why was it so important to the pioneers that it be known that the Father has a physical form and is not a spirit?

how does it play in with satans appearing?

[/quote]IS GOD A PERSON?(State of the dead and end of the lost) Jn loughborough

Whatever may be the truth in this matter, it certainly cannot be wrong for us to examine what the Word says respecting it. Many there are that would refrain from the investigation of unpopular truths because the cry of heresy is raised against them. We shall not consider ourselves subjects of the appellation, neither are we prying into the secrets of the Almighty, as we pursue the investigation of this matter. The Bible certainly contains testimony upon this point, and we again repeat, "Things which are revealed belong to us." We inquire then, What saith the Scripture? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.2}

The very testimony we have been examining in regard to man's being formed of the dust in the image of God, proves conclusively that God has a form, although the sentiment is contrary to what we have been taught, while children, from the catechism: {1855 JNL, MPC 25.3}

"Question. What is God? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.4}
"Answer. An infinite and eternal spirit; one that always was and always will be. {1855 JNL, MPC 25.5}
"Q. Where is God? {1855 JNL, MPC 25.6}
"A. Everywhere." {1855 JNL, MPC 25.7}

But we inquire, Is not God in one place more than another? Oh no, say you: the Bible says he is a spirit, and if so he must be everywhere alike. Well, if when man dies his spirit goes to God, it must go everywhere. But the Bible certainly represents God as located in heaven. "For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth." Ps. cii, 19. Then certainly heaven cannot be everywhere, for God is represented as looking down from it. "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings ii, 11. But, says one, does not the Bible represent God as everywhere present? Ps. cxxxix, 8, 9, 10. "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." {1855 JNL, MPC 25.8}

We reply, the subject is introduced in verse 7, as follows: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" The Spirit is God's representative. His power is manifested wherever he listeth, through the agency of his Spirit. Christ, when giving the commission to the disciples, says, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Now, no one would contend that Christ had been on the earth personally ever since the disciples commenced to fulfill this commission. But his Spirit has been on the earth; the Comforter that he promised to send. So in the same manner God manifests himself by his Spirit which is also the power through which he works. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii, 11. Here is a plain distinction made between the Spirit, and God that raises the dead by that Spirit. If the living God is a Spirit in the strictest sense of the term, and at the same time is in possession of a Spirit, then we have at once the novel idea of the Spirit of a Spirit, something it will take at least a Spiritualist to explain. {1855 JNL, MPC 26.1}

one day very soon we are going to be hauled into court to justify our beliefs.

one of the issues that will come up will be our view of "God". it will not be as it is now when trying to convince the sda church of the legitimacy of the "trinity".

it will be like this thread on carm with people who know what the true trinity doctrine is, history, definition and all. will we be stomped into the ground in court as the seventh-day-adventists were here in trying to prove that we are "trinitarians"?





this is part of the true, traditional trinity doctrine.

or perhaps we no longer believe and teach that God has a "form" and that we were created in His physical image as this sda who has given up many of our beliefs.

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=145579

Teresa,
I am glad you brought this up. For me it is obvious that the Father has a form cause Daniel describes him as sitting on a throne:
Daniel 7:9
9I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

Clearly Our Father which art in heaven looks like.. a human
God Bless,
Will

Yes, each member of the Godhead has a physical form. We were made in their image and likeness. I am looking forward to sitting on our Father's lap and staring into His beautiful eyes. "Even little children were attracted to Him. They loved to climb upon His knees and gaze into the pensive face, benignant with love. {SC 11.2}

"How does it play in with Satan's appearing?" I'm not sure there is a connection. It is obvious Jesus came in physical form and that He will return in a similar form. "This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)

I can't see how "substance," "essence" or "nature" came to be translated as "being." "Person" = "being."

or will satan appear in a transparent "spiritual" form?

i only bring this up because ellen white and the pioneers stress this over and over.

i thought knowing that the dead are dead and the Father has a literal, physical form is enough, but, the stress she puts on it makes me think there is more we need to know.

i posted this topic elsewhere and a possible pantheist has hijacked the thread stressing how the Spirit is "in" everything. could you refute him?

in the trinitarian teaching of the centuries "Person" does not equal "being."

the trinitarian teaching is definitely 3 persons in 1 being. 3-in-1. that is the only way one can believe in 3 Gods and still be a monotheist.

just google trinity on the web.

Yes, that exactly is the issue. God, the Father of Jesus, we know He is one. But we also believe that Jesus is God aswell as our Lord. So we are in a dilemma. It seems that either God is not one, but there are more than one God, or that Jesus is not God. Must we, can we surrender either of these two pillars of our faith? The oneness of God is of such importance that it is the creed of the Jew even to this day. The divinity of Jesus is in the very center of everything we believe. The answer for most christians has been that no, we can not give up on either of these two doctrines. And the trinity has been the best atempt at uniting both of these beliefs into one coherent whole.

As for God not being Spirit, if someone fancy they know more on this subject than Jesus and care to correct Him...

But this does not reflect the position of Nicea, the Concil where the doctrine of the Trinity began to be formulated. The Greek word is ousia, and at Nicea the controversy was if Christ was of the same ousia as the Father, or of a similar ousia. I can see how this makes sense if the word ousia means "nature," but not if it means "being."
So how can it be translated "three persons in one being"? This translation does not make sense in the context of Nicea. It seems to me that along the centuries the original meaning they had attributed to the word was lost.

exactly!
perhaps adventists should stress they are nicene trinitarians...

but anyway,

If God is everything then God is nothing. Or, if God is in everything then God is still nothing. If God is merely the essence of everything, or the essence in everything, then God is merely an essence. Essence, however, doesn't cut it for me personally. Nor does essence explain creation or salvation.

However, if the Bible is the sole source of our faith and understanding of God, then we are privileged to believe God is a real, tangible person. We can only testify to what we know and have experienced. People can, and will, reject our testimony, but it is not our responsibility to persuade them to believe. Ellen White explains it this way:


Jesus is a real, tangible person because the Bible says so. The Father is a real, tangible person because Jesus said so. The Holy Spirit is a real, tangible person because Jesus said so. If people reject the testimony of the Bible and Jesus, then all we can do for them is pray that their circumstances will change so that they can be blessed by believing the truth about God.

PS - Still not sure how all this ties in with Satan's future plans to personate the return of Jesus or having to depend our beliefs in courts of law in the future.

It seems to me we are in agreement with Nicea, while the rest of Christianity isn't.

Ellen White endorses this part of the Nicean formulation.

"'I and my Father are one.' The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes." {ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}

May I point out that despite your concluding appeal to the Bible as source of our knowledge of Jesus none of your quotes was from this book.

The trinity doctrine is our best human atempt to affirm all of those things you concluded above without giving up the truth from Moses that God is one. Anyone who rejects Trinity will either have the challenging task of doing a better job of this problem than the best minds in christianity for the last 2000 years or do as some have done and reject Jesus being divine and the Holy Spirit being a person at all.

But we will now return to the subject of The creation of man. We have seen already that man's being made in the image of God, could not refer to a moral image, for it would involve the absurdity that the lifeless clay of which man was formed, had a character like God. We now see the Scriptures clearly teach, that God is a person with a body and form. Then Gen. i, 26, may be understood to teach the fact, that man was made in the form of God. Other scriptures agree with this testimony. See Gen. ix, 6. "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." This testimony cannot apply to a spirit, or immaterial part of man: that which is the image of God has blood. 1 Cor. xi, 7. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." James [Chap. iii, 9] speaking of the tongue says, "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude (likeness, resemblance-Webster) of God." The foregoing testimony settles the point, that the image of God does not refer to character but to form. {1855 JNL, MPC 32.1}

Gen. ii, 7. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Grave Doctors of Divinity (as they are called) assert that what God breathed into man was a part of himself. This, say they, is what became a living soul. It must be immortal; for God cannot die, neither will he destroy a part of himself. But the text says, "man became a living soul." Man was made of dust; then the dust became a living soul after being inspired with the breath of life. If it is a fact, that because God breathed into man the breath of life, that breath is immortal, then beasts must have immortal souls. Moses, in giving, the account of the flood, [Gen. vii, 21, 22,] says, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowls, and of cattle, and of beasts and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." {1855 JNL, MPC 32.2}

If we must admit, because the breath of life came from God, it must be a part of himself, and hence immortal, we get ourselves into a grand difficulty. Sinners, you say, are to be punished with eternal misery, because God cannot destroy a part of himself; but your theory makes out that God is going to torment a part of himself to all eternity. If the above sentiment were true, we might perhaps find in it, a solution for the difficulty of the Predestinarian, who states, that God decreed from all eternity that some mens would be lost, and they cannot alter their fate, but they are to be tormented eternally for being sinners, something they could not avoid. But if God has placed a part of himself in man, and finally punishes that soul, (a part of himself,) to all eternity, it may be after all, that the one would be punished on whom the charge of their sin rests; namely, Himself. {1855 JNL, MPC 33.1} [/quote]

True, I didn't quote from the Bible, but Ellen White did. I trust her inspired understanding of the Bible more than I trust mine. Does it count if I quote the SOP quoting the Bible to prove my point?


Moses wasn't sharing his personal opinion when he wrote, "The LORD our God is one LORD." As you may already know, the original word for "God" in this passage is Elohim, which is the plural form of God. God is a Godhead. The following link talks about it:

Elohim

It seems an unnecessary and roundabout way of doing things.
Shema Yisrael --- Hear Israel
Adoni Eloheinu --- The Lord our God
(I guess youd rather have it "The Lord your Gods"?)
Adoni Ehad --- The Lord One

I know of no other way to let the SOP explain what I believe the Bible says about it. I am appealing to a higher authority than myself or any other uninspired source. Do you know of someone outside the Bible who is more inspired and more qualified to explain the Bible than Ellen White?


I don't follow. Which word is "one"? And, is it singular or plural?

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. -- "http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1817" United Methodist Church

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH

Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity
1._____The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. ...

IMMATERIALITY

THIS is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of all things and beings - of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence. It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels, nor men could possibly conceive of such a substance, being, or thing. It possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest to any intelligent being in the universe. Reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled, even by the strongest organs, or the most acute sensibilities. It is neither liquid nor solid, soft nor hard - it can neither extend nor contract. In short, it can exert no influence whatever - it can neither act nor be acted upon. And even if it does exist, it can be of no possible use. It possesses no one, desirable property, faculty, or use, yet, strange to say, immateriality is the modern Christian's God, his anticipated heaven, his immortal self - his all! {1861 JW, PERGO 6.2}

O sectarianism! O atheism!! O annihilation!!! who can perceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other? They seem alike, all but in name. The atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? For our part we do not perceive a difference of a single hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist - and both are equally powerless and unknown. {1861 JW, PERGO 6.3}

The atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the grave. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial, like his God; and without body or parts. Here again both are negative, and both arrive at the same point. Their faith and hope amount to the same; only it is expressed by different terms. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.1}

Again, the atheist has no heaven in eternity. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial in all its properties, and is therefore the negative of all riches and substances. Here again they are equal, and arrive at the same point. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.2}

As we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same, and proceed to examine the portion still left for the despised materialist to enjoy. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.3}

What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.4}

What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being "the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person." He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.5}

What are men? They are the offspring of Adam. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, and to possess immortal flesh and bones. Thus perfected, they will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, as their "everlasting inheritance." With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian world who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God - their life - their heaven, and their all. They claim nothing but that which we throw away; and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no ground for quarrel or contention between us. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.6}

We choose all substance - what remains
The mystical sectarian gains;
All that each claims, each shall possess,
Nor grudge each other's happiness.

An immaterial God they choose,
For such a God we have no use;
An immaterial heaven and hell,
In such a heaven we cannot dwell.

We claim the earth, the air, and sky,
And all the starry worlds on high;
Gold, silver, ore, and precious stones,
And bodies made of flesh and bones.

Such is our hope, our heaven, our all,
When once redeemed from Adam's fall;
All things are ours, and we shall be,
The Lord's to all eternity. {1861 JW, PERGO 8.1}

Who wrote the above?

the first paragraph is the methodist trinity doctrine,
the second paragraph is the baptist trinity doctrine
which i added to show what james white, the author of the article was referring to.

I wonder if James is fair in his picture of this belief.

most adventists have very little interaction with non-sdas discussing bible related issues, dont they/we?

im not talking about the prepared bible studies where the non-sdas sit and listen to the speech.....

How many non-Adventists do you know who are interested in such? The best I had was with the Mormon missionaries, who studied with me for a year. A year! (Of course, they would change partners every six weeks or so, so I studied with a number of them, and not just two the whole time.) Mormons have an understanding of Bible symbols, similar to what Adventists have. Such an understanding is rare among other denominations.

Most non-Adventists are content with their present knowledge of the Bible and do not take time, nor seem to have interest in studying it further. If they did study more, we would have more Adventists.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i think you proved my point.

or perhaps i didnt make it clear....

im talking about improptu discussions that come up with people we know....neighbors, people we do various business with,...

its kinda hard to think of a time a bible related discussion doesnt come up with someone i know or meet, sooner or later.

Such discussions do come up occationally, but on a somewhat different side of things since my non-sda friends are agnostic at best and atheist otherwise.

I sometimes hear it said as it has been here that non-sda christians are not interested in the scriptures, and before when I only knew about adventist christianity I could believe it. But having heard and read and spoken with such christians, I can only conclude that it somehow gives the person who says it better confidence or is a way of patting oneself on the back or something like that. Because reality and this view of things does not match up. If there is a thread of pet adventist myths on this forum, someone should add the "only adventists are interested in the bible" to it.

since i find so many self-proclaimed, as well as those who make no claim to being, christians interested in the bible i also wonder at the conclusions.

For those of you who appear to be ignorant of my situation, and are making false judgments based upon it, let me inform you.

1) I am not living in the same conditions you may be.
--I do not speak the local language here fluently, so I meet few people with whom I can communicate on a spiritual level (I do not yet have most of the religious words in my Chinese vocabulary).
--Most people here have no Bible, no knowledge of the Bible, and no interest in it. They are not Christians. Perhaps 5% of people you meet here are Christians.
2) I have communicated with a number of non-Adventist Christians on Bible topics in the past. Most of them truly did not have much interest in studying further. They were content, as are most Adventists, with what they already knew.
3) A number of the ones who did appear to enjoy Bible study actually had their own pet agenda to push, which included some improper interpretations (such as "Michael" representing a created being, etc.).
4) I work with one individual who is non-Adventist, but Christian. We have had Bible discussions.
5) Everyone else I work with is Adventist.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh...and I forgot to mention...most of my non-Adventist neighbors around here do not speak Chinese. They speak Taiwanese. I do not speak Taiwanese...so we are at a complete impasse linguistically. In such conditions, how many Bible discussions would you have?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Comparing your points 2 and 3 above, I wonder if those christians you meet in the past would say you had a pet agenda to push?

And of course you are right in pointing out that different circumstances requires different expectations.

They probably would say that. On the other hand, they seemed to be looking for excuses to remain non-denominational and/or anti-Adventist too. (This was the kind that came looking to push their agenda...I started out just answering their questions.)

However, I have had some very good Christian friends too. I worked for a man once who was not an Adventist, but who always respected my Sabbaths enough to let me leave work early Friday, and never expected to see me on Saturday, even though his work continued. We discussed Bible issues from time to time at work, but only very superficially and casually. I didn't push it. One day, he surprised me as it was getting along toward four o'clock on a Friday and I was still at work (the sun did not set for a few hours yet). He knew I usually got off earlier on Friday. He asked me if I was getting into trouble...and he was very serious! He did not want me to break my Sabbath!

Though he was a very thoughtful and Christian man, he never appeared interested in real Bible study. I have since sent him a Great Controversy, but have no idea if he is reading it or not. I haven't seen him in years.

These are the type of "traditional Christians" that seem too complacent with their present state of knowledge. He was a wonderful man. We got along very well. I respected his gentlemanliness. But perhaps I was not pushy enough to prick his interest in deeper Bible study.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Most, or even all, of us would be seen as having a pet agenda to push in these discussions. We can see this on this maritime forum for instance. If one or both parts has as a pet agenda that the other part change beliefs from their "false understanding" and come to the "truth", then certainly much debate can come out of it. And if someone harbors the opinion that "anyone who cannot see what is so obvious and beyond question to me cannot possibly be interested in the bible or a bible student", then it would indeed be difficult to find persons interested in the bible outside of those who already agree with what this person thinks him/herself. Of course I do not know if this even remotely describes you Greenie, though your previous comment that "if they did study more, we would have more Adventists" make me wonder.

This good friend of yours, I wonder if he went to sunday school or to other biblestudy oportunities in his church?

"too complacent".

i cant say ive met many of those. most i know have bible studies quite regularly, but they are not interested in me coming into their life and taking over their learning. they want to learn for themselves and not be told what to think and believe. as long as i respect that we get along fine. but sometimes they have to "put me in my place".

Could we here be confusing "taking time for biblestudy" with "being obnoxious about other peoples biblestudy or lack thereoff"? The first you would not know about unless you knew the person well enough to be able to talk about anything. The second you would notice, but seldom in any other connection than with trying to push their foot out of between your door and the doorpost (alternatively having someone else trying to push your foot out of said door, depending on which side of the issue you happen to be on), or when being stopped while en route to something important while walking through town.

Teresas friends aswell as most other christians would be in the first category IMO.

im not real sure i understood the second part.

I am making the assumption that your friends are not the kind of people that others consider moving to gated communities in order to not meet them.

well, actually its from newly met people to long and deep friendships, from the "big, bad, biker" types to the most humble, gentle, (who is my best friend).

i understand bars can have some deep religious discussions. i know ive met a couple of people who were high on marijuana giving bible lessons to their company. that was interesting to watch.

still not sure what point you were making, and if i went off on a different tangent.

The second point cannot be understood apart from the first, does not exists apart from the first, so in some way any trying to understanding it apart from the first is a different tangent.