Gus Foster Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 Quote: “How essential that we have the enlightenment of the Spirit of God; for thus only can we see the glory of Christ, and by beholding become changed from character to character in and through faith in Christ. . . . He has grace and pardon for every soul. As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for His wondrous love in giving us Jesus the Comforter.” {SD 124.4} Does this quote supplant the text of John 16 which describes the existance and work of the Holy Spirit as He and Him and The? Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
wicklunds Posted May 25, 2005 Author Posted May 25, 2005 These are very nice quotes on this subject as well, from: http://www.intheheavens.org/Hvpioneer.htm#Trin What Our Pioneer's Believed About The Trinity JAMES WHITE "The way spiritualizers this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed" The Day Star, Jan. 24, 1846. J.H. WAGGONER "The great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be this: They make no distinction between a denial of a Trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a Trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a Trinity." The Atonement, 1872 ed, chapter 4, "Doctrine Of A Trinity Subversive Of The Atonement" p. 165. A.J. DENNIS "What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of a Trinitarian creed: 'In unity of this Godhead are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' There are many things that are mysterious, written in the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities. But creeds often do." Signs of the Times, May 22, 1879. R.F. COTTRELL "My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural the Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would make it no clearer to my friends..." Review and Herald, June 1, 1869. J.N. LOUGHBOROUGH "The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. The principal text supposed to teach it is 1 John 5:7, which is an interpolation. Clarke says, 'Out of one hundred and thirteen manuscripts, the text is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It occurs in no MS. before the tenth century. And the first place the text occurs in Greek, is in the Greek translation of the acts of the Council of Latern, held A.D. 1215.'-Com. on John 1, and remarks at close of chap." Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861. | back | J.B. FRISBIE "We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between the God of the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in the dark through Sunday-keeping. Catholic Catechism Abridged by the Rt. Rev. John Dubois, Bishop of New York. Page 5. 'Q. Where is God? Ans. God is everywhere. Q. Does God see and know all things? A. Yes, he does know and see all things...Q. Are there more Gods than one? A. No; there is but one God. Q. Are there more persons than one in God? A Yes; in God there are three persons. Q. Which are they? A. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Q. Are there not three Gods? A. No; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are all but one and the same God'...These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers...We should rather mistrust that the Sunday God [the Trinity] came from the same source that Sunday-keeping did." Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1854, The Sunday God, p.50. [emphasis supplied]. J.N. LOUGHBOROUGH "Questions for Bro. Loughborough. Bro. White: The following questions I would like to have you give, or send, to Bro. Loughborough for explanation. W. W. Giles, Toledo, Ohio Question 1. What serious objections is there to the doctrine of the Trinity? ANSWER. There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous... Instead of pointing us to scripture for proof of the Trinity, we are pointed to the trident of the Persians...This doctrine of the Trinity was brought into the church about the same time with image worship, and keeping the day of the sun, and is but Persian doctrine remodeled. It occupied about three hundred years from its introduction to bring the doctrine to what it is now. It was commenced about 325 A.D., and was not completed till 681. See Milman's Gibbon's Rome, vol. iv, p. 422. It was adopted in Spain in 589, in England in 596, in Africa in 534.-Gib. vol. iv, pp. 114, 345; Milner, vol. i, p. 519." RH-Nov. 5, 1861. | back | J.H. WAGGONER "The 'Athanasian creed'...was formulated and the faith defined by Athanasius. Previous to that time there was no settled method of expression, if, indeed, there was anywhere any uniformity of belief. Most of the early writers had been pagan philosophers, who to reach the minds of that class, often made strong efforts to prove that there was a blending of the two systems, Christianity and philosophy. There is abundance of material in their writings to sustain this view. Bingham speaks of the vague views held by some in the following significant terms: "'There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, coordinate, and self- originated beings, making them three absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism.'-Antiquities, book 11, chap. 3, &4. "Who can distinguish between this form of expression and that put forth by the council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, wherein the true faith is declared to be that of 'an uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity?' The truth is that we find the same idea which is here described by Bingham running through much of the orthodox literature of the second and third centuries. There is no proper 'relation of Father and Son' to be found in the words of the council, above quoted...Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three coordinate and self-originated and independent beings arose in the church very early; and so we find it in the earliest authors after the days of the apostles." Thoughts on Baptism, 1878. R.F.COTTRELL "That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doctrine which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them": But the doctrine I object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has himself implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creation. But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it. This our friend thinks objectionable... "But to hold the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I would now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought... "Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could 'make justice of injustice,' nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference between the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it." Review and Herald, July 6, 1869. A.T. JONES "Another, and most notable opponent, was Servetus who had opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism." Review and Herald, June 17, 1884. D.W. HULL "The inconsistent positions held by many in regard to the Trinity, as it is termed, has, no doubt, been the prime cause of many other errors. Erroneous views of the divinity of Christ are apt to lead us into error in regard to the nature of the atonement... "The doctrine which we propose to examine, was established by the council of Nice, A.D., 325, and ever since that period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for a disbelief in this doctrine. that the Arians were anathematized in A.D., 513... "As we can trace this doctrine no further back than the origin of the 'Man of Sin,' and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scripture on this subject." Review and Herald, Nov.10, 1859. No controversy in these quotes at least... Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
bevin Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 The topic is the trinity - the idea of a three-in-one God. The whole topic is a huge amount of theological noise based on ill-defined concepts. I pointed out how badly defined these concepts are... You can't even decide if some cases that we can physically examine are one person or two people. If you can't decide whether a human body is one or two people, how do you propose to decide that something we can't see is 1, 2, or 3 people? Let me ask another question. Is a chimera one or two people? For those who don't know, a chimera is a body that started as two distinct conceptions [two eggs, two sperm], and shortly after they began dividing they merged into one body. The result is an person where DNA samples taken from two different parts of the body may not match! /Bevin Quote
Gus Foster Posted May 25, 2005 Posted May 25, 2005 There is one point to affirm the trio of the godhead; Satan has a counterfeit for every truth; the false trinity is the dragon, the beast and the false profit! Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
Moderators Bravus Posted May 25, 2005 Moderators Posted May 25, 2005 But bevin, you're falling into the same trap (or perhaps using it as a rhetorical device without believing it yourself?) that the early Adventist leaders Dennis quotes above fell into: using 'common sense' and arguments from humans to argue about the nature of God. It's true that one human can't contain three persons (the kinds of biological anomalies bevin is talking about are actually not that hard to solve in terms of how the persons themselves - conjoined twins or chimeras - feel and think: actually, cases of Multiple Personality Syndrome are much more complicated to think about in this context), but 'common sense' arguments from humans are simply not applicable to the nature of God. Quote Truth is important
Guest Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Quote: There is one point to affirm the trio of the godhead; Satan has a counterfeit for every truth; the false trinity is the dragon, the beast and the false profit! Yes Jesus IS THE Comforter with a capital “C”!!! ================= “We are glad to see so many here today. But how many present have brought the Comforter with them? Is Jesus shining forth in their life and character, and are their hearts filled with praise and thanksgiving? There is work for everyone to do for Jesus. How many take into account the record of our works kept in the books in heaven? How many feel the responsibility of perishing souls? How many come into close connection with Jesus and sense the need of forming a perfect character after the likeness of Christ? This character is not to be dropped upon you by and by from heaven, but it is to be developed here. {2SAT 93.4} =============== Have people ignored these words of scripture just because you grand daddy put a stained glass window in your church building? "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. l Tim 2:5 "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." l John 2:1 MH 228 advocate, comfortor, same word., same number. Quote
bevin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I tend to take a VERY pragmatic view of question like this. I expect to have a model or theory of how something should work, inputs to the model, and have it produce outputs. Those outputs should be testable against some goal. So, in the case of the various alternative descriptions of God, I am looking for something testable. For instance: what possible measurable effect is there between two models, one of which says "God is three beings, who understand each other perfectly" and the other says "God is one being that has three major pieces that work together very closely"? None! /Bevin Quote
wicklunds Posted May 26, 2005 Author Posted May 26, 2005 Quote: But bevin, you're falling into the same trap (or perhaps using it as a rhetorical device without believing it yourself?) that the early Adventist leaders Dennis quotes above fell into: using 'common sense' and arguments from humans to argue about the nature of God. It's true that one human can't contain three persons (the kinds of biological anomalies bevin is talking about are actually not that hard to solve in terms of how the persons themselves - conjoined twins or chimeras - feel and think: actually, cases of Multiple Personality Syndrome are much more complicated to think about in this context), but 'common sense' arguments from humans are simply not applicable to the nature of God. Which is precisely why we should not be using "coined" words like Holy "Trinity" to describe the Godhead, when there is clear guidance in the other direction. The shema says, The Lord our God, the Lord He is One God. Why make it unscriptural by attaching descriptive terms when it is neither edifying nor warranted? The very fact that this is one area of doctrine where it seems there is common ground, should send up a red flag. We need to make very sure, having committed to this as one of our "fundamental" beliefs, that this is not an attempt to compromise with Babylon on the part of some who came before us. Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
Gus Foster Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Quote: Have people ignored these words of scripture just because your grand daddy put a stained glass window in your church building? "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. l Tim 2:5 "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." l John 2:1 MH 228 advocate, comfortor, same word., same number. Once again Ed, you try to prove your point by being arbitrary, and frankly, downright contankerous. No one is denying that Jesus is the Comforter; in fact, there is Scripture which states He will be our Father, He will send His Spirit. Listen to Isaiah 9:6--For to us a child is born, and to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This is no way means Jesus is the Heavenly Father, for Jesus continually refered to His Father in Heaven, and in fact prayed to Him (John 17 is the one of the most incredible parts of Scripture, in fact, I based my whole Revelation study on it). The Hebrew word here is #3289, 'yaats' meaning to advise, to counsel. The same word is used in Isaiah 40:13--"Who has understood the Spirit of the Lord, or instructed Him as his Counselor?" This is the same Spirit found in Gen 1:2--the Spirit of the Lord is hovering over the waters (of the deep)". The Hebrew word is #7306/7/8/9; ruach, meaning wind, breathe, spirit, blast, Spirit and much more. (by the way, this text is a good one to 'selah' on, since it really is the answer to all debate about the Spirit) The same word is used in John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26 and 16:7. Here the Greek word #3875; parakletos, and several varieties of the word paraklet, which interpreted means, helper, counselor, comforter, advocate which you will find in different Bible interpretations. Truth is, without this insertion, there would be a hard pressed time to prove another person other than the Father and the Son. But with these texts, it is honestly impossible to deny the existance of 'another' Spirit which our Lord is referring to. Anyone reading these texts, especially, in Greek, cannot deny the fact Jesus is talking about another, him, he, his other than himself. John 14:26--"but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things---" John 15:26---but when the Comforter is come, whom I shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father; he shall testify of me; 27--and you shall bear witness---" John 16:7---But I tell you the truth: it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, The Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.(8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin, righteousness, and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world stands condemned." Come now, let us reason together: no one can read this in any language and deny the Holy Spirit, unless they deny Jesus. Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
Gus Foster Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 For those of you that wish to reject the Holy Spirit may I suggest you read the following statements. If you do not have access to the EGW estate web-site, I will be happy to copy any one of these you desire; to copy all of these here and now would be quite lenghty: Ellen G. White Published Writings The search returned 13 items relevant to "the unpardonable sin": Counsels on Health, page 243, paragraph 1 The Desire of Ages, page 324, paragraph 3 S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5, page 1092, paragraph 4 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 18, 1898, paragraph 7 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 30, 1901, paragraph 5 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 30, 1901, paragraph 11 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, May 19, 1903, paragraph 2 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 8, 1907, paragraph 8 The Signs of the Times, March 21, 1878, paragraph 8 The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1887, paragraph 8 The Youth's Instructor, August 8, 1895, paragraph 3 Manuscript Releases Volume Four, page 360, paragraph 1 Ellen G. White Volume 2 The Progressive Years 1862-1876, page 198, paragraph 5 Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
wicklunds Posted May 26, 2005 Author Posted May 26, 2005 Who here has rejected the Holy Spirit Gus?? Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
Gus Foster Posted May 27, 2005 Posted May 27, 2005 Quote: Poster: wicklunds Subject: Re: The Trinity and the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit God??? Who here has rejected the Holy Spirit Gus?? I hope that I have not been misled, but I was under the impression that any one denying the existence of the Holy Spirit and assigning the Spirit to an attribute of the Father or the Son was denying and or rejecting the Holy Spirit. Since many of the contributions to this thread, including the quotes from the fore-fathers denying the 3 person godhead, are rejecting the Holy Spirit, what else could one call it? It is a fact that this was a debate in Adventist history, and it now seems to be resurficing. Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
wicklunds Posted June 15, 2005 Author Posted June 15, 2005 But Gus arent there scriptures that speak of the Spirit as coming from God? right along with ones claiming His separateness? This is not rejecting the Holy Spirit, but acknowledging it in a different way. Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
wicklunds Posted June 15, 2005 Author Posted June 15, 2005 When we reject the Holy Spirit, we do so by not following His counsel, doing our own thing, thereby denying our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We reject Jesus!! When we reject interpretive terms, like trinity, we are rejecting the man-made and "ill-defined". Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
wicklunds Posted June 15, 2005 Author Posted June 15, 2005 When did Jesus pray to the Holy Spirit during His ministry? Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
Gus Foster Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 There are many texts that refer to the 'spirit' as being God's, Jesus' etc . I have reached the conclusion if one chooses not to believe in the Holy spirit as an integal, separate part of the godhead, nothing will move them. I cannot prove to you there is a Holy Spirit outside on Scripture and SOP quotes--my strongest stance if when Jesus calls Him He, and Him, and Another etc, especially in John. Quote Striving for a better relationship with Him! Gus Foster
wicklunds Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 That is the point! Who is trying to disprove there is a Holy Spirit? Certianly not me! Maybe in the sense of describing Him as part of a triple-but-single (trinity) God. The Lord our God, He is but one God; not the Lord our God, He is three Gods. Right? Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
melvin mccarty Posted June 25, 2005 Posted June 25, 2005 Not replying to anyone in particular but on the subject I think. If the impersonal pronoun "the" was never used in speaking of the "Spirit" there would be fewer problems. Now we seem to believe that the Spirit can be everywhere at once and since the angels are referred to as ministering spirits why are they not the spirits of God Why are there seven "spirits of God" in the book of Revelation Why ignore an obvious explanation of how the spirit can be everywhere at once. The use in some places of the personal pronouns could be figurative. mel Quote
Guest Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 "Feeling come and feelings go, but feelings are deceiving, I'll trust alone in the word of God, nothing else is worth believing." M.Luther ================= SOP "The Spirit is the means by which the Father and the Son are one, and it is the means by which we are one with God. christ prayed "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Jn 17:21. Christians are counselled to "study the seventeenth of John, and learn how to pray and how to live the prayer of Christ. HE IS THE COMFORTER. He will abide in their hearts, making their joy full. His words will be to them as the bread of life, and in the strength thus gained they will be enabled to develop characters that will be an honor to God." Reflecting Christ page 200 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.