Blessed Trinity, an Unblessed Monstrosity???

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

QR frame:

Inasmuch as the writings of EGW have been advanced in this thread as source/authority -- both sides of the issue…

The Holy Spirit is a Person: --EGW

to the students at Avondale College in AD 1899 – “We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.” --44 Evangelism, 616.

“We have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person , is walking through these grounds,…” --MANUSCRIPT RELEASES/7MR - Manuscript Releases Volume Seven [Nos. 419-525] (1990)/MR No. 487 - The Holy Spirit Is a Person ...MR No. 487

“…the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, …” --The Desire of Ages, page 671, paragraph 2

Per the Sonship of Christ: Except for several indistinct passages in the OT... the 'Sonship' of Christ

is epistemologically New Testamental

, is it not?

Why?

---

The third person arguments were added into her writings by editors after her death were they not Jasd? I read that she corrected those to say personality, not person.

Indistinct passages?? How so??

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Dennis,

I am interested in knowing how the doctrine of the Trinity has "hijacked" and "nullified" the Third Angels Message. Please elaborate. Jim

---

One cannot possibly save someone from the fire if the very ground on which they are standing is on fire. I would like to share a quote from J. S. Washburn to illustrate:

"The doctrine of the trinity is a cruel, heathen, monstrosity removing Jesus from His true position of Divine Saviour and Mediator. ...

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 doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman papal Church is seeking to intrude its evil presence into the teachings of the 3rd Angel's Message." (J.S. Washburn--Study Paper, "the Trinity pp. 1-3)

The reality of this trinity being a part of our beliefs is that we had to go to babylon and make a pact so they wouldn't lump us into the "cults" like JW's, Mormons, and the others. The acceptance of the trinity is this pact, made with Barnhouse and Martin the Evangelical college professors. Therefore, we cannot possibly give the clarion call of the third angel because we have, in fact, denied that God lead our people during the first fifty years of our existence. The fact is, that ALL of the pioneers united in defiance against this trinity doctrine. And they did not believe they were "Arians." To say they were makes us Roman ecumenists.

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

John 20: 28 KJV

It seems pretty clear to me that Thomas called the risen Christ, God. such is not the same as saying the Thomas called Christ devine. One could be created, devine and not God. The angels would fit into this catagory, as I understand it.

If Thomas had failed to understand the true nature of Christ, it is likely that Christ would have corrected him. So, let us see how Christ responded:

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29 KJV

Folks, the doctrine of Christ being fully God is taught in the Bible.

Those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, may acknowledge that Christ is divine. But, a divine being may be created, such as angles. Those who deny the Trinity, even if they accept His divinity, deny His deity. Jesus Christ, was fully God. The message of salvation is that our Saviour is fully God. It is not that some created being, one not fully God, saved us.

That is the message of many pagan religions. The Greeks had a whole variety of so-called gods and goddesses, who were created beings, not fullly god, and of lessor quality than the supreme god. Those so-called lessor gods sometimes acted as saviours to humans.

I have lived in countries where in the creation myths of that country, the creator of human kind was itself a created being.

Hinduism has created lessor gods who are less than the supreme one. [Of course Hinduism has a supreme god who incarnates himself into 360,000, 000 different manisfestations. But, I am not dealing with that issue. In Hinduism one has to be quite clear as to what one is actually worshiping.]

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: ""The doctrine of the trinity is a cruel, heathen, monstrosity removing Jesus from His true position of Divine Saviour and Mediator. ..."

Actually the doctrine of the Trinity gives Christ his true place as Saviour, Mediator, and one who is fully God.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The reality of this trinity being a part of our beliefs is that we had to go to babylon and make a pact so they wouldn't lump us into the "cults" like JW's, Mormons, and the others. The acceptance of the trinity is this pact, made with Barnhouse and Martin the Evangelical college professors. Therefore, we cannot possibly give the clarion call of the third angel because we have, in fact, denied that God lead our people during the first fifty years of our existence. The fact is, that ALL of the pioneers united in defiance against this trinity doctrine. And they did not believe they were "Arians." To say they were makes us Roman ecumenists.

---

And so, we have the warning..."Danger, Danger, Trinity doctrine a part of the Papist belief system...Danger, Danger!"

Ok, I hear that.....I got that....

So, again, what is the truth of the matter? What do you call "the Trinity"? What is The Trinity in your view? Please define it. What is the correct teaching in this matter? Is Jesus devine? Is Jesus God? What is the relationship between the Father, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Is there a Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit God? Is it a force/power? Does it even exist?

Come on, Dennis..Let's see some specifics!

[Gregory Matthews]

Dennis has referenced J. S. Washburn. Here is an interesting URL that comments on Washburn.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane11.htm

It appears that Dennis is following the logic of Washburn in many of his arguements.

The URL that I have posted points out that Washburn did not understand the doctrine of that Trinitiy. That is exactly what I have said about Dennis. He is some ways is arging a position that is not a Trinitarian position. It appears that Dennis may have gotten that false position from Washburn. Well, Dennis, if you want to argue against the Trinity, fine. But, from the standpoint of intellectual integrity, you should properly represent it.

Washburn's mistake, and that of Dennis, is to ascribe a position of "Monarchianism," or "Modalaism" to the Trinity. Those positions are firmly rejected by Trinitarians.

Dennis, do the researcy yourself. Don't just depend upon some arguemenet (Washburn) that you have read.

By the way, I did not first get the statements that I have made above from the URL that I have cited. I have recognized your position on the Trinity as reflecting a Modalist position for some time. That is one of the reasons that I have stated several times that you do not understand the Trinity.

[archierieus]

Just a couple more references about Christ. The first one, Ex. 6:4, was quoted earlier on this thread in opposition to the concept of the Trinity. It reads as follows:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (NIV)

KJV reads: " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."

Although resort to Hebrew does not seem to be essential to understand this reference, as a point of interest, let's take a look. "The Lord" is 'Yahweh.' 'Yahweh' is Christ. Yahweh has been described as "the personal God of the Israelites." (NIDOTTE, article, Yahweh: Theology)

Of course, Yahweh, Christ, was and is one. But, the verse says, "The Lord our God is one Lord." Yahweh is one, God is plural ('elohim) Thus, Yahweh is One, and also is One of Elohim. The Lord (singular) our God (plural) is one Lord (singular). Please note the words in the KJV as well as in other versions, "is one Lord." The word, "Lord" is used, Yahweh. So, we can see that this verse does not contradict the concept of a Trinity. If anything, it may support it.

One final OT passage which I should like to address, is Isa. 9:6:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

This is a prophecy of the Messiah, or Christ. The Bible here clearly and unequivocally states that the child, who was named Jesus, "shall be called . . . "the mighty God, the everlasting Father."

The Bible says it, and it seems like that should settle it. Earlier on this thread, a question was raised as to how Christ could be the Father. The problem I see is an attempt to impose a NT construct on the prophet Isaiah. Christ CAME as the Son of man. While here, as the Son of man, He spoke often of His heavenly Father. However, in Isaiah's day, Christ had not yet come as the Son of man. In the OT, Yahweh is described as "father" by His people. So, while Christ in the NT speaks of His Father, in OT times Yahweh, that is Christ, was thought of as Father by Israel. Yahweh is also described as the Almighty in the OT.

Regards, Dave

[Clio]

Dave this has been excellent. I have enjoyed seeing how your mind works, and the scholarship you have evinced here.

I am particularly delighted to see you base it solely on Scripture. It is clear you have immersed yourself in the Word regularly for some time.

There is great light in this thread.

Clio

[archierieus]

Thank-you for your kind words, Clio. I have felt privileged to be able to participate in this discussion. It has been truly exciting to see how the Bible answers and clarifies such important questions. God bless!

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

By the way, I did not first get the statements that I have made above from the URL that I have cited. I have recognized your position on the Trinity as reflecting a Modalist position for some time. That is one of the reasons that I have stated several times that you do not understand the Trinity.

---

You claim I am ignorant of the trinity, yet you make no attempt to right my views. Well, if I am going to be persuaded to believe this monstrosity, then lets start a typing Gregory instead of just claiming that I am a Washburn sellout. The problem with people who claim that their interpretation of trinity is not modalist or monarchionist is that they rely on Evangelicals like Barnhouse and Martin to do the defining of their theology for them. You are crazy if you believe your view of the trinity in any way differs from past errors. This is not true at all.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

John 20: 28 KJV

Those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, may acknowledge that Christ is divine. But, a divine being may be created, such as angles. Those who deny the Trinity, even if they accept His divinity, deny His deity. Jesus Christ, was fully God. The message of salvation is that our Saviour is fully God. It is not that some created being, one not fully God, saved us.

That is the message of many pagan religions. The Greeks had a whole variety of so-called gods and goddesses, who were created beings, not fullly god, and of lessor quality than the supreme god. Those so-called lessor gods sometimes acted as saviours to humans.

---

This is where we depart. You say that those who deny the trinity do not believe in the deity of Jesus, but that is another claim unproven. The scriptures testify of many who worshipped Jesus as God, but Jesus never claimed He was God the Father. Trinitarians are the ones who deny the Father-Son relationship, and that Christ was fully human. This is the spirit of antichrist so clearly testified of in 1 John, how could you not see it?

The message of salvation is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, a propitiation for our sins, and risen to minister unto God on our behalf in the Sanctuary in heaven. Without acknowledging the anti-trinitarian claims of our faith, we could not possibly believe in our other doctrines. This is where you are not really an Adventist, and why eventually, you will find more in common with Rome and Babylon than you do with our historic SDA faith. Does this worry you? It should. Now is the time to change, don't balk at the chance.

Dennis

[archierieus]

Dennis, I have tried to stay out of the fray, but I think you have gone a bit far when you use the word 'crazy.' A very rash statement, it seems to me. I would second what NeilD and others have said: let's see your stuff. Please set forth in a logical, precise, and concise manner, exactly what the Trinity doctrine is, to your understanding. Please provide a link or cite so we can check it out also.

Personally, looking at the various posts, I think there may well be a lot of confusion about just what is the doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory, you would be more qualified to speak on the various versions. What is the doctrine stated in the Apostles' Creed? How does the current RC version, differ from the Nicean creed, if at all? How does the Evangelical version differ from either? How does the SDA version differ from the above? Can we see these various versions, posted on this thread, and have a chance to analyze them side by side?

I seem to recall that you have spoken to this issue earlier in the thread, but everything has gotten so muddled on this thread--can you restate and define this stuff for us?

Dave

[wicklunds]

The post by Gregory in which he attests that Washburn contradicts himself and does not understand the trinity is totally useless to the discussion because it does not fairly represent anti-trinitarians, and it does not adequately prove Gane's assertion of Washburn's ignorance of the trinity.

All in all, total hearsay and doublespeak by trinitarian defenders.

As to this parting shot by the author:

So dies the fading splendour of Seventh-day Adventist anti-Trinitarianism!

My response is, I don't think so...

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Dennis, I have tried to stay out of the fray, but I think you have gone a bit far when you use the word 'crazy.' A very rash statement, it seems to me. I would second what NeilD and others have said: let's see your stuff. Please set forth in a logical, precise, and concise manner, exactly what the Trinity doctrine is, to your understanding. Please provide a link or cite so we can check it out also.

Personally, looking at the various posts, I think there may well be a lot of confusion about just what is the doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory, you would be more qualified to speak on the various versions. What is the doctrine stated in the Apostles' Creed? How does the current RC version, differ from the Nicean creed, if at all? How does the Evangelical version differ from either? How does the SDA version differ from the above? Can we see these various versions, posted on this thread, and have a chance to analyze them side by side?

I seem to recall that you have spoken to this issue earlier in the thread, but everything has gotten so muddled on this thread--can you restate and define this stuff for us?

Dave

---

Go back and read the opening posts where I gave all that info. Don't come in here saying I did not put any info. on the table. It is all on the opening page. I am ignoring Neil, he has nothing to add to the conversation, only inflammatory accusations. You seem to know so much about the issue because you defend it, why don't you give us the differences? To me, there are no differences, only fuzzy reinterpretations and twisting of scripture to prove a man-made philosophy.

Dennis

[archierieus]

I found it quite difficult to extract the precise formulation of the Trinity doctrine to which you are objecting, by reading your early posts. Please state precisely the formulation of the doctrine as you understand it, for a start. That would be most helpful.

Thank-you.

[Clio]

Dennis,

I believe you are sincere in your views. And that is perhaps the saddest thing.

Part of recognizing one who teaches the truths of the Word of Abba is the fruit of the Spirit borne out in their life. This includes all aspects of their life. Most particularly in their interactions with others. Over and over in the Bible, OT, NT, and the Gospels, we see the importance Abba places on how the Fruit of the Spirit overflows our lives and into our relationships with others.

Your eyes have thick scales, and you are blind to truth in this area. From observation only, and not knowing you in person, I must say that you are teaching falsehood here. I support that conclusion with the following:

1. You elevate other writings to the same level as Scripture.

Exodus 20:3-4 3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

When you elevate other writings to the same level as Scripture, you are serving other gods. Abba is jealous of the worship that is His by right. First place above all others belongs to Him and to Him alone.

It is precisely this that led to the Hebrews elevating the Talmud to the same level as the Pentateuch. The writings of these men were deemed inspired. And while they may(I emphasize may as I am not willing to state categorically that they are not) have been, they should never have been elevated to the same level as the Word of Abba.

I, and most others here, do agree that the writings of Ellen White are inspired of God. They are not, however, to be taken as having the same authority as Scripture. Ellen herself has made this clear over and over and over again. To pick apart her intent and to attempt to establish doctrine through her writings is to remove oneself from relying on Abba and the Holy Spirit and Jesus to relying on a fallible, sinful human being.

2. Your interactions and relationships with nearly all who participate here indicate that the fruit of the Spirit is not in you.

Galations 5:19-26 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

We have listened with patience, asking you to prove you position from Scripture, even responding with patience and kindness when you laugh at us, call us names, speak with what appears to be sarcasm, innuendo, and accusations.

Dennis you stand in grave danger of succumbing to the strong delusion which is to come upon the earth in the near future. I urge you, implore you, to pray once more that the scales be removed from your eyes and you see the truth you so emphatically deny. There is so little time left, and all heaven wonders at how those who teach the remnant in the time of the end can be so blind.

I do not urge or even ask you to take and accept out of whole cloth what has been spoken and written in this thread. I ask only that you bind your heart to being a softened, yielded heart the Holy Spirit can work with, and ask Him to open your mind to the Truth as He teaches it. Please, Dennis, study it out once more from the Bible alone, and follow the leading of the Spirit.

Dennis, this is the second time, and two or three have spoken.

Clio

[archierieus]

Okay, here goes. First, the Nicene Creed. I Googled, and the clicked on the first entry:

"We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Compare that with the SDA doctine of the Trinity, taken from the Fundamental Beliefs posted on the GC website:

"2. The Trinity:

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.)

3. The Father:

God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. The Son:

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1 3, 14; Col. 1:15 19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17 19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5 11; Heb. 2:9 18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1 3.)

5. The Holy Spirit:

God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16 18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7 13.)

One can easily see MAJOR differences. Okay, Dennis, what are your objections to the SDA doctrine of the Trinity as stated above?

Dave

[wicklunds]

Archierius,

First and foremost is the fact that the word trinity is not a scriptural description of the Godhead, but rather man's best attempt (and not a very good one)to give a comprehensive explanation, in one word, of who God is. Tertullian had no business making this a test of fellowship for believers in his day, SDA's have an hundredfold accountability for the souls that are being turned to apostate dust because of the falseness and outright baal worshipfulness of this doctrine today. They have increased light on this and many other prophetic topics which are to be shared with Babylon in order that the opportunity for repentance might be brought about, in order that souls walking in darkness might be able to choose light, and in order that the day of judgment might be prepared for the guilty race due at the second coming of the Lord.

If there is such downright confusion from the very days this doctrine was formulated, why has there been such a display of irresponsibility on the part of our leaders to put this doctrine in a creed and hold it above the believers' heads? You will find on the day of our judgment that it may well have been those who protested this error who will be pronounced faithful and those who swam with the tide of apostasy gnashing their teeth at the Lord. I pray you will not be turned aside at any of my spirited words, but rather that you will understand that what I say is in direct proportion to my heightened sense of duty to inform people of its falseness. I am sorry for offending, but this is where I stand.

Dennis

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Archierius,

I pray you will not be turned aside at any of my spirited words, but rather that you will understand that what I say is in direct proportion to my heightened sense of duty to inform people of its falseness. I am sorry for offending, but this is where I stand.

---

False in what way? In what way does the SDA doctrine as it is worded, not conform with the Bible references listed? Or, with other Bible references? Abstractions do not provide adequate information for people to make informed decisions. Please provide specifics.

Regares, Dave

[jasd]

>>The third person arguments

were added into her writings

by editors

after her death … << [ed.]

Wasn’t the good woman yet alive at the time DA was published? It is my understanding that the early editions carried that “third person argument”. Is that not, indeed, fact?

>>…she corrected those to say say personality, not person.<<

So it seems to have been asserted; perhaps, a recitation of ‘when and under what circumstances’ that occurred would be helpful. Considering all the charges of alteration to EGW’s writings… can her writings still be relied upon by the faithful? When a thing is corrupted it is usually discarded, is it not?

“…the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, …” --The Desire of Ages, page 671, paragraph 2

You’re advancing that the above originally read, “the mighty agency of the Third personality of the Godhead, …”?

I find it …a bit of a dichotomy.

>>Indistinct passages?? How so??<<

I ought to have utilized ‘imprecise’ instead. However,

for instance: Those of the Smyrna group, and like-minded, often appeal to the Psalms, chapter 2. Given, for example, the prophetic nature of Psalms 22, -- can one unequivocally assert that

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Ps 2:7)

is not also prophetic, that is, New Testamental?

Considering texts immediately following Psalms 2:7, it might do well to visit ‘begotten’ in the New Testament for a, perhaps, greater ascertainment of that meant by ’begotten’ in its several contexts. It might do especially well to

revisit Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:4-6 vis-à-vis Hebrews 11:17.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

>>The third person arguments

were added into her writings

by editors

after her death … << [ed.]

Wasn’t the good woman yet alive at the time DA was published? It is my understanding that the early editions carried that “third person argument”. Is that not, indeed, fact?

>>…she corrected those to say say personality, not person.<<

So it seems to have been asserted; perhaps, a recitation of ‘when and under what circumstances’ that occurred would be helpful. Considering all the charges of alteration to EGW’s writings… can her writings still be relied upon by the faithful? When a thing is corrupted it is usually discarded, is it not?

“…the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, …” --The Desire of Ages, page 671, paragraph 2

You’re advancing that the above originally read, “the mighty agency of the Third personality of the Godhead, …”?

I find it …a bit of a dichotomy.

>>Indistinct passages?? How so??<<

I ought to have utilized ‘imprecise’ instead. However,

for instance: Those of the Smyrna group, and like-minded, often appeal to the Psalms, chapter 2. Given, for example, the prophetic nature of Psalms 22, -- can one unequivocally assert that

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

(Ps 2:7)

is not also prophetic, that is, New Testamental?

Considering texts immediately following Psalms 2:7, it might do well to visit ‘begotten’ in the New Testament for a, perhaps, greater ascertainment of that meant by

’begotten’

in its several contexts. It might do especially well to

revisit Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:4-6 vis-à-vis Hebrews 11:17.

---

Yes, I have not yet called the White Estate to verify this fact, but I am highly certain this is the case. I don't know what she said in DA concerning the third person statement. I don't think she said personality in every case but many. There is a website with the untainted SOP books (preserved by Verne Bates, God bless his soul). If you throw out all compromised writings, you must throw out all of your new Bible translations as well. We don't throw out the reveleation of God because man has tampered with it, you must investigate all the more thoroughly. Most already have discarded the holy books in favor of their latest Evangelical megachurch preacher-author. This is soo sad to me.

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Archierius,

I pray you will not be turned aside at any of my spirited words, but rather that you will understand that what I say is in direct proportion to my heightened sense of duty to inform people of its falseness. I am sorry for offending, but this is where I stand.

---

False in what way? In what way does the SDA doctrine as it is worded, not conform with the Bible references listed? Or, with other Bible references? Abstractions do not provide adequate information for people to make informed decisions. Please provide specifics.

Regares, Dave

---

False in the sense that it misrepresents the person of God. I have already stated in other posts, if this is not good enough, I don't know what else I can say except reinvestigate how you view the godhead in light of the references I have given.

Dennis

[John317]

Dennis,

Just how does the Trinity doctrine deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? Luther, Calvin, and Knox, and all the other Reformation leaders believed in the Trinity doctrine and they also believed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

I believe in the Trinity doctrine because I am persuaded that the Bible teaches it and I also believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh the same as you and I have. I don't see how those beliefs contradict each other. If you do, please explain. Jim

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

John317 said:

Dennis,

Just how does the Trinity doctrine deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? Luther, Calvin, and Knox, and all the other Reformation leaders believed in the Trinity doctrine and they also believed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

I believe in the Trinity doctrine because I am persuaded that the Bible teaches it and I also believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh the same as you and I have. I don't see how those beliefs contradict each other. If you do, please explain. Jim

---

I think it is deception to say that the Bible teaches it. The Bible not once even comes close to mentioning trinity. Trinity lumps all of the majesty of each representative of God into one conglomeration, and thereby denies that Jesus was, in fact, a human being, as well as fully divine. We cannot erase all the mystery of the godhead by coining a term whereby humans have weaved in philosophical arguments into the web. There is not a term trinity, let us be safe with the term godhead and all is well. We are then in harmony. Why do we need to be in controversy over this point?

Dennis

[John317]

Dennis,

It is an impossibility for someone to be Deity, or God, who was created, or came into being, by means of another. That would be a contradiction in terms. Christ is Deity because He is eternally self-existent, the same as the Father.

Jesus Christ was the one who appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as "I AM". He appeared under the name of Jehovah, or Yahweh. Both "I AM" and "Yahweh" come from the Hebrew verb "to be," and have reference to the fact that Yahweh is eternally self-existent. In John 8:58, when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," He was declaring that He was the same One who called Himself "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders described in John 8:59 knew this, and that is why they took up stones to kill Him. That is also why Jesus said that when we see Him, it is the same as seeing the Father, because Jesus is exactly like the Father. (Hebrew 1:3; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6.) Do you believe this? If not, why not?

Please see Desire of Ages, pp. 52, 307. Jim