The Trinity doctrine

[Ron Amnsn]

19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

But the greatest unseen reality in the world today is the Holy Spirit. He is a holy personality.

Somehow I missed the Scripture passages you use to ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit.

19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Again, divine works are predicated of Him: creation (Job 33 :4), regeneration (John 3: 5-8), resurrection (1 Peter 3: 18), and authorship of prophecy (2 Peter 1: 21 ). These works could be accomplished by God alone. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not only a person but a divine person.

I can see how these verses would support your view of the trinity, if you start out assuming that the trinity doctrine is completely true. That seems to require circular logic.

These verses don't seem to support your view of the trinity if we only believe about the nature of God those aspects that God has specifically revealed about himself.  We can't just assume that the Spirit of God is a "person" of  the Godhead or a personal being that acts and thinks separately from God the Father.

Job 33:4 says, "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
This is Elihu speaking to Job. We should keep in mind that after Elihu finished speaking God asks, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"  But even if Elihu was speaking the truth, does his statement show that the Spirit of God is a personal being that creates?  No.  Scripture reveals that God has a spirit, just as it reveals that man has a spirit. Does anyone think that the spirit of a man is a personal being that acts separately from the man himself?  No.  Scripture also reveals that God has eyes, and God has a face, and God has a finger.  If Elihu had said instead, "The finger of God has made me." would we assume that the Finger of God is a personal being with creative powers acting separately from God himself.  No.  So why would a person assume that the Spirit of God is a personal being with creative powers acting separately from God himself?  Apparently because they are already assuming that the trinity doctrine is correct when it teaches that the spirit of God is a personal being that somehow acts separately from God himself.

1 Peter 3:18 says, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;"  Is this verse saying that a personal being called "the spirit" raised Jesus from the dead?  Or is it saying that Jesus was alive spiritually?  Galatians 1:1 is explicitly clear that it was God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--"   So if it was "the spirit" that resurrected Jesus, that would be evidence that "the spirit" is not a personal being but rather a power or characteristic of God the Father.

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, APL said:

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? 

No they are not the exceptions who I was talking about. For one thing James Springer White had a study among everyone who was still living and had met him to ask about his view and all but one said that he never discussed the topic with them and if they discussed it he was just quiet and listened. The one exception was a man who once as a little boy his parents had the Whites over for lunch one day. that was his only contact with James. He said that at that dinner that he down talked the belief about the trinity. And one of James' last letters was discovered when Elder Wheeler was doing his biography. In that letter James wrote "I am starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against the trinity."

No, I am talking about a subgroup in Adventism that developed in the 1900s, who started out in opposition to Jones and Wagner (but then later came to say that Jones and Wagner was actually teaching what they are teaching). Who Mrs. White and Willie White wrote some very sharp letters to.  Mrs. White's complaint was that while they would give massive quotes from her writings that they did not understand her message and that instead of giving her message they are giving people their message and looking for passages in Mrs. White that they could quote to give a "Thus Saith The Lord" to force people to accept their views. They wrote denying needing her criticisms and accused some of  her friends and family such as Willie as of polluting her mind as to what they are doing. They also accused Willie of being like Aaron's two sons who was consumed by fire and Samuel's sons. Their followers also accused Mrs. White of heresy and apostasy and said that if you want to learn her messages from the Lord to turn to the pastors who she wrote those sharp letters to and to not trust her current writings which came from Willie and W. W. Prescott instead of from the Lord and that they had all apostatized by even becoming Trinitarians. This group allied with S. N. Haskell, although Haskell had a more moderate theology, but both those who were developing this group and those who were following Haskell rejected the message of the 1919 Bible conference and lead to the overthrow of the General Conference in 1922. (granted after they died they said that the Elderly Mrs. White, Willie and Prescott were not longer their enemies but where a faithful part of them.) This group had it's next development when the book Questions on Doctrine came out.

While QOD has problems, they came to see QOD as completely wrong. When Elder Andreasen pointed out that they gave only a partial answer to the question on the nature of Christ , instead of wanting to accept the full answer as Elder Andreasen recommended they only took out the parts that he noted as missing and made the missing parts their answer in total. and if any of their earlier beliefs could be found in QOD they stopped teaching those things. They have an attitude of QOD said it, therefore I don't believe it and that settles it for me.

This is the group I'm talking about. Most of the mem who's views they respect, who got those sharp letters from Mrs. White and Willie but excused away by thinking that Mrs. White and Willie had apostatized. These men did not accept the trinity. Yet many of their followers have mixed their teachings with a teaching of the trinity.

[Enabled]

Just wondering what you all make of this quote as it was in reference to Matthew 28:19

Quote

  "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."  {1NL 123.5}

Be careful what you teach. Those who are learners of Christ will teach the same things that He taught. The religious bodies all over Christendom will become more and more closely united in sentiment. They will make of God a peculiar something in order to escape from loyalty to Him who is pure, holy, and undefiled, and who denounces all sin as a production of the apostate. Christ came to counterwork the theories of the great deceiver. "  {1NL 123.7}

And written prior to Desire of Ages when some presume she changed her mind and stance on the Trinity as a doctrine of scripture.

[APL]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

No they are not the exceptions who I was talking about.

Not much pioneering happened in the early 1900s and particularly after EGW died.  Most of the true Adventist Pioneers were non-trinitarian.  

[Kevin H]

8 hours ago, APL said:

Not much pioneering happened in the early 1900s and particularly after EGW died.  Most of the true Adventist Pioneers were non-trinitarian.  

Except that they did not see their anti-Trinitarian views as a test of fellowship. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians were welcomed. While in Australia W. W. Prescott started to accept the personality and divine of the Holy Spirit while A. G. Daniels was coming to similar conclusions about Jesus.  Our anti-Trinitarian, seeing God the Father as God in total focuses on God's law so that we preach the law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboah. We still find this same spirit of external control psychology in the groups who are still anti-Trinitarian. And even in the pushiness of anti-Trinitarian people here.

Mrs. White's solution was to start to focus and write more about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But back in the 1870s she had written a book on the temptations of Jesus, it was later condensed into the book "Confrontation" an excellent book, one of my favorites of her books. But apparently  (I have not read the old book only had it quoted in classes) the original book was more focused on the trinity and points out how the 3 deceptions of Satan were attacks on the 3 members of the trinity, and the 3 temptations of Christ were based on the trinity, a specific temptation to each member of the trinity. Since Jesus is one of the 3 revelations of the one infinite God, it was through Christ the infinite God there. If Jesus failed then it would have meant that had they been there God the Father and God the Spirit would have also have failed. God had never been a creature before, could God keep his law as a creature?

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:09 AM, jackson said:

Christ communicates to man through the Holy Spirit. Christ in you is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, whose Spirit is one with Father and Son. Christ is not literally in you , and while it is true that Christ is the only medium between God and man, He uses the Holy Spirit to accomplish this.

 

That puts another mediator BETWEEN Christ and human kind. 

[APL]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians were welcomed.

Are they still?  Nope.  

Quote

Our anti-Trinitarian, seeing God the Father as God in total focuses on God's law so that we preach the law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboah.

Interesting that it was Jones and Waggoner, non-trinitarians that espoused righteousness by faith.

Quote

We still find this same spirit of external control psychology in the groups who are still anti-Trinitarian. And even in the pushiness of anti-Trinitarian people here.

And Trinitarians don't do that to non-trinitarians, right?

Quote

Mrs. White's solution was to start to focus and write more about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White never used the term "God the Son".  In her writings when she writes God, it is The Father.  

Quote

 it was later condensed into the book "Confrontation" an excellent book, one of my favorites of her books.

The book "Confrontation" is a compilation from 1971.  I have been through that book several times in the last year.  Never got the take on the temptations of Christ being focused on the trinity in that book that you claim.  Perhaps you can quote it for us?

Quote

Modalism

The true Adventist Pioneers were strongly against such an idea.  Christ was not His own Father.  Modalism is not unlike the Catholic view of God where the Father has to constantly generating the son, and "spirate" the spirit.

Stan is right - these discussions rarely end well.

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/12/2016 at 8:23 PM, Kevin H said:

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."

Some understand "God" to be ONE eternal PERSON who manifests as three. 

Some understand "God" to be THREE actual divine persons who have all three existed from eternity.

In both views - "God" is not "the Father" because He never actually begot a Son in His "express image".  

In my view "God" IS "the Father" who actually begot a Son.  Through that Son HE created all things.  His Son and led the angels against those who rebelled in heaven.  His Son was mediator between the Father and creation.  His Son redeemed those who could be "saved".

Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

We worship Jesus Christ BECAUSE the Father has commanded it. 

There is no command to worship the Spirit. 

The Spirit OF the Father filled Christ "without measure" at Pentecost, when His consecration to High Priesthood was complete.  That spirit of the Father poured through Christ to the disciples.  The SOURCE is the Father.  The channel is Jesus.  Humans are the recipients.  

Matthew 10:19 "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (KJV)

    John 14:16  “And I will ask  the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever.”
    
    John 15:26  “But when the Helper comes, whom (or which) I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who (or which) proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26).

    Luke 11:13  “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (NKJ)

    Ephesians 3:14-18  “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.”

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.”    

        The Father raised Christ from death (1Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:17-20).

NONE of these verses speak of the Holy Spirit as a THIRD divine being.  It is the spirit OF our omnipresent God and Father. 

[Enabled]

Someone asked the other day if there were any evidences of changes made, well here are couple that anyone can check for themselves. These are good examples of evidence of a changed meaning as the result of "editing".

Quote

 Here is some indisputable evidence of tampering with the writings of Ellen White which anybody here can check out for themselves.

Original statement – Signs of The Times, September 27, 1899

….Why should we not prostrate ourselves at the throne of divine grace, praying that God’s Spirit may be poured out upon us as it was upon the disciples? its presence will soften our hard hearts, and fill us with joy and rejoicing, transforming us into channels of blessing. 

The Lord would have every one of His children rich in faith, and this faith is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit upon the mind. it dwells with each soul who will receive it, speaking to the impenitent in words of warning, and pointing them to Jesus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. it causes light to shine into the minds of those who are seeking to co-operate with God, giving them efficiency and wisdom to do His work.

Reprinted statement – Ye Shall Receive Power  (published 1996) P.59

…. Why should we not prostrate ourselves at the throne of divine grace, praying that God’s Spirit may be poured out upon us as he was upon the disciples? his presence will soften our hard hearts, and fill us with joy and rejoicing, transforming us into channels of blessing.

The Lord would have every one of His children rich in faith, and this faith is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit upon the mind. he dwells with each soul who will receive him , speaking to the impenitent in words of warning, and pointing them to Jesus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. he causes light to shine into the minds of those who are seeking to cooperate  with God, giving them efficiency and wisdom to do His work.

Meaning changed by adding a word

Spalding and Magan Collection, p.52 (Published in 1915-1916)

“The teachers are to educate the youth to realize that if they receive Christ and believe in Him, they will be brought into close relationship with God. He gives them power to become the sons of God, to associate with the highest dignitaries in the kingdom of heaven, to unite with Gabriel, with cherubim and seraphim, with angels and the archangel.” – The Essential Education “Sunnyside”, Cooranbong, N. S. W., Dec. 20, 1896.

(Note: In this rendering, the highest dignitaries include Gabriel, cherubim and seraphim as well as the archangel.)

1 Sermons And Talks, p.285 (Published in 1990)

“The teachers are to educate the youth to realize that if they receive Christ and believe on Him, they will be brought into close relationship with God. He gives them power to become the sons of God, to associate with the highest dignitaries in the kingdom of heaven, and to unite with Gabriel, with cherubim and seraphim, with angels and the archangel. – (MS 41a 1896 - MR 900.24)

(The “and” has been added. – Reading it this way, the archangel - Michael, would not be among the highest dignitaries.)

The word “Trinity” added

The word Trinity never appears in Sister White’s writings. The compilers of the book Evangelism however, inserted it in the sub-title in the statement below. In the Korean translation, not only did they use the word Trinity in the sub-title, but they also used the word “Trinity” in place of the word “dignitaries,” in the text itself!!. The Korean translation also fails to include the elipses which shows that a portion of the original statement has been left out.

Evangelism, p. 616 (Published in 1946)

“The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity.” (This Title was inserted by the compilers)

“The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . . would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.” - (Manuscript 145, 1901)”

The comments in the above quote are not mine but were from a discussion a few years ago. I can't find the name of the E.G. White devotional that I have, all instances in it of "it " were changed to he or him. Following reprints were changed back as a result of the complaints to the estate. If i find it I will post it.

[Enabled]

11 hours ago, APL said:

Are they still?  Nope.  

Interesting that it was Jones and Waggoner, non-trinitarians that espoused righteousness by faith.

And Trinitarians don't do that to non-trinitarians, right?

Ellen White never used the term "God the Son".  In her writings when she writes God, it is The Father.  

The book "Confrontation" is a compilation from 1971.  I have been through that book several times in the last year.  Never got the take on the temptations of Christ being focused on the trinity in that book that you claim.  Perhaps you can quote it for us?

The true Adventist Pioneers were strongly against such an idea.  Christ was not His own Father.  Modalism is not unlike the Catholic view of God where the Father has to constantly generating the son, and "spirate" the spirit.

Stan is right - these discussions rarely end well.

I agree with Stan but will finish the statement for him...for Trinitarians. I don't say this to mock or to gloat but in light of what I quote to follow preceding my words.

I agree with the points made by you APL True pioneers according to the words I read from one of our historians "would not be able to join the church today" as its doctrine of God denies the foundation of their Faith and mine.

Quote

“A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son.” (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996, p.12 Week of Prayer readings, ‘article ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’)

I was the reader of this article in 1996 at our academy, which was about 3 years before I started a long quest to see what was at the end of the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 edition statement that “the Trinity is the root of all Catholic doctrine”. I rejected the above statement then and said so and to this day find it is an unreasonable statement. I have found the Trinity which ever view (there are many); results in a bent view of all that Christ came to teach us. The above results of a belief in a three person mystery, totally contradicts the SOP and the bible. Ellen White said that Christ was the Son of God before it all began. The bible tells us that he is the incarnate Christ the son of the Father and not God the Son though divine. Look carefully at the above for it is now found in the latest volume of 28 fundamental beliefs for the entire world to see.

All this really started to build with Leroy Froom’s dealings with Walter Martin and Barnhouse in the 50’s in an effort to convince the other churches that we did not believe in Christ as a created being but accepted the Trinity fully. Result: to deny the Father and the Son to establish the holy spirit and then leave him (it) out of the play which is exactly where the holy spirit is without a Father to proceed from, or a Son to proceed through. The Trinity denies the begottenness of Christ which according to any reasonable mind should establish his divinity. The same unchanged Catholic argument of Nicea, has now caused us to deny the reality of the passion of the Son of God and the Great love of the Father who now become only actors. I would have to class this one (statement above) with the likes of telling our kids about SATAN CLAUS. Too fat with lies to fly, I pray that one day we will learn to believe the biblical record and accept him at his Word so we can go home to the Father with Christ in our midst. May the spirit of Truth inspire all to believe in the Word of Truth that has told the truth about his son-ship and the Father that gave him his words(inspired by the holy spirit) eternal life, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence by inheritance, all the characteristic of a divine Father and not an earthly Father. He has promised us eternal life, something he can give us, the other characteristics belong to divinity alone.

I say all this with great respect for all who choose what they will believe and I treat this topic as very sacred, but I believe it has been trampled on with doubt of God's Word and his ability to speak to even a little child. I fear the great theologians of old and today outsmart themselves with their self appointed degrees. Ellen from the bottom of her heart warned us of those that went to their schools and of Christ it was said he never attended our schools. God give us all the faith of a Child and the mind of Christ and the love of the Father for all who stumble at his words, may his spirit open our eyes while it is yet day.

[Kevin H]

Why do the modern critics of the trinity blame Leroy Froom, when at the white estate you can find papers, pamphlets, letters, etc.  that were written in the first decade of the 20th century (Long before Froom) who were blaming it on W. W. Prescott and complaining about Prescott controlling Mrs. White by deceiving her into believing in the trinity? The same blame that is now given to Froom and placing it in the 1950s were lamented and complained about in the first decade of the 1900s, half a century prior to Froom.

[Gregory Matthews]

Begotten:  This is an important word in this discussion.  The Bible does present Christ as being begotten.  (John 1:14, 18;        John 3:16, 18; I Cor. 4:15; Hebrews 1:6; and I John 4:9 are examples.).

One of the tasks that we face in understanding these verses is to understand the time that this begetting occurred.  Is it something that occurred way back in eternity?  Such a time  might be prior to the time that Satan  rebelled against God and was kicked out of heaven.  Or, was this begetting at a more  modern time?  In any case, this question is important.

John 1:14 is an interesting and important verse.  It says in part:  ". . . the Word became flesh. . . and. . .we beheld His glory. . .as of the only begotten of the Father, . . ."  I will suggest that this verse tells us that the time that Christ was begotten was at the incarnation when Christ took on the form of human flesh.

Thus, Christ may be considered to  have been from eternity and without a beginning and in addition, due to the incarnation, he may be considered to be unique in having a beginning at the time when he, God, took on human flesh.  In this form, he clearly had a beginning.

 

[Stan]

I appreciate that this has kept civil.

 

Want to add this...

How can man understand how God is or thinks?  it is like a queen Bee,  explaining to her drones and others how a super computer works, at best, she can only speak bee.

We were made in his image, his likeness, but at best we can only speak and understand human.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

He, It, Him, that, Trinity, it all means what it is denoted to in context. The word "it" being "changed" to "he" does absolutely nothing to change the doctrine/s suggested. The Personalities of all 3 aspects of the Godhead/Trinity are still emphasized quite well whether or not "it" or "he" is used. There simply is no case there

Why would the editors have made the change, if it made no difference?
The denomination's doctrinal views on the trinity had changed between the time the original was written and when the editors modified what was written.  That would be the most natural reason why the changes were made.  If there was another reason the edits were made, what was it?
To claim that "The word "it" being "changed" to "he" does absolutely nothing to change the doctrine/s suggested," seems to be a blatant denial of what the editors did and the probable reason they did it.

Nevertheless, if your primary point was that we shouldn't be looking at the writings of EGW in order to establish doctrine, I would agree with that, and I'm quite certain that EGW would agree too.

[Ron Amnsn]

31 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Whenever someone goes ant-trinity crazy on me, I tend to gravitate to the following text:

Your term "anti-trinity crazy" sounds a bit like name-calling.  Is that what you call people who challenge you to support your position solely from Scripture, rather than from theories made-up by humans?

[Gregory Matthews]

On November 14, Rachel said, below:

1)  I need to be very careful here.  Rachel's comment was made in a specific context.  It should be considered in that context.

2)  I will suggest that her comment raises the issue as to what is the role and function of the Holy Spirit.  But, to do so may go outside of the context in which Rachel made her comment.  So, as you read my following comments, please realize that they may (?) lie outside of the context in which Rachel made her statement.

3)  I will suggest that John 14 lays out the role and function of the Holy Spirit.  The following verses present important aspects of that role and function:

a)  Verse 16,  the HS   is to be with us forever.

'b) Verse 17, the HS comes to us with, or is, truth.

c)  Verse 1l8, the HS represents Christ.

d) Verse 26, the HS is sent  by God the Father, in the name of Christ.

e) Verse 26, the HS is overall responsible for our spiritual growth and learning, IOW our spiritual teacher.

f)  Verse 26, the HS is responsible for bringing to our minds, thoughts and attention, the spiritual truths that we should know and remember.

g)  Verses 17, 18 & 26, there is a sense that in the present time the HS takes the place of Christ on this Earth.

h)  John 16:8, 9; the HS convicts of sin.

I) John 16:8, 10; the HS convicts us of God's righteousness.

j) John 16:8, 11; the HS convicts us of God's judgment.

k) For more interesting verses see: John 16:12-15.

Again, Rachel commented in a specific context.  The above is a different context and is the product of what her comment has stimulated in my thinking.  As I see it, the above is the valid role and function of the Holy Spirit in the present time here on Earth.  If so, the question now is:  Do these roles result in another mediator being placed between Christ and humanity?

It just might be that such a position could be debated.  Let us leave that alone.  If I were to say that it did place another mediator between us and
Christ, the question be:  In what sense does that mediation occur.   I would answer it this way:  The HS does mediate the truth of God in a manner that heavenly things may, at least in part, by understood by humans.  That may be said to be a role in our salvation in that it convicts us sin, the love of God and the need to repent and accept God's gift to us.

But, in no sense can that be said to be an active role in  making salvation possible for us as that role was assumed by
Christ and His earthly ministry.

 

That puts

another mediator BETWEEN Christ and human kind. 

 

 

[Gail]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

That puts

another mediator BETWEEN Christ and human kind. 

How can that be if they are one and one with the Father?

[Gregory Matthews]

Gail, it was not I who said the above.  It was Rachel.

[APL]

Gregory wrote below:

Was Christ the Son of God before the incarnation?  

When was Christ begotten in your view, at conception or at birth when He took His first breath?

 

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Begotten:  This is an important word in this discussion.  The Bible does present Christ as being begotten.  (John 1:14, 18;        John 3:16, 18; I Cor. 4:15; Hebrews 1:6; and I John 4:9 are examples.).

One of the tasks that we face in understanding these verses is to understand the time that this begetting occurred.  Is it something that occurred way back in eternity?  Such a time  might be prior to the time that Satan  rebelled against God and was kicked out of heaven.  Or, was this begetting at a more  modern time?  In any case, this question is important.

John 1:14 is an interesting and important verse.  It says in part:  ". . . the Word became flesh. . . and. . .we beheld His glory. . .as of the only begotten of the Father, . . ."  I will suggest that this verse tells us that the time that Christ was begotten was at the incarnation when Christ took on the form of human flesh.

Thus, Christ may be considered to  have been from eternity and without a beginning and in addition, due to the incarnation, he may be considered to be unique in having a beginning at the time when he, God, took on human flesh.  In this form, he clearly had a beginning.

 

 

[JoeMo]

23 minutes ago, APL said:

Was Christ the Son of God before the incarnation?  YES (Prov. 30:4)  

When was Christ begotten in your view, at conception or at birth when He took His first breath? He was begotten before the creation of the earth. (Prov. 8:22-31)

The being who became Jesus was at creation, in the wilderness, and met with Adam, Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.  He is one of the "elohim" mentioned frequently in the OT.

[Gregory Matthews]

APL & JoMo:

In my view, Christ was begotten at the incarnation.  I do not further define it, publically.

Any Biblical references that one might believe called Christ the Son of God prior to the incarnation are speaking prophetically forward to the coming incarnation, in my view.  This is as I believe that there never was a time when Christ did not exist.

NOTE:  I think that you can understand what I am saying.  Therefore do not apply my usage of any names (Christ, Jesus, etc.) to indicate by the use of those names a beginning in time prior to which Christ did not exist.

 

 

 

[Enabled]

On November 14, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Kevin H said:

Except that they did not see their anti-Trinitarian views as a test of fellowship. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians were welcomed. While in Australia W. W. Prescott started to accept the personality and divine of the Holy Spirit while A. G. Daniels was coming to similar conclusions about Jesus.  Our anti-Trinitarian, seeing God the Father as God in total focuses on God's law so that we preach the law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboah. We still find this same spirit of external control psychology in the groups who are still anti-Trinitarian. And even in the pushiness of anti-Trinitarian people here.

Mrs. White's solution was to start to focus and write more about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But back in the 1870s she had written a book on the temptations of Jesus, it was later condensed into the book "Confrontation" an excellent book, one of my favorites of her books. But apparently  (I have not read the old book only had it quoted in classes) the original book was more focused on the trinity and points out how the 3 deceptions of Satan were attacks on the 3 members of the trinity, and the 3 temptations of Christ were based on the trinity, a specific temptation to each member of the trinity. Since Jesus is one of the 3 revelations of the one infinite God, it was through Christ the infinite God there. If Jesus failed then it would have meant that had they been there God the Father and God the Spirit would have also have failed. God had never been a creature before, could God keep his law as a creature?

Sorry Kevin to take so long to respond to this thought: the pioneers in general did not see dis-fellowship on differences of belief as a solution to differences but evidence of the spirit of Rome, the Berean way is the only solution to differences. Today is not the same, now to be a none-trinitarian will even get you dis-fellowshipped for failing to teach it. This I know as I know of 5 people that have been in the last 10 years, and not for being rude or forceful as some from either opinion can be, in 3 different Divisions. Sure don't get where your coming from on the Father and the Law, as a Pentecostal Trinitarion for some that was a fact but under righteousness by faith Christ  is the law unto salvation. I will read "Confrontation" as it is one of the few I have never read, so where in the Estate can I find the original you speak of as I have said before I don't have much faith in compilations, context always seems to suffer.

Apart from that I have never heard of anyone coming to the conclusions you state about the temptation of Christ. So where did E G start to use God the Son  and God  the  Holy spirit, a few quotes would sure put a lot of concerns to rest. I await your provision of such if in this book, save me a lot of reading.

[APL]

Gregory's quote below... And Ellen White's writings refer to Christ, the Son of god as being prophetic also? Such as where The Father gathers the angel to tell them the position of His Son?  But he was not the Son yet, right?  Or begotten?  And if one does not believe as you do, should they be disfellowshipped from the SDA church?  If so, then you'd have to deny many of the Adventist Pioneers.

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

APL & JoMo:

In my view, Christ was begotten at the incarnation.  I do not further define it, publically.

Any Biblical references that one might believe called Christ the Son of God prior to the incarnation are speaking prophetically forward to the coming incarnation, in my view.  This is as I believe that there never was a time when Christ did not exist.

NOTE:  I think that you can understand what I am saying.  Therefore do not apply my usage of any names (Christ, Jesus, etc.) to indicate by the use of those names a beginning in time prior to which Christ did not exist.

 

 

 

 

[Enabled]

21 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Why do the modern critics of the trinity blame Leroy Froom, when at the white estate you can find papers, pamphlets, letters, etc.  that were written in the first decade of the 20th century (Long before Froom) who were blaming it on W. W. Prescott and complaining about Prescott controlling Mrs. White by deceiving her into believing in the trinity? The same blame that is now given to Froom and placing it in the 1950s were lamented and complained about in the first decade of the 1900s, half a century prior to Froom.

Not picking on you Kevin just working my way through the comments in chronological order (working long hours). Now I will take exception to what you have said in the context of conclusions not stated. Please read all that I read carefully, I gave it a lot of thought and chose my words with care. No blame here on Froom I have all his books above my desk and quite enjoyed "coming of the comforter" years ago. I said:" All this really started to build" as a carpenter in times past that suggests a foundation has been built which would have started with Kellogg and company. Being you had jumped from pioneer being a founding member to Historical Adventist of which you put after their time I felt it would be in context to match your time-frame in keeping with the discussion. You and others will find if you read carefully that fault finding is not in my mindset, but a study of things as they are and not as you or I may interpret them which is only a personal response, to do other-wise is to loose all that the spirit of debate robs from any discussion or potential gain in truth, often called bias. You imply in the above that to differ is to complain, sorry brother you are out of context, that is to make a statement about me you can't substantiate from anything I have ever written here without professing falsely the mind of the spirit of God (omniscient). Please when addressing ones points keep your surrounding statements to the context of the writer and what he has actually said, then we will be able to respond to you in kind. I agree with others here; things will go well as we learn to study and not merely opinionate. Leroy Froom himself claimed the coming out with Walter Maritin and Barnhouse of a past that Walter Martin clearly on the outside looking in said was purely non-trinitarian after spending 2 years in the vault in an exhaustive study of her writings. See appendix of Kingdom of the Cults by Martin for his take on our church and some of its history. Please also don't group me under critics as I consider myself raised as a Trinitarian to be no longer convinced (after 40 years in that school of thought) by the evidence presented to date yet willing to study any new article or evidence for either side in its full context. 

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

[Kevin H]

Enabled; Good posts and I will have to take more time to reply than I have right now. (My mom had a stroke nearly 2 weeks ago so that has been taking up a lot of my time).

The issue I mentioned with Elder Froom is that when I was at Andrews in the 1980s I use to like to just read things in the White Estate vault. Even thought I did not have a plan for my freestyle reading (using the plans for research papers) I did end up reading a lot about Mrs. White's and Willie White's relationships with some of the ultra conservative pastors who are still very popular today, and also about the Trinity.

In this reading I read from the early 1900s papers from people who had newly changed their views to trinitarianism as well as people who were not too excited about it. One of the later categories had written that it was Prescott in the 1890s who brought the trinity idea into Adventism. (Technically he brought in the Holy Spirit part, and A. D. Daniels the God the Son part so it was the union of the two ideas that moved the trinity from an unpopular optional doctrine to more center.)

Anyway, a few years ago and I think it might have been this discussion forum although it might have been someone in person or another means of communication. But what I had read that was written in the early 1900s giving the story of Prescott bringing the trinity into the church, Someone offered the same story but instead of the villain being Prescott in the 1890s it was Froom in the 1950s. No I do not have both quotes that I can hold up side by side, but I would not have been surprised if someone had come across the same statement that I found about Prescott, and thought "If we place this to Prescott in the 1890s that sounds too respectable" and thus crossed out the name Prescott and put in Froom and crossed out 1890s and put in 1950s. Now I am not absolutely positive that they are the same quote but they are at least pretty close to being the same.

I'm sorry if it took out an old wound on you when you referred to Froom. I was a bit touchy here because I have been reading a fair number of documents from the early 1900s about us becoming more accepting of the trinity, and reading that accusation of Prescott, then someone from the anti-Trinitarian view comes along and places that whole part of our history into the 1950s and instead of blaming Prescott they blamed Froom.