul argued that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh in order to show his power on him. The context shows that God had the right to harden because he needed to show his absolute power over men. We Adventists are Armenian and do not accept Paul’s erroneous doctrine.

“This is how God hardened his heart. But when we understand the language of Heaven, we readily can see that in reality it was Pharaoh that hardened his heart.”

This means that we reject a clear erroneous assertion found in the Bible, that God was the one who hardened the heart of Pharaoh. We do this because such teaching does not agree with the character of God as described in the rest of the Bible.

“The Bible also says that to those who do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie. (2 Thess.2:10,11)”

Thank you for providing us another example of erroneous statements found in the Bible. We reserve the right to correct them because they distort the picture of God we find in the rest of the Bible.

“The same language and the same principle are at here. God sends messages of light to us that we might be saved but if these messages are not appreciated or heeded, Satan comes in with his strong delusions and we fall for his lies.”

In essence what you are saying is that it is actually the Devil who sends those strong delusions. This means that there are erroneous statements in the Bible which need to be corrected if we want to preserve the true character of God.

“That is how God sends strong delusions. He first sends the light and if the light is not received, He allows Satan to deceive us. This is how the controversy works between Christ and Satan for the souls of men."

Sorry to disagree! This is not how God sends these strong delusions. This is how the Devil sends them.

“The Bible says that "God slew Saul and turned the kingdom over to David." 1 Chronicles 10:14.’"

Thank you again. You are doing a good job in correcting some errors found in the Bible.

“But we all know that God did not directly slay Saul because in verse 4 we are specifically told that Saul killed himself with a sword. It was a case of suicide.”

Yes, sometimes the Bible corrects those errors, while other times we need to do this in order to preserve our view of God’s character.

“So we must be careful as to how we read.”

We must be careful how we interpret the Bible, which is different from how we read it. We reject what is erroneous on the basis of what the Bible teaches about the character of God.

“Did not Jesus say, "How readest thou?"”

Wrong application! Jesus wanted the man to quote the Bible—not to correct the text.

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wrote:

“One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"”

I have repeatedly asked the following question in my previous posting: “Do you believe Paul’s teaching about God’s sovereignty as found in Romans 9, a teaching which is rejected by Adventists.?" No one has dared so far to answer my insistent question! Why? Because it would be a clear admission that said doctrine is erroneous.

“Again if we are not careful enough as to how we read this language, we could, and many have already, use these words to show that no matter what we do in life, if we have been selected to be clay in the hand of God for a noble purpose or for common use, there is nothing we can do to change that!”

The way you try to rephrase the true original meaning of what Paul said clearly demonstrates that you reject Paul’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty. If you believed what Paul did really say in said chapter, you would not need to sanitize what he wrote. He clearly stated that the Lord made Pharaoh obstinate and hardened his heart in order to show his power on him the way a potter makes some pots for common use instead of a noble purpose.

“But this is far from the truth. This is not the teaching of the Bible because all have been given free will to choose. The Bible says, "Choose you this day whom you will serve."”

Listen carefully what you are in fact saying: You are stating that what Paul said is “far from the truth.” In other words, you are admitting that Paul was teaching an erroneous doctrine. This is confirmed by the fact that we Adventist are Armenian.

We do not teach what Paul taught in said chapter of Romans. The fact that you resort to another passage of the Bible in order to neutralize Paul’s teaching is a tacit admission that you believe that Paul was wrong! Why is it so hard to admit what is crystal clear?

“In other words, depending on choices that we make on a daily basis we are choosing either to be molded by the Holy Spirit or by the enemy of all truth.”

Yes, we fully agree, but this is miles apart from what we find in Romans 9. In other words: Paul was wrong, and we are right because Paul’s teaching in said chapter does not harmonize with God’s character as depicted in the rest of the Bible.

This is why I have been insisting that it is undeniable that there are doctrinal errors in the Bible, but we need not accept those errors because we find plenty of evidence that God is loving, fair, and just.