Recent Book on the Trinity

[8thdaypriest]

The Holy Spirit did not split off from God.  The Holy Spirit IS God - the Father.

 

John 4:23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

 

Jesus prayer to His Father (John 17:1):

John 17:23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one,

 

The Father "in" Christ enables Christ to then be "in them".  His ability to be omnipresent was in this way - restored.

 

GOD exists as omnipresent spirit and also appears as sitting on a throne.  Both are the SAME divine supreme Being known as "God our Father". 

 

If the Son of God was the "express image of the Father" prior to His incarnation, then He also could appear in a bodily form and also be omnipresent as Spirit.  (See Hebrews 1:3). 

An "express image" is a copy of an original. 

[JimTN]

Rachel wrote: >>The Holy Spirit did not split off from God. The Holy Spirit IS God - the Father.<<

When I said "split off" those are only words to indicate that the Holy Spirit came from God the Father -- and again neither you or I can know exactly what that entails!

Somehow Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both extensions of God, and are fully God -- it is a mystery -- we don't even really know what it means when the Bible says that "God is spirit"... we have limited worldly definitions of "spirit," but no one can totally define it nor precisely know what the "spirit" is!

Yes, God's Holy Spirit has the ability to "get into us" -- it's where He does His work, inside us, monitoring our thoughts and convicting us of sin and refining our characters, because we are mental beings who live first via thoughts, and then by actions -- and since the Holy Spirit IS of God, again I say that we will not get in trouble with God by believing that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Godhead, and I look forward to Him being within all 63 trillion of my body's cells and helping me get to Heaven!

[Gustave]

I am not certain what you said above, and I am uncertain as to your reference in Corinthians

 

I'll use Acts 15 as another example which puts forth the same reasoning...

...Those individuals who came from Judea w/out authority to teach & taught error.

....Were not afforded time in Scripture to articulate their arguments - they were simply excused.

 

One defense that a person could make is: I did not teach that.

 

I would think that Islam & it's particular understanding of Christ is a direct example of what Arius taught...

...Arianism and the Gnostics went "east" did they not?

...The Koran is saturated with Gnostic and Arian understandings of Christ.

 

We have the Goths, Vandals and Lombards who are historically identified as Arian.

[Gregory Matthews]

Modern followers of anyone, generally expand upon the beliefs of their founder and also may revise some or even reject them.

 

The majority of what we know about Arianism comes from the followers of Arius and not from any knowledge of what Arius actually taught.

 

As to the Goths and Vandals, they generally went from paganism to an Arian type of Christianity after the death of Ariuis.

[8thdaypriest]

I'll use Acts 15 as another example which puts forth the same reasoning...

...Those individuals who came from Judea w/out authority to teach & taught error.

....Were not afforded time in Scripture to articulate their arguments - they were simply excused.

 

 

 

I would think that Islam & it's particular understanding of Christ is a direct example of what Arius taught...

...Arianism and the Gnostics went "east" did they not?

...The Koran is saturated with Gnostic and Arian understandings of Christ.

 

We have the Goths, Vandals and Lombards who are historically identified as Arian.

Now you're just trying to get labels to stick.

You're not quoting from Scripture.

[Gustave]

Now you're just trying to get labels to stick.

You're not quoting from Scripture.

 

 

You can read Acts 15 for yourself & confirm those false teachings ( from those without any authority ) were condemned...

...The label sticks perfectly.

 

Verse 24

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave NO such commandment

 

That's about as concise as it gets 8thday....

...The label absolutely fits.

[8thdaypriest]

You can read Acts 15 for yourself & confirm those false teachings ( from those without any authority ) were condemned...

...The label sticks perfectly.

 

Verse 24

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave NO such commandment

 

That's about as concise as it gets 8thday....

...The label absolutely fits.

Now I've no idea what you're talking about.

The Acts 15 argument was about physical circumcision, and allowing the believing Gentiles to join with Jewish believers WITHOUT this.

I do NOT teach that physical circumcision is necessary for salvation.

 

I do believe that Jesus "came forth from the Father".  He was therefore completely and perfectly DIVINE prior to His incarnation, whereupon He took the nature of Abraham, and "emptied Himself" of divine powers.   When He "ascended to the Father" - to sit at the Father's right hand, He was glorified, and His divine powers were returned to Him.  

 

While He lived on the earth - He lived as a man among men.  Any miracles were done through Him, by His Father.  

 

  Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know--" (NKJ)

 

"the Father who dwells in Me does the works" (John 14:10).

 

In order to recover the dominion for mankind, Jesus must live as a man.  He must overcome as a man. 

He WAS indwelt by the Spirit of His Father from the moment of His birth. 

In that sense He had an advantage.

But He was also given a much more severe TEST than any one of us will ever be called upon to pass. 

 

Hope that clarifies my position. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Gustave]

Now I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

I will help you.

 

The Acts 15 argument was about physical circumcision, and allowing the believing Gentiles to join with Jewish believers WITHOUT this.

I do NOT teach that physical circumcision is necessary for salvation.

 

It was an argument involving a "matter of salvation"...

...It was FAR more then just about circumcision.

 

Verse 5                                                                                                                                              (1)                                                         (2)

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, AND to command them to keep the law of Moses.

 

You couldn't properly observe ANY of the Laws of Moses w/out first being circumcised......

....This is Judaism 101 - after you're cut THEN you take a crack at observing all those rules.

....Such as observance of all the feasts like Tabernacles, the Sabbath, etc.

 

 

I do believe that Jesus "came forth from the Father".  He was therefore completely and perfectly DIVINE prior to His incarnation, whereupon He took the nature of Abraham, and "emptied Himself" of divine powers.   When He "ascended to the Father" - to sit at the Father's right hand, He was glorified, and His divine powers were returned to Him.

 

So, God the Father withered the tree, according to your theology?

...Christ had no real power, He was just a regular human who had an extra special connection to God the Father?

 

 

While He lived on the earth - He lived as a man among men.  Any miracles were done through Him, by His Father.  

 

That's the difference between Orthodox Christianity and Arianism...

...Christ was FULLY man as much as He was FULLY God.

 

  Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know--" (NKJ)

 

You're forgetting,

 

1 Tim 3,16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God WAS manifest in the flesh

 

"the Father who dwells in Me does the works" (John 14:10).

 

John 10,18

I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again

 

This "power" was "eternal" 8thday....

...There was NEVER a time where Jesus wasn't operating under "the commandment of the Father".

...That goes for pre Incarnation through all the eternity of post Incarnation.

 

 

In order to recover the dominion for mankind, Jesus must live as a man.  He must overcome as a man.

 

Did you get this from Ellen White?

 

 

He WAS indwelt by the Spirit of His Father from the moment of His birth. 

In that sense He had an advantage.

But He was also given a much more severe TEST than any one of us will ever be called upon to pass. 

 

God The Son was ALWAYS performing the Will of God The Father - this is an Eternal relationship....

 

Hope that clarifies my position. 

 

It certainly did.

[8thdaypriest]

John 10:18

"I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.  This command I have received from My Father."

 

The word "power" here is authority.

 

Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (NKJ)

 

The authority was given to Christ BY His Father. 

 

I like the NIV.

 

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (NIV)

 

It was NOT "power" in the sense of an innate ability to raise Himself from the dead.

 

Jesus did NOT raise Himself from death.  His Father raised Him.

 

    Acts 3:15 “ ... and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” (Acts 4:10)

Acts 13:30   “But God raised Him from the dead.”

    Acts 17:31 “ ... because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Romans 4:24 “It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,”

Romans 6:4 “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

    Romans 8:11 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.”

    Romans 10:9 “ ... that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,”

    Ephesians 1:17-20 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,”

1Thessalonians 1:10 “ ... and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.”

    1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”     [see also Romans 6:9, Romans 7:4, Colossians 2:12]

 

God our Father has also given to Christ the authority to judge.

John 5:22 "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, (ESV)

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

There are many verses where God the Father is called the "God of" Christ Jesus. 

The definitely place the Father ABOVE Christ the Son.

 

HIS FATHER, AND HIS GOD

John 20:17 “Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them,  I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

    Romans 15:6  “ ... that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

2 Corinthians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies  and God of all comfort,”

2 Corinthians 11:31 “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that     I am not lying.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,”

 

Ephesians 1:17 “ ... that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,”

Colossians 1:3 “We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,”

Hebrews 1:9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness [the Holy Spirit] more than Your companions.”

1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant  mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”

 Revelation 1:6  “ ... and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

    Revelation 3:12 “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.”

 

God the Father of all, was the Father OF Jesus Christ, and was also "the God" of Jesus Christ.

This - for me - shows hierarchy. 

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint
 

[8thdaypriest]

God gave His only begotten Son.

 

Why call Him the Son if He was NOT actually the Son. 

 

SDA Trinitarians who believe that God is three co-equal, co-eternal beings DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was/is actually "the Son" of God. 

 

They believe that He took the role of a Son, and the one we call "the Father" took the role of Father, and the Holy Spirit took the role of comforter. 

 

I actually BELIEVE that Jesus was/is the Son - the literal offspring - of God. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:

 

The doctrine of the Trinity is a complex doctrine that I generally believe that most people, to include myself, do not fully understand.  I have great respect for you even though I have stated that I do not believe you fully understand it.  I am sorry that you consider me to be condescending in saying that.  It is simply how I see you.

 

The following quotation from your post above illustrates what I believe to be a failure to understand:

 

 

SDA Trinitarians who believe that God is three co-equal, co-eternal beings DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was/is actually "the Son" of God. 

 

They believe that He took the role of a Son, and the one we call "the Father" took the role of Father, and the Holy Spirit took the role of comforter.

 

Your first statement is wrong.  SDA Trinitarians do believe that Chrlist was actually the Son of God.   They believe that Christ became Son of God at the incarnation and he at that time was the Son of God.

 

Your second statement as to the role that each took, is just as wrong as was your first.

[Gustave]

The previous 4 posts do an excellent job of documenting the validity of my post on the Nicene Creed & why SDA's abhor it...

[Gregory Matthews]

Comments:

 

1)  In post # 21, Jim Pinkoski mentioned his Amazing Facts book:  "What About the Trinity."  That book was an illustrated book that was produced with the participation of Harry Anderson, the well known artist and about 56 pages in length.  It is currently available from Amazing Facts for $5.45 and from other sellers.  Some have called it a comic book, but that is probably not a fair comment as his book contains much more textual material than does a typical comic book.

 

2)  The Nicene Creed:  What is commonly called The Nicene creed has an interesting history.   It is  commonly thought to have been formulated by the Council of Nicea  in 325.  There is some truth  to this.  However, in the form most commonly used today,   it is more a formulation of a Council in 381.  Actually other revised versions exist today that are used by one.  Therefore, when references are made to it, it would be historically better to reference the actual version.  But, if no reference is given, it is probably a reference to the 381 version.    

[8thdaypriest]

I have high respect for you also Gregory. 

 

Please could you explain more clearly - WHAT Adventists believe concerning the Trinity. 

 

Am I wrong in thinking that they believe our God is 3 co-equal, co-eternal divine Beings?  One of the 3 incarnated, and at THAT POINT became "the Son of God".  He was NOT "the Son of God" BEFORE He incarnated. 

 

Baptists and Catholics believe that God is ONE divine Being, who manifests as three. 

[8thdaypriest]

I studied the disc with all the published writings of Ellen White, for 4 years, searching to find her true understanding of the Godhead.  I found that every statement containing the word "three" or "third person of the Godhead", was written between 1900 and 1910.  Til that time, she always referred to the Holy Spirit as "it".  After that time, she sometimes referred to the Spirit as "He" and sometimes as "it". 

 

The publishers have changed "it" to "He" when they republish the earlier statements.   They reprint and reprint and reprint those statements which include three divine Beings.

 

The Adventist church was 56 years old by 1900. 

 

Here is a quotation regarding the Son.

 

"He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men.  He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried.  In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature.  In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God.  Said the angel to Mary, 'The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:  therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35).  While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense.  Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race." 

Signs of the Times August 2, 1905

Selected Messages Book 1 pg.226

 

To me, this quotation suggests that He was already "the Son of God" BEFORE His incarnation. 

 

In a previous post I said that I believe the Holy Spirit is Christ - now empowered by His Father with omnipresence.

Here is a quote:  [This is actually what I believe.]

 

"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 divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof.  He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent." 

Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen pg 23 pr.3 (1895)

 

Here is another one:

 

"The Great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son.  The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them.  The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence.  His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father.  His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.  Especially was he to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon it.  His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone.  The Father's will would be fulfilled in him."

Signs of the Times, January 9, 1897, pr.2
 

My point here is that BEFORE 1900, only the Father and His Son were presented in the writings of Ellen White, as planning and carrying out the rescue of mankind.   

From 1900 - until 1910, there was a profound change.  Suddenly there were "three beings".

When folks seek to "prove" a Trinity using Ellen White quotations, they use the statements first published between 1900 and 1910. 

 

When folks seek to prove only the Father and the Son, they use the quotations pre 1900.

 

I have received many requests for copies of the book I published back in 1996, "The Persons of God".  I have refused all requests the last several years.  I just want folks to STOP with the dueling quotes.  Get back to the Bible.   

 

That is WHY I no longer seek to prove anything using the writings of EGW.

I want Bible only.

 

Show me - in the Scriptures - that I am to worship a third divine being, and I will do it. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, you made an interesting comment that I will comment upon.  NOTE:  My comment does not attribute anything specific to you:

 

I studied the disc with all the published writings of Ellen White, for 4 years, searching to find her true understanding of the Godhead.

 

1)  Ellen White was a human with all of the same issues that we face.  As a human, her spiritual growth and development took place as does ours.  As such, she was subject to being wrong and/or incomplete in her Theological understanding of God and the Bible, just as are we.  Her understanding of God and the Bible was develomental and occured over her lifetime.

 

2)  The above does not negate that God used her in the development of the SDA Chruch.  But, throughout the history of Christianity, we see God using imperfect humans to accomplish his work.

 

3)  Ellen White's doctrinal understanding may, or it may not, represent the understanding of the SDA denomination of today.

 

4) In the thinking of EGW, there was more for the SDA chruch to learn about God and in Biblicall (doctrinal) understanding.  She did not see the SDA Chruch as being  locked into what its leaders in her time understood.

 

5)   She never wanted to be considered the normative standard for doctrine.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel asked:

 

 

 

Please could you explain more clearly - WHAT Adventists believe concerning the Trinity.

 

As you probably will recognize the following came from the Internet posting of the SDA 28 Fundamental Beleifs.  The statement that I have quoted in the one officially voted statement as to what SDAs generally beleive.  Anything in addition to the statement below is a non-official expansion as to what SDAs beleive and probably will represent a part of SDA members but not the whole.  If you read the book, you will find such an expansion in the 2nd chapter of the book.

 

Trinity Z2
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing,
above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is
forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1
Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, Fernando Canale has written  a chapter on this subject in:  HANDBOOK OF SEVENTHDAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY, VOL. 12 of THE SDA BIBLE COMMENTARY REFERENCE SERIES.  This chapter begins on page 105 and ends on page 159.  It has a lot of helpfull inforation in it.

 

However, as I  have said, what Canale has written is not an official statement of beleif.

[joeb]

Rachel,

 

I see you believe Jesus is/was the Holy Spirit.  How then can the Holy Spirit not speak about Himself as the Bible tells us?  Would that not then preclude the Holy Spirit from telling us anything about Jesus?  It would also preclude, to me, the Biblical authors from having anything to say about Jesus for the Bible was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  To me that text destroys the foundation of your beliefs on this subject.  

[phkrause]

I studied the disc with all the published writings of Ellen White, for 4 years, searching to find her true understanding of the Godhead.  I found that every statement containing the word "three" or "third person of the Godhead", was written between 1900 and 1910.  Til that time, she always referred to the Holy Spirit as "it".  After that time, she sometimes referred to the Spirit as "He" and sometimes as "it". 

 

The publishers have changed "it" to "He" when they republish the earlier statements.   They reprint and reprint and reprint those statements which include three divine Beings.

 

The Adventist church was 56 years old by 1900. 

 

Here is a quotation regarding the Son.

 

"He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men.  He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried.  In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature.  In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God.  Said the angel to Mary, 'The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:  therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35).  While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense.  Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race." 

Signs of the Times August 2, 1905

Selected Messages Book 1 pg.226

 

To me, this quotation suggests that He was already "the Son of God" BEFORE His incarnation. 

 

In a previous post I said that I believe the Holy Spirit is Christ - now empowered by His Father with omnipresence.

Here is a quote:  [This is actually what I believe.]

 

"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 divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof.  He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent." 

Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen pg 23 pr.3 (1895)

 

Here is another one:

 

"The Great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son.  The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them.  The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence.  His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father.  His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.  Especially was he to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon it.  His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone.  The Father's will would be fulfilled in him."

Signs of the Times, January 9, 1897, pr.2

 

My point here is that BEFORE 1900, only the Father and His Son were presented in the writings of Ellen White, as planning and carrying out the rescue of mankind.   

From 1900 - until 1910, there was a profound change.  Suddenly there were "three beings".

When folks seek to "prove" a Trinity using Ellen White quotations, they use the statements first published between 1900 and 1910. 

 

When folks seek to prove only the Father and the Son, they use the quotations pre 1900.

 

I have received many requests for copies of the book I published back in 1996, "The Persons of God".  I have refused all requests the last several years.  I just want folks to STOP with the dueling quotes.  Get back to the Bible.   

 

That is WHY I no longer seek to prove anything using the writings of EGW.

I want Bible only.

 

Show me - in the Scriptures - that I am to worship a third divine being, and I will do it. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

All this shows is that she grew in her knowledge of the Trinity!! As God would reveal new things to her.

[8thdaypriest]

If a Bible prophet wrote conflicting statements concerning something as central as the nature of our God, few people would maintain confidence in the Bible. 

 

Here is the statement from Desire of Ages pg 671 (1898)

 

"The Holy Spirit was the highest of all gifts that He could solicit from His Father for the exaltation of His people.  The Spirit was given as a regenerating agency, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail.  The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing.  Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the God head, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power.  It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer.  It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure.  Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature.  Christ has given his spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress his own character upon the church." 

 

Even within this statement is the suggestion that the Spirit is Christ's Spirit - not actually a third co-eternal divine being.  I think that is the reason why some believe that the glorified Christ (restored to omnipotence and omnipresence) IS the "third person of the Godhead".  So it is not as if there were always three.  The third one came to be, WHEN Christ was glorified.  Some believe that Christ split Himself into two, so that He could incarnate - leaving His Spirit with His divine power in Heaven when He incarnated as a man.  When He ascended and was glorified, His two parts were united into One again.  Personally, I think this view is an attempt to reconcile all of the statements of EGW. 

 

The phrase "third person of the Godhead" first appeared in Mrs White's writings in February 1896, just after Mr. Herbert Camden Lacey, presented this concept at a series of lectures held at Cooranbong, New South Wales, near Mrs White's home.  Mrs. White's secretary and underwriter, Marian Davis attended those lectures and according to Lacey, took "copious notes".  Miss Davis later asked Mr. Lacey for help in compiling "The Desire of Ages".  Lacey was Trinitarian, having been raised in the Church of England, and he had made it his special task to "help" Seventh-day Adventists understand the true nature of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person.  She also asked Prescott, who also believed strongly in God as a Trinity.

 

I have copies of letters from Leroy Froom (president of the GC) to Elder H.C. Lacey, and Lacey's replies concerning the statements on the "third person of the Godhead". 

 

Lacey wrote,

     "When the 'Desire of Ages' came out in 1898, Brother Daniells himself called my attention to the expression found on page 671, where the Spirit is spoken of as 'the third person of the Godhead' (I had not at that time seen a printed copy) and made some kindly comments.  Later, in 'Testimonies for the Church, Series B, No 7' on page 63 (Nov 1905) I found this paragraph: -

      "The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.  THERE ARE THREE LIVING PERSONS IN THE HEAVENLY TRIO; in the name of these three great powers - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized; and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."

    exactly as I had endeavoured to teach 9 years previously." 

 

This quotation is from a letter written to Elder Froom by H.C. Lacey, dated Aug 30, 1945

 

My point here is that Prescott and Lacey and Froom strongly influenced Mrs. White, and the church in their understanding of God as a Trinity.  Mrs. White did NOT come up with anything originally.  She would hear views presented - 1844, state of the dead, Sabbath, Trinity, etc. - and she would then endorse that view or reject it. 

 

So - Those who are sold on the divine inspiration of Ellen White, believe that the LORD told her what to accept and what to reject.  Others, who are not as sold on the inspiration of EGW, prefer to search for truth themselves, in the Scriptures - always with prayer.  For me personally, EGW is not my counselor.  Jesus IS. 

 

I see her as fallible and changeable, and not completely reliable, even though she did write some beautiful things.  I do not read her as a prophet of God.  I read her as I would any other commentary on the Scriptures. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, I intend to write more in response to your post as I raises a number of issues that deserve a response.  But I felt that I should make an immediate response to your comment that Leroy Froom was a President of the General Conference.  You are in error.  For a complete listing of the 20 persons who have been Presidents of the General Conference of SDAs see the following.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_General_Conference_of_Seventh-day_Adventists

 

If I understand your time-line correctly, at the time you stated that Froom was President, James L. McElhaney was actually President.

 

In your error, you have illustrated an important point:  People who state a factual error may still make valid statements which should be considered.

 

Neither you nor EGW was/is free from error.  The fact that an error is found in something that either of you has written does not negate the value of what you may say.

 

Well,  I intend to have more to say on your post.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are limitations on my time.  I have to pick and choose what the posts to which I will respond.  I seldom will respond to garbage.  It, I believe will be self-evident and does not therefore need a response.  I am not likely to make an extended response to issues that are trite.  So what?  They simply do not matter.

 

Rachel is dealing with issues that are of some importance and of interest to some of our members.  Her posts on her issues are well written and worthy of consideration.  It is from this standpoint that I am responding to her and her recent post.  The following are some of the concerns (issues) that I have with what Rachel has posted:

 

Issue # 1:  The role of Ellen White as a prophet:  I acknowledge that the SDA Church considers EGW to be a prophet, whatever that may mean.  The official Fundamental Belief states that her writings are an authoritative source of truth and are good for guidance instruction and correction.  They it goes on to say that the ultimate standard is the Bible by which all must be tested.

 

Rachel comes across to me as thinking that prophet is a source of doctrinal truth about God and must be 100% correct in everything that the prophet says about God.  Rachel comes across to me as believing that God would correct any error in any statement that a true prophet made about God.  So, therefore, if you find a real error in any statement that a prophet made about God, ipso facto that alleged prophet is not a true prophet.

 

I reject all of the above, as it relates to Ellen White.  Ellen White always implored people to go to the Bible.  She never held herself up to be the authority on Biblical issues/doctrines.  I believe that Rachel is well enough acquainted with what EGW said to know that this is true.

 

The primary role of Ellen White in the development of the SDA denomination was not that of telling us what true Biblical doctrine was.  It was the role of guiding us as a developing denomination.  We are indebted to the ministry of EGW in the development of:  a) Our health work.  'b) Our education emphasis.  c) Our publishing work and to a lesser degree to our mission emphasis (others played major roles in this.).  We would not be what we are today, as a denomination, especially in these areas, if it were not for the ministry of Ellen White.

 

One additional factor:  Ellen White played major roles in correcting and reproving leaders in our developing denomination.

 

These are the areas of    Ellen White’s major influence in the development of our denomination.

 

While I do not say that she never spoke on Biblical/doctrinal issues.  This was not her area of major influence.

 

Issue # 2:  The Biblical role of a prophet:  In the popular thought today, a prophet is often thought to:  a) Tell us what is going to happen in the future.  'b) Tell what I am going to call here doctrinal truths, although this may not be the best term to use.

 

There are examples in the Bible of prophets who did the above.  But, there were also other Biblical prophet who fit into another role/category.  Moses is one such example.   (See Deuteronomy 34:10)  He did have some role in teaching about God.  He delivered the 10 Commandments, written by the hand of God on stone.  He did not originate them himself. 

 

But, his major role was that of leading Israel to Palestine and in guiding them as a developing nation.  It was not that of predicting the future.  He guided in Israel’s development as a civil nation with laws and rules to govern the people.  He guided them in their journey to Palestine. 

In a real sense, this is how EGW guided us as a developing denomination.

 

Issue # 3:  Rachel suggests that EGW was strongly influenced in her view of the Trinity by Prescott, Lacey and Froom.   She then goes on to tell us that EGW did not have anything original—Sabbath, State of the Dead, Trinity, etc.  I say thank God for that.  Rachel is simply endorsing the view that I hold that EGW is not the source of SDA doctrine.  In the view of EGW, the Bible is the source of doctrine.  Rachel is probably more correct that she thought.  EGW often was convinced by others, not a supernatural revelation, of a Biblical doctrine and when she was convinced, she accepted it.  If not convinced, she rejected it.

 

So, also, EGW should not be considered today to be the source of our doctrine.  That source should be the Bible.  However, is may be of interest for us to know today what the leaders in our developing church believed, to include EGW and how beliefs changed as time passed and we developed as a denomination.

 

By the way, it should not be a surprise to either Rachel or anyone else reading this post to see me say that EGW as influenced by others.  That fact is well known and documented.

 

Issue # 4:  No human, Biblical prophet or not, has ever had a full understanding of the totality of God and what God wants for us.  For all humans, the spiritual life is a life of growth and development.  A study of God’s people in all ages will show that development and growth.  That can be seen in the life of Ellen White.  In her understanding of the Trinity, she clearly grew, as she did in many other areas of spiritual life and understanding about God.

[8thdaypriest]

Rachel,

 

I see you believe Jesus is/was the Holy Spirit.  How then can the Holy Spirit not speak about Himself as the Bible tells us?  Would that not then preclude the Holy Spirit from telling us anything about Jesus?  It would also preclude, to me, the Biblical authors from having anything to say about Jesus for the Bible was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  To me that text destroys the foundation of your beliefs on this subject.  

To speak "of himself" meant to speak by His own authority.  If the Spirit is the glorified Son of God, then this would fit, because Jesus did not speak by His own authority.

 

John 12:49 “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.”

 

Jesus actually spoke of Himself in third person more than once, usually beginning with the words "When he the son of man"  .  There are many references.  I won't list them all.

 

1 Corinthians 15:24  "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He [the Father] has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He [the Father] who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."  NKJ

 

If God is three co-equal, co-eternal divine Beings, there is no reason for the Son to be subject to the Father.  Where is the Spirit as the third being in this statement by Paul?

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint