The Trinity?

[Gerr]

Your fallacy and that of the other Arians here is thinking and insisting that the oneness of the Father, Son, and HS, is a mathematical one. I have been trying to point out that it is no more a mathematical 1 than when a man and a woman become "one flesh" in marriage, or that many believers can "become one" as the Father and the Son are "one".

[o2bwise]

Quote:

Do you see anything there or anywhere where Scripture says, "Mary begat Jesus?"

It is patriarchal. In our existence, the production of an offspring requires the participation of two, unlike God.

Romans 1:3 says that Christ was made of the seed [spermatos] of David according to the flesh. Hebrews 2 refers to the same thing. And so the miracle of the conception of Christ must include the joining of a male seed to the egg of a virgin woman.

You were quiet about what I see as a crucial point which is the link between BEGOTTEN and the NATURE acquired as a consequence.

I quoted Waggoner in 1888 with respect to this point in a previous post. Christ acquired divinity through being the begotten Son of God.

o2

[o2bwise]

I am not an Arian.

I do not see how the oneness is not mathematical when it says "one God."

Gerry, if you would, explain how one God may be composed of more than one conscious existence.

That is where the mathematics of "one" lies and this is why Andrews, as an example, wrote that the trinity destroys the personality of the Father and the Son.

He is pointing to this very theme - conscious existences.

[Gerr]

The Scriptures point to 3 persons in no ambiguous manner, who are called Father, Son, and HS. The Bible calls each one - God, and yet they are one. So this cannot be a mathematical 1+1+1 = 1. One in purpose, substance, essence, and character. So much alike that they are considered one!

And, on the contrary, it is the non-trinitarian view of the Godhead that destroys the personality of the Father, Son, and HS!

[Gerr]

If Jesus was of the physical seed of David or the egg of Mary, He would have needed a Savior Himself!

Was "Adam the son of God" the product of a physical sperm?

Jesus "acquired" divinity? That's as unscriptural as you can get!

[Ted Oplinger]

I quoted Waggoner in 1888 with respect to this point in a previous post. Christ acquired divinity through being a begotten Son.

o2

If a created being could acquire Divinity through any action of God, then there is no need for the Great Controversy nor a Cross.

There would have been a better way than the cup which was pressed to Christ's lips at Gethsemane. All the Father would have had to do was promote Lucifer to Deity status, in the same manner as Christ was in your theology.

In this manner, you echo the very accusations by Satan against God of unfairness, injustice, and favoritism.

What is worse - the Son is crucified first, THEN the solution is proposed to the Great Controversy.

It is the very similar to the arguments against free will I find in certain sections of Christendom - they have to crucify Christ first before doing it, when it should have taken place in the very beginning to short-circuit the whole sin issue from even arising.

The Arian argument just doesn't add up.

o2 - I also have a compilation of Wagonner's and Jones' works. Just because they were right on the intellectual point of the 3rd Angel's message and righteousness by faith, does not mean they are authoritative on the Trinity.

From what I have studied and read, I find it was the Arian thought which both short-circuited the 1888 message and led the opposition against it.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

I am not an Arian.

I do not see how the oneness is not mathematical when it says "one God."

Gerry, if you would, explain how one God may be composed of more than one conscious existence.

That is where the mathematics of "one" lies and this is why Andrews, as an example, wrote that the trinity destroys the personality of the Father and the Son.

He is pointing to this very theme - conscious existences.

If you are not Arian, you certainly do sound like it....particularly with your usage of the word, "begotten". You are not the first in this thread to deny being an Arian, then take up and discuss this issue from the Arian perspective (and conclusion).

As I stated very early in this thread - it is very difficult to hold to a non-Trinitarian position and not fall in to a host of traps. All of Christendom's non-Trinitarian models save one came in after the Trinity was settled into the church. Each one was ultimately rejected as unBiblical long before the Pope was declared ruler of Christendom by a Roman emperor.

The only model co-existing in the time of the early church was the Unitarian model of Judaism - and the religious leaders led the people to reject Christ because of it, as the Unitarian model is itself a rejection of what the Scriptures declared in their own Hebrew of what Deuteronomy 6:4, and the text within several Messianic prophecies, really says.

All of these proposed theologies were human attempts to adhere to a monotheistic theology while wrestling with Christ's own testimony of being Deity manifest in flesh apart from the Father. They fail, as they distinctly deny in their conclusions the deity of Christ in His own right.

The apostles restored the meaning, and found YHWH Elohim YHWH one is indeed plural but one, as they experienced a Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom together form YHWH Elohim YHWH one.

It is this experience John writes about as he opened his first epistle with that led the apostles to this conclusion - what they saw with their eyes, touched with their hands - and I might add heard with their ears - concerning the Word in 1 John 1:1-4. In using the word "Word" to describe Jesus, John is clearly referencing his own introduction to his Gospel account.

The only non-Trinitarian model that does work with a coherent treatment of the Scriptures is the Binitarian model with Father and Son together as one Deity, as it preserves the grammar and context of both Old and New Testaments regarding these two. That particular thought is extremely rare, though, as the issue which is contested is not the Holy Spirit, but the nature of Christ - whom Satan is jealous of and holds deep enmity for.

Hence, it is no surprise that after the apostles left the scene, Satan began proposing all kinds of unstable theologies about Christ within the ranks of the third, fourth, and fifth generations of believers. Not even 100 years after the apostle John passed from the scene, the Church had already declared the theologies of modalistic and dynamic monarchianism, as well as those of Docet, and Marcion, unBiblical.

It was the Monarchianist model which paved the way for Arian theology - both of these have theological constructs much closer to the pagan Mithraism than to the testimony of Christ.

Do all of us a favor - as you're the next "Johnny-come-lately" non-Trinitarian to join ClubAdventist, then begin the expound your thoughts here in this thread, go back to the beginning of this thread and read the discussion to this point. Take copious amounts of notes. Most of your talking points and raised questions have already been addressed.

As for a mathematical construct - there is more than one valid mathematical perspective to view the issue. The additive construct is neither the best fit to the Scriptural observations/context, nor is it even accurate in its rationale when placed in the same usage context as other groupings denoted as "one" by God.

Blessings,

[skyblue888]

The Scriptures point to 3 persons in no ambiguous manner, who are called Father, Son, and HS. The Bible calls each one - God, and yet they are one. So this cannot be a mathematical 1+1+1 = 1. One in purpose, substance, essence, and character. So much alike that they are considered one!

And, on the contrary, it is the non-trinitarian view of the Godhead that destroys the personality of the Father, Son, and HS!

Very true.

sky

[o2bwise]

Quote:

If a created being could acquire Divinity through any action of God, then there is no need for the Great Controversy nor a Cross.

What is your point? Who is talking about created beings?

Quote:

If you are not Arian, you certainly do sound like it

Why is it you think I "certainly do sound like it?"

Tony

[o2bwise]

Quote:

God: 1*1*1 = 1

What is your intended meaning for the multilplication operator? What does it mean to "multiply" the Father and the Son?

It has absolutely no meaning with respect to his discussion except that 1x1 = 1.

[Lysimachus]

Brother Ted Oplinger,

I am sorry to have to report that I cannot side with you in your Trinitarian views. But I am neither Arian either.

My family and I have been studying the Godhead now for many, many years, and it would take a long time to sort this whole thing out. But I can assure you based on the y ears and years of exhaustive history that Trinitarianism is just as heretical as Arianism, for which the Bible authors were neither. Trinitarianism just as much comes from the pits of hell as does Arianism or Unitarianism. All of them are Pagan of the highest order. None of them are correct, and very few Adventists have the balanced understanding like our Pioneers did.

It saddens me when both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians harden in their positions, and are not open to coming to a balanced understanding on this matter.

Keep in mind that the heart of Arianism teaches that Jesus was a created being, and not fully God like the Father. So far, from all my research, while none of the Pioneers were Trinitarian, none of them believed that Jesus was not fully God either, nor did they believe that Jesus was created. Born? Well, that would open up a whole new can of worms as to the meaning of born, or begotten. Yes, some pioneers did seem to reflect that Jesus had a beginning, while in other places they seem to reflect that He goes back from eternity.

On the question of equality, we have no question, as the SOP is clear: Jesus was made equal with Himself (the Father). Jesus is most certainly equal with His Father, fully God, and fully Divine.

The real debate is not in "WHETHER" there are three persons. The real debate relies in "HOW" they are three, and "WHO" are these three. That is the heart of the controversy, although Trinitarians like to imagine in their mind that somehow those who disagree with the Trinity are lessoning the Son, and not equal with His Father.

This subject is so vast, and yet so controversial, I have a natural tendency to steer clear away from it, for fear of losing Adventist friends on either side of the spectrum. I realize this is not a right approach, and we must study to show ourselves approved. Something I will continue to do with an open-mind and open heart. I've never been impressed with the arguments employed by the Godheadites (who take an extreme position, making Jesus less than God, and the Holy Spirit has some impersonal power like telepathy), neither can I say I have been impressed with the Trinitarian arguments, that often-times gives the impression of three co-equal, co-eternal God-Beings each in their own right, as though it were a three-headed monster, or Triplets--a very strange way to depict God.

Trinitarians have the tendency to line up all their "pro-Trinitarian statements", and cling to those while ignoring all the other "anti-Trinitarian statements", and anti-Trinitarians have the tendency to line up all their "anti-Trinitarian statements", and cling to those while ignoring all the "pro-Trinitarian" ones. Each side tends to "pick-and-choose" similar to how Gracers do against Law-keepers, and Law-keepers do against Gracers. They both have their Bible passages to "back up" what they believe on the matter, while neither seem very willing to search for a "balanced" perspective on the matter and by praying to God for help so that we might "harmonize" all the seemingly contradictory verses or statements, and take them all in their totality, from beginning to end.

We must strive for balance with everything we have.

I will also add it is completely wrong to disfellowship Church members who do not feel convicted about the Trinity.

It was never made a test of fellowship in the Pioneer days, and it should never be made a test of fellowship now. I know several Adventists who were disfellowshiped simply because they did not go along with the Trinity. This is flat-out wrong.

I even know a number of Trinitarians who categorically believe this is wrong as well.

For me, Trintiariansim, in many ways, truly robs the sacrifice of the Father giving up His only begotten Son, is when the more staunch or ultra-Trinitarians somehow try to convince us that Jesus truly isn't the Son of God, that it is just a "role play" for the sake of salvation. This mutilates the love between the Father and the Son. This truly robs the sacrifice as being significant, in that the Father did not truly give up His own flesh and blood. Ellen White says He gave a "part of Himself".

Then Trinitarians assume that because you believe that Jesus truly is the Son of God, and not just pretending to be the Son (as in a role play), that this must mean you believe Jesus had a beginning.

THIS is where the "mystery" lies. This is where finite human beings must exercise faith---faith that, although Jesus TRULY is the Son of God, just like the Bible says, and Ellen White says (and there is no indication whatsoever that a role-play is involved), He is also from Eternity. Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians (aka, Godheadites) have this insatiable tendency to be "either or" in their approach. In other words, if He truly is the Son, then He "MUST" have had a beginning. And Trinitarians think, "well, if He didn't have a beginning, then He CAN'T really be the Son!".

This is a major problem on either side, neither willing to accept that both can be possible.

We cannot disqualify any statements from Ellen White. The "apparent" contradictions are reconcilable, no different than the numerous "apparent" contradictions that exist in scripture, for which those who read them without the Spirit, end up either ignoring or rejecting portions of it. Now there are hundreds of people who reject a large portion of the New Testament, and believe that numerous parts of the Synoptic Gospels were "tampered with". It started out with them finding one skepticism, and that lead to another, and another.

We must pray for discernment, and find perfect balance in all her statements, just like we do with the Bible.

Concerning our Pioneers, I will not hesitate in venturing to say, and must admit, that the Pioneers, in regards to all their statements on the Godhead, I do think, had the most balanced approach in their understanding of it. Although not perfect. [had it not been for lack of insubordination, we could have come to a closer and deeper understanding of knowing God, however!]

(I just want to make clear, I cannot subscribe to the notion that any of Ellen White's statements have been edited. I believe Ellen White truly did say "three holiest beings", and I also believe, as confirmed by Ellen White, in baptizing people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, as per Matthew 28:19, and scores and scores of direct expressions from this verse from Ellen White. But I will also say that these expressions do not "prove" or "disprove" the Trinity).

Unfortunately, as a body, we are further from the "perfect" than the pioneers were. And worse yet, churches have made it a test of discipleship, castigating its members for not subscribing to every point of the "Creed" of the 28 fundamentals. No longer have the 28 fundamentals become an expression of what our study of the Scriptures has lead us. No longer is it a "guideline", but for many Churches, it has become a Creed on the level of Romanism.

The pioneers rightly and accurately recognized three persons of the heavenly trio, as shown above, but never did they espouse the "three co-equal, co-eternal God-beings, and all these three in one" view. The "core" of the doctrine of the Trinity truly does depict Jesus as taking on a "role" of the Son, though not truly the Son. And the Father as taking on a "role" as the Father, but not truly the Father. In like-manner, I do not believe any of the statements above reveal our pioneers to be Arian OR Semi-Arian. Arianism teaches that the Son is somehow less Divine, and not equal with the Father, and also created. Now while it is true that our pioneers did seem to believe that farther back that human minds can comprehend, the Son was "brought forth" from the Father, as in a sense of beginning, this cannot be attributed to Arianism either, as Arianism teaches that Jesus was created, but not born, or begotten, or brought forth. And we cannot just "ignore" the grounds the pioneers utilized either, because they did allude to Proverbs 8:22-30, and we know that Ellen White did attribute Proverbs 8:22-30 as referring to the Son of God. While it is referring to "wisdom", we are told that Jesus is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24 30). She says, "And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30. {PP 34.1}"

So Trinitiarians shoot themselves in the foot when they start arguing that the word "wisdom" is feminine in Proverbs 8, and that therefore, this cannot be referring to the Son of God. It most clearly is, and cannot be swept under the proverbial rug by a Trinitarian. Our pioneers were not that dumb. The word itself being feminine means absolutely nothing.

One thing that has troubled me about Trinitarianism as well is that logically, one must confess that to fully embrace the originating essence of this doctrine, you would have to belittle the power of the Father and the Son. How so? Well, it is said that the Holy Spirit, as a "separate God in his own right", has the ability of being everywhere present (omnipresent). In essence, we are confessing that the Holy Spirit has some special capability that the Father and the Son do not possess. That they are stuck in heaven, but must rely on the Holy Spirit to be everywhere for them.

Ellen White does help us resolve this dilemma:

"Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself [Christ] DIVESTED OF THE PERSONALITY OF HUMANITY AND INDEPENDENT THERE OF. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall (although unseen by you), teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" [John 14:26]. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will come not unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" [John 16:7]." (14MR 23.3, brackets mine, parentheses by EGW)

Thus we see that this Third person of the Godhead is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Yes, it is a power that proceeds forth from the Father and the Son, and is exactly how they are everywhere present. This IS how they are omnipresent. But, it would be wrong to not identify the Holy Spirit as "person", or "being" either. Why? Because it would be impersonal. When the Holy Spirit comes into your heart, it is Jesus coming into your heart. It is His personal presence. God is so powerful, that this third person of the Godhead, the very spirit of the Father and the Son, acts independently, and works on the hearts of men to save them. God is that powerful.

If it were NOT alluded to as a separate person, or being, it would KILL that personal relationship we are to recognize when the Holy Spirit comes into our hearts. And if it were described as ONLY being a power, it would leave some to think that God is not really with them personally, but just some separate power is with them. Yet it works independently. He is the Mind of God, the Life of God, the Soul of His life. It is the THIRD person of the Godhead, that works upon the hearts of men to convict them of sin.

May we pray earnestly to come to a more accurate, and balanced conclusion on the Godhead! Oh how so many are so imbalanced, swinging the pendulum one way, and then in another way!

It is extremely difficult to find Adventists who are willing to strive to come to a balanced view on this matter. So far, I have not been impressed with the arguments Trinitiarians use, nor have I been impressed with the arguments anti-Trinitarians use. Both tend to pick and choose statements and verses to their liking, while ignoring the other. They leave out the "problem passages", so to speak, that go against their pendulum mentality.

Going on, the Bible does clearly say,

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also]." (2 John 2:22, 23)

Clearly, the passage does reinforce the Sacred Doctrine that the Father is truly the Father of the Son, and that the Son is truly the Son of the Father.

One of the last deceptions of the last days is to deny there is truly a Father and Son relationship.

"God IS the Father of Christ; Christ IS the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. {CCh 76.5}"

You realize Ted, that TRUE Trinitarians do not believe this, right? They believe it is a role play, and we have scores of official Vatican statements to prove it.

"God's love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lays hold of divinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, a divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. AND WHAT MATERIAL DID HE USE? A PART OF HIMSELF. The brightness of the Father's glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf. . . . The windows of heaven were opened and the showers of heavenly grace in healing streams came to our benighted world. . . ." {OHC 12.2}

It is with deep regret, that the most orthodox teachings of the Trinity, teach that Jesus is truly not "the Son", and that the Father is truly not "the Father", but a role play.

To deny this relationship is to "deny the Son" and "deny the Father". According to John, this is Antichrist.

In addition, it is also with deep regret that I say that it is a myth that if one does not subscribe to the orthodox teachings of the Trinity, that this somehow belittles Christ, making Him lesser than the Father, and not equal. Those who have a deeper, and more comprehensive grasp of the Godhead shun this heresy like the plague, just as much as so as Trinitarians.

It is without question that Jesus is equal with the Father. But Who gave Him that equality? Why, it was His Father.

When the Bible or SOP says that Jesus is the Son of God, I don't take that symbolically. When it says that the Father is the Father of Christ, I don't take that symbolically. I will not go into the realms of what God has not revealed.

Ellen White herself says,

"The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." (GC 598)

Do we believe that?

Or are we going to take all the hundreds and hundreds of passages both from the Bible and SOP where it says that the Father is the Father of Christ, and Christ is the Son of God, and throw them out, and just conclude in our mind that because we cannot comprehend how that works, that it must be "symbolic" or a role play?

(Continued...)

[Lysimachus]

Ted Oplinger,

(Continued...)

One of the main contentions I find with the "three in one" notion is that (other than 1 John 5:7--as even Trinitarians admit that its existence is highly questionable), is that every time the expression "one God" is used in the Bible, it is never used in context of "three in one". In fact, not even 1 John 5:7 uses the expression "one God" to describe the "three in one".

"For though there be that are called gods [PLURAL], whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER [it is only referring to the Father here], of whom are all things, and we in him; AND ONE Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor 8:5, 6)

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER of all, who IS ABOVE ALL, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6)

"For there is ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."[ (1 Tim 1:5)

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the ONLY TRUE GOD, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3)

As we will notice, the notion of the "one God" with the Bible writers as being in any way remotely connected with there being "three in one" was a foreign concept to them.

Every single time the expression "one God" or "only true God" is used, it is ALWAYS in reference to the Father, not to a plurality of three.

While it is true that Jesus is truly God, and fully Divine, like His Father, we must know that Biblically speaking, the expressions "one God" or "only true God" belong exclusively to the Father according to the Bible.

Concerning the Father, Ellen White constantly alludes to Him as the "SUPREME Ruler of the Universe".

There is definitely a hierarchy according to the Scriptures:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3)

But isn't Jesus equal with God? How can this be true then? Is Paul contradicting himself? How can Paul describe a hierarchy here, yet John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6 state that Jesus is equal with God?

The Bible and Ellen White answer that question:

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:26, 27)

"God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." {CCh 76.5}

Ellen White describes elsewhere that these counsels were opened to His Son before Bethlehem.

Thus we see that yes, while there is a hierarchy, Christ is also equal with the Father.

But how do we reconcile Paul with Paul?

Very simple. The Father exalted His Son, and GAVE Him this equality.

Think of a co-regency, where a King elevates His Son (Prince) as a co-regent. Both are 100% equal in authority--but all that authority came from the Father.

The entire earthly monarchy with earthly kings was a "carbon-copy" of the heavenly.

[Lysimachus]

And yes, I will say, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 does come from the Roman dunghill of decretals.

The "one God" terminology in the Bible ALWAYS belongs to the Father. In every case, as perspicaciously demonstrated above.

This theology teaches a triple-headed monster, which teaches "three Gods fused together into one". This is tritheism, or let's just say, polytheism.

There is a VAST difference between "three persons of the heavenly trio", or "three holiest beings" vs. the orthodox teachings of the Trinity. Vast difference.

Also, the very fact that men like A. T. Jones spoke out against the "Arian heresy" over and over and over again, proves these pioneers were antagonistic to Arianism. They also spoke out against the Trinity. So, they were neither.

And ALL of them believed that Jesus was TRULY the Son OF God. Not just a "role play", yet still equal with the Father, fully Divine.

People just don't want to make up their minds that these understandings are reconcilable, but they rely too much on human wisdom to figure it all out. They should just accept it by faith.

[skyblue888]

Hierarchy in the triune God? Are you saying that Christ is a lesser God than the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a lesser God than Christ?

sky

[Enabled]

Quote:

With regards to my statement about PP - you distinctly misunderstood me. In those scenes where she depicts the rebellion in heaven, and the need for the plan of salvation for man, Christ is portrayed as a unique member of Deity, not a mere blob extension of the Father. One cannot come away with the idea EGW was Arian, based upon her writings, for she wrote of Christ in a decidedly non-Arian way - regardless of what her husband's views were.

I see you keep responding to my comments as though I were Arian, I have never to my knowledge made a statement that is Arian (denying) the divinity of Christ. I see the statements of E.G. White in PP establishing the divinity of Christ, for she says:

Quote:

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

The bolded words clearly state the context is prior to the creation of our world and yet He (in blue) is the Fathers son before the incarnation. Definitely not Trinitarian (3) nor Arian (created) nor a Blob for he is clearly said to be sharing the Fathers throne. By no means diminishing Christ for she gives the very reason for the gathering of the host as to establish (in green) the position of the Son of God and his relation to all that was at that point created, was to be created. Note also the underlined portion clearly states "None but Christ" could enter into divine counsel with the Father. Not Lucifer nor any other being.

Hope this clarifies for I certainly didn't wish to portray the blessed Son as a blob, but ever as the Son by inheritance of all that His Father is, yet living to delight in his service always : yes that is what I want to be, just like him.

Please note Ted the other option from Trinity and Arianism as defined is that Christ is his Fathers Son in verity.

Regards Verne

[Lysimachus]

Hierarchy in the triune God? Are you saying that Christ is a lesser God than the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a lesser God than Christ?

sky

Sky, you know I really admire your posts.

However, it would be good to go over my posts one more time, because if you do, I think you will realize that I in no way was saying that Christ is a lesser God than the Father.

Either we take 1 Cor 11:3, and sweep it under the proverbial rug as though it does not exist, or we listen to the SOP counsels, and let the Bible speak for itself, and take it just for what it says, unless a symbol is employed.

The Father is clearly the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. But does this make Christ a lesser God than the Father? Not in the least. As I showed, the Bible and the SOP makes it very clear that Christ was made equal with the Father. It is possible both for the Father and Son to be equal, yet there still be a hierarchy. Many end up picking and choosing, and thinking that if you subscribe to one idea, the other cannot be possible. But these problems are reconciled when we take in the TOTALITY of the Word of God and SOP writings from start to finish.

Remember, we are Adventists. Not evangelicals. What do Evangelicals do? They pick and choose Pauline passages of their preference to try and prove that the Law is not important and that we are saved without the works of the law, but they ignore all the passages that speak of the importance of the law and works. Admittedly, if these passages that Evangelicals produce are read alone, one could very well get the idea that the law and works are no longer important.

This is precisely what Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians do in their arguments. They do not aim to come to a balance, rather, they pick and choose the verses and SOP statements to their liking, not praying to God to help them reconcile them.

The Holy Spirit is not a "lesser God" then Christ, for the Holy Spirit is the very life, the very soul, the very power, the very personal presence of the Father and the Son. It is the third person of the Godhead, and it is how the Father and the Son are "everywhere present".

Who is this third person of the heavenly trio?

"Christ declared that, after His ascension, He would send to His church, as His crowning gift, the Comforter, who was to take His place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit--the soul of His life, the efficacy of His church, the light and life of the world. With His Spirit, Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power to take away sin. {TDG 257.2}

"The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ. Only those who are thus taught of God, those who possess the inward working of the Spirit, and in whose life the Christ-life is manifested, are to stand as representative men, to minister in behalf of the church."--The Desire of Ages, p. 805.

Unfortunately, there are many who will take these above passages, and ignore all the other ones where she talks about there being "three holiest beings" and "three persons". And vice versa. So it is not good to pick and choose. So we have to take them all into account, and not sweep them under the proverbial rug.

[Lysimachus]

Also there are many that argue that the expression "our image" denotes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three individual, separate God-beings. But the SOP clarifies to us who said this:

"And now God said to His Son, "Let us make man in our image."{LHU 47.3}

We see here that the Father is simply turning to His Son and saying this. Nothing more, nothing less. Plurality does not prove, or disprove "Trinity".

[Ted Oplinger]

Brother Ted Oplinger,

I am sorry to have to report that I cannot side with you in your Trinitarian views. But I am neither Arian either.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

With regards to my statement about PP - you distinctly misunderstood me. In those scenes where she depicts the rebellion in heaven, and the need for the plan of salvation for man, Christ is portrayed as a unique member of Deity, not a mere blob extension of the Father. One cannot come away with the idea EGW was Arian, based upon her writings, for she wrote of Christ in a decidedly non-Arian way - regardless of what her husband's views were.

I see you keep responding to my comments as though I were Arian, I have never to my knowledge made a statement that is Arian (denying) the divinity of Christ. I see the statements of E.G. White in PP establishing the divinity of Christ, for she says:

Quote:

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

The bolded words clearly state the context is prior to the creation of our world and yet He (in blue) is the Fathers son before the incarnation. Definitely not Trinitarian (3) nor Arian (created) nor a Blob for he is clearly said to be sharing the Fathers throne. By no means diminishing Christ for she gives the very reason for the gathering of the host as to establish (in green) the position of the Son of God and his relation to all that was at that point created, was to be created. Note also the underlined portion clearly states "None but Christ" could enter into divine counsel with the Father. Not Lucifer nor any other being.

Hope this clarifies for I certainly didn't wish to portray the blessed Son as a blob, but ever as the Son by inheritance of all that His Father is, yet living to delight in his service always : yes that is what I want to be, just like him.

Please note Ted the other option from Trinity and Arianism as defined is that Christ is his Fathers Son in verity.

Regards Verne

My apologies if in answering there appeared the presumption of Arianism. I mean no such thing. It is too simply easy when in the midst of debunking what is clearly not Biblical to think a question appearing from the side could be construed as another approach from the unBiblical position.

With the quote from PP, just because the Holy Spirit is not mentioned (making 3 "persons" present) does not lead to a conclusion of non-Trinitarianism. Please see my post above to Lysimachus, with respect to the questions I pose when approaching the subject.

Need to roll for now, Verne.

Blessings,

[skyblue888]

How are you defining "has been made equal"? In the sense that Christ wasn't equal at one time, but now is? Or is it that the Son's equality with the Father (which always was, in my perspective) has been firmly established by the Father before others...like the unfallen beings and the angelic hosts (who may have had misunderstandings and reasons to question this, as the rebellion started there)?

Ted

__________

My understanding exactly.

sky :)

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Oh, you don't have a problem with 1+1 = 2?

ESV | ýMk 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ý8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Or 1+1+1+1+1 etc. = 1?

ESV Jn 17:21 "...that they may be one even as we are one,"

But have a problem with 1+1+1 = 1?

Find out what a metaphor is.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

As for a mathematical construct - there is more than one valid mathematical perspective to view the issue. The additive construct is neither the best fit to the Scriptural observations/context, nor is it even accurate in its rationale when placed in the same usage context as other groupings denoted as "one" by God.

And the Oscar for special effects in the field of smoke and mirrors goes to...

[epaminondas]

"Before Abraham was -- I AM" John 8.

Jesus is said to exist "from all eternity" past - without end "from everlasting to everlasting" in the same sense as it can be said of YHWH according to the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

"Before Abraham was -- I AM" John 8.

Jesus is said to exist "from all eternity" past - without end "from everlasting to everlasting" in the same sense as it can be said of YHWH according to the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

You have another candidate for godhood. Follow the link. It comes from John 9:9. The Greek words used for the blind man whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath are exactly the same Greek words as found in John 8:58 ascribed to Jesus. Did this blind man claim to be the God or a god?

You have missed the point entirely.

Someone may ask the question "Who here is a Christian?" And I may answer "I am" - it is not a claim to the Godhead - not in English and not in Greek and not in Aramaic.

On the other hand if I say "In English or Hebrew" -- "Before Abraham WAS - I AM" it is a claim to the pre-existence of the Godhead. Hence the Jews' efforts to stone him for it.

The blind man did not say that HE existed BEFORE Abraham. Nor did he use the phrase "I AM" as if it was a title or name.

But what I was pointing out above is that not ONLY do we have Jesus claiming to be the I AM that existed BEFORE "Abraham WAS" - we also have the fact that in Micah 5:2 the One born in Bethlehem is "from everlasting" KJV just as YHWH is "From everlasting" in Ps 93:1-2.

Another eternal God claim not made by the blind man.

Furthermore - God says HE is the Savior (YHWH) and that He knows of no other in Is 43:3,11, Is 45:21-22 Hos 13:4. Jesus is "God our Savior" Titus 2:13, 1:4.

And Jesus is worshiped Hebrews 1 "let ALL the angels of God worship Him" - and "God ALONE" is to be worshiped.

Jesus is the Creator of ALL - for Him and BY Him all things created and IN HIM all things hold together. (Col 1).

And we are to "WORSHIP HIM who MADE the heavens and the earth and the springs of water" Rev 14:7.

The Bible claims for both the Godhead of Christ AND for the pre-existence from all eternity of Christ - as for YHWH (and of course Christ IS the YHWH of the OT).

In John 1 - no one has seen the Father at any time - but in Exodus YHWH is seen by the elders and Moses.

And in Numbers 6 Moses beholds "the form of YHWH" and speaks to Him "face to face".

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

Quote:

Oh, you don't have a problem with 1+1 = 2?

ESV | ýMk 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ý8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Or 1+1+1+1+1 etc. = 1?

ESV Jn 17:21 "...that they may be one even as we are one,"

But have a problem with 1+1+1 = 1?

Find out what a metaphor is.

If 1+1 = 1, and 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc. = 1 are metaphors, then what makes 1+1+1 = 1 literal?