The Trinity?

[phkrause]

Give you chapter and verse on the established doctrines of the Church Dr. Waite? And what would that accomplish for you? Though one rose from the dead you would not believe as the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes on this issue. They read, study the same verses, the same bible texts and come to a different conclusion than yourself. Shall I abandon them and follow you instead? Do you have more truth than they? In a multitude of counselors there is safety.

I can't help you with more bible texts Dr. Waite, you have already chosen your path.

"There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons".

The verses used to support this doctrine are clear to me, they are a plain thus saith the Lord. They are in perfect harmony with what Ellen White taught on the subject as well.

Interesting that is coming to light that some of those who oppose the triune God on this particular thread include a number of folks who have removed or have been removed from the Church. It's no surprise such take a position that opposes the fundamental beliefs, on this issue and on many other issues.

Again,

[phkrause]

Ellen Whites commentary is an excellent source of insight, I for one, will accept her interpretation of scripture over yours, epaminondas.

As it concerns doctrinal issues Ellen White is ONLY a guide to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and IF your not a former or current member of that Church she has no greater value than any other commentator or source for interpretation or insight.

Seventh-day Adventists have always been known as a "people of the book". ALL our doctrine is soley bible based. You will notice that in direct reference to the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs, the Church uses no quotes from Ellen White to sustain the doctrines. It ONLY offers bible texts, which it and myself, use to clairify the doctrinal position.

Dr. Waite and many other persons disagree with the Churches interpretation of those bible texts, as you yourself seem to as well. In the case of those persons who DO use, rely on or consider Ellen White an authoritative commentator on scripture a discussion of her views is warranted. For those that reject her counsel or feel she is not a worthy source of commentary, for whatever reason, then the bible and the bible only is adequate to sustain the doctrine. How bible verses are interpreted remains an issue for all faiths, the methods employed have been debated among Seventh-day Adventist scholars as well.

Bear in mind this IS after all a Seventh-day Adventist sponsored forum. In that respect I certainly make no apologies for relying on the biblical expertise of this Seventh-day Adventist author of some fifty books, spanning decades. One of her books is considered the best one ever written on the life of Christ by many scholars outside of the Church, even non-Christians, "Desire of Ages". Her literary work stands on it's own, she is a note worthy scholar and respected bible commentator.

It is one thing for a person who is not and has never been a member of the Church to seek knowledge and have a sincere desire to find truth. It is quite another thing for one who used to be a Seventh-day Adventist and now has an "agenda" to attack the Church in some way. I have no interest in a "debate" or "argument" about the Churches fundamental beliefs as it concerns the triune God. My personal position is clear and simple, I belive the Seventh-day Adventist Church is correct in their analysis and interpretation of the scripture to support a triune God belief.

I believe your interpretation is fundamentally flawed and innaccurate, therefore, I reject it on that basis.

The thread is over a 100 pages, I submit the matter has been resolved already. Some believe, others will not, the evidence has been presented, time to get off the merry go round.

Another great post and a most definite

[o2bwise]

The Foundation of Our Faith, pp. 85-88

"Original, unborrowed, underived”

Despite her Trinitarian background in the Methodist Church, Ellen White never used the terms “Trinity” or “Triune God” in her writings. During the first fifty years of Sister White’s ministry, her brethren found nothing in her writings to cause them to alter their anti-Trinitarian theology. A turning point came in 1898 with the publication of The Desire of Ages.

On page 530 the following statement appeared:

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life (The Desire of Ages, p. 530).

The significance of this declaration is noted by Elder M. L. Andreasen, who wrote: “This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination—on the deity of Christ (Without Fear or Favor, p. 76).”

While clearly speaking of the divinity of Christ, what did Ellen White mean by Christ’s life being “original, unborrowed, underived?” Was she now advocating a Trinitarian position? Following the rule that “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given (Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 42; Letter 73, 1903),” we look to an article published one year prior to the publication of The Desire of Ages.

This article appeared in The Signs of the Times and was entitled “Christ the Life-giver.” We find in this article a clarification of Sister White’s understanding of the concept.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him.

“I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18), He said.

In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897). (See also Selected Messages, bk. 1, pp. 296, 297.)

Ellen G. White and the Doctrine of God

The significance of this statement is tremendous! While stating that Christ’s life was “original, unborrowed, underived,” she also stated that “this life is not inherent in man.” So far, there is nothing to send up a red flag. The next two sentences opens up a whole new perspective: “He [man] can possess it [life, original, unborrowed, underived] only through Christ.

He [man] cannot earn it [life, original, unborrowed, underived]; it is given him as a free gift if he [man] will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour.”

According to what Sister White wrote a year before The Desire of Ages was published, man is offered the same quality of life that Christ had. If Christ could bestow this life as a free gift upon man, then he could have received that same life from his Father. It was the original, unborrowed, underived life of the Father that Christ possessed and is able to bestow upon man. This is what Jesus meant when he said; “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26).”

The Original Source

Sister White’s libraries contained well over 1,000 volumes. These volumes were cataloged in two main groups: “One section involved her private library in her ‘sitting room bookcase,’ the other, her office library where her literary assistants worked (A Bibliography of Ellen G. White’s Private and Office Libraries; Compiled by Warren H. Jones, Tim Poirier, and Ron Graybill, p. i).” One of the entries listed as being in her private library is Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, by John Cummings.

On page 5 we find the following statement: “‘In him was life,’— that is, original, unborrowed, underived (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5, 1856).”

It is no coincidence that this statement and the reference in The Desire of Ages are almost word-for-word identical. Research reveals that Sister White used the language of Cummings’ book, for we find her quoting these words, and more, here and in at least two other places. These passages have been published in at least thirteen places.

In a letter dated November 1, 1905, she wrote to the manager of one of our sanitariums: In Him is life that is original,—unborrowed, underived life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life. In Him is the fountain of life. Our life is something that we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to Himself (Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 19, p. 23).

The parallel statement from Cummings reads as follows:

Those references (the primary in bold) are as follows:

ST, April 8, 1897 reprinted in ST, Feb. 13, 1912; 5 BC, p. 1130; 1 SM, pp. 296-300; and Maranatha, p. 302; DA, p. 530 reprinted in Ev. p. 616; 7A BC, p. 438; LHU, p. 17; and FLB, pp. 47, 187; Letter #309, 1905 published in part in Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 19, p. 23; RH, August 6, 1914; and MM,p.7.

“In him was life,” — that is, original, unborrowed, underived. In us there is a streamlet from the Fountain of Life; in him was the Fountain of Life. Our life is something we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to himself (Cummings, op. cit.).

Except for one word, these statements are word-for-word identical. It is not our purpose to discuss the extent of the literary borrowing of Sister White and the problems resulting from it. It has been freely admitted by the brethren that such borrowing was done, and with Cummings’ book being in Sister White’s private bookcase, it is reasonable to believe that Sister White, under inspiration, and not one of her literary assistants, made the decision on its usage.

Two areas of Cummings’ statement should be considered. We’ll examine the context first. Cummings noted: “He [the apostle John] at once begins by asserting the Deity of Christ as God and Lord of all (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5).” While upholding the Deity of Jesus Christ, Cummings makes no statement here concerning the Godhead in relationship to a Trinity or a Triune God. This closely parallels the thoughts of the early Advent pioneers and Sister White who wrote positively of the Deity of Christ but never of the Trinity or Triune God.

Secondly, let us examine the content of Cummings’ statement. Christ is said to be the “Fountain of Life.” We are said to be a “streamlet.” A streamlet is defined as a “small stream (Webster’s Dictionary).” A streamlet does not carry a large quantity of water nor is it the source of the water. However, it does carry the same quality of water that comes from the source!

Ellen White wrote concerning our receiving the life that flows from the Fountain:

In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897).

Here Sister White states that man may have “original, unborrowed, underived” life, but he can receive it only as a gift from Christ. Christ can bestow the same quality of life upon the sinner that he has because he has received it from his Father to give. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26).” Jesus has received it because he is the only begotten Son of God.

Ellen G. White and the Doctrine of God

Sometimes called “literary parallels (A Bibliography of Ellen G. White’s Private and Office Libraries, p. iii).” In the bibliography there is a special appendix of books not found in Sister White’s libraries but listed because “This list includes books not found on any of the other lists, but books which Ellen White is likely to have used because of references to such books in her letters and manuscripts, or because of the evidence of literary parallels (Ibid.).”

The “weight of evidence” clearly reveals that Sister White believed Jesus to be the literal Son of God. The questions arise: What about Sister White’s statements concerning the eternal nature of Christ? If Jesus was eternal, then would it not have been impossible for him to be the begotten Son of God before Bethlehem?

First let us notice a typical statement:

The world was made by Him, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father (The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1899). (See also The Review and Herald, April 5, 1899 and Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 247.)

This statement seems very clear to most people. The following Bible statements also seem very clear:

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever (Revelation 14:11). And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:10).

Adventist Bible students have found that these Scriptures mean what they say; however, they do not teach what most people, who only surface read, think they do. The same is true with some of Sister White’s statements.

Her writings must be kept in line with Bible concepts. When she wrote “eternity,” we have no reason to believe she meant otherwise. But what does the Bible say about “for ever and ever”? Is this not eternal in the usual sense of the word? Yes and no. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to find the Biblical meaning of passages that might otherwise be interpreted using human wisdom instead of divine wisdom. If the different statements that Sister White wrote concerning Jesus Christ, his eternal nature, and his begottenness are true, then they must be reconcilable. We cannot use six or seven statements that seem to teach a Trinitarian doctrine and ignore the scores of references that speak otherwise.

[ClubV12]

I have seen evidence in this thread that there is a serious and troubling gap, a major difference of opinion concerning the character of Christ. That is, to some degree, to be expected.

But heres the most serious aspect of this: That some, as a result of their belief one way or the other have left the Church over this issue. Sister White would be absolutely appalled at such an outcome! She never argued or entered into debate over the issues of the exact nature of Christ or the Holy Spirit. She wrote of those who would pointedly try to extract from here some clairifying statement on this subject to, "go home, find harmony with your brethren". It is not to be made an all consuming issue, certainly not an issue that could be used by some to leave the Church! The horror.

Her counsel has always been when the counsel of the brethren has considered an issue and reached a decision if it conflicts with your opinion, you need to put your opinion aside. I know, thats hard to do, pride gets in the way, but trust the Lord, He IS in control.

Easy to walk away, blow off the brethren, retain your ideas as better than theirs. Hard to find the courage to keep quiet, submit your will to theirs, trust that the Lord is in control.

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

Now you deal with this:ACV: I Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ,

Could you explain what you see in that verse that is a "problem" for Trinitarians?

How do Trinitarians see this verse? How do you see it?

You should not need me to tell you that whenever a mediator is involved there are necessarily three different parties. If Jesus were God he would mediate between "men" and himself on the one side and himself on the other side. Like the trinitarian dogma, this is ridiculous.

There is not one argument used against the trinity as ridiculous as trying to bend 1 Timothy 2:5 to be compatible with the trinity.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Ellen Whites commentary is an excellent source of insight, I for one, will accept her interpretation of scripture over yours, epaminondas.

Here are a few more things she said which you can accept:

• Pigs are in some way responsible for the spread of leprosy - known to be false
• Masturbation causes madness - known to be false
• There are many people inside insane asylums because of the reading of novels - known to be false
• Saturn has four moons; confirmed in A Word to the Little Flock as downloaded from the White Estate, near the end of page numbered 22 of the scanned booklet, page 24 of the pdf document (two unnumbered pages earlier on) - known to be false
• She always recommended cream - known to be very high in saturated animal fat
• She always recommended sunlight - it kills bacteria by messing with their cellular DNA, the same way it causes skin cancers - I've personally removed many skin neoplasms caused by sunlight, and I only operated on the head and neck and am just one person

Yes, you're right. Like the pope, Ellen White could not make a mistake.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

IF your not a former or current member of that Church

It's "if you're."

Quote:

Dr. Waite and many other persons disagree with the Churches interpretation of those bible texts

Here it's "church's." I suppose English is not your first language. It's not mine. However, faulty grammar does not inspire confidence in one's intelligence. And how should I take anyone with faulty grammar as someone who knows what he's talking about?

Quote:

The thread is over a 100 pages, I submit the matter has been resolved already. Some believe, others will not, the evidence has been presented, time to get off the merry go round.

I completely understand that - things are not going the trinitarians' way.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Her counsel has always been when the counsel of the brethren has considered an issue and reached a decision if it conflicts with your opinion, you need to put your opinion aside.

Throughout the ages the stupid were always in the majority. All the advancements of society have come from a small minority. Are we now to follow the great unwashed just because they are in the majority?

[ClubV12]

epaminondas, it appears you have some deep Seventh-day Adventist roots, not surprising. "Your" response is typical of those who have left the Church and then fight against it. Be advised "your" fight is not against flesh and blood my friend.

[epaminondas]

Please tell me, ClubV12 and all the other trinitarians, how can anyone say Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God after Jesus said:

Quote:

NETtext: John 17:3. Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

And how can anyone say the Father is not the only true God after Jesus said the Father is the only true God?

A nice, short and to the point answer, please. Or are you going to ignore John 17:3 to death?

And remember, I do understand English. Don't try to get Jesus and the Holy Spirit into the only true God bit by sleight of hand or an avalanche of words.

[epaminondas]

epaminondas, it appears you have some deep Seventh-day Adventist roots, not surprising. "Your" response is typical of those who have left the Church and then fight against it. Be advised "your" fight is not against flesh and blood my friend.

I have not left the church. I just don't go anymore. We don't have a choice of churches locally and the happy clappies have taken over.

[ClubV12]

Well it's always sad when someone quits coming to Church, but Ellen White had an iteresting response to a question like that. At least in some cases she did not advise spending time and energy trying to help them back, we have a work to do and should not be distracted by "sentimentalism". Sometimes when people have chosen they're own way it is best to leave it to the Lord. Perhaps a variation of putting your hand to the plow...

"You have taken the unconsecrated lives of Sabbathkeepers as an excuse for your occupying a position of doubt and unbelief. It has also strengthened your unbelief to see that some of these unconsecrated ones were professing strong faith in the visions, vindicating them when opposed, and defending them with warmth, while, at the same time that they professed so much zeal, they were disregarding the teachings given through vision and were going directly contrary to them. In this respect they were stumbling blocks to Brother U, and were bringing the visions into disrepute by their course of action."

Testimonies, Volume 2 pg 109-110

To some this may appear as cold, but we are in a war, this is serious business. Triage may be required... May the Lord help you find your way home epaminondas. I left out one or two sentences immediately preceeding this quote, you might find them interesting.

[epaminondas]

Well it's always sad when someone quits coming to Church, but Ellen White had an iteresting response to a question like that. At least in some cases she did not advise spending time and energy trying to help them back, we have a work to do and should not be distracted by "sentimentalism". Sometimes when people have chosen they're own way it is best to leave it to the Lord. Perhaps a variation of putting your hand to the plow...

"You have taken the unconsecrated lives of Sabbathkeepers as an excuse for your occupying a position of doubt and unbelief. It has also strengthened your unbelief to see that some of these unconsecrated ones were professing strong faith in the visions, vindicating them when opposed, and defending them with warmth, while, at the same time that they professed so much zeal, they were disregarding the teachings given through vision and were going directly contrary to them. In this respect they were stumbling blocks to Brother U, and were bringing the visions into disrepute by their course of action."

Testimonies, Volume 2 pg 109-110

To some this may appear as cold, but we are in a war, this is serious business. Triage may be required... May the Lord help you find your way home epaminondas. I left out one or two sentences immediately preceeding this quote, you might find them interesting.

My faith is fact based whereas the popular thing nowadays is feelings and sentimentalism. How about responding to the post about John 17:3? John 17:3 destroys the trinity.

[ClubV12]

Well heres the thing epaminondas. This thread is over a 100 pages. The views of several expressed herein has not moved an inch. It is one thing to question the Churches beliefs in a sincere attempt to find truth. It's rather obvious that many posters on this thread are well beyond truth seekers. They have an agenda, they are angry or disgruntled, perhaps they have been badly hurt by they're local Church. My sympathies. They have settled into they're opinion. Some openly fight against the doctrines of the Church they claim membership to. Others have removed they're membership in protest.

Faith in the Spirit of Prophecy is not a requirement for Church membership. On the other hand, "fighting against" the Spirit of Prophecy is cause for consideration for Church discipline.

The local Church board would handle a situation like this because they are in a position to know the relevant facts. Should I then spend considerable time and effort to convince you of the Churches fundamental beliefs? It is my opinion that in your case it would be a wasted effort. What could I say that you haven't already heard and considered? Your a bright guy, you know what the red books have to say and the bible texts as well.

Some will say we need to show more love. I submit Church discipline (censure, revmoval from office, disfellowship), when done correctly IS LOVE! That the one who is in error may be redeemed by seeing the error. I'm not part of your local Church board and do not know all the facts, so I have nothing to offer in that regard.

I do have enough facts to conclude that it would be fruitless to continue a dialog attempting to prove or uphold Church doctrine with you. I will have to leave that in Gods hands. I wish you the very best and do hope you will find your way home.

[epaminondas]

Well heres the thing epaminondas. This thread is over a 100 pages. The views of several expressed herein has not moved an inch. It is one thing to question the Churches beliefs in a sincere attempt to find truth. It's rather obvious that many posters on this thread are well beyond truth seekers. They have an agenda, they are angry or disgruntled, perhaps they have been badly hurt by they're local Church. My sympathies. They have settled into they're opinion. Some openly fight against the doctrines of the Church they claim membership to. Others have removed they're membership in protest.

Faith in the Spirit of Prophecy is not a requirement for Church membership. On the other hand, "fighting against" the Spirit of Prophecy is cause for consideration for Church discipline.

The local Church board would handle a situation like this because they are in a position to know the relevant facts. Should I then spend considerable time and effort to convince you of the Churches fundamental beliefs? It is my opinion that in your case it would be a wasted effort. What could I say that you haven't already heard and considered? Your a bright guy, you know what the red books have to say and the bible texts as well.

Some will say we need to show more love. I submit Church discipline (censure, revmoval from office, disfellowship), when done correctly IS LOVE! That the one who is in error may be redeemed by seeing the error. I'm not part of your local Church board and do not know all the facts, so I have nothing to offer in that regard.

I do have enough facts to conclude that it would be fruitless to continue a dialog attempting to prove or uphold Church doctrine with you. I will have to leave that in Gods hands. I wish you the very best and do hope you will find your way home.

This is mostly trite rhetoric and platitudes. How about responding to the post about John 17:3? That's something definite.

[epaminondas]

Trinitarians disagree with Jesus

While praying to the Father, Jesus said to the Father:

Quote:

NETtext: John 17:3. Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Trinitarians say, no, no, no Jesus, you are wrong. You as well as the Holy Spirit are also God.

Or don't they? Do they agree with Jesus that the Father is the only true God?

Any trinitarians have anything to say on this?

[Ted Oplinger]

My faith is fact based whereas the popular thing nowadays is feelings and sentimentalism. How about responding to the post about John 17:3? John 17:3 destroys the trinity.

John 17:3 was covered much earlier in the thread.

As for your faith...you can claim what ever you wish. Your postings, though, demonstrate that your faith is far from being based on well-balanced reason; you are very much driven by ego and the emotions of the flesh - and very negative ones at that.

I respond not for you, epaminondas, but for those still checking in to this thread. John 17:3, parsed from its context, appears at first to lend support to your case. However, when placed back into its natural context as Christ's prayer progresses into verse 5, your position on Christ is not sustained. This is particularly true as Christ's prayer comes to its climax in verses 20-24.

In that natural context, Christ makes a pre-Incarnation claim of equality with the Father in verse 5, and a contemporary claim of united Deity with the Father in verse 21. For Christ to make these claims apart from being God Himself, is blasphemy.

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

I just want to say that one of the biggest points in the long excerpt I posted on "original, unborrowed, underived" is that White wrote that people could have this very same characteristic.

The logic, then, is obvious. If we can have it and yet must not be a part of the "triune God," it follows that Jesus need not be part of a triune God because He has it.

And so an Ellen White statement used to support a triune God, when a bit more digging is carried out, is absolutely no support whatsoever.

Tony

[o2bwise]

Quote:

you can claim what ever you wish. Your postings, though, demonstrate that your faith is far from being based on well-balanced reason; you are very much driven by ego and the emotions of the flesh - and very negative ones at that.

Sadly, while e and I seem to have very similar views, I agree.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Ellen Whites commentary is an excellent source of insight, I for one, will accept her interpretation of scripture over yours, epaminondas.

Here are a few more things she said which you can accept:

• Pigs are in some way responsible for the spread of leprosy - known to be false
  
  Does she say ALL leprosy is spread by the consumption of pork? Check out Armadillo and leprosy in the SE USA.
  Quote:

  
  
• Masturbation causes madness - known to be false

[Gerr]

Trinitarians disagree with Jesus

While praying to the Father, Jesus said to the Father:

Quote:

NETtext: John 17:3. Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Trinitarians say, no, no, no Jesus, you are wrong. You as well as the Holy Spirit are also God.

Or don't they? Do they agree with Jesus that the Father is the only true God?

Any trinitarians have anything to say on this?

This is your BEST proof text? Here are the words of some very reputable Bible scholars/commentations:

and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent—This is the only place where our Lord gives Himself this compound name, afterwards so current in apostolic preaching and writing. Here the terms are used in their strict signification—”JESUS,” because He “saves His people from their sins”; “CHRIST,” as anointed with the measureless fulness of the Holy Ghost for the exercise of His saving offices (see on Mt 1:16); “WHOM THOU HAST SENT,” in the plenitude of Divine Authority and Power, to save. “The very juxtaposition here of Jesus Christ with the Father is a proof, by implication, of our Lord’s Godhead. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable” [ALFORD].

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Jn 17:3). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Your bedrock proof text actually supports the divinity of Christ! And you totally ignore ESV | ýHeb 1:8 "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom," & Jn 1:1 except to say they either don't mean what they say or that they are "contentious."

Let me ask you again, if Jesus is not God, why does He deserve our worship and even the worship of angels?

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

Let me ask you again, if Jesus is not God, why does He deserve our worship and even the worship of angels?

Jesus, the literal born Son of God is God in the same way I am a man. He is from "the" royal line.

The term "one true God" is a reference to the Father only.

I remember as a child watching Rogers and Hammerstein's Cinderella. Naturally, the people bowed down to the prince. To not do so would be tantamount to NOT recognizing the honor due the King and to do so does recognize worship of the King.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

I would appreciate if our trinitarian brethren would share their view with respect to independence of consciousness.

Does the Son have independence of consciousness?

Does the HS?

If yes, you are NOT trinitarian!

[o2bwise]

http://www.smyrna.org/Books/WDTPB/pioneer_sixth_printing.htm

Letter by J. S. Washburn

The doctrine of the Trinity is a cruel heathen monstrosity, removing Jesus from his true position of Divine Savior and Mediator. It is true we can not measure or define divinity. It is beyond our finite understanding, yet on this subject of the personality of God the Bible is very simple and plain. The Father, the Ancient of Days, is from eternity. Jesus was begotten of the Father. Jesus speaking through the Psalmist says: “The Lord (Jehovah) has said unto me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.”—Psalm 2:7.

Again in Proverbs (where Jesus is spoken of under the title of wisdom, See 1 Cor. 1:24), we read: “The Lord (Jehovah) possessed me in the beginning of his way”.—v. 22

“Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.”—v. 24

The Son says he was brought forth, begotten, born of His Father (Jehovah).…

Satan has taken some heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, and with deliberate intention to cast contempt upon divinity, has woven it into Romanism as our glorious God, an impossible, absurd invention. This monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman Papal Church is seeking to intrude its evil presence into the teachings of the Third Angel’s Message.…

And the fact that Christ is not the mediator in the Roman Church demonstrates that the Trinity destroys the truth that Christ is the one, the only mediator. The so-called Christian Church, the Papacy, that originated the doctrine of the Trinity, does not recognize him as the only mediator but substitutes a multitude of ghosts of dead men and women as mediators. If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer your mediator.…

Seventh-day Adventists claim to take the word of God as supreme authority and to have “come out of Babylon”, to have renounced forever the vain traditions of Rome. If we should go back to the immortality of the soul, purgatory, eternal torment and the Sunday Sabbath, would that be anything less than apostasy? If, however, we leap over all these minor, secondary doctrines and accept and teach the very central root, doctrine of Romanism, the Trinity, and teach that the son of God did not die, even though our words seem to be spiritual, is this anything else or anything less than apostasy, and the very Omega of apostasy?…

However kindly or beautiful or apparently profound his sermons or articles may be, when a man has arrived at the place where he teaches the heathen Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and denies that the Son of God died for us, is he a true Seventh-day Adventist? Is he even a true preacher of the Gospel? And when many regard him as a great teacher and accept his unscriptural theories, absolutely contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy, it is time that the watchmen should sound a note of warning.… [Portions of a letter written by J. S. Washburn in 1939. This letter was liked by a conference president so much that he distributed it to 32 of his ministers.]

[joeb]

I would appreciate if our trinitarian brethren would share their view with respect to independence of consciousness.

Does the Son have independence of consciousness?

Does the HS?

If yes, you are NOT trinitarian!

What do you mean by "independence of consciousness"?