The Trinity doctrine

[phkrause]

19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Does he have any books or papers I can get? I cannot watch videos due to poor internet connection.

Here's a link, check it out. See what they have. As far as I know, he doesn't have any books or so, just taped sermons, etc.

[Enabled]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Enabled:  Nine (9) hours ago, you quoted a post that I had made twenty (20) hours earlier.  In your post you took words that I had written and posted them in a manner that presented them as having been written by you.  You then correctly stated that you did not write them.  That was correct,  I wrote them and you did not, contrary to how you presented them.

I do NOT believe that you intended to misrepresent what I posted.  I consider it be  a simple mistake in which my previous post was not clear.  all of us can make mistakes and I do make mistakes myself.  I am sorry that my post was so unclear that you did not understand it.  But, I believe that this error is important enough that I need to correct it.

Ok I see what is happening her Gregory, the quote button only grabs your words and not your whole post, I had not noticed as I am on an I-pad and only see a small portion of what is in the post at one time, my bad. Now to fix it, I have no visible edit button on the Mac, could you please tell me if this can be done on a Mac version of the software and if so how.

Thanx again Gregory I can see the confusion this would create for anyone reading.

[Enabled]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In a previoius post, Enabled asked when I had last read EGWs instructions to her trustees.  Those instructions were recorded in her Will.  To respond to Enabled's question, this morning I last read her will.

EGWs Will is posted on then Internet.  you may read it at:

http://whiteestate.org/books/mol/Appendix N.html

Thanks for taking the time to ad the link, I have it somewhere in my files on one of my numerous past computers archived  but not easlily found at present. Please quote the portion of her will that was left to the original trustees that you think grants license to edit in such a fashion as has been discussed hear to change from it to he etc. I have an article in my notes that dealt with specific instances written by someone else, I will see on the weekend if maybe I can find it I think it would add some clarity to the statements made on this thread and to the discussion.

Also to add titles that are interpretive outside of context in compilations and to quote Manuscript items only in part never publishing the rest of the letter or article anywhere is something I found in compilations made after her death. These are the things I beleive should never be done. This I clearly illustrated with Wanderers quote from 3SM that originally came from an article on Fanny Bolton even her bookmaker Marian her closest confident and aid for so long was only allowed to make books not change words. Why would her rules clearly stated to all for copyists and editors be tossed aside after her death is I guess the question I raise not just to you Gregory but also any publisher of her works. Willing your intellectual materials does not I believe grant authority to change unless specified. It is a standard that permissions to publish or quote generally require credit and contextual inclusiveness.

I believe the logic of this is shown in my acknowledged mistake in quoting what you said with out including what I said, one thing to do this by mistake a whole other matter to do it with public license. (Publishing rights only)

Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 11/8/2016 at 6:08 PM, Kevin H said:

In the early 1900s M. L. Andresen went to ask Mrs. White if it was her trustees or others who made those quotes that stounded Trinitarian and if she became a Trinitarian. He came to visit her as an anti-Trinitarian. She showed the writings in question in her own pen and when Andresen left he was a convinced Trinitarian.

Does it really matter what EGW wrote regarding the Holy Spirit and the trinity?  If SDA's believe their own Fundamental Beliefs, they would be testing everything EGW wrote by what is written in the Bible -- instead of interpreting the Bible in accordance with what EGW wrote. 

Fundamental Belief #18 is titled "The Gift of Prophecy".  It concludes by stating correctly of EGW's writings, "They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."  According to that statement and according to Scripture, testing EGW's writings by the Bible is not optional.  If the above story about M.L. Andreasen is true, then he apparently failed to go back to the Bible to test what EGW showed him, and the story would be a very poor example of how a real SDA and student of EGW should make decisions on matters of doctrine. 

I personally doubt the story above is true because EGW didn't encourage people to decide doctrinal issues based on her writings.  At least in the early years, she always sent people back to the Bible to study things from Scripture, rather than seeking or giving a doctrinal position derived from her spiritual gifts. People should still be going back to the Scriptures to find the truth in what God's Word says.  For that reason, the things that EGW wrote in regard to the trinity should carry hardly any weight at all in this discussion. 

What EGW wrote about the trinity is mainly of historical interest because it shows that 140 years ago many Christians were not trinitarian yet they were still considered to be good solid Christians.  Editing her older writings to remove that historical evidence seems like tampering with the context in a way that will encourage people to rely on EGW's writings as a source of doctrine, which encourages people to neglect testing her writings by the Bible and to disregard the conclusion of Fundamental Belief #18.  
 

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled said below:

1)  At this point in time, I do not believe that you  can fix it.

2) I understand that the point of your post below is that you would like for it to be fixed.  I am able to do fix it.  On the basis that I believe you want it fixed, I will place a statement in the body of that post and I will clearly attribute it to me.  If you object to my doing so, and/or would like to change the wording of my statement, let me know and according to your request, I will either remove or change my statement.

Ok I see what is happening her Gregory, the quote button only grabs your words and not your whole post, I had not noticed as I am on an I-pad and only see a small portion of what is in the post at one time, my bad. Now to fix it, I have no visible edit button on the Mac, could you please tell me if this can be done on a Mac version of the software and if so how.

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled, you have raised several valid questions.  I shall attempt to respond to your questions:

1)       I doubt that you will ever find in any document an explicit statement that the trustees had the authority to change EGWs printed words.

2)        I like you have some concern as to the helpfulness of the compilations that  have been made since her death.  My concern involves a potential lack of context.  However, in spite of my concern , I do believe that they may be helpful and that they, in some cases, are helpful.  I clearly do not have a problem with the  titles that are added to the compilations.

3)      Your statement  to the effect that people helping to prepare EGWs writings for publication were not allowed to make changes in words, is simply wrong, they did do so.  Of course, while EGW was alive she superintended such changes and approved them.

4)      You come across to me a believing in a “verbal inspiration” of EGWs writings.  Neither the SDA denomination nor EGW   herself,  has taught verbal inspiration.    

5)      In effect, I believe that what has been done with her writing after her death is what was done prior to her death.  The only change, as I see it, is that she is now dead.

6)      In a prior life I sometimes worked with authors to prepare a document for publication.  That preparation involves an editing process in which words may be changed.  I have had material that I have written published.  My work has been so edited.  This is simply a common practice in publication.  Those changes may, or may not, include approval by the author.  I have personally seen both happen.

[Enabled]

23 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In a previoius post, Enabled asked when I had last read EGWs instructions to her trustees.  Those instructions were recorded in her Will.  To respond to Enabled's question, this morning I last read her will.

EGWs Will is posted on then Internet.  you may read it at:

http://whiteestate.org/books/mol/Appendix N.html

Thanks for taking the time to ad the link, I have it somewhere in my files on one of my numerous past computers archived  but not easlily found at present. Please quote the portion of her will that was left to the original trustees that you think grants license to edit in such a fashion as has been discussed hear to change from it to he etc. I have an article in my notes that dealt with specific instances written by someone else, I will see on the weekend if maybe I can find it I think it would add some clarity to the statements made on this thread and to the discussion.

Also to add titles that are interpretive outside of context in compilations and to quote Manuscript items only in part never publishing the rest of the letter or article anywhere is something I found in compilations made after her death. These are the things I beleive should never be done. This I clearly illustrated with Wanderers quote from 3SM that originally came from an article on Fanny Bolton even her bookmaker Marian her closest confident and aid for so long was only allowed to make books not change words. Why would her rules clearly stated to all for copyists and editors be tossed aside after her death is I guess the question I raise not just to you Gregory but also any publisher of her works. Willing your intellectual materials does not I believe grant authority to change unless specified. It is a standard that permissions to publish or quote generally require credit and contextual inclusiveness.

I believe the logic of this is shown in my acknowledged mistake in quoting what you said with out including what I said, one thing to do this by mistake a whole other matter to do it with public license. (Publishing rights only)

Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.

[debbym]

On 11/6/2016 at 0:28 PM, Gail said:

I have thought this, too, that our ideas are too small, that we are trying to make him into something we can grasp in our brains

i agree, we automatically make God small enough to fit in our minds.  But God emptied himself of all the glory of heaven and made himself small and to become the lowest, that we could find a connection with him as sinners.  And then he even became sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

He said learn of me, for i am lowly.

[Enabled]

Quote

This led me to consider a journey to St. Helena, California, where Mrs. White resided at that time. I wished to have firsthand knowledge as far as it was obtainable. I did not wish to be deceived, nor did I wish to deceive others.

"Consequently, in due time I arrived in St. Helena and was cordially received by Mrs. White. I stated my reason for coming, which was to obtain permission to examine her writings in manuscript before anyone had done any editorial work on them. I had brought with me many quotations from her writings that were of outstanding interest, either for their theological import or their beauty of expression.

"In my own mind, I was convinced that Sister White had never written them as they appeared in print. She might have written something like them, but I was sure that no one with the limited education Sister White had could ever produce such exquisitely worded statements or such pronouncements on difficult theological problems. They must have been produced by a well-trained individual, conversant not only with theological niceties but also with beautiful English.

"I was given ready and free access to the vault where the manuscripts were kept, and I immediately began work.

"I was overwhelmed with the mass of material placed at my disposal. It did not seem possible for one individual to produce such a quantity of matter in a lifetime, most of which was handwritten. I had imagined that Sister White dictated most of her writings, for she had helpers. Now I found that while she might at times dictate, most of her writings were produced by her own pen. It was these writings in which I was interested and that I examined. I spent days at this work; and, being a reasonably rapid reader, and with the assistance of the office staff, I accomplished my task.

"When I was done, I was both amazed and perplexed. Here I saw before my eyes that which I believed could not be done. I verified the quotations I had brought with me. I saw in her own handwriting the statements that I was sure she had not writtencould not have written. Especially was I struck with the now-familiar quotation in the Desire of Ages, page 530: In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 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.

"I had examined many of the manuscripts in the vault with the exception of the family letters. Though the son, W.C. White, doubted that I would get permission to read them, Sister White readily gave me access. And so I read them. Here were the letters written by the parents to the children and the children to the parents, by James to Ellen and Ellen to James. Ellen's letters might begin with Dear James or Dear Husband, followed by some remark or statement of a purely personal character, and then she would launch into an extended recital of some religious topic with appropriate admonition and counsel. If the few introductory remarks were left out, the complete letter could be printed on the editorial page of the Review today. No name need be appended, and many readers would immediately recognize the origin of the composition.

"The same distinct phraseology, the same style and intensity of desire for a greater knowledge of God, marked her writings although at the time the letters were not considered as material for publication.

"When I was ready to leave St. Helena, Sister White presented me with several of her books, inscribed on the flyleaf with her own name and also a small printed wish for the Lords blessing. The only book I have left with her name in it is the Desire of Ages. I also took with me some of her unprinted writings that she graciously gave me. A few of these were handwritten, but mostly they were typewritten copies of communications she had sent out, some of them had corrections in her own hand.

"When I knew her, Sister White was an aged woman, but in full possession of her faculties. She was gracious, considerate, and kind, a true mother in Israel. I visited her once early in the morning, but at whatever hour I came, she was already at work. There were some who claimed that she was already in her dotage [unable to think properly]. She must have heard this, for one morning she gave me eight pages to read of what she had written that morning. After I had read it, she smiled at me and said in a playful voice, That's pretty good, isn't it, for an old woman in her dotage! and then she laughed. The first time I heard Sister White laugh I was shocked, for I did not think that a person in her position should laugh. But laugh she did at times, a sweet, quiet, girlish laugh altogether appropriate. She was good company and not at all the stern, demanding, and commanding personality I had pictured her to be. She was a mother in Israel, and I came to love her.

"When I finally bade her farewell, it was with the profound conviction that I had been face to face with a manifestation and a work that I could account for only on the ground of divine guidance. I was convinced that her work was of God, that her writings were produced under the guidance of God, and that she had a message both for the world and the people of God.

"In writing this, I am not attempting to prove anything. I am merely giving my testimony of that which I know. And that testimony is clear and unequivocal. I believe that the writings of Sister White are true messages of God for this church and that no one can ignore and disobey them except at great, infinitely great, loss."Without Fear or Favor, pp. 74-78.

As promised earlier in this thread I post the above in response to the post below from Kevin. 

Quote

   On November 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM,  Kevin H said: 

In the early 1900s M. L. Andresen went to ask Mrs. White if it was her trustees or others who made those quotes that stounded Trinitarian and if she became a Trinitarian. He came to visit her as an anti-Trinitarian. She showed the writings in question in her own pen and when Andresen left he was a convinced Trinitarian.

It is not to slight you Kevin, but as I said in my prior response the above statement made by you is not true. 

I aplogize for the lengthy quote from "With out fear of Favor" but I believe he accurately states the reason for his trip and his great desire to rightly represent truth and context to his students about E G White and her writings relative to our discussion on this thread. I felt to quote less would be to miss an opportunity to accurately respond to your post Kevin and the reason I disagree with your statement. I also  believe the graces of a Christian brother demand this that I say this also: I  have seen many times others in defending their Trinitarian position and desiring the strength of reference say the same exact things you said, so I did not and don't necessarily take your words to be your own conclusions but possibly an oft repeated understanding that is out there. I believe that Gregory's comments about references is always a great help to accurate study and growth and in our knowledge of Christ and his teachings and our efforts to understand each other. 

I have a study on the quote from Desire of ages that I put to gether a number of years ago that might shed some light on her meaning as can be derived from other things she said about Christ, eternal life and how the scripture comments on the use of derived, begotten etc. I will post it if I can find it. 

I believe that Andreasen himself may not have studied enough her full position on what she said to himself concluded accurately her reason for saying what she did in Desire of ages. I guess what I am trying to say is your beliefs and my beliefs are the some total of how we understand all that comes into our field of life and how we treat it before we accept it as truth. Let us I pray always that we may be as the Bereans were and study to see if it is so. The only difference between the decieved (lost) in the final hour and the saved is  the acceptance of truth as it is found in Jesus. 

Last thought on this for now is condsider what Andreasen did say " a complete revision on my former view, and that of the denomination, on the diety of Christ." Please note he did not say on the nature  of Christ or the person of Christ but on the diety of Christ. My research on the historical position of the church and Andreasen have been in reference to the position of both on the understanding of Christ's begottenness and what that meant. The position of many on the side of Trinity past and present is that if Christ was begotten before the world was made of the Father and not just of Mary then he must be created and not devine. This is a typical anti-Arian view point and argument from the days of Nicea in 325, I have had many say of me personally he believes Christ was created and doesn't believe in the holy spirit, all because they accept this false argument. For to be born of the Father is to be all that he is, we are promised eternal life in Christ, a blessing we will receive because we believe in and on the only begotten son of God. His begottenness is his claim to Sonship and thus his inheritance which he has promised to share with all who believe on his name. 

May God Bless and the bless Sabbath hours approach.

[JoeMo]

27 minutes ago, debbym said:

we automatically make God small enough to fit in our minds.

Is it even possible for us to imagine God as big as He truly is, even is our wildest imagination?

"it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard and what no human mind has conceived”^[a]— the things God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor. 9; Is. 64:4)

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Enabled said:

Last thought on this for now is condsider what Andreasen did say " a complete revision on my former view, and that of the denomination, on the diety of Christ." Please note he did not say on the nature  of Christ or the person of Christ but on the diety of Christ.

Thank you, Enabled, for the full quotation from M.L. Andreason.  It makes a difference see the whole story in context.  Apparently the issue for Andreason was not trinitarianism, but the deity of Jesus.  Although the deity of Jesus is a belief of trinitarians, the context of the story shows that the story cannot be used to show that Andreasen embraced other aspects of trinitarianism, such as the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

That's why I always prefer to see what the actual sources wrote themselves, rather than relying on what some scholar has interpreted or distilled from the original sources.

[Kevin H]

Except that historically we find the so called "Historic Adventists" have with few exceptions been Trinitarian. Many of the theologians their view reflects, such as Elders Washburn and Wilkinson, were anti-Trinitarian. But because they understood M. L. Andreason to have been a Trinitarian they to a large extent accepted trinitarianism.

[Ron Amnsn]

14 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Except that historically we find the so called "Historic Adventists" have with few exceptions been Trinitarian. Many of the theologians their view reflects, such as Elders Washburn and Wilkinson, were anti-Trinitarian. But because they understood M. L. Andreason to have been a Trinitarian they to a large extent accepted trinitarianism.

Are you holding up "Historic Adventists" as some sort of standard by which to determine doctrinal truth?  I certainly respect the lifestyle of Historic Adventists and their desire to be faithful to what they hold to be truth.  However, in their writings and meetings it seems like the writings of EGW are held as the ultimate truth, so they don't actively test those writings by Scripture as EGW instructed and as Scripture requires.  Also, as you point out, their understanding of Historic Adventism seems to exclude certain aspects of history.

If we are looking for a time period in Christian history when truth was "pure", I think we should look beyond the early 1900's clear back to the time of the apostles and the congregation of believers in Jerusalem depicted in the book of Acts.

[Kevin H]

33 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Are you holding up "Historic Adventists" as some sort of standard by which to determine doctrinal truth?  I certainly respect the lifestyle of Historic Adventists and their desire to be faithful to what they hold to be truth.  However, in their writings and meetings it seems like the writings of EGW are held as the ultimate truth, so they don't actively test those writings by Scripture as EGW instructed and as Scripture requires.  Also, as you point out, their understanding of Historic Adventism seems to exclude certain aspects of history.

If we are looking for a time period in Christian history when truth was "pure", I think we should look beyond the early 1900's clear back to the time of the apostles and the congregation of believers in Jerusalem depicted in the book of Acts.

No I am not. I picked them because they tend to be reluctant to change (except that when their villains die off and leave a legacy as a good member of the church, they tend to baptize them and make them look like they were good historic Adventists after all.) They were critical of the views of the elderly Mrs. White, and people like Willie, Elder Daniels, W. W. Prescott etc. Those who the always considered good Adventists and who's thought they tend to reflect were anti-Trinitarian. Yet because of Elder Andreasen they were able to reject the anti-Trinitarian views of their heroes and role models and take their other views but add the trinity to it. I'm only pointing out the influence of Andreasen's view of trinity on the church as a whole to even convince many from that particular subgroup.

[Ron Amnsn]

The greatest difficulty I have with the trinity doctrine is that the personhood of the Holy Spirit would invalidate the fatherhood of the Father.

In Scripture the Spirit of YHWH (the Holy Spirit) is presented as an active and powerful aspect of YHWH himself, just as each human (who is made in the image of Elohim) has a spirit that is an integral part of himself and is never considered to be a separate "person" from the man or woman that the spirit is part of.

Making the Holy Spirit a separate "person" as the trinity doctrine tries to do creates real difficulties when we consider the announcement of the birth of Jesus in Luke 1.

31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Here, the active agent that will cause Mary to become pregnant is referred to in a Hebrew parallelism as both "the Holy Spirit" and "the power of the Most High".  If the Holy Spirit were a separate "person" from the Father, then Jesus would in actuality be the son of the Holy Spirit, rather than the son of the Father. And who would the Father be the father of? Nobody, apparently.

Those who want the Holy Spirit to be a separate "person" from the Father might try to minimize the role of the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus by interpreting verse 35 as if "the power of the Most High" was referring to the Father acting separately from the Holy Spirit to become the father of Jesus.  However, that interpretation is ruled out by what the angel told Joseph in Matthew 1:20, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

Instead of portraying the Holy Spirit as an active and powerful aspect of the Father himself as shown in Scripture, the trinity doctrine asserts that the Holy Spirit is a separate "person" of the trinity which turns out to be a denial of the fatherhood of the Father.  Some people even go so far as to assert that the Holy Spirit is a female person in the trinity, which seems rather queer considering the role of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus.

[Kevin H]

Good question Ron. I'm not sure how much you saw about how I understand the trinity. The picture of someone outside of a container of water (representing time and space), putting 3 fingers into the container. There is a place outside of time and space where it is only one God there. but to communicate with us and to have relationship with us this God is not only outside of time and space but also inside of time and space.

There is a view called "Modism" which has a whole person play 3 different rolls, like some times I'm a son, other times a brother, other times a nurse and I use to be in the military. So Modism has one being at one time being God the Father and another time God the Son and at other times God the Holy Spirit. In reality God is much bigger and it is only 3 simultaneous aspects of this God that is being revealed. There is a separateness but also a togetherness.

When we don't have the trinity, we tend to make one aspect of God, one finite revelation of something much greater into God as whole. In the eastern religions we tend to have God working on our subjective experience as God as a whole. At best you have Buddhism and at worst you have spiritualism. Here in the western world we tend to make God as power or God the Father as God in total. We become like the one we focus on. Focusing on God as power as God in total has a tendency to lean towards legalism and power and force.

From my perspective I'm seeing this one God with 3 of his fingers inside the container, and some people here saying "That one finger is God. The second finger came out of that first one, and the third one does not exist it is only the ripples in the water from the one finger moving."

[Gail]

"Person," does not mean human, right?

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Gail said:

"Person," does not mean human, right?

Right, talking about any type of personality no matter what source is that personality.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gail said below:

In order to communicate what you have suggested, I prefer to use the term "personal being."  which I will suggest is less likely to imply human.

"Person," does not mean human, right?

[debbym]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"The Trinity" is not really a "doctrine," as much as it is, simply, a description of the whole Person of God. Why does that have to be a "doctrine" and all scrunched up into private personal interpretations? The Bible doesnt do that anywhere, rather, it does allow some different points of view, but only to add,  not as in changing the "truth" about God, in all His fullness, or, as the Bible puts it, "all the fullness of the Godhead."

Jesus said of Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent  Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Luke 4: 18, 19. You cannot heal the brokenhearted without the Comforter--one along-side to help. They were to lose Him, the first Comforter, so He would send another.

As long as Christ exists, so long does that pledge stand.
 

 

Jesus lived in a real human body that shared the degeneration of man as a result of sin.  He lived by faith, and was empowered in everything he did by the working of the Holy Spirit.  The work of the Spirit at that time was to  show Jesus was indeed the Son of God who came to reveal the Father and redeem man. When he would return to heaven he would no longer be living by faith he would be living by sight.  The Holy Spirit is omniscient.  Jesus gave up His omniscience when he became joined to His creation that began by a conception in Mary.  He became dependent on the Holy Spirit to have a connection with God.  Just as we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to have a connection with God.  Jesus said of Himself, "Of myself I can do nothing."  When Jesus as representative of the human race returned to heaven the Glory He had with the Father was returned in it's fullness.

Something happened for us.  In God's time, it was time for the church on earth to be mightily empowered to show Jesus is indeed the Son of God who came to reveal the Father and redeem man.  And that same work will be done in us and through who are fallen human beings. What an amazing plan that God will use sin broken vessels to reveal the glory of who he is, how much he loves every human being, and his power to heal and restore every human being.  This was signaled by the great outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost which had been prophesied about and planned for By God before the creation of the earth.  The result was the enemy resoundingly moving on human agents to persecute and kill every Christian possible.  This continued through the dark ages... and the power of God by the abiding of the Holy Spirit in the human race was in smaller and smaller measure, and the witness was greatly diminished. till now we have the laodicean condition.  And the body of Christ on earth is destitute, and blind and naked... in need of everything the Holy Spirit has to give us.

When the church stands up completely clothed and enriched, and with clear vision... you can be sure the enemy will be aroused to persecute again.

Yet Jesus was filled with the Spirit according to the will of God every day of His life and at his baptism the Spirit was sent in signal form, and Jesus was mature and ready for testing, and to enter on a final stage to witness, teach, heal... and profoundly reveal God's will and ways, and power to restore every aspect of humanity lost by sin. It was when he began to demonstrate the power of God that members of humanity was aroused to hatred because he had a greater power than they had over their following.   So when God's people show up with a message that has greater power to bring people to God away from whatever associations held them... those in positions of authority will become enraged.  It will be a power that will not submit to their control.

The Holy Spirit has ever been present when God's children are being hated for no cause, and they are hated because of the higher power working in them.  There was this period in Christ's life where persecution was just happening in the family and in the neighborhood.  And it did.  And this is the period we are living in here.  This is not the persecution by the higher authorities of the state. There is a martyrdom in the name of Christ that gains nothing for the martyrs, it is talked about it 1 Corinthians 13.  I am not going to be able to know when someone is martyred whether they will enter heaven or not.  When persecution against Christ was ready to kill him before the time... Jesus would leave the area and be safe.

How do you know Jesus is about to come?  Others will want to Kill you because of the power of the Holy Spirit in your life.

All three members of the God head share one purpose, and one desire, and carry out plans they all designed and purposed.  Each has a role and a work in carrying out this plan. It is a perfect plan on a time schedule, to bring about a perfect end to sin, and complete deliverance of all who are willing, and it will bring to God eternal praise and glory for his eternal goodness to the unworthy forever.  Oh yes you can say we will be made worthy, and we will not carry any shame for eternity yes this is true.  But we come into the kingdom of God a new born babies... naked and destitute and unable to see anything clearly... (quite a parallel to the Laodicean condition) and everything that equips us, qualifies us, prepares us are gifts, and given to us, and the glory for our redemption belongs to Him alone and we will glorify our God for eternity.

 

i could not stop this meditation... one thing linked to another.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I disagree, and so does the Bible with such a statement. Truth was not "more pure" then during the days of the disciples, you know, those times where certain ones did not even believe in the Resurrection, and that wanted to bring Jesus into Jerusalem as an earthly king through military might. It is interesting that the women of the time were the first ones to run to the grave/tomb of Jesus first to check and see if He was there...that run they did to His tomb was likely one of the "purest truths" of all time.

I certainly find no fault with the women running to the tomb.  However, I think their understanding of events was still lacking something, for it appears they were still expecting to find a dead man in the tomb when they got there.  If we were to proclaim the same beliefs they had at the time, would we not be proclaiming a dead Christ who remained in a tomb?

I don't understand what you disagree with when I said,

On 11/12/2016 at 11:57 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

If we are looking for a time period in Christian history when truth was "pure", I think we should look beyond the early 1900's clear back to the time of the apostles and the congregation of believers in Jerusalem depicted in the book of Acts.

.  As far as I can tell, all your examples precede the New Testament book of Acts.

[Ron Amnsn]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

And yes, sorry to inform you, I know many of the older, more "historic" ones who do test everything she writes by their Bible.

I have apparently never had the privilege to meet such people.  It would be interesting to sit down with them and have them share their testing methods and results.  How do they test the EGW passages dealing with topics not found in the Bible?  Would any of them be willing to share the EGW passages they tested but were unable to find confirmation in Scripture?

[APL]

On 11/11/2016 at 9:18 PM, Kevin H said:

Except that historically we find the so called "Historic Adventists" have with few exceptions been Trinitarian. Many of the theologians their view reflects, such as Elders Washburn and Wilkinson, were anti-Trinitarian. But because they understood M. L. Andreason to have been a Trinitarian they to a large extent accepted trinitarianism.

By "few" exceptions, do you mean like  Joseph Bates (1792-1872), James Springer White (1821-1881), Joseph H. Waggoner (1820-1889), Merritt E. Cornell (1827-1893), John Nevins Andrews (1829-1883), John N. Loughborough (1832-1924), Uriah Smith (1832-1903), S. N. Haskell (1833-1922), Alonzo Trevier Jones (1850-1923), Ellet J. Waggoner (1855-1916)? One was married to a gal named Ellen, and we have a university named after another, and a book on Daniel and Revelation by another, and the theology of righteousness by faith proclaimed a couple of them  Are these the "few" exceptions you speak about? 

[Ron Amnsn]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"The Trinity" is not really a "doctrine," as much as it is, simply, a description of the whole Person of God. Why does that have to be a "doctrine" and all scrunched up into private personal interpretations? The Bible doesnt do that anywhere, rather, it does allow some different points of view, but only to add,  not as in changing the "truth" about God, in all His fullness, or, as the Bible puts it, "all the fullness of the Godhead."

I refer to the trinity doctrine as a doctrine because it always contains man-made concepts about the Godhead that are not found in Scripture.  It heavily depends on some "private personal interpretations" that became widely accepted, but still don't pass the test of Scripture. The harm of the trinity doctrine is that it gives people ideas about God's nature that God has not revealed about himself.  Thus it becomes another avenue that can be used to deceive people about God or drive them away from the true God.  The trinity doctrine causes division in the body of believers when it is used condemn, cast suspicion on, or break fellowship with anyone who chooses to believe only what God has actually revealed about himself.

[Ron Amnsn]

22 hours ago, Kevin H said:

When we don't have the trinity, we tend to make one aspect of God, one finite revelation of something much greater into God as whole.

Where do you see an example of this tendency?  Sounds like you're worried about a problem that was not a problem in the centuries before the trinity doctrine was invented.